It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
This research had the general objective of analyzing the discursive construction of shared custody in the determinations of the Court of Appeals under Law 223. The statute is known as the Law for Protecting the Rights of Minors in Custody Adjudication Proceedings of November 21, 2011.
The context of the research focused on the social policy of custody that is implemented and interpreted in the judicial scenario. In the custody adjudication process, the courts have a social role. Judicial decisions impact who the daughters and sons live with, including the period of time, economic roles and the transformation of family structures in the face of a divorce or separation from the couple. These judicial processes affect public policy by complicating social relations and altering aspects of coexistence, structure, roles and family functions, among others. At the time of this research, the topic had not been studied using a methodology of critical historical analysis of discourse. Nor had the issue been addressed using the decisions of the Court of Appeals in shared custody cases. So far, there has been no research approach that focuses on the implementation of Law 223 and the role of social work professionals assigned to the Judicial Branch, who by mandate of the same law, have the duty to advise the judges in making decisions in these cases. Finally, this social policy addresses children from the concept of "best interests" and implies the recognition of rights to this population sector.
For this research, a theoretical framework was used that integrated contributions from social constructionism and poststructuralism. A sample of 16 judgments of the Court of Appeals was used from the date the law was passed in 2011 to 2020. Also, elite interviews were conducted with key professionals in custody processes. The investigative process included the analysis of Law 223 of 2011 and the Rules and Procedures of the Social Units of Family Relations and Juvenile Affairs of the Administration of the Courts of the Government of Puerto Rico. The research aimed to analyze the discourse of joint custody by describing judicial processes and weighing them critically with the best practices established in the scientific literature specialized in the subject. The concepts of family, custody, upbringing, shared custody, best interest of children, roles, paternities, maternities, courts and access to justice were integrated. These concepts were analyzed in an articulation with social constructionism and poststructuralism.
The research method was qualitative with exploration in two phases, including document analysis and elite interviews with key professionals. For the research design, the critical historical analysis of discourse was used (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). The data and information collection strategy were based on the systemic review of Law 223, the administrative documents of the Judicial Branch for its implementation, and the analysis of judgments of the Court of Appeals that met the inclusion requirements for the investigation. For information analysis, data were coded and recorded in categories based on discursive strategies.
The findings revealed that the discourse of joint custody revolved mainly around the concept of “best interest of children”. This concept did not have a definition in the law, the norms of the family social evaluation office and the judgments. Its judicial consideration was operationalized based on judicial discretion. The social work evaluations that Law 223 orders to the family social evaluation office of the Judicial Branch are one of the criteria that are considered in the adjudication of custody. In the process of reviewing the judgments, the impression was raised that the Court of Appeals recognized that Law 223, and the consideration of joint custody, responded to a shift in nuclear family structures towards new types of family. Also recognized a transformation in the assignment of women-centered parenting and care roles to a discourse of co-responsibility between father and mother, towards sons and daughters. The custody judicial processes were characterized by being complex, extensive, and litigious, where far from guaranteeing the best interest of the children, they are kept at the center of the dispute subject to the interests of their father and mother.
The analysis of the findings showed the need to review the law, regulations, and judicial processes, based on the rights and needs of the children involved in these petitions. A different look at these processes was recommended, where disagreements over custody try to be aired first outside the adversarial scenario on which the country's judicial system is based. Finally, the importance of reconfiguring and deconstructing the characterizations of the judicial actors that affect the custody adjudication processes was highlighted.