No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Recent Developments in the Netherlands with Regard to Parental Authority
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
Parental authority has never been a matter of ‘peaceful possession’. During the course of this century a number of developments have occurred which, according to their content and timing, can be divided into four entirely distinct strands.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1987
References
1. To mention but a few: de Vries, A.D W. and van Tricht, F.J.G., Geschiedenis der wet op de Ouderlijke Macht en de Voogdij (History of the Statute relating to Parental Authority and Custody), Vols. I, II and III (1905)Google Scholar; Delfos, G. and Doek, J. E., Kinderrecht – Civielrechtelijk deel (Law of Children – civil law section) (1974)Google Scholar; Delfos, G. and Doek, J.E., Maatregelen van kinderbescherming (Child protection measures) (1982)Google Scholar; Delfos, G. and Doek, J.E., Ouderlijke macht en minderjarigheid (Parental authority and minority) (1984)Google Scholar.
2. Rood-de Boer, M., Ouders en kinderen (Parents and children), thesis, Amsterdam (1962) pp. 61–73Google Scholar, and by the same author, ‘Treden naar volwassenheid’ (Steps towards adulthood), NJB (1964) pp. 949 et seq. and 972 et seq.; and Dient de wettelijke regeling omtrent de meerderjarigheid te worden gewijzigd (Should the law on minority be amended), a preliminary report to the Netherlands Lawyers Association (1970)Google Scholar. See also Rapport Jeugdbeschermingsrecht (Report on the law concerning youth protection) by the so-called Commissie Wiarda (Wiarda Committee) (1971)Google Scholar.
3. Two examples are: the so-called ‘Hearing-law’ applying to minors (Statute of 2 June 1982, Stb. No. 315, operative since 5 July 1982) imposing the obligatory hearing of minors of more than 12 years of age in civil cases concerning them; and Art. 228, paragraph l(a) BW (Civil Code) concerning the ‘right of veto’ of a minor of 15 years of age or older with regard to his adoption.
4. Rood-de Boer, M., ‘Een schok in het familie- en jeugdrecht. Doorlopende ouderlijke macht na echtscheiding’ (A shock in family and young persons law. Continuing parental authority after divorce), NJB (1984) pp. 1277–1283Google Scholar, and Doek, J. E., ‘Een schok in het familie- en jeugdrecht, iets over de scheuren en barsten, een vervolg op de beschouwing van M. Rood-de Boer’ (A shock in family and young persons law, something about the tears and cracks, a follow-up to M. Rood-de Boer's comments), NJB (1985) pp. 213–218Google Scholar, with postscript.
5. de Vet, M.P.J.M., ‘Gezagsvoorzieningen na (echt)scheiding in Europees perspektief’ (Provisions concerning authority after divorce in a European perspective), NJB (1985) pp. 213–218Google Scholar.
6. See, inter alia, Jansen, I., ‘Ouderlijke macht na echtscheiding’ (Parental authority after divorce), FJR (1984) pp. 137–147Google Scholar; Elzinga, M. and Heringa, A. W., ‘Ouderlijke macht na echtscheiding’ (Parental authority after divorce), NJCM-Bulletin (1984) pp. 352–362Google Scholar; Hammerstein-Schoonderwoerd, W.C.E., ‘Ouderlijk gezag na echtscheiding’ (Parental authority after divorce), WPNR (27 10 1984) pp. 612–625Google Scholar; and Nederlandse Gezinsraad (Netherlands Family Council), Gezamenlijk ouderlijk gezag na scheiding (Joint parental authority after divorce) (1986).
7. See n. 4 supra.
8. The contents of an internal note, written on behalf of the Juvenile law departments of the Catholic University of Brabant and the University of Utrecht by C. C. M. Enkelaar, M. J. van Dijk and J. H. Jongh-Bruins.