Sandra Nunes

The bill was approved on July 22 by most PSD/CDS-PP members of Parlament with no votes against, and changes the exercise regime of parental responsibilities given the right to shared custody of the child to the step mom and step dad. But this new regime goes no further than that because doesn’t have consequences on the affiliation of the child or the inheritance.

The name “Madras” is associated with the tale of “Cinderella,” which has always suffered horrors at the hands of stepmother. Not to say that this situation does not occur in real life. But it can also happen with progenitors which are blood.

In this sense, and in my opinion, i don’t see any reason why stepmothers and stepfathers can’t have the same rights as a father and a mother holds, if it is established that the conditions to be offered to minors are always in their best interests.

As well as alluded to above, provided that the child’s best interests are safeguarded, not because they are not consanguineous parents who can not exercise.
But there is also a safeguard for minors. The can not be attributed to anyone, it will only be granted by judicial decision and it is necessary that they are married or de facto united with the father or mother of the child, there will of the parties and a requirement stuck in court. Later, Family and Juvenile courts will examine case by case.
Judgment of the Court of Coimbra Relationship 04-05-2010: 1) The adjustment process of parental responsibility is concerned decide the fate of the children, fix the food due to these, form the respective service and also state the visits regime with respect to the parent who has to bear the children – article 1905º of the Civil Code. 2) In pursuit of the aforementioned purposes shall wherever possible give priority to a consensus solution with respect for the child’s interests, the Court reject a solution that does not adequately defend such an interest; and the lack of consensus will decide the Court always guided by that scope, should pay particular attention to the convenience in the smallest maintain contact with the parent who does not have custody of minors. 3) Regarding the lower guard draw up two-way solving the problem in question, namely the “sole custody” and the “joint custody.” 4) guard, joint or even alternating supposed disagreements between parents is eliminated or minimized by placing the child’s interests above the same; requires close interaction between the parents and the possibility of decision-making in comum.5) Failing that conditionality imposes the delivering of the smaller one of the parents, there nevertheless be safeguarded as much as possible a healthy relationship with each other , always safeguarding the best interests of those, should the parents aware that such contacts take on the nature of gatherings-dever.6) Remaining a twitching environment between parents, reflected in the smaller, the above-alluded contacts should be operated in paulatina.7 form) are, however, to avoid situations that promote physical and emotional instability of children such as frequent progenitors of domicile of travel

In their absence or incapacity of a father or a mother, the companions of the parents of the children can stay with the shared custody of the children. In judicial means for those who fear chaos in family courts.

Photo credit: Stuart Bryce in Free Images

The question I intend to address in this article concerns the difficulty felt by many apartment owners and condominium administrators to access the roof or the terrace when the access is made through fractions located on the rooftop. The question that arises often relates to whether the owner of these fractions joint owner may refuse access.

The answer in plain common sense is NO. But the law is more restrictive requiring motivation. Thus, owners of rooftop units are required to provide access to coverage if indispensable to pass him the materials for the work or practice similar acts, or even raise scaffolding and may be compensated if you suffer any injury. (Cf. Article 1349 of the Civil Code: 1. “Whether to repair any building or construction, is essential to raise scaffolding, placing objects on another’s building, passing by it the materials for the work or perform other similar acts, the owner needs to grant consent to these acts. “And in any case under this Article, the owner is entitled to compensation for the damage suffered.

The same understanding comes from a ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra in 27/05/2014: “all apartment owners are allowed access to the roof tiles to repair or place the required equipment and access can be done from the inside other owners apartments” and from a ruling of Tribunal da Relação do Porto in 10-03-2005″. “Owner of apartments in a building in which it must perform works are required to consent that the property is momentarily occupied in order to carrying out such works, if such occupation is essential to that aim”. To that occupation is the person in charge of works liable to compensate the owner of the building occupied if any damages result of the intervention, and is required to reconstruct the situation that would exist had it not been checked the event requiring the repair, and this obligation to indemnify exists only in relation to the damages which the plaintiff would probably not have suffered the injury was not. (art. 563 º of the Portuguese Civil Code).

And in other cases?. Here it seems to be applying the ownership rules wings. So says Article 1406 of the Civil Code (Using the common thing) that:. ‘1 – Failing agreement on the use of common, any of the joint owners is lawful to make use of it, provided that the non-employed to order different from the things that is intended and does not deprive others of the use to which consorts equally entitled. “2 – The use of the common things for one of the co does not constitute exclusive possession or possession superior to his share, unless there has been reversal of the title. ». In our view, treating the terrace or the roof as a common outside the necessity for works and reparations the proprietors and the Administration can also access to the terrace from if the use is not different from the one that the area is intended and if the private use does not deprive other proprietors of use similar.