Advertisement

The Potential Effects of Brexit on the Cross-Border Circulation of Private Family Law Judgments; with a Particular Focus on Questions Relating to Gender

  • Lara WalkerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Gender and Politics book series (GAP)

Abstract

This contribution considers the opportunities and losses arising from Brexit in the context of cross border family law. The main Regulations that will be affected by Brexit in this context are Brussels IIa, the Maintenance Regulation and the Civil Protection Order Regulation. These Regulations contain procedural rules in areas such as child abduction, divorce, maintenance, domestic violence and parental responsibility. This contribution considers the effect Brexit will have on these provisions from the perspective of gender. In family law, the role of caring has gender based consequences, such as loss of earnings from employment. Therefore the ongoing enforcement of orders in this context is imperative post-Brexit. There are several mechanisms for ensuring this ongoing enforcement, but in some areas there will be gaps in the law. This contribution highlights where these gaps might be and explains why there is currently no solution in these areas.

Bibliography

  1. Beaumont, P. 2017. Private International Law Concerning Children in the UK After Brexit: Comparing Hague Treaty Law with EU Regulations. Child and Family Law Quarterly 29 (3): 213–232.Google Scholar
  2. Beaumont, P., L. Walker, and J. Holliday. 2016a. Conflicts of EU Courts on Child Abduction: The Reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa Proceedings Across the EU. Journal of Private International Law 12 (2): 211–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaumont, P., L. Walker, and J. Holliday. 2016b. Conflicts of EU Courts on Child Abduction: Country Reports. Project Report. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.Google Scholar
  4. Beaumont, P., L. Walker, and J. Holliday. 2016c. Parental Responsibility and International Child Abduction in the Proposed Recast of Brussels IIa Regulation and the Effect of Brexit on Future Child Abduction Proceedings. International Family Law Journal 4: 1369–5762.Google Scholar
  5. Borrás, A., and B. Degeling. 2013. Explanatory Report to the 2007 Hague Convention. The Hague: Permanent Bureau.Google Scholar
  6. Bruch, C.S. 2004. The Unmet Needs of Domestic Violence Victims and Their Children in Hague Child Abduction Cases. Family Law Quarterly 38 (3): 529–545.Google Scholar
  7. Costello, C. 2006. The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe. Human Rights Law Review 6 (1): 87–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dutta, A. 2016. Cross-Border Protection Measures in Europe. Journal of Private International Law 12 (1): 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. 2017. 2017 Report on Equality Between Women and Men in the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/annual_reports/2017_report_annual_gender-equality.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2017.
  10. Fineman, M. 2005. The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, M. 2014. Parental Child Abduction: The Long-term Effects. International Centre for Family Law, Policy and Practice. Available at: http://www.childabduction.org.uk/images/longtermeffects.pdf.
  12. Glas, L., and J. Krommendijk. 2017. From Opinion 2/13 to Avotiņš: Recent Developments in the Relationship Between the Luxembourg and the Strasbourg Courts. Human Rights Law Review 17 (3): 567–587.Google Scholar
  13. Hale, B. 2017. Taking Flight—Domestic Violence and Child Abduction. Current Legal Problems 70 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hess, B., and S. Spancken. 2014. The Effective Operation of the EU Maintenance Regulation in Member States. In The Recovery of Maintenance in the EU and Worldwide, ed. P. Beaumont et al. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Kuipers, J.J. 2012. The (Non) Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to a Certificate for the Return of the Child. European Human Rights Law Review 4: 397–412.Google Scholar
  16. Kruger, T. 2011. International Child Abduction: The Inadequacies of the Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Lamont, R. 2017a. Commentary on App. No. 3890/11 Povse v Austria. In Rewriting Children’s Rights Judgments, ed. H. Stalford, K. Hollingsworth, and S. Gilmore, 513–528. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Lamont, R. 2017b. Not a European Family: Implications of Brexit for International Family Law. Child and Family Law Quarterly 29 (3): 267–280.Google Scholar
  19. Lamont, R. 2011. Mainstreaming Gender into International Family Law? The Case of International Child Abduction and Brussels II Revised. European Law Journal 17 (3): 366–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowe, N. 2011. A Statistical Analysis of Applications Made in 2008 Under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, Part III National Reports (HCCH). Available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=5421&dtid=32.
  21. Lowe, N. 2017. What Are the Implications of the Brexit Vote for the Law on International Child Abduction? Child and Family Law Quarterly 29 (3): 253–266.Google Scholar
  22. Lowe, N. 2018. Prel. Doc. No. 11 A—Part I A Statistical Analysis of the Applications made in 2015 Under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. Available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/publications1/?dtid=32&cid=24.
  23. Morano-Foadi, S. 2007. Problems and Challenges in Researching Bi-national Migrant Families Within the EU. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 21 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MPI Luxembourg. 2017. Planning the Future of Cross-Border Families: A Path Through Co-ordination. http://www.eufams.unimi.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Report-on-Internationally-Shared-Good-Practices-v2.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2018.
  25. Ní Shúilleabháin, M. 2010. Ten Years of European Family Law: Retrospective Reflections From a Common Law Perspective. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59 (4): 1021–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Office of National Statistics. 2017. Divorces in England and Wales: 2016. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2016. Accessed 17 Jan 2018.
  27. Schulz, A. 2013. The Abolition of Exequatur and State Liability for Human Rights Violations Through the Enforcement of Judgments in European Family Law. In A Commitment to Private International Law—Essays in Honour of Hans van Loon, ed. Permanent Bureau, 515. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  28. Sherlock. 2017. European Union (Withdrawal Bill)—Second Reading (Day 2). Wednesday 31 January 2018. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2e325b35-2337-41cd-a992-b92f3ef4a8aa. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
  29. Silberman, L. 2000. The Hague Child Abduction Convention Turns Twenty: Gender Politics and Other Issues. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 33 (1): 221–250.Google Scholar
  30. Trimmings, K. 2013. Child Abduction Within the European Union. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Walker, L. 2015. Maintenance and Child Support in Private International Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Walker, L. 2017a. Povse v Austria. In Rewriting Children’s Rights Judgments, ed. H Stalford, K. Hollingsworth, and S Gilmore, 519. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Walker, L. 2017b. New (and Old) Problems for Maintenance Creditors Under the EU Maintenance Regulation. In Cross-Border Litigation in Europe, ed. P. Beaumont, M. Danov, K. Trimmings, and B. Yuskel, 771–786. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Weiner, M.H. 2000. International Child Abduction and the Escape from Domestic Violence. Fordham Law Review 69 (2): 593–706.Google Scholar
  35. Weller, M. 2015. Mutual Trust: In Search of the Future of European Union Private International Law. Journal of Private International Law 11 (1): 64–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sussex Law School, School of Law, Politics and SociologyUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations