Special Issue Editorial Notes

• Author: Robert Emery
• Date: 01 October 2013
• Published date: 01 October 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12049

SPECIAL ISSUE EDITORIAL NOTES

I am delighted to have guest edited this special issue on Global Family Law, and I wish to take this

opportunity to publicly thank all of the contributors. The authors worked hard not only on their

research but also on the linguistic and cultural translation of the work to make it accessible to the

English-speaking readers of Family Court Review (FCR).

This special issue offers a window into developments in families, divorce, and custody in select

industrialized countries in the non-English-speaking world. Those of us from the United States can be

proud. We lead the world once again—by havingthe highest rate of divorce in the industrialized world.

Because of that dubious leadership, I have been asked to present workshops around the world, so

others can learn from our experience. And as has been my experience in thirty-two years (and

counting) of teaching, I end up learning at least as much as I teach. My motivation in guest editing this

special issue was to give my new friends and colleagues a chance to share some of those lessons with

the readers of FCR.

The readers of FCR may be surprised to learn about developments outside of our usual experience:

Joint legal custody is a new concept in Italy. In Flanders, Belgium, 50/50 shared physical custody

is the default rule. Unlike the rest of Canada, Quebec is very (Northern) European in embracing

cohabitation as an alternative to marriage. Divorce rates have skyrocketed despite very traditional

family values in South Korea. In China, attitudes toward dating and marriage are becoming somewhat

Westernized along with the economy, but ancient traditions like arranged marriage have only faded

over the last generation or two. In many ways, family life grew more traditional after the fall of

Communism in Croatia, a country committed to entirely revamping its approach to divorce. (If only

we had that opportunity in the United States.)

In order to help orient the reader, each article includes an extended introduction to key cultural,

legal, or professional issues in the country in focus. This background section is followed by a more

detailed discussion of some topic or set of topics. Every article also includes some data either on key

demographic trends, empirical research, or both. Let me offer a brief summary as a means of whetting

the reader’s appetite.

Francine Cyr, Gessica Di Stefano, and Bertrand Desjardins inform us about ways in which Quebec

is different from the rest of Canada, particularly concerning cohabitation as an alternative to marriage.

Is this new institution working?Yes, no, and maybe.These authors discuss not only cultural and legal

supports for cohabitation, but also legal and social debates about the obligations of long-term

cohabiters to one another. Undoubtedly, similar debates will be a major topic around the world for

years to come. Yet, there is no debate about promoting the welfare of children when parents separate,

and the authors from Quebec inform the reader about their province’s emphasis on mediation. They

also offer new data on the well-being of children in sole and joint physical custody and on the

moderating role of interparental conflict on whether or not those arrangements benefit children.

Rachid Baitar,Ann Buysse, Ruben Brondeel, Jan De Mol, and Peter Rober discuss legal reform and

its consequences in Belgium, particularly in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern half of the

country. Belgium has been encouraging and implementing mediation in recent years, a topic familiar

to readers of FCR. Yet the country did something that has been debated but not fully tried in any of

the English-speaking countries that make up our readership: in 2006, a 50/50 shared custody law was

enacted. In addition to discussing the background of these developments, the authors include the

results of surveys of professional attitudes toward all of these legalrefor ms.They also review evidence

that 50/50 in theory does not mean 50/50 in practice.

Correspondence: ree@eservices.virginia.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 51 No. 4, October 2013 520–521

© 2013 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts