The imposition of shared custody and its consequences in practice.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i1.1845Keywords:
Unilateral Guard; Best Interest of the Child; Principles.Abstract
The present study sought to analyze how the interests of children and adolescents are regulated in the hypothesis of conjugal dissolution of their parents, especially with regard to custody, addressing the practical impracticality of shared custody, especially when the parents cannot even look at each other. In addition, the general and introductory concepts about the institute of custody were analyzed, as well as the principles of family law that influence, directly or indirectly, the attribution of custody. In addition, in methodological terms, the deductive method was used, starting from a general and abstract analysis of custody and the principles of family law, in order to arrive at a specific and concrete approach on the application of these precepts as a way to influence the attribution of unilateral custody, characterizing, therefore, some exceptions in which the predominance of shared custody is mitigated, in view of its practical impracticability. Finally, it was concluded that the observance of the Principle of the Best Interest of the Child leads the judge to decide, in certain cases, that unilateral custody should prevail over shared custody, considering that this does not always meet the interests of minors when faced with a marital dissolution, mainly because the parents, in most cases, have not obtained sufficient maturity to stop the fights and discussions about the relationship.References
Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm.
Cassettari, C. (2017). Multipaternidade e parentalidade socioafetiva: efeitos jurídicos (3ª ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
Decreto n. 99.710, de 21 de novembro de 1990. Convenção dos Direitos da Criança. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1990-1994/d99710.htm.
Dias, M. B. (2016). Manual de Direito das Famílias (11ª ed.). São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.
Enunciado n. 333 da IV Jornada de Direito Civil. (2016). O direito de visita pode ser estendido aos avós e a pessoas com as quais a criança ou o adolescente mantenha vínculo afetivo, atendendo ao seu melhor interesse. Recuperado de https://www.cjf.jus.br/enunciados/enunciado/355.
Gonçalves, C. R. (2017). Direito Civil Brasileiro: Direito de Família (14ª ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva Educação.
Lei n. 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002. Código Civil Brasileiro. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/2002/L10406.htm.
Lei n. 13.105, de 16 de março de 2015. Código de Processo Civil. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2015/Lei/L13105.htm.
Lei n. 13.058, de 22 de dezembro de 2014. Lei da Guarda Compartilhada. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l13058.htm.
Lei n. 12.318, de 26 de agosto de 2010. Lei da Alienação Parental. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12318.htm.
Lei n. 8.069, de 13 de julho de 1990. Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L8069.htm.
Lôbo, P. L. N. (2008). Direito civil: famílias. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Madaleno, R. (2018). Direito de Família (9ª ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Forense.
Pereira, C. M. S. (2017). Instituições de Direito Civil: Direito de Família (25ª ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Forense.
Recurso Especial n. 1.428.596/RS. (STJ, 2014). Recuperado de https://stj.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/25178209/recurso-especial-resp-1428596-rs-2013-0376172-9-stj/inteiro-teor-25178210?ref=juris-tabs.
Recurso Especial n. 1.167.993/RS. (STJ, 2012). Recuperado de http://civileimobiliario.web971.uni5.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ado%C3%A7%C3%A3o-%C3%A0-brasileira-STJ.pdf.
Recurso Especial n. 1.026.981/RJ. (STJ, 2010). Recuperado de https://stj.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/19165773/recurso-especial-resp-1026981-rj-2008-0025171-7/inteiro-teor-19165774.
Recurso Especial n. 1.417.868/MG. (STJ, 2016). Recuperado de https://www2.mppa.mp.br/sistemas/gcsubsites/upload/78/STJ%20guarda%20compartilhada%20divergencias%20entre%20os%20pais.pdf.
Ramos, P. P. O. C. (2016). Poder Familiar e Guarda Compartilhada: Novos Paradigmas do Direito de Família (2ª ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva.
Tartuce, F. (2019). Direito de Família (14ª ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Forense.
Venosa, S. S. (2017). Direito Civil: Família (17ª ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Ozório Nonato de Abrantes Neto, Lucas Gomes da Silva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
