The child bears the name of the father. Why this institution? Questioned why her?
The mechanism is fought today: taken as a free ride given to the exclusive benefit of the father, it appears illegitimate.
As a result the Legislature can now give the names of both parents to the child.
Yet it is not without relevance for the child to the father's name.
Indeed, if the paternity of the child for the mother no difficulty, one in respect of the husband is not absolute. Therefore the companion of the mother recognizes the child positively or by implication - it is the husband. The law provides for a presumption of paternity of the husband on the head.
paternal recognition is manifested in the transfer of the name. Thus the child's parentage is established in respect of both parents.
This reason is enough to justify the name of the father that the child wears. But there is another: in recognizing the child, the father is obliged to support himself. Such an obligation indirectly protects the mother.
The social institution of the transfer of the name of the father the child is not a favor granted to the father but unnecessary proof of what he has recognized and is therefore obliged to respect the child and mother.
Yet on behalf of the interests of the latter and equality that removes this institution. A classic.
The mechanism is fought today: taken as a free ride given to the exclusive benefit of the father, it appears illegitimate.
As a result the Legislature can now give the names of both parents to the child.
Yet it is not without relevance for the child to the father's name.
Indeed, if the paternity of the child for the mother no difficulty, one in respect of the husband is not absolute. Therefore the companion of the mother recognizes the child positively or by implication - it is the husband. The law provides for a presumption of paternity of the husband on the head.
paternal recognition is manifested in the transfer of the name. Thus the child's parentage is established in respect of both parents.
This reason is enough to justify the name of the father that the child wears. But there is another: in recognizing the child, the father is obliged to support himself. Such an obligation indirectly protects the mother.
The social institution of the transfer of the name of the father the child is not a favor granted to the father but unnecessary proof of what he has recognized and is therefore obliged to respect the child and mother.
Yet on behalf of the interests of the latter and equality that removes this institution. A classic.
0 comments:
Post a Comment