Women and Justice: Keywords

Articles 32-53 of this law reinforced the provisions of the French Civil and Criminal Codes to provide enhanced protection to victims of domestic violence, including in relation to custody and housing. Articles 54-55 of the law reinforced the provisions of the French Civil Code preventing forced marriages. Notably, pursuant to Article 55, notwithstanding that each spouse’s “loi personnelle” (i.e., the law of the country of which the spouse is a national) generally determines the criteria and conditions required to marry, each spouse’s consent is required regardless of the spouses’ “loi personnelle.”

Articles 32-53 de la loi renforce les provisions du Code Civil et Code Pénal Français avec le but de renforcer la protection pour les victimes de violences domestiques, en particulier liée à la garde des enfants et du logement. Articles 54-55 de cette loi renforce les provisions du Code Civil Français avec l’objectif d’empêché les mariages forcés. En particulier, selon l’Article 55, même si chaque conjoint a une loi personnelle (la loi de leur pays de citoyenneté), qui normalement détermine les critères et conditions nécessaires pour un mariage, le consentement de chaque conjoint est requis.

Parliament enacted this law pursuant to the Supreme Court decision Shayara Bano v. Union of India. Section 3 of the Act bans and voids talaq-e-biddat declarations , while Section 4 stipulates imprisonment of up to three years along with fine for a Muslim man who pronounces talaq. Section 7 of the Act also declares the offence of pronouncing Talaq as a cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence. The Act provides additional protections to Muslim women upon whom talaq is pronounced in Sections 5 and 6, including a subsistence allowance from their husband and custody of their children (as determined by the magistrate) respectively.

Divorce in Cuba results in the dissolution of matrimonial ties and all other effects described in Article 49 of the Family Code. Pursuant to Article 50, divorce can be obtained by judicial decree or notarial deed. Prior to the enactment of the Second Final Disposition of Law No. 154 (“Law No. 154”), divorce in Cuba could only be obtained by means of judicial decree. However, Law No. 154 liberalized the means to obtain a divorce by allowing divorce to be effected by notarial deed. Divorce can be achieved by the mutual agreement of the spouses or when the tribunal confirms that the specific circumstances make divorce in the best interest of the spouses and the children and, as a result, for society. The law considers that a marriage has “lost sense” for the spouses and their children and, hence, for society as a whole, when there are causes that create a situation in which, objectively, marriage is no longer, or cannot in the future be, the union of a man and a woman which allows them to exercise the rights, satisfy the obligations and achieve the objectives mentioned in Articles 24 through 28 (inclusive) of the Family Code. The law makes clear that each of the parties can exercise the option of divorce at any time during which the motivating cause exists. If the spouses have lived together for more than one year or had children during the marriage, the tribunal will award alimony to one of them in the following cases: (1) to the spouse that does not have a paying job and lacks other means of sustenance (this type of alimony is provisional and will be payable by the other spouse for six months if there are no minor children being taken care of by the receiving spouse or for one year if there are such minor children, so that the receiving spouse can obtain a paying job); and (2) to a spouse which as a result of incapacity, age, illness or other insurmountable impediment is unable to work and lacks other means of substance. In this case, the alimony will continue as long as the obstacle persists.

El divorcio en Cuba resulta en la disolución de los lazos matrimoniales y todos los demás efectos descritos en el Artículo 49 del Código de la Familia. En conformidad con el Artículo 50, el divorcio se puede obtener por decreto judicial o escritura notarial. Antes de la promulgación de la Segunda Disposición Final de la Ley No. 154 ("Ley No. 154"), el divorcio en Cuba solo podía obtenerse mediante un decreto judicial. Sin embargo, la Ley No. 154 liberalizó los medios para obtener un divorcio al permitir que se efectúe mediante escritura notarial. El divorcio puede lograrse mediante el acuerdo mutuo de los cónyuges o cuando el tribunal confirma que las circunstancias específicas hacen que el divorcio sea en el mejor interés de los cónyuges y los hijos y, como resultado, para la sociedad. La Ley considera que un matrimonio ha "perdido el sentido" para los cónyuges y sus hijos y, por lo tanto, para la sociedad en su conjunto, cuando hay causas que crean una situación en la que, objetivamente, el matrimonio ya no es, o no puede ser, en el futuro. La unión de un hombre y una mujer les permite ejercer los derechos, cumplir con las obligaciones y lograr los objetivos mencionados en los Artículos 24 a 28 (inclusive) del Código de la Familia. La ley deja claro que cada una de las partes puede ejercer la opción de divorcio en cualquier momento durante el cual exista la causa motivadora. Si los cónyuges han vivido juntos durante más de un año o han tenido hijos durante el matrimonio, el tribunal otorgará la pensión alimenticia a uno de ellos en los siguientes casos: (1) al cónyuge que no tiene un trabajo remunerado y carece de otros medios de sustentarse (este tipo de pensión alimenticia es provisional y será pagadero por el otro cónyuge durante seis meses si el cónyuge que recibe no cuida a los niños menores de edad o por un año si hay tales hijos menores, para que el cónyuge que los recibe pueda obtener un trabajo remunerado); y (2) a un cónyuge que, como resultado de una incapacidad, edad, enfermedad u otro impedimento insuperable, no pueda trabajar y carezca de otros medios de sustancia. En este caso, la pensión alimenticia continuará mientras persista el obstáculo.

The appellant, a mother who shared two young children with the respondent, appealed a judgment awarding custody of the couple’s children to the respondent after their divorce. At the time of the original custody order, the children were residing with the appellant in Malawi, but the court granted custody to the respondent to raise them in England. The original order was predicated on the respondent’s assertion that while he was not presently best suited to support his children, his parents, the children’s grandparents, were available to raise the children until such time in the short-term future that respondent could acquire his own home. The lower court that issued the order appeared to favor this arrangement over the children remaining with their mother, at least in part due to her living with a new man who was unrelated to the children and with whom she had no immediate prospect for marriage. Ultimately, in the time between argument at the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Court’s decision, the parties came to a custody agreement and filed a Consent Order with the court, which obviated the issue. The Supreme Court of Appeal, however, still filed this opinion, stating that the lower court had erred and should have awarded custody to the appellant based on consistency in the lives of the children. The Supreme Court of Appeal emphasized that the lower court’s reliance on the appellant’s relationship with another man was inappropriate without evidence of harm to the children.

Plaintiffs Kami and Angie Roe sued the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health in his official capacity and sought a preliminary injunction seeking a court order to enjoin the defendants from applying sections of the Utah Uniform Parentage Act differently to male and female spouses of women who become pregnant via sperm donation. The provisions of the Utah statute provide that a married man can become the legal parent to a child conceived by his wife through sperm donation by filing mutual consent in writing, but defendants have declined to apply this same rule to a married woman in respect to her wife. Instead, they have required that she undergo a step-parent adoption process. The court balanced the failure of defendants to provide a rational basis for the unequal treatment with the fact that the plaintiffs and similarly situated wives would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction to compel the defendants to equally apply the statute was not granted. As such, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

The Court held that a policeman could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order. Jessica Gonzales was granted a restraining order against her husband during their divorce proceedings. In violation of the restraining order, Gonzales's husband took her three children, and despite repeated efforts by Jessica to have the order enforced, the police took no action. During this time, Gonzales's husband killed the couple's three children. The Court reasoned that because Colorado law did not make enforcement of a restraining order mandatory, there was no individual right to its enforcement. This case was admitted before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (as Gonzales v. United States) and is awaiting a decision on the merits.