IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/lawfam/v35y2021i1pebab011..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accommodating the ‘Best Interests of the Child’ in Custody Disputes in the Indonesian System/s of Family Law

Author

Listed:
  • Saraswati Rika

Abstract

This article discusses the implementation of the right of child custody in the Indonesian Family Law system, which under the Indonesian Marriage Act 1974 does not explicitly regulate the form of custody and ensure the best interests of the child. The research aimed to examine the reasoning by judges (in both the Religious Court and State Courts) and their decisions in child custody disputes, the form of child custody that was granted, and to what extent the reasoning and decisions have considered the (best) interests of the child. A qualitative approach was adopted. The data was obtained by scrutinizing 31 court decisions across the Indonesian archipelago in cases related to divorce and child custody. The research found that judges granted the right of custody to the mother, father, or both parents, depending on various particulars of the case, and parental capability. The Judges’ decision making considered the potential psychological and social effects on the children. However, they did not consider the history of domestic violence by the parents nor fully accommodate the best interests of the child/ren because their voices were not always heard.

Suggested Citation

  • Saraswati Rika, 2021. "Accommodating the ‘Best Interests of the Child’ in Custody Disputes in the Indonesian System/s of Family Law," International Journal of Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-011..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:35:y:2021:i:1:p:ebab011.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/lawfam/ebab011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:35:y:2021:i:1:p:ebab011.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/lawfam .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.