Book contents
- The Construction of Fatherhood
- The Construction of Fatherhood
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Fatherhood and the Law in Europe
- 2 The ECtHR and Fatherhood: Limits and Potential
- 3 Fatherhood and Assisted Reproduction
- 4 Post-Separation and Unmarried Fatherhood
- 5 Fatherhood and Family–Work Reconciliation
- 6 Fatherhood and Homosexuality
- 7 Fatherhood at the ECtHR
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 November 2019
Book contents
- The Construction of Fatherhood
- The Construction of Fatherhood
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Fatherhood and the Law in Europe
- 2 The ECtHR and Fatherhood: Limits and Potential
- 3 Fatherhood and Assisted Reproduction
- 4 Post-Separation and Unmarried Fatherhood
- 5 Fatherhood and Family–Work Reconciliation
- 6 Fatherhood and Homosexuality
- 7 Fatherhood at the ECtHR
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Construction of FatherhoodThe Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, pp. 169 - 185Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Amato, P. and Gilbreth, J., ‘Non-Resident Fathers and Children’s Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3) (1999), 557–73Google Scholar
Ambrus, M., ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the Standards of Proof – An Evidentiary Approach towards the Margin of Appreciation’ in Gruszczynski, L. and Werner, W. (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals – Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 235–53Google Scholar
Arnardóttir, O. M., ‘The Differences That Make a Difference: Recent Developments on the Discrimination Grounds and the Margin of Appreciation under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review, 14 (2014), 647–70Google Scholar
Arnardóttir, O. M., ‘Discrimination as a Magnifying Lens – Scope and Ambit under Article 14 and Protocol No. 12’ in Brems, E. and Gerards, J. (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR – The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 330–49Google Scholar
Arnardóttir, O. M., Equality and Non-Discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff, 2003)Google Scholar
Arnardóttir, O. M., ‘Rethinking the Two Margins of Appreciation’, European Constitutional Law Review, 12(1) (2016), 27–53Google Scholar
Andenas, M. and Bjorge, E., ‘National implementation of ECHR rights’ in Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. and Ulfstein, G. (eds.), Constituting Europe – The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 181–262Google Scholar
Arai-Takahashi, Y., The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (Intersentia, 2002)Google Scholar
Arai-Takahashi, Y., ‘The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: A Theoretical Analysis of Strasbourg’s Variable Geometry’ in Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. and Ulfstein, G. (eds.), Constituting Europe – The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 62–105Google Scholar
Arold Lorenz, N., Groussot, X. and Petursson, G., The European Human Rights Culture – A Paradox of Human Rights Protection in Europe? (Martinus Nijhoff, 2013)Google Scholar
Ashmore, R. and Del Boca, F., ‘Conceptual Approaches to Stereotypes Sex Stereotypes and Stereotyping’ in Hamilton, D. (ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behaviour (Erlbaum Associates, 1981), pp. 1–35Google Scholar
Ashmore, R. and Del Boca, F., ‘Sex Stereotypes and Implicit Personal Theory: Towards a Cognitive-Social Psychological Conceptualization’, Sex Roles, 5(2) (1979), 219–48Google Scholar
Bainham, A., ‘Contact as a Right and Obligation’ in Bainham, A., Lindley, B., Richards, M. and Trinder, L. (eds.), Children and Their Families: Contact, Rights and Welfare (Hart, 2003), pp. 61–88Google Scholar
Bainham, A., ‘Parentage, Parenthood and Parental Responsibility’: Subtle, Elusive Yet Important Distinctions’ in Bainham, A., Day Sclater, S. and Richards, M. (eds.), What Is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis (Hart, 1999), pp. 25–46Google Scholar
Bainham, A., ‘Sex, Gender and Fatherhood: Does Biology Really Matter?’, Cambridge Law Journal, 56 (1997), 512–15Google Scholar
Bainham, A., ‘“Truth Will Out”: Paternity in Europe’, Cambridge Law Journal, (2007), 278–82Google Scholar
Bamforth, N., ‘Families but Not (Yet) Marriages? Same-Sex Partners and the Developing European Convention “Margin of Appreciation”’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 23 (2011), 128–43Google Scholar
Bamforth, N., Malik, M. and O’Cinneide, C., Discrimination Law: Theory and Context, Text and Materials (Sweet & Maxwell, 2008)Google Scholar
Barnett, R., Marshall, N. and Pleck, J., ‘Men’s Multiple Roles and Their Relationship to Men’s Psychological Distress’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3) (1992), 358–67Google Scholar
Bates, E., The Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights: From Its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar
