Parens Patriae

Posted by on Jan 25, 2016 in Parens Patriae |


First of all we should define the “ parens patriae” term. Basically, it is the principle that political authority carries with it the responsibility for citizen’s protection. So, it is any authority that is regarded as the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves.

The principle of liberal individualism has helped in expanding of children’s distinct personhood and, in doing so, has helped shape the concept of parens patriae. It has been the impetus behind, and provides justification for, the extension of notions of full personhood to children as a class.

The past few decades have thus seen development in the area of children’s individual rights, but children’s rights have in many respects continued to be viewed as secondary to parents’ rights. Critics of the parental rights doctrine have argued that it conflicts with liberal ideals because the creation or expansion of parental rights necessarily restricts the rights of children.

Exploring_en-Exploring-1They argue that a strong conception of parental rights subjugates children to the choices of another, subsumes their interests within those of their parents, and fails to recognize that children and parents interests can all too – easily diverge. Parents’ rights include their ability to make choices for their children (religion, education, etc.) that can sharply limit their future abilities to choose their own life course. The state will often use the doctrine of parens patriae to intervene in even the intact family, in order to protect the individual rights of children.

Historically, the state exercised the parens patriae power when no guardian was available to a child. That power has gradually expanded.

In the nineteenth century, state legislatures began enacting child abuse and neglect laws that authorized governmental intervention into abusive parent-child relationships. And today, laws give states even broader powers to protect children.

States assert jurisdiction in the name of children’s best interests in actions before separate juvenile courts, as well as in custody and adoption actions (including, perhaps most notoriously, allegations of child abuse and neglect).

The state’s interfering when necessary to safeguard the liberty of children from harmful incursion by others (i.e., parents or guardians), is arguably the very embodiment of the John Locke’s ideals of government. You could try here to get more information.

Read More

Marriage principles

Posted by on Jan 25, 2016 in Marriage Law |


Those rules of family law that formalize and shape the institution of marriage embody the concepts of conjugality, privacy, and contract. Conjugality is a legal status – marriage, but it is also a powerful normative concept.

The rules that both reflect and actualize the concept of conjugality include those that permit only opposite – sex couples to marry – limit to two the number of people who may enter into a marriage, require that marriages be presumptively enduring and dissoluble only by the state, impose on married couples – viewed in important respects as a single unit – mutual obligations of support and declare marriage to be the spot for legitimate sex and procreation.

53a069173b8b5_-_cos-01-wedding-xl-873838Long before the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly named it a constitutionally protected individual right, states implicitly recognized and respected the concept of marital and family privacy. Historically, states afforded marital couples privacy and viewed the marital family as an indivisible unit, under male authority. State noninterference permitted husbands to exercise authority over their wives, children, and other household members. The concept of marital privacy has evolved, becoming officially gender – neutral.

Contemporary law continues in many respects to view the marital couple as a single unit, but states have repealed noninterference policies that explicitly enabled husbands to dominate their wives. In addition, states now recognize both parents authority over children.

00221917e13e0e8cb0b11cOnce married, however, laws convert a couple’s private relationship to a state – regulated legal status. That status is much more alterable than it was before, but even today, those of its terms considered essential to that status are unalterable. Couples usually may not alter by contract the rules that govern their ongoing marriages. Courts refuse to enforce, for instance, agreements providing that one spouse will compensate the other for domestic services. Their reasoning is that mutual entitlement to support and domestic services is an essential aspect of the conjugal status.

Couples cannot pre-establish the duration of their marriages – once entered, a marriage presumptively continues until the death of either spouse. Nor may couples unilaterally dissolve their legal marriages, only the state, by divorce decree, may do so. For further info navigate to this web-site.

Read More

Same sex marriage

Posted by on Jan 25, 2016 in Family Law |


The US president welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court about same sex couples now can get legally married in any of US countries, and also called that decision the victory for America. The US Supreme Court voted in middle 2015. year that same sex couples have the right to marry in all US states, thereby nullifying the laws of several states in which was still banned marriage between persons of the same sex.

However, the judges have voted that the Constitution guarantees the legal process and equal protection for all people that were invalidated by laws in some states which haven’t allowed same sex marriage. At the point of entactment of the law same sex marriage was legal in 36 US countries, so it was very big shift in US policy about sexual freedom. So, that 26. Of June 2015 will be remembered as the date of great win of the freedom, because thousands of gay people finally get the chance to act like normal people in their surroundings, without insecurity, so the decision clearly accelerated the community strenght all across the USA.

gay-wedding-cakeThe court decision also stated that previous prohibition of same sex marriage was serious and harmful legal violation of the basic principles of democracy and freedom in the USA and that it brought a lot of damage to people for last 20 years of LGBT fight for the rights. Basically, the state was about that the imposition of such inability to gays and lesbians only serves to make them belittle and subjugated in comparasion to „ oridinary“ people. Now there is amendment to the Constitution on the right to equal protection, as well as the amendment on the right to legal process, prohibit such unjustified violation of the fundamental right to marry.

However, altough now the same sex marriage is constitutionally guaranteed, years must pass so the conservative souther residents accept this law as part of the Constitution. Feel free to contact  here for more advice.

Read More