Your search
Results 266 resources
-
This article explores issues associated with mutual claims of domestic violence in the context of research on gender and violence, and in the context of litigation tactics commonly employed by perpetrators in child custody and access cases. Quotations from parents involved in such cases illustrate why accurate assessment of mutual cliams requires complete information about social context and the analysis of patterns of domination, power and control in the relationship over time. Recent developments in Canadian law ought to enhance the ability of judges to take such evidence into account. The article aims to provide a lens through which to understand and assess such cases.
-
A growing body of empirical research has demonstrated that intimate partner violence is not a unitary phenomenon and that types of domestic violence can be differentiated with respect to partner dynamics, context, and consequences. Four patterns of violence are described: Coercive Controlling Violence, Violent Resistance, Situational Couple Violence, and Separation-Instigated Violence. The controversial matter of gender symmetry and asymmetry in intimate partner violence is discussed in terms of sampling differences and methodological limitations. Implications of differentiation among types of domestic violence include the need for improved screening measures and procedures in civil, family, and criminal court and the possibility of better decision making, appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the characteristics of different types of partner violence. In family court, reliable differentiation should provide the basis for determining what safeguards are necessary and what types of parenting plans are appropriate to ensure healthy outcomes for children and parent–child relationships.
-
This article reviews in a comparative perspective the regulations of different Western legal Systems on the cases of absence, disappearance and the presumption of death. Continental Systems are considered in the first place, from their two main historical sources, the French and the Germanie. The common law Systems are studied then, from their origins in the English law to their developments in the American common law and other mixed jurisdictions. The effects of the declaration of presumptive death are scrutinized comparatively, under different common categories. The study ends with an analysis of the tendencies underlying the developments found in this legal institution. The first outstanding tendency is one that progressively distinguishes the cases of absence from those of disappearance, both of them frequently confused in many legislations. Another One in the development of this subject is the separation being made between the genuine cases of disappearance, with doubt about life or death, from those of a certain death lacking the evidence of the corpse. One last legislative trend the article perceives is a strong tension between a position that considers the presumption of death as a declarative judgement, rebutta-ble with the evidence of life, and a view that understands it as being a judicially constituted status, its effects ending with the appearance of the disappeared person.
-
In this article, I propose a model for understanding the concept of ownership that I call the ‘exclusivity model.’ Like many of the contemporary critics of the ‘bundle of rights’ approach to ownership, I insist that ownership is a legal concept with a well-defined structure. I differ from most of them, however, in the model of ownership that I believe to be at work in property law. Most of these critics propose a model of ownership that emphasizes the owner's right to exclude non-owners from the owned thing as the central defining feature of ownership. I call this the ‘boundary approach’ to highlight its fixation on the owner's power to decide who may cross the boundaries of the owned thing. But this, I argue, makes it impossible for the boundary approach to explain adequately the many subsidiary rights in things that coexist with the rights of owners. Indeed, I argue that when we look more closely at the structure of ownership in property law, its central concern is not the exclusion of all non-owners from the owned thing but, rather, the preservation of the owner's position as the exclusive agenda setter for the owned thing. So long as others – whether they be holders of subsidiary property rights or strangers to the property – act in a way that is consistent with the owner's agenda, they pose no threat to the owner's exclusive position as agenda setter.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.