澳大利亚家庭法中的父母性别确认与儿童最大利益

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW
Georgina Dimopoulos
{"title":"澳大利亚家庭法中的父母性别确认与儿童最大利益","authors":"Georgina Dimopoulos","doi":"10.1177/1037969x231201428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines how the Australian family courts have considered parental gender affirmation when determining the best interests of children in post-separation parenting disputes under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It analyses three features of the jurisprudence which arguably challenge the acceptance of transgender and gender diverse (‘TGD’) families in Australian family law: the potential risk of harm to children, and the impacts on parenting capacity, from a parent affirming their gender; emphasis upon the uniqueness of parental gender affirmation as a childhood experience, with attendant risks to children from ‘public’ exposure; and the importance of language to the social affirmation of gender and for representing the perspectives and experiences of TGD parents and their children. The author argues that as more post-separation parenting disputes involving parental gender affirmation come before the Australian family courts, they will contribute to making TGD families more ‘visible’ in law, thereby promoting greater understanding of a family form that may still be labelled ‘ambiguous’, ‘novel’ or lacking an ‘established social or legal script’.","PeriodicalId":44595,"journal":{"name":"Alternative Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parental gender affirmation and children’s best interests in Australian family law\",\"authors\":\"Georgina Dimopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1037969x231201428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines how the Australian family courts have considered parental gender affirmation when determining the best interests of children in post-separation parenting disputes under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It analyses three features of the jurisprudence which arguably challenge the acceptance of transgender and gender diverse (‘TGD’) families in Australian family law: the potential risk of harm to children, and the impacts on parenting capacity, from a parent affirming their gender; emphasis upon the uniqueness of parental gender affirmation as a childhood experience, with attendant risks to children from ‘public’ exposure; and the importance of language to the social affirmation of gender and for representing the perspectives and experiences of TGD parents and their children. The author argues that as more post-separation parenting disputes involving parental gender affirmation come before the Australian family courts, they will contribute to making TGD families more ‘visible’ in law, thereby promoting greater understanding of a family form that may still be labelled ‘ambiguous’, ‘novel’ or lacking an ‘established social or legal script’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alternative Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alternative Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969x231201428\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternative Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969x231201428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了澳大利亚家庭法院在根据1975年《家庭法》(Cth)第七部分确定分居后父母抚养纠纷中儿童的最大利益时,是如何考虑父母性别确认的。它分析了法理学的三个特征,这些特征可能会挑战澳大利亚家庭法对跨性别和性别多样化(“TGD”)家庭的接受:对儿童造成伤害的潜在风险,以及父母确认其性别对养育能力的影响;强调作为童年经历的父母性别肯定的独特性,以及“公开”暴露给孩子带来的风险;以及语言对社会性别肯定的重要性,以及语言对代表TGD父母及其子女的观点和经历的重要性。作者认为,随着越来越多的涉及父母性别确认的离婚后育儿纠纷出现在澳大利亚家庭法院,它们将有助于使TGD家庭在法律上更加“可见”,从而促进对可能仍然被标记为“模糊”,“新颖”或缺乏“既定社会或法律脚本”的家庭形式的更好理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Parental gender affirmation and children’s best interests in Australian family law
This article examines how the Australian family courts have considered parental gender affirmation when determining the best interests of children in post-separation parenting disputes under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It analyses three features of the jurisprudence which arguably challenge the acceptance of transgender and gender diverse (‘TGD’) families in Australian family law: the potential risk of harm to children, and the impacts on parenting capacity, from a parent affirming their gender; emphasis upon the uniqueness of parental gender affirmation as a childhood experience, with attendant risks to children from ‘public’ exposure; and the importance of language to the social affirmation of gender and for representing the perspectives and experiences of TGD parents and their children. The author argues that as more post-separation parenting disputes involving parental gender affirmation come before the Australian family courts, they will contribute to making TGD families more ‘visible’ in law, thereby promoting greater understanding of a family form that may still be labelled ‘ambiguous’, ‘novel’ or lacking an ‘established social or legal script’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信