The Battle for Madrid and the Splintering of Families, 1936–1939

The Spanish Civil War displaced and split families, destroyed support networks, forced families into poverty, and led to a surge in family disputes. As a result, child removal and separation became the lot of much greater numbers of people. Widows of husbands lost to violence behind the lines formed one highly vulnerable group. Refugees and evacuees also frequently found their families split apart and poor families proved especially at risk. The mass evacuation of children also led to a surge in custody disputes. Despite the disruption of the war, the Madrid Juvenile Court pressed ahead with its work and many of its conservative members continued to exert a hold over the institution despite a strong shift in sentiment towards the left during the conflict. These officials continued to enforce traditional notions of morality and gender roles and savvy relatives could exploit this situation in custody disputes.

CHILDRENS EVIDENCE IN CUSTODY DISPUTES CASES IN THE SHARIA COURTS

In the process of trial in court, evidence disclosure is essential to uphold justice. Basically, every party is qualified to provide evidence before the judge decides. In the case of child custody disputes, besides the statements by the mother and the father, statements from the child involved can help the court in making the right decision. According to Islamic law, children who have attained the age of mumayyiz can be given the opportunity to choose. In addition, their views can also be taken as a support evidence to help the court make a decision. This article will analyse childrens rights to express their views, particularly in the determination of child custody disputes. The debate also looks at current legal provisions and practices in the Sharia Court. The analysis found that judges approach in accepting childrens evidence varies. There are still no specific procedures that can be used as a guide by the Sharia Court. The differences include the methods of interviewing or taking recorded statements, the procedures applied and the location where statements are recorded.

TF-CBT Group Intervention for Children in High Conflict Custody Disputes

This article proposes a conceptual group approach using trauma-based cognitive behavioral therapy for children involved in high conflict custody disputes. Traditionally, interventions for this population have focused on repairing the relationship between parent and child and less on addressing the traumatic symptoms with which the child is suffering. The proposed intervention focuses solely on the needs of the child and provides an outline for seven sessions during which the PRACTICE model of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy is used. Additionally, ethical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Hak Asuh Anak Dalam Keluarga Perspektif Keadilan Gender

One of the crucial issues in family law in Indonesia that needs attention today is the issue of gender justice in family law, including post-divorce custody of children. This is due to the historical-empirical reality of family law that still places unequal status and roles between men and women. This article discusses how the provisions of child custody disputes in Islamic family law and how the legal provisions for post-divorce child custody have a gender perspective. Based on the above study it can be concluded; First, the legal provisions regarding child custody regulated in articles 105 and 156 are not gender responsive, this is because in determining that a person is given custody based on sex, not based on the aspects of morality, health, educating and caring for children, which in the end is for the realization of interests. the best boy. Second, aspects of morality, health, the ability to educate and care for children cannot be mastered and only owned by a certain gender, but all aspects can be owned by both men (fathers) and women (mothers).Kata Kunci: Hak Asuh Anak, Hukum Keluarga, Keadilan Gender

Should Children Have a Veto over Parental Decisions to Relocate?

Many people move house at some point during their childhood and not rarely more than once. While relocations are not always harmful for under-aged children, they can, and frequently do, cause great disruption to their lives by severing their social ties as well as any attachments that they might have to their neighbourhood, town, or wider geographical region, with long-lasting psychological effects in some cases. Since it is increasingly recognised within normative philosophy as well as within Western societies that older minors should have the final say over certain issues that significantly affect their lives (think, for instance, of custody disputes, decisions about whether to get specific vaccinations or use contraceptives), this raises the question: Can it be morally incumbent upon parents to give their minor children a veto over family relocation? This article argues that the answer is affirmative. Specifically, it suggests that such duties exist if and only if (i) parents are not morally required to either relocate their families or stay put, (ii) the stakes of the decision about a family relocation are fairly low, and (iii) the children have the competence to make these decisions, as many older minors do.