La familia de crianzauna mirada comparada entre Estados Unidos y Colombia

  1. Martínez-Muñoz, Karol Ximena
  2. Rodríguez-Yong, Camilo Andrés
Journal:
Revista de Derecho Privado

ISSN: 2346-2442,  0123-4366

Year of publication: 2020

Issue Title: Julio-Diciembre

Issue: 39

Type: Article

DOI: 10.18601/01234366.N39.05 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Revista de Derecho Privado

Abstract

The appearance of new social realities has led to the conception and pro­tection of family forms different from those based on legal ties or consanguinity. In this way, mechanisms to protect family structures originated from a factual situation accompanied by ties of affection, solidarity and protection have been developed. In the Colombian case, jurisprudence has developed the concept of “foster family”. On the other hand, in the American union the courts have resorted to the doctrines of in loco parentis and equitable adoption.

Bibliographic References

  • Bean, E., “Equitable adoption: a look at how to address pitfalls in Texas’ complex process”, Texas Bar Journal, vol. 81, n.º 9, 2018, 682-683.
  • Drake, R., “Status or contract? a comparative analysis of inheritance rights under equitable adoption and domestic partnership doctrines”, Georgia Law Review, vol. 39, n.º 2, 2005, 675-731.
  • Esborraz, D. F. “El concepto constitucional de familia en América Latina. Tenden¬cias y proyecciones”, Revista de Derecho Privado, n.º 29, 2015, 15-55.
  • Farnsworth, E., Contracts, 4th edition, Aspen Publishers, New York, 2004.
  • Ferrer, F., “Introducción al derecho de familia”, en Derecho de familia, tomo i, Ru¬binzal-Culzoni editores, 1984.
  • Fougeron, K., “Equitable Considerations for Families with Same-Sex Parents: Rus¬sell v. Bridgens, 264 Neb. 217, 647 N.W.2d 56 (2002), and the Use of the Doc-trine of In Loco Parentis by Nebraska Courts”, Nebraska Law Review, vol. 83, n.º 3, 2005, 915-931.
  • Herrera Guerrero, B.; Weisser Soto, B.; Salazar Salazar, D., “Imágenes y con-ceptos de familia expresados en las representaciones sociales de mujeres de sec-tores urbano-populares de la ciudad de Temuco”, Chile, Límite, Universidad de Tarapacá, vol. 1, n.º 11, 2004, 1-34.
  • Higdon, M., “When informal adoption meets intestate succession: the cultural myo¬pia of the equitable adoption doctrine”, Wake Forest Law Review, vol. 43, n.º 1, 2008, 223-281.
  • Johnson, i., “A suggested solution to the problem of intestate succession in nontra¬ditional family arrangements: taking the ‘adoption’ (and the inequity) out of the doctrine of ‘equitable adoption’”, Saint Louis University Law Journal, vol. 54, n.º 1, 2009, 271-333.
  • Levine, B., “Divorce and the modern family: providing in loco parentis stepparents standing to sue for custody of their stepchildren in a dissolution proceeding”, Hofstra Law Review, vol. 25, n.º 1, 1996, 315-352.
  • Lorca Martínde Villodres, M., “La experiencia jurídica actual desde la clásica doctrina filosófica de la naturaleza de las cosas”, Persona y derecho, Universi¬dad de Navarrra, vol. 68, n.º 1, 2013, 39-75.
  • Messio, P., “La función social del derecho. El derecho vivo”, Revista de la Aso-ciación de Magistrados y funcionarios de la Justicia de la Nación [en línea], IJ Editores, vol. 39/40 – n.º enero/junio, 2006. Disponible en http://ijeditores. com/articulos.php?idarticulo=48986&print=2 [consultado el 20 de noviembre de 2018].
  • Metta, M. y Markus, S., “Family law: virtual adoption: contractual estoppel of parental rights and responsibilities”, The Florida Bar Journal, vol. 71, n.º 5 1997, 90.
  • Oliva Gómez, E. y Villa Guardiola, V. “Hacia un concepto interdisciplinario de la familia en la globalización”, Justicia Juris, vol. 10, n.° 1, 2014, 11-20. Pérez Contreras, M., Derecho de familia y sucesiones, México D. F., Nostra Edi-ciones, 2010.
