Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Synopsis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Parental Care and the Best Interests of the Child in Muslim Countries

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout this contribution the terms ‘Muslim jurisdictions’ and ‘Muslim countries’ are defined as states with legislation reflecting or inspired by Islamic law. The term does not necessarily denote whether a particular country is composed of a majority or minority Muslim population or whether its self-image is that of a ‘Muslim state/country’.

  2. 2.

    On pre-modern rules of parental care see Ibrahim 2015, pp. 859–891.

  3. 3.

    Möller 2015, pp. 893–925.

  4. 4.

    This is also illustrated by the existence of two so-called ‘model codes’, namely the Draft Unified Arab Law of Personal Status, prepared by the Arab League, and the Draft Law of Personal Status, issued by the Gulf Cooperation Council.

  5. 5.

    See also Möller 2016a, p. 100.

  6. 6.

    Möller 2016a, pp. 100 and 101.

  7. 7.

    In Egypt, it is only under special circumstances that the best interests of the child serves as the paramount principle for awarding custody. As illustrated in Jasmine Moussa’s chapter on Egypt, since 2000 the public prosecutor, but not the family court judge, has been authorized to carry out an investigation into the best interests of the child in order to grant interim custody to one of the disputing parents in advance of the final family court ruling resolving the matter.

  8. 8.

    Article 54 Law No. 12 of 1996 as amended by Law No. 126 of 2008 concerning the Amendment of Certain Provisions of the Child Law, the Penal Code, and the Civil Status Law, Official Gazette no. 24 (Suppl.) of 15 June 2008.

  9. 9.

    But practical problems relating to a mother’s travel with her children may arise (in Tunisia for example).

  10. 10.

    Möller 2015, pp. 911–913.

  11. 11.

    On the dynamics of legal change in family law see Yassari 2016.

  12. 12.

    Kelly 1997, p. 385.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    See Ibrahim 2015, pp. 859–891.

  15. 15.

    The practice of bartering parts of or the entire dower for the custody of the children is recognized by Iranian courts and sanctioned by the Legal Office of the Ministry of Justice, see statement no. 7/6664 of 10 October 2002, in Riyasat-i Jumhuri (2011) Majmuʻih-i Qanun-i Madani, 8th edn., Muʻavinat-i Tadvin-i Tanqih va Intisharat-i Qavanin va Muqarrarat, Tehran, Article 1169 Iran. CC, p. 382.

  16. 16.

    Sabbagh 1969–1970, p. 63, who points to a 1966 Communiqué of the Tunisian Ministry of Justice that describes this situation, i.e. a renouncement of compensation in order to obtain custody, as one of the main reasons for lifting Islamic law’s strict age and gender boundaries in custody matters.

  17. 17.

    Cf. Möller 2016b.

  18. 18.

    See the Special Issue ‘Children and young people in times of conflict and change: Child rights in the Middle East and North Africa’ (June 2015) of Global Studies of Childhood 5:115–219. http://gsc.sagepub.com/content/5/2.toc (accessed 1 September 2016).

  19. 19.

    However in some jurisdictions, courts have taken into account the remarriage of the father as a factor amongst others not to award him custody (as in Jordan for example).

  20. 20.

    The Iranian law does not use the word ‘adoption’ but the expression ‘sarparastī’. It has been argued in Yassari 2015, pp. 927–962, that under a functional perspective the sarparastī of orphaned children amounts to a functional equivalent to adoption.

  21. 21.

    See Article 5(c) Law on the Protection of Unguarded and Ill-Guarded Children and Youth of 2 October 2013, Official Gazette no. 19997 of 28 October 2013.

  22. 22.

    Statement of the Legal Department of the Iran. Ministry of Justice no. 7/4771 of 4 February 1991, in Riyasat-i Jumhuri (2011) Majmuʻih-i Qanun-i Madani, 8th edn., Muʻavinat-i Tadvin-i Tanqih va Intisharat-i Qavanin va Muqarrarat, Tehran, Article Iran. CC, p. 381.

  23. 23.

    Boykin 2012, p. 453.

  24. 24.

    Van Loon 2011, p. 180.

  25. 25.

    See the official website of the Hague Conference www.hcch.net/en/states/hcch-members Accessed 1 September 2016.

  26. 26.

    While Morocco has ratified both conventions relevant to cross-border parental care issues, Iraq is a member only to the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980.

  27. 27.

    Van Loon 2011, p. 175.

  28. 28.

    On this issue see Gallala-Arndt 2015, pp. 829–858.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Article 87 Algerian Family Code.

  30. 30.

    Decision of the Algerian Court of Cassation no. 457038 of 10 September 2008, RCS. 2008, p. 313.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Article 69 Algerian Family Code.

  32. 32.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (July 2015) Alert: Challenges and International Mechanisms to Address Cross-Border Child Abduction, p. 27. www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/ridr/rep/rep13jul15-e.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2016.

  33. 33.

    Boykin 2012, p. 451 esq.

  34. 34.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee, p. 27 (see supra n 32).

  35. 35.

    For more details on Emon’s work concerning the Hague Abduction Convention and Islamic Law see www.anveremon.com/projects/hague-abduction-convention-.html. Accessed 1 September 2016.

  36. 36.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee, p. 25 (see supra n 32).

  37. 37.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee, p. 25 (see supra n 32).

  38. 38.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee, p. 25 (see supra n 32).

  39. 39.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee, p. 26 (see supra n 32).

  40. 40.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee, p. 27 (see supra n 32).

  41. 41.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee, p. 25 (see supra n 32).

  42. 42.

    Gosselain 2002, pp. 4–5.

  43. 43.

    For a comprehensive list see Gosselain 2002, p. 11.

  44. 44.

    Gosselain 2002, p. 12.

  45. 45.

    Available at https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680078b09. Accessed 1 September 2016; Gosselain 2002, p. 12.

  46. 46.

    Gosselain 2002, p. 23.

  47. 47.

    Gosselain 2002, p. 24.

  48. 48.

    Gosselain 2002, p. 24.

  49. 49.

    Report of the Standing Senate Committee, p. 29 (see supra n 32).

  50. 50.

    Gosselain 2002, p. 25.

  51. 51.

    Gosselain 2002, p. 25.

  52. 52.

    Gosselain 2002, p. 24.

  53. 53.

    Gosselain 2002, p. 27.

References

  • Boykin M (2012) A Comparison of Japanese and Moroccan Approaches in Adopting The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Family Law Quart 46:451–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallala-Arndt I (2015) The Impact of Religion in Interreligious Custody Disputes: Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian Approaches. Am J Comp L 63:829–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosselain C (2002) Child Abduction and Transfrontier Access: Bilateral Conventions and Islamic States. A research paper for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. https://assets.hcch.net/upload/abd2002_pd7e.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2016

  • Ibrahim AF (2015) The Best Interests of the Child in Pre-modern Islamic Juristic Discourse and Practice. Am J Comp L 63:859–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JB (1997) The Best Interests of the Child: A Concept in Search of Meaning. Fam Concil Cts Rev 35:377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller L-M (2015) An Enduring Relic: Family Law Reform and the Inflexibility of Wilāya. Am J Comp L 63:893–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller L-M (2016a) Struggling for a Modern Family Law: A Khaleeji Perspective. In: Yassari N (ed) Changing God’s Law: The dynamics of Middle Eastern family law. Routledge, London/New York, pp 83–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller L-M (2016b) Improving Women’s Rights Through Children’s Rights? The Reform of Custody Laws in Contemporary Muslim Jurisdictions. In Jänterä-Jareborg M, Tigroudja H (eds) Women’s Human Rights and the Elimination of Discrimination/Les droits des femmes et l'élimination de la discrimination (Académie de droit international de la Haye). Brill, Leiden/Boston, pp 465–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabbagh R (1969–1970) L’évolution du droit de garde dans les pays du Maghreb. Revue tunisienne de droit 49–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Loon H (2011) Legal Diversity in a Flat, Crowded World: The Role of the Hague Conference. Int J Legal Inf 39:172–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Yassari N (2015) Adding by Choice: Adoption and Functional Equivalents in Islamic and Middle Eastern Law. Am J Comp L 63:927–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yassari N (ed) (2016) Changing God’s Law: The dynamics of Middle Eastern family law. Routledge, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Mittelweg 187, 20148, Hamburg, Germany

    Nadjma Yassari & Lena-Maria Möller

  2. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Advokatenweg 36, 06114, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Imen Gallala-Arndt

Authors
  1. Nadjma Yassari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lena-Maria Möller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Imen Gallala-Arndt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena-Maria Möller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Research Group: Changes in God’s Law—An Inner Islamic Comparison of Family and Succession Laws, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Nadjma Yassari

  2. Max Planck Research Group: Changes in God’s Law—An Inner Islamic Comparison of Family and Succession Laws, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Lena-Maria Möller

  3. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle, Germany

    Imen Gallala-Arndt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yassari, N., Möller, LM., Gallala-Arndt, I. (2017). Synopsis. In: Yassari, N., Möller, LM., Gallala-Arndt, I. (eds) Parental Care and the Best Interests of the Child in Muslim Countries. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-174-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-174-6_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-173-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-174-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation