1. Objectifs

Intentions :
Les auteures comparent les impacts des décisions privées dans les causes de divorce/séparation sur le rôle des acteurs judiciaires, au Québec et en France.

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Pour le Québec, l’étude est basée sur des entretiens avec 18 juges, 3 commis de la cour et 23 avocats œuvrant en droit de la famille. Elle est également basée sur l’observation d’audiences relatives à 130 cas de divorce, de 61 réunions entre avocats et clients.

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

Authors conclude that «[c]ertainly the rise in ‘‘undisputed’’ family procedures has changed the adjudication of marital breakdowns in both France and Québec. Judges are less involved than they used to be in decision-making. However, our comparative study demonstrates a nuance response. First, changes in adjudication have been more important in Quebec than in France. To that extent, comparative socio-legal research provides insight into the importance of national paths in judicial reforms. Moreover, out-of-court dispute resolution is not synonymous with self-decision: lawyers (as well as mediators in Québec) play a great part in designing agreements and, therefore, they frame the individual expectations. Besides, the withdrawal of the judiciary is subject to limitations. When the child’s best interests (and/or large amounts of money) are considered to be at stake, privacy is most likely to be exposed and controlled. Finally, the entanglement of negotiations between ex-partners and between professionals and separating couples is not neutral as to social and gender inequalities.» (p. 105)