Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Gustavo Ferraz de Campos Monaco
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Direito (FD/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 2008-10-20 |
| Examining board members: |
Joao Grandino Rodas;
Francisco dos Santos Amaral Neto;
Hermes Marcelo Huck;
Jose Carlos de Magalhaes;
Marilda Rosado de Sá Ribeiro
|
| Advisor: | Joao Grandino Rodas |
| Abstract | |
The present thesis concerns the analysis of hypotheses on attributing the custody of children to people who, for some reason, live separately, undoing the possible family bond existing between them. As this fact is cannot undo the bonds between each of the parents and their children, the attribution of custody to one or to both parents (simple, alternate or shared custody) becomes imperious. The analysis of the matter takes into consideration the cases with a foreign element, that is, with a factor that may disentail the phatic case from its exclusive subsunction to the national legal system, potentially linking it to another legal system, be it for the fact of one of the parents being a foreign citizen or domiciled in a foreign country, be it for the child being a foreigner, or, still, for one of the parents manifesting the intention of living abroad, even if all the elements existing until then indicate exclusive connection with the Brazilian legal system. Besides the attribution of custody, other consequences may derive from this phatic relationship, such as the maintenance or not of the family power, the regulation of visit rights, the stipulation of the fee, etc. It turns thus necessary to decide what law is applicable to regulate the matter, as well as their immediate consequences, that is, the regulation of the visit regime for the parent removed from the daily coexistence with the children, besides the establishment of the necessary sum for the childrens subsistence, by means of the alimony they are entitled to. The study considers the full family coexistence right, while a major principle and ruler of the matter. The theme thus involves a number of legal institutions, in a final analysis, linked to children protection in their private (family) relationships, either of eminently personal ambit, or, conversely, of patrimonial ambit, thus comprehending human rights and private international law. The work took into consideration conventional existing private international law, not yet ratified by Brazil, indicating the possible pertinence concerning a future ratification. The existence of a number of international conventions on the theme, not yet ratified by Brazil, required an analysis of the matter, not only from the point of view of domestic right, but also - and mainly - related to the regulation suggested by international society. The major purpose was to provide a systematic treatment to the matter and to indicate to the national lawmaker and to the Executive Power endowed with competence to represent Brazil in international affairs a path that may be followed by Brazil concerning the ratification or not of the existing international treaties on the matter. The lack of systematic studies on the theme in Brazil have the prerogative of justifying the choice undertaken, indicating its importance and originality, specially when intending to indicate to the competent organisms the advantages and/or disadvantages the system is capable of providing, be it in the choice of the connecting factor detached for choosing the law applicable to the hypothesis, be it in the procedural and international cooperation aspects involved. The work, owing to the legislative rules encompassed, required two distinct methodologies to be followed: one of dogmatic root and character with respect to the legal institutions connected to the matter and another, of comparative root and character with respect to the collation of the existing systems, which is the system in force in Brazil and the system indicated by the international society as the most adequate to regulate the matter. The comparative method is not to be confounded with the mere description of (national and international) law systems, but one requiring the analysis of each of the factors considered relevant in both systems, referring to comparative tables that allow the interpreter to decide on the most adequate legal system for the hypothesis. In the application of the method, the analysis of different legal systems is not advisable, hence the limitation of the work. Therefore, the method is not perverted, preserving the scientificity aimed at by the work. (AU) | |