Bending, B., ‘Images of Men in Feminist Legal Theory’, Pepperdine Law Review, 20 (1993), 991–1052Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E., ‘Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 31(4) (1999), 843–54Google Scholar
Bergman, H. and Hobson, B., ‘Compulsory Fatherhood: The Coding of Fatherhood in the Swedish Welfare State’ in Hobson, B. (ed.), Making Men into Fathers – Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 92–124Google Scholar
Berkowitz, D. and Marsiglio, W., ‘Gay Men: Negotiating Procreative, Father, and Family Identities’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2) (2007), 366–81Google Scholar
Boele-Woelki, K., Ferrand, F., González-Beilfuss, C. Jäntera-Jareborg, M., Lowe, N., Martiny, D. and Pintens, W. (eds.), Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities (Intersentia, 2007)Google Scholar
Boyd, S., ‘Backlash against Feminism: Canadian Custody and Access Reform Debates of the Late Twentieth Century’, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 16(2) (2004), 255–90Google Scholar
Bracken, L., ‘Assessing the Best Interests of the Child in Cases of Cross-Border Surrogacy: Inconsistency in the Strasbourg Approach?’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39(3) (2017), 368–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracken, L., ‘Strasbourg’s Response to Gay and Lesbian Parenting: Progress, then Plateau?’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 24 (2016), 358–77Google Scholar
Bradley, A., ‘Introduction: The Need for Both International and National Protection of Human Rights – The European Challenge’ in Flogaitis, S., Zwart, T. and Fraser, J. (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights and Its Discontents – Turning Criticism into Strength (Edward Elgar, 2013), pp. 1–8Google Scholar
Brandth, B. and Kvande, E., ‘Masculinity and Child Care: The Reconstruction of Fathering’, Sociological Review, 26(2) (1998), 293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauch, J. A., ‘The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threats to the Rule of the Law’, Columbia Journal of European Law, 11(1) (2004–2005), 113–50Google Scholar
Brems, E., ‘Evans v UK – Three Grounds for Ruling Differently’ in Smet, S. and Brems, E. (eds.), When Human Rights Clash at the European Court of Human Rights – Conflict or Harmony? (Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 75–94Google Scholar
Brems, E., ‘Islamophobia at the ECtHR: A Test-Case for Positive Subsidiarity’. Unpublished draft paper presented at the ESIL-ECHR Conference European Convention on Human Rights and Migration (6 October 2017)Google Scholar
Brems, E., ‘Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights’, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 56(1–2) (1996), 230–314Google Scholar
Brems, E., ‘Procedural Protection – An Examination of Procedural Safeguards read into substantive Convention rights’ in Brems, E. and Gerards, J. (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR – The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 136–61Google Scholar
Brems, E., ‘Protecting the Rights of Women’ in Lyons, G. and Mayall, J. (eds.), International Human Rights in the 21st Century – Protecting the Rights of Groups (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003)Google Scholar
Brod, H. (ed.), The Making of Masculinities. The New Men’s Studies (Allen & Unwin, 1987)Google Scholar
Bruinsma, F. and Parmentier, S., ‘Interview with Mr Luzius Wildhaber, President of the European Court of Human Rights’, Netherlands Human Rights Review, 21(2) (2003), 185–201Google Scholar
Büchler, A. and Keller, H. (eds.), Family Forms and Parenthood: Theory and Practice of Article 8 ECHR in Europe (Intersentia, 2016)Google Scholar
Burbergs, M., ‘How the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Home and Correspondence became the Nursery in which New Rights are Born’ in Brems, E. and Gerards, J. (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR – The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 315–29Google Scholar
Calavita, K., Invitation to Law and Society – An Introduction to the Study of Real Law (University of Chicago Press, 2010)Google Scholar
Cano Palomares, G., ‘Right to Family Life and Access to Medically Assisted Procreation in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Gonzales Pascual, M. and Torres Perez, A. (eds.), The Right to Family Life in the European Union (Hart, 2017), pp. 99–114Google Scholar
Caracciolo di Torella, E., ‘Brave New Fathers for a Brave New World? Fathers as Caregivers in an Evolving European Union’, European Law Journal, 20(1) (2014), 88–106Google Scholar
Caracciolo di Torella, E., ‘New Labour, New Dads – The Impact of Family Friendly Legislation on Fathers’, Industrial Law Journal, 36 (2007), 318–28Google Scholar
