Of wedlock are born to husband and wife equal rights and duties (art.143c.c.), such as mutual obligation of loyalty, moral and material assistance, cooperation in the interest of the family and cohabitation.
However, in the case of Elena, her husband, after a short period of time, preferred to "abandon the field, which is fairly common in couples, especially young people. He
, without notice, taking advantage of the fact that the laws were absent, because the result of his daughter admitted to a rehabilitation institution, transferred his residence and that of the daughter of four years at the home of his mother, bringing what could subtract from marital home. From that moment he is completely uninterested in the fate of his wife and has hindered the relationship between affective and consolidated his maternal grandparents and grandchild. Not only that, he searched and found another partner with which it is often shown in public, even in the presence of the child, justifying this behavior with the expectation of an imminent "end" of his wife.
Even today I can not explain the reason for such behavior and cruelty with which it was put in place. The erase from memory the years spent with his wife, good relations with her in-laws have often argued that even in his work, can help him overcome the pain caused by state in which there is the wife? It would have been, however, more just "develop" the pain, and stand next to his wife and the in-laws, sharing sacrifices and suffering?
Above all, what right and what use to impose such conduct to his daughter? The only explanation I can find is in the grand and petty selfishness of man, who, far from nourishing feeling of love for his wife (maybe he never loved), he just used and then reduced the fate of a poor thing, no longer useful, the other was abandoned because he takes the load, but first, he was stripped of everything, including her daughter.
The obligations under the marriage? The marital
?
can be safely disregarded and trampled upon, because Elena can not claim them!
rights as a mother?
They are lost, as the "parental authority" under Article .317 cc is exercised exclusively by the father, who, even before the declaration of the ban, has already decided that she should never see his mother. This is in sharp contrast with the opinion expressed by the most authoritative psychologists and psychiatrists consider it necessary to "tell the children the truth, even if painful."
In fact, says psychiatrist Paul Crepet, that if you want to help her son, "not you must put the goal of making him suffer less, but make him understand the reality as it is, thinking that the child will develop in its own way. Therefore, it is important that children know where and how's mom and to see it for yourself. In this way you can take to prevent unhealthy behaviors that may help him to escape or who is her way of adapting to something that feels false. "
In a few simple words: it is harmful to the baby to hide the reality though difficult and painful, because this is not him strength and helps to address adequately the life.
So, the father exercising exclusive parental authority was wrong, why did he exercised without consultation with a qualified professional, illegally, before it was concluded the process for the Prohibition of the mother and it was open for the protection of the child and that the judge possessed forms of exercise and supervision under Article. 317bis cc. It is my opinion that the parent or guardian, normally balanced by their mother tongue should be "monitored" in the interests of the child, where is exercised unilaterally, in order to avoid forms of "morbid" and an erroneous operation.
conclude these notes have been informed by lived experiences personally and invite any readers to express their opinion on the following points, In my opinion, affect the generality of the brain-injured and their families:
· justify the conduct of the spouse healthy?
· judged it appropriate and useful to prevent access to children attending the brain-injured parent?
• What actions can have the brace to protect the dignity and rights of the brain?
• In particular, the guardian may apply on behalf of brain injury that has ruled the separation of fact?
• The brain-injured by the guardian may exercise some form of supervision on the exercise of parental authority under Article .317 encore?
thank all those who wish to participate in the discussion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment