Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Joint Custody in the Italian Courts

Contents:

Author Info

  • Guido de Blasio

    ()
    (Bank of Italy)

  • Daniela Vuri

    ()
    (University of Rome "Tor Vergata")

Abstract

This paper studies the impact of the introduction of joint custody in Italy (Law 54/2006) on judiciary outcomes. As to the formal (legal) assignment of joint custody, the reform envisaged very little judge discretion. With reference to the substance of the custody (the amount of time each parent spends with the child and the money involved in post-dissolution arrangements), the law established new principles while leaving plenty of implementation power to the judges. Our results – based on court data that covers the universe of separations from 2000 to 2010 – document that the law was only cosmetically applied by the judges. Compared to the prereform regime, the share of sole legal custody assignments to the mother drastically decreased. However, court implementation washed out the new principles: the provisions of the law related to the financial postseparation arrangements remained unapplied. This suggests that the main innovative aspect of the law – the possibility for a child to spend an adequate amount of time with both parents – was also left unchanged with respect to the previous regime of sole maternal custody. As joint effect of the introduction of the law and the little degree to which the new principles have been translated into actual verdicts, there was a surge in litigiousness among separating spouses and judicial inefficiency. Moreover, the incentives for a female partner to apply for a separation raised. The paper discusses a possible rationale for the findings and some related policy remedies. As for the former, the evidence we present can be explained by the adoption of genderbiased judiciary practices. As for the latter, our results suggest that a restatement of the law, to define a narrowed grid of prescriptions that constrain judge discretion, could be an effective corrective action.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: ftp://www.ceistorvergata.it/repec/rpaper/RP284.pdf
File Function: Main text
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Tor Vergata University, CEIS in its series CEIS Research Paper with number 284.

as in new window
Length: 33 pages
Date of creation: 03 Jul 2013
Date of revision: 03 Jul 2013
Handle: RePEc:rtv:ceisrp:284

Contact details of provider:
Postal: CEIS - Centre for Economic and International Studies - Faculty of Economics - University of Rome "Tor Vergata" - Via Columbia, 2 00133 Roma
Phone: +390672595601
Fax: +39062020687
Email:
Web page: http://www.ceistorvergata.it
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Postal: CEIS - Centre for Economic and International Studies - Faculty of Economics - University of Rome "Tor Vergata" - Via Columbia, 2 00133 Roma
Email:
Web: http://www.ceistorvergata.it

Related research

Keywords: joint custody; separation; judiciary outcomes; difference-in-differences; Italy;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2006. "Judicial Fact Discretion," NBER Working Papers 12679, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Magda Bianco & Silvia Giacomelli & Cristina Giorgiantonio & Giuliana Palumbo & Bruna Szego, 2007. "La durata (eccessiva) dei procedimenti civili in Italia: offerta, domanda o rito?," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 97(5), pages 3-54, September.
  3. Weiss, Yoram & Willis, Robert J, 1985. "Children as Collective Goods and Divorce Settlements," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(3), pages 268-92, July.
  4. Brandeanna Allen & John Nunley & Alan Seals, 2011. "The Effect of Joint-Child-Custody Legislation on the Child-Support Receipt of Single Mothers," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 124-139, March.
  5. Andrea Ichino & Michele Polo & Enrico Rettore, . "Are Judges Biased by Labor Market Conditions?," Working Papers 192, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
  6. Marco Francesconi & René Böheim & Martin Halla, 2012. "Does custody law affect family behaviour in and out of marriage?," Economics Discussion Papers 724, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
  7. Martin Halla, 2013. "The Effect Of Joint Custody On Family Outcomes," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 278-315, 04.
  8. Atteneder, Christine & Halla, Martin, 2007. "Bargaining at Divorce: The Allocation of Custody," IZA Discussion Papers 2544, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  9. Nunley, John M. & Seals Jr., Richard Alan, 2011. "Child-custody reform, marital investment in children, and the labor supply of married mothers," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 14-24, January.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rtv:ceisrp:284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Barbara Piazzi).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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