Caracciolo di Torella, E. and Foubert, P., ‘Surrogacy, Pregnancy and Maternity Rights: A Missed Opportunity for a More Coherent Regime of Parental Rights in the EU’, European Law Review, 1 (2015), 52–69Google Scholar
Caracciolo di Torella, E. and Masselot, A., Reconciling Work and Family Life in EU Law and Policy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)Google Scholar
Carozza, P. G., ‘Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law in International Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’, Notre Dame Law Review, 73 (1997–1998), 1217–37Google Scholar
Catlett, B. and McKenry, P., ‘Class-Based Masculinities: Divorce, Fatherhood and the Hegemonic Ideal’, Fathering, 2(2) (2004), 165–90Google Scholar
Charlesworth, H., Chinkin, C. and Wright, S., ‘Feminist Approaches to International Law’, American Journal of International Law, 85 (1991), 613–45Google Scholar
Cherlin, A., ‘The Growing Diversity of Two-Parent Families – Challenges for Family Law’ in Garrison, M. and Scott, E. (eds.), Marriage at the Crossroads – Law, Policy and the Brave New World of Twenty-First-Century Families (Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 287–302Google Scholar
Chinkin, C., ‘A Critique of the Public/Private Dimension’, European Journal of International Law, 10(2) (1999), 387–95Google Scholar
Codd, H., ‘Regulating Reproduction: Prisoners’ Families, Artificial Insemination and Human Rights’, European Human Rights Law Review, 1 (2006), 39–48Google Scholar
Codd, H., ‘The Slippery Slope to Sperm Smuggling: Prisoners, Artificial Insemination and Human Rights’, Medical Law Review, 15 (2007), 220–35Google Scholar
Coester-Waltjen, D., ‘The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights on European Family Law’ in Scherpe, J. M. (ed.), European Family Law – The Impact of Institutions and Organisations on European Family Law, vol. I (Edward Elgar, 2016), pp. 49–94Google Scholar
Collier, R., ‘Fatherhood, Gender and the Making of Professional Identity in Large Law Firms: Bringing Men into the Frame’, International Journal of Law in Context, 15(1) (2019), 1–20Google Scholar
Collier, R., ‘From Women’s Emancipation to Sex War? Men, Heterosexuality and the Politics of Divorce’ in Day Sclater, S. and Piper, C. (eds.), Undercurrents of Divorce (Ashgate, 1999), pp. 123–44Google Scholar
Collier, R., ‘In Search of the “Good Father”: Law, Family Practices and the Normative Reconstruction of Fatherhood’ in Sarat, A. and Ewick, P. (eds.), Studies in Law, Politics and Society (Elsevier Science, 2001), pp. 133–71Google Scholar
Collier, R., ‘Law and the Making of Fatherhood in Late Modernity: Reflections on Family Policy in England and Wales 1997–2010’ in Oechsle, M., Müller, U. and Hess, S. (eds.), Fatherhood in Late Modernity – Cultural Images, Social Practices and Structural Frames (Verlag Barbara Budrich, 2012), pp. 295–316Google Scholar
Collier, R., ‘Masculinities, Law and Personal Life: Towards a New Framework for Understanding Men, Law and Gender’, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 33 (2010), 431–77Google Scholar
Collier, R., ‘Men, Gender and Fathers’ Rights “After Equality”: New Formations of Rights and Responsibilities in Family Justice’ in Leckey, R. (ed.), After Legal Equality: Family, Sex, Kinship (Routledge, 2014), pp. 59–76Google Scholar
Collier, R., ‘The Responsible Father in New Labour’s Legal and Social Policy’ in Bridgeman, J., Keating, H. and Craig, L. (eds.) Regulating Family Responsibilities (Ashgate, 2011), pp. 47–66Google Scholar
Collier, R. and Sheldon, S. (eds.), Fathers’ Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective (Hart, 2006)Google Scholar
Combs-Orme, T. and Renkert, L., ‘Fathers and Their Infants: Caregiving and Affection in the Modern Family’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19 (2009), 394–418Google Scholar
Cook, R. and Cusack, S., Gender Stereotyping – Transnational Legal Perspectives (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010)Google Scholar
Costa, J.-P., ‘On the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments’, European Constitutional Law Review, 7(2) (2011), 173–82Google Scholar
Craig, L., ‘Does Father Care Mean Fathers Share? A Comparison of How Much Mothers and Fathers in Intact Families Spend Time with Their Children’, Gender and Society, 20 (2006), 259–81Google Scholar
Crouter, A. C., Bumpus, M. F., Head, M. R. and McHale, S. M., ‘Implications of Overwork and Overload for the Quality of Men’s Family Relationships’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (2001), 404–16Google Scholar
Crowley, J., ‘Taking Custody of Motherhood: Fathers’ Rights Activists and the Politics of Parenting’, Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37(3) (2009), 223–40Google Scholar
Curry-Sumner, I., ‘E.B. v France: A Missed Opportunity?’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 21(3) (2009), 356–66Google Scholar
