Depois do foram felizes para sempre: as disputas de guarda entre pais na interface entre Direito e Psicologia

• Ano de defesa: 2023
• Autor(a) principal: Panisa, Patricia
• Orientador(a): Sandoval, Salvador Antonio Mireles
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Psicologia: Psicologia Social
• Departamento: Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e da Saúde
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Família; Coparentalidade; Disputas de guarda; Interface Direito-Psicologia
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Family; Co-parenting; Custody disputes; Law-Psychology interface
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::PSICOLOGIA::PSICOLOGIA SOCIAL
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/39717

Child custody disputes account for a significant portion of the cases heard in the Family Courts, surpassed only by alimony suits. The main objective of the research was to investigate and understand if, based on the development of these suits in the Justice System through the intersection of Law and Psychology knowledge, the result achieved is able to effectively protect the rights of those involved, especially the children who are at the center of these disputes between their parents. The research methodology focused on two stages: the first one aimed at theoretical research and the second one, at document analysis. Since this is an exploratory interdisciplinary study, we did not set ourselves to a single theoretical reference, but established as a starting point for the research, the findings offered by historiography regarding the social structuring of the family in Brazil and how this was inserted in the normative field and, from this point on, in a psychosocial approach, having as a special guiding thread, the propositions developed by Salvador Sandoval in the "Analytical model of political consciousness" in dialogue with those of Gonzáles Rey, in his Theory of Subjectivity, besides the research developed on conjugality and parenthood, notably in the field of Social Psychology. At the end of the study, we conclude that for both the parties that judicialize their family conflicts and for those who work in the justice system, custody is understood as physical custody/care, and, with rare exceptions, no relationship is established between custody and co-parenting. Psychological evaluations have been taken as synonymous with expert evidence, in spite of innumerable regrets, of which we can highlight the ethical-political foundations of the psychologist's work, the fact that ontologically, the psychosocial study is not destined to serve as evidence, and also that a good number of the professionals who act as "experts" have no specialization in the areas object of the evaluations they perform, which ends up causing, in a significant number of cases, subsidies for judicial decisions that resolve cases without solving the complex issues that trigger the conflicts, weakening or annulling one of the pairs of the parental dyad in the formation and development of the common offspring and, finally, under the guise of protecting the best interests of the children involved in these conflicts, the violation, to a greater or lesser extent, of their fundamental rights as developing persons. Not least, although mediation has already been established some years ago as a Public Policy that aims at the consensual treatment of conflicts, the low rates of resolution achieved by this means can be explained both by the persistence of the adversarial logic that characterizes the treatment of these conflicts in the system itself ('v.g. ': the determination for the psychosocial study to evaluate the “best parent to exercise custody” of the common offspring), as well as by the absence of public policies aimed at parental and family education that could demystify quite entrenched beliefs about “paternity”, “maternity”, the child as a "developing human being" and, also, to cool down the litigation culture, providing, therefore, that instead of "the judge will decide who wins and who is better", the parties themselves and their children become subjects of their stories and protagonists of the decision making that affects them and their families