  • Petri, C., “What’s in a Name? Not Much for Equitable Adoption in Missouri”, Mis¬souri Law Review, vol. 63, n.º 1, 1998, 195-224.
  • Reeves, W., “Inheritance by equitable adoption: an overview of theory and proof”, Journal of the Missouri Bar, vol. 57, n.º 3, 2001, 130-135.
  • Robinson, J., “Untangling the ‘loose threads’: equitable adoption, equitable legiti¬mation, and inheritance in extralegal family arrangements”, Emory Law Jour¬nal, vol. 48, n.º 3, 1999, 943-990.
  • Strachman, D., “Equitable adoption doctrine”, Rhode Island Bar Journal, vol. 64, 2016.
  • Survey. “Deference Defiantly Denied: The Fourth Circuit Rejects nlrb Position on § 8(f) Pre-hire Agreements in Industrial TurnAround Corp. v. nlrb”, en North Carolina Law Review, vol. 76, n.º 6, 1998, 2480.
  • Warner, L., “Local government law symposium: student work: bending the bow of equity: three ways Florida can improve its equitable adoption policy”, Stetson Law Review, vol. 38, n.º 3, 2009, 577-618.
  • Alaska Supreme Court, Calista Corp. v. Mann, 564 P.2d 53, 1977.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-217 de 1994.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-495 de 1997.
  • Supreme Court of North Carolina, Lankford v. Wright, 347 N.C. 115, 1997.
  • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Tb v. Lrm, 786 A.2d 913, 2001.
  • California Supreme Court. In Re Estate of Ford, 82 P.3d 747, 2004.
  • Missouri Court of Appeals, Coon v. American Compressed Steel, 133 S.W.3d 75, 2004.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-292 de 2004.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-497 de 2005.
  • Court of Appeals of New Mexico. Poncho v. Bowdoin, 126 P.3d 1221, 2005.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia C-903 2008.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-887 de 2009.
  • Court of Appeals of Ohio, State v. Abubakar, 2011-Ohio-6299, 2011.
  • Supreme Court of Nebraska, Latham v. Schwerdtfeger, 802 N.W.2d 66, 2011.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-606 de 2013.
  • Appellate Court of Illinois, In re Marriage of Mancine, 2014 IL App (1st) 111138, 2014.
  • Supreme Court of Arkansas, Foust v. Montez-Torres, 2015 Ark. 66, 2015.
  • Court of Appeals of Mississippi, Roger Lynn Neely v. Kaleb Matthew Welch, 2014- CA-01022-coa, Miss. Ct. App. 2015.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-111 de 2015.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-233 de 2015.
  • Corte Suprema de Justicia. Sala de Casación Civil y Agraria. Sentencia del 23 de octubre de 2015, rad. n.º 2500122130002015-00361-02.
  • Supreme Court of Illinois, James R. D. v. Maria Z. (In re Scarlett Z.-D.), 28 N.E.3d 776, 2015.
  • Consejo de Estado, Sección Tercera, sentencia del 14 de septiembre de 2016, rad. 81001-23-31-000-2009-00035-01.
  • Nebraska Supreme Court, Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279, 2016.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-525 de 2016.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-705 de 2016.
  • Nebraska Supreme Court, Whilde v. Whilde, 298 Neb. 473, 2017.
  • Court of Appeals of Arkansas, McCrillis v. Hicks, 2017 Ark. App. 221, 2017.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-177 de 2017.
  • Consejo de Estado, Sección Segunda, sentencia del 27 de noviembre de 2017, rad. 25000-23-42-000-2017-02526-01(AC).
  • Consejo de Estado, Sección Tercera, sentencia del 5 de diciembre de 2017, rad. 47001-23-31-000-2009-00002-01(41941).
  • Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Civil, sentencia del 9 de mayo de 2018, rad. 25000-22-13-000-2018-00071-01.
  • Nebraska Supreme Court, Jennifer T. v. Lindsay P., 298 Neb. 800, 2018.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia T-281 de 2018.
  • Corte Constitucional, sentencia C-085 de 2019.
Data source: Dialnet