Daar, J., ‘Accessing Reproductive Technologies: Invisible Barriers, Indelible Harms’, Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice, 23(1) (2013), 35–45Google Scholar
Day, R. and Lamb, M. (eds.), Conceptualizing and Measuring Father Involvement (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004)Google Scholar
de Silva de Alwis, R. ‘Examining Gender Stereotypes in New Work–Family Reconciliation Policies: The Creation of a New Paradigm for Egalitarian Legislation’, Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, 18 (2011), 305–34Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty, M., The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. International Protection versus National Restrictions (Kluwer, 1992)Google Scholar
Doucet, A., Do Men Mother? Fathering, Care and Domestic Responsibility (Toronto University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
Dowd, N. E., ‘Asking the Man Question: Masculinities Analysis and Feminist Theory’, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 33 (2010), 415–30Google Scholar
Dowd, N. E., ‘Fathers and the Supreme Court: Founding Fathers and Nurturing Fathers’, Emory Law Journal, 54 (2005), 1271–334Google Scholar
Dowd, N. E., ‘From Genes, Marriage and Money to Nurture: Redefining Fatherhood’, Cardozo Women’s Law Journal, 10 (2003–2004), 132–45Google Scholar
Dowd, N. E., The Man Question – Male Subordination and Privilege (New York University Press, 2010)Google Scholar
Dowd, N. E., ‘Multiple Parents/Multiple Fathers’, Journal of Law and Family Studies, 9 (2007), 231–63.Google Scholar
Dowd, N. E., ‘Work and Family: Restructuring the Workplace’, Arizona Law Review, 32 (1990) 431–500Google Scholar
Draghici, C., Legitimacy of Family Rights in Strasbourg Case Law: Living Instrument or Extinguished Sovereignty? (Hart, 2017)Google Scholar
Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O’Connor, T. and Bridges, L., ‘Children’s Perspectives on Their Relationships with Their Non-resident Fathers: Influences, Outcomes and Implications’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(3) (2004), 553–66Google Scholar
Dzehtsiarou, K., European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar
Ekberg, J., Eriksson, R. and Friebel, G., ‘Parental Leave – A Policy Evaluation of the Swedish “Daddy-Month” Reform’, Journal of Public Economics, 97 (2013), 131–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, G., Barker, A. and Kulasuriya, T., Work and Care: A Study of Modern Parents (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2009) online at https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/11030/1/15._work_and_care_modern_parents_15_report.pdf (last access on 15 February 2019)Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G., Incomplete Revolution: Adapting Welfare States to Women’s New Roles (Polity Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Eurofound, Parental and Paternity Leave – Uptake by Fathers (Publications Office of the European Union, 2019), online at https://euagenda.eu/upload/publications/untitled-199581-ea.pdf (last access on 15 February 2019)Google Scholar
Eurostat, Share of Live Birth Outside Marriage, online at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00018&plugin=1 (last access on 9th February 2019)Google Scholar
Farnós Amorós, E., ‘Biology-Based Systems of Parentage and Safety Valves Protecting Social Parenting’ in González Pascual, M. and Torres Pérez, A. (eds.), The Right to Family Life in the European Union (Routledge, 2016), pp. 115–30Google Scholar
Featherstone, B., Contemporary Fathering: Theory, Policy and Practice (Policy Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Featherstone, B. and Peckover, S., ‘“Letting Them Get Away with It”: Fathers, Domestic Violence and Child Protection’, Critical Social Policy, 27(2) (2007), 181–203Google Scholar
Featherstone, B. and Trinder, L., ‘New Labour, Families and Fathers’, Critical Social Policy, 21(4) (2001), 534–36Google Scholar
Feldman, D., Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales (Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
Fenton-Glynn, C., ‘International Surrogacy before the European Court of Human Rights’, Journal of Private International Law, 13(3) (2017), 546–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuillet-Liger, B., ‘Preface’ in Feuillet-Liger, B., Callus, T. and Orfali, K. (eds.), Reproductive Technology and Changing Perceptions of Parenthood Around the World (Bruylant, 2014), pp. 19–30Google Scholar
Fineman, M., ‘Beyond Identities: The Limits of an Antidiscrimination Approach to Equality’, Boston University Law Review, 92(6) (2012), 1713–70Google Scholar
Fineman, M., ‘Fatherhood, Feminism and Family Law’, McGeorge Law Review, 32 (2000–2001), 1031–50Google Scholar
Fineman, M., ‘Feminism, Masculinity and Multiple Identities’, Nevada Law Journal, 13(2) (2013), 619–40Google Scholar
Fineman, M., ‘Legal Stories, Change and Incentives – Reinforcing the Law of the Father’, New York Law School Law Review, 37 (1992), 227–50Google Scholar
Fineman, M., The Neutered Mother, the Sexual family and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies (Routledge, 1995)Google Scholar
Fineman, M., ‘The Sexual Family’ in Fineman, M., Jackson, J. and Romero, A. (eds.), Feminist and Queer Legal Theory – Intimate Encounters, Uncomfortable Conversations (Ashgate, 2009), pp. 45–64Google Scholar
Fineman, M. and Thomson, M. (eds.), Exploring Masculinities – Feminist Legal Theory Reflections (Ashgate, 2013)Google Scholar
Finley, G. and Schwartz, S., ‘Parsons and Bales Revisited: Young Adult Children’s Characterisation of the Fathering Role’, Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7(1) (2006), 42–55Google Scholar
Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. and Ulfstein, G., ‘Conclusions’ in Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. and Ulfstein, G. (eds.), Constituting Europe – The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 1–24Google Scholar
Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. and Ulfstein, G., ‘Introduction’ in Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. and Ulfstein, G. (eds.), Constituting Europe – The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 389–402Google Scholar
Fortin, J., ‘Children’s Right to Know Their Origins – Too Far, Too Fast?’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 21(3) (2009), 336–55Google Scholar
Franklin, C., ‘The Anti-Stereotyping Principle in Constitutional Sex Discrimination Law’, New York University Law Review, 85 (2010), 83–173Google Scholar
Fraser, J., ‘Conclusion: The European Convention on Human Rights as a common European endeavour’ in Flogaitis, S., Zwart, T. and Fraser, J. (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights and Its Discontents – Turning Criticism into Strength (Edward Elgar, 2013), pp. 192–210Google Scholar
Fraser, N., Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neo-Liberal Crisis (Verso Books, 2013)Google Scholar
Fredman, S., Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
Fredman, S., ‘Reversing Roles: Bringing Men into the Frame’, International Law in Context, 10(4) (2014), 442–59Google Scholar
Freeman, M. Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 3: The Best Interests of the Child (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007)Google Scholar
Furstenberg, F. and Harris, K., ‘When Fathers Matter/Why Fathers Matter: The Impact of Paternal Involvement on the Offspring of Adolescent Mothers’ in Rhode, D. (ed.), The Politics of Pregnancy: Adolescent Sexuality and Public Policy (Yale University Press, 1993), pp. 189–215Google Scholar
Furstenberg, F. and Nord, C., ‘Parenting Apart: Patterns of Childrearing after Marital Dissolution’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47 (1985), 893–900Google Scholar
Fuscaldo, G., ‘Genetic Ties: Are They morally binding?’, Bioethics, 20(2) (2006), 64–76Google Scholar
Galanter, M., ‘The Radiating Effects of Courts’, in Boyum, K. O. and Mather, L. (eds.), Empirical Theories about Courts (Longman, 1983), pp. 117–42Google Scholar
Gallo, D., Paladini, L. and Pustorino, P. (eds.), Same-Sex Couples, before National, Supranational and International Jurisdictions (Springer, 2014)Google Scholar
Gans, D., ‘Stereotyping and Difference: Planned Parenthood v Casey and the Future of Sex Discrimination Law’, Yale Law Journal, 104 (1994–1995), 1875–906Google Scholar
Gerards, J., ‘Discrimination Grounds’ in Schiek, S., Waddington, L. and Bell, M. (eds.), Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law: Ius Commune Casebooks for the Common Law of Europe (Hart, 2007), pp. 33–184Google Scholar
Gerards, J., ‘The Discrimination Grounds of Article 14 of the European Court of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review, 13(1) (2013), 99–124Google Scholar
Gerards, J., General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2019)Google Scholar
Gerards, J., ‘Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review, 18 (2018), 495–515Google Scholar
Gerards, J. and Senden, H., ‘The Structure of Fundamental Rights and the European Court of Human Rights’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 7 (2009), 619–53Google Scholar
Gilmore, S., ‘Contact/Shared Residence and Child Well-Being: Research Evidence and Its Implications for Legal Decision-Making’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 20 (2006), 344–65Google Scholar
Gittins, D., The Family in Question – Changing Households and Familiar Ideologies (Macmillan, 1993)Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Gay Dads: Transitions to Adoptive Parenthood (New York University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Downing, J. B. and Moyer, A. M, ‘Why Parenthood, and Why Now? Gay Men’s Motivations for Pursuing Parenthood’, Family Relations, 61 (1) (2012), 157–174.Google Scholar
Golombok, S., Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms (Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar
Gonzalez Salzberg, D. A., Sexuality and Transsexuality under the European Convention on Human Rights: A Queer Reading of Human Rights Law (Hart, 2019)Google Scholar
Gornick, J. and Meyers, M., Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment (Russel Sage Foundation, 2003)Google Scholar
Gross, O. and Ní Aoláin, F., ‘From Discretion to Scrutiny: Revisiting the Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Context of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly, 23 (3) (2001), 625–49Google Scholar
Gülalp, H., ‘Secularism and the European Court of Human Rights’, European Public Law, 16(3) (2010), 455–71Google Scholar
Gurol, S., ‘Challenging Gender Stereotyping before the ECtHR: Case of Carvalho Pinto v Portugal’, EJIL: Talk!, online at https://www.ejiltalk.org/challenging-gender-stereotyping-before-the-ecthr-case-of-carvalho-pinto-v-portugal/ (last access on 11 February 2019)Google Scholar
Haimes, E., ‘Recreating the Family? Policy Considerations Relating to the “New” Reproductive Technologies’ in McNeil, M., Varcoe, I. and Yearly, S. (eds.), The New Reproductive Technologies (Macmillan, 1990), pp. 154–72Google Scholar
Harkness, S., ‘The Household Division of Labour: Changes in Families’ Allocation of Paid and Unpaid Work’ in Scott, J., Dex, S. and Wadsworth, J. (eds.), Women and Employment: Changing Lives and New Challenges (Edward Elgar, 2008), pp. 234–67Google Scholar
Harris, D., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E. and Buckley, C., Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar
Harris, D., O’Boyle, M. and Warbrick, C., Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Butterworth, 1995)Google Scholar
Hart, L., ‘Individual Adoption by Non-Heterosexuals and the Order of Family Life in the European Court of Human Rights’, Journal of Law and Society, 36(4) (2009), 536–57Google Scholar
Haverkort-Speekenbrink, S., European Non-Discrimination Law – A Comparison of EU Law and the ECHR in the Field of Non-Discrimination and Freedom of Religion in Public Employment with an Emphasis on the Islamic Headscarf Issue (Intersentia, 2012)Google Scholar
Hearn, J., ‘Men, Fathers and the State: National and Global Relations’ in Hobson, B. (ed.), Making Men into Fathers – Men, Masculinities and Social Politics of Fatherhood (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 254–72Google Scholar
Helfer, L. R., ‘Consensus, Coherence and the European Convention on Human Rights’, Cornell International Law Journal, 26(1) (1993), 133–65Google Scholar
Hill, J., ‘What Does It Mean to Be a ‘Parent’? The Claims of Biology as the Basis for Parental Rights’, New York Law Review, 66 (1991), 353–420Google Scholar
Hobson, B. and Morgan, D., ‘Introduction: Making Men into Fathers’ in Hobson, B. (ed.), Making Men into Fathers – Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 1–22Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. and Machung, A., The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home (Viking Penguin, 1989)Google Scholar
Hodson, L., ‘A Marriage by Any Other Name? Schalk and Kopf v Austria’, Human Rights Law Review, 11(1) (2011), 170–79Google Scholar
Hodson, L., ‘Ties That Bind: Towards a Child-Centred Approach to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Families under the ECHR’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 20 (2012), 501–22Google Scholar
Horsey, K., ‘Challenging Presumptions: Legal Parenthood and Surrogacy Arrangements’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 22(4) (2010), 449–74Google Scholar
Ives, J., Becoming a Father/Refusing Fatherhood: How Paternal Responsibilities and Rights are Generated. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham (July 2007)Google Scholar
Jackson, E., ‘Case Commentary – Prisoners, Their Partners and the Right to Family life’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 19(2) (2007), 239–46Google Scholar
Jacobs, M., ‘Why Just Two? Disaggregating Traditional Parental Rights and Responsibility to Recognize Multiple Parents’, Journal of Law and Family Studies, 9 (2007), 309–40Google Scholar
James, A., ‘Parents: A Children’s Perspective’ in Bainham, A., Day Sclater, S. and Richards, M. (eds.), What Is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis (Hart, 1999), pp. 181–95Google Scholar
Jänterä-Jareborg, M., ‘Parenthood for Same-Sex Couples – Scandinavian Developments’ in Boele-Woelki, K. and Fuchs, A. (eds.), Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in Europe – National, Cross-Border and European Perspectives (Intersentia, 2012), pp. 91–122Google Scholar
Jennings, S., Mellish, L., Casey, P., Tasker, F., Lamb, M. and Golombok, S., ‘Why Adoption? Gay, Lesbian and Heterosexual Adoptive Parents’ Reasons for Adoptive Parenthood’, Adoption Quarterly, 17 (3) (2014), 205–26.Google Scholar
Johansson, T. and Andreasson, J., Fatherhood in Transition – Masculinity, Identity and Everyday Life (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017)Google Scholar
Johnson, M., ‘A Biological Perspective on Parenthood’ in Bainham, A., Day Sclater, S. and Richards, M. (eds.), What Is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis (Hart, 1999), pp. 47–72Google Scholar
Johnson, P., ‘“An Essentially Private Manifestation of Human Personality”: Constructions of Homosexuality in the European Court of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review, 10 (2010), 67–97Google Scholar
Johnson, P., ‘Adoption, Homosexuality and the European Convention on Human Rights: Gas and Dubois v France’, Modern Law Review, 75(6) (2012), 1136–49Google Scholar
Johnson, P., ‘Challenging the Heteronormativity of Marriage: The Role of Judicial Interpretation and Authority’, Social and Legal Studies, 20 (2011), 349–67Google Scholar
Johnson, P., ‘Heteronormativity and the European Court of Human Rights’, Law and Critique, 23 (2012), 43–66Google Scholar
Johnson, P., ‘Marriage, Heteronormativity, and the European Court of Human Rights: A Reappraisal’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 29 (2015), 56–77Google Scholar
Johnson, P., ‘X and Others v Austria’, ECHR Blog, 21 February 2013, online at http://echrblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/x-v-austria-judgment.html (last access on 15 February 2019)Google Scholar
Kaganas, F. and Day Sclater, S., ‘Contact Disputes: Narrative Constructions of “Good” Parents’, Feminist Legal Studies, 12(1) (2004), 1–27Google Scholar
Kapotas, P. and Tzvelekos, V. P. (eds.), Building Consensus on European Consensus: Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 2019)Google Scholar
Khaliq, U., ‘Transsexuals in the European Court of Human Rights: X, Y and Z v UK’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 49(2) (1998), 191–201Google Scholar
Kilkelly, U., ‘Protecting Children’s Rights under the ECHR: The Role of Positive Obligations’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 61(3) (2010), 245–61Google Scholar
Knijn, T. and Selten, P., ‘Transformations of Fatherhood: The Netherlands’ in Hobson, B. (ed.), Making Men into Fathers – Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 168–88Google Scholar
Kratochvíl, J., ‘The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(3) (2011), 324–57Google Scholar
Krause, H., ‘Comparative Family Law: Past Traditions Battle Future Trends – and Viceversa’ in Reimann, M. and Zimmermann, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 1099–128Google Scholar
LaRossa, R., The Modernization of Fatherhood: A Social and Political History (University of Chicago Press, 1997)Google Scholar
Lau, H., ‘Rewriting Schalk and Kopf: Shifting the Locus of Deference’ in Brems, E. (ed.), Diversity and Human Rights: Rewriting Judgments of the ECHR (Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 243–64Google Scholar
Lavrysen, L., Human Rights in a Positive State – Rethinking the Relationship between Positive and Negative Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (Intersentia, 2016)Google Scholar
Lavrysen, L., ‘The Scope of Rights and the Scope of Obligations – Positive Obligations’ in Brems and Gerards (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 162–82Google Scholar
Letsas, G., ‘The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy’ in Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. and Ulfstein, G. (eds.), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 106–41Google Scholar
Letsas, G., A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar
Lev, A. I., ‘Gay Dads. Choosing Surrogacy’, Gay and Lesbian Psychology Review, 7(1) (2006), pp. 73–7Google Scholar
Levinet, M., ‘Couple et vie familiale’ in Sudre, F. (ed.), Le droit au respect de la vie familiale dans la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (Nemesis-Bruylant, 2002), pp. 107–60Google Scholar
Levit, N., ‘Feminism for Men: Legal Ideology and the Construction of Maleness’, UCLA Law Review, 43 (1996), 1037–116Google Scholar
Lewin, E., ‘Family Values: Gay Men and Adoption in America’ in Wegar, K. (ed.), Adoptive Families in a Diverse Society (Rutgers University Press, 2006), pp. 129–45Google Scholar
Lewis, J., ‘The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: Implications for Work and Care’, Social Politics, 8(2) (2001), 152–69Google Scholar
Liddy, J., ‘The Concept of Family Life under the ECHR’, European Human Rights Law Review, 1 (1998), 15–25Google Scholar
Lim, E., ‘Of “Landmark” or “Leading” Cases: Salomon’s Challenge’, Journal of Law and Society, 41(4) (2014), 523–50Google Scholar
Lind, C., ‘Evans v United Kingdom – Judgments of Solomon: Power, Gender and Procreation’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 18 (2006), 576–92Google Scholar
Lo, W. and Campo-Engelstein, L., ‘Expanding the Clinical Definition of Infertility to Include Socially Infertile Individuals and Couples’ in Campo-Engelstein, L. and Burcher, P. (eds.), Reproductive Ethics II – New Ideas and Innovations (Springer, 2018), pp. 71–83Google Scholar
Lõhmus, K., Caring Autonomy: European Human Rights Law and the Challenge of Individualism (Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar
Lord Lester of Herne Hill, ‘The European Convention in the New Architecture of Europe’, Public Law, Spring (1996), 5–10Google Scholar
Macdonald, R., ‘The Margin of Appreciation’ in Macdonald, R., Matscher, F. and Petzold, H. (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (1993), pp. 83–124Google Scholar
Mahoney, P., ‘The Comparative Method in Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Reference Back to National Law’ in Canivet, G., Andenas, M. and Fairgrieve, D. (eds.), Comparative Law before the Courts (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2004), pp. 135–50Google Scholar
Mahoney, P., ‘Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin’, Human Rights Law Journal, 11 (1–2) (1990), 57–88Google Scholar
Mahoney, P., ‘Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism’, Human Rights Law Journal, 19(1) (1998), 1–6Google Scholar
Margaria, A., ‘“New Fathers” and the Right to Parental Leave: Is the European Court of Human Rights Satisfied with Just Breadwinning?’ in Harding, R., Fletcher, R. and Beasley, C. (eds.). ReValuing Care in Theory, Law and Policy: Cycles and Connections (Routledge, 2017), pp. 131–47Google Scholar
Margaria, A., Nuove Forme di Filiazione e Genitorialità: Leggi e Giudici di fronte alle Nuove Realtà (Il Mulino, 2018)Google Scholar
Matscher, F., ‘Methods of Interpretation of the Convention’ in Macdonald, R. and Petzold, H. (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff, 1993), pp. 63–81Google Scholar
Maurer, T. and Pleck, J., ‘Fathers’ Caregiving and Breadwinning: A Gender Congruence Analysis’, Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7(2) (2006), 101–12Google Scholar
May, A. and Tenzek, K., ‘“A Gift We Are Unable to Create Ourselves”: Uncertainty Reduction in Online Classified Ads Posted by Gay Men Pursuing Surrogacy’, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12(5) (2016), 430–50Google Scholar
May, V. and Smart, C., ‘Silence in Court? Hearing Children in Residence and Contact Disputes’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 16(3) (2004), 305–15Google Scholar
McCandless, J. and Sheldon, S., ‘The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008) and the Tenacity of the Sexual Family Form’, Modern Law Review, 73(2) (2010), 175–207Google Scholar
McColgan, A., ‘Principle of Equality and Protection from Discrimination in International Human Rights Law’, European Human Rights Law Review, 2 (2003), 157–76Google Scholar
McGlynn, C., Families and the European Union – Law, Policy and Pluralism (Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
McGlynn, C., ‘Ideologies of Motherhood in European Community Sex Equality Law’, European Law Journal, 6 (2000), 29–44Google Scholar
McGoldrick, D., ‘Religion in the European Public Square and in European Public Life – Crucifixes in the Classroom?, Human Rights Law Review, 11(3) (2011), 451–502Google Scholar
Meyer, E., ‘Gay Fathers: Disrupting Sex Stereotyping and Challenging the Father-Promotion Crusade’, Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 22(2) (2011), 479–529Google Scholar
Mowbray, A., ‘Between the Will of the Contracting States and the Needs of Today – Extending the Scope of Convention Rights and Freedoms Beyond what Could Have Been Foreseen by the Drafters of the ECHR’ in Brems, E. and Gerards, J. (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR – The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 17–37Google Scholar
Mowbray, A., The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights Law Review, 5(1) (2005), 57–79Google Scholar
Mowbray, A., The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (Hart, 2004)Google Scholar
Müller-Freienfels, W., ‘The Unification of Family Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 16(1/2) (1968), 175–218Google Scholar
Mulligan, A., ‘Identity Rights and Sensitive Ethical Questions: The European Convention on Human Rights and the Regulation of Surrogacy Arrangements’, Medical Law Review, 26(3) (2018), 449–75Google Scholar
Nelson, T., Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (Psychology Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Nelson, K., ‘Reproductive Ethics and the Family’, New Zealand Bioethics Journal, 1(1) (2000), 4–10Google Scholar
Ní Shúilleabháin, M., ‘Surrogacy, System Shopping, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 33(1) (2019), 104–22Google Scholar
Nikolaidis, C., The Right to Equality in European Human Rights Law – The Quest for Substance in the Jurisprudence of the European Courts (Routledge, 2015)Google Scholar
Norton, W., Hudson, N. and Culley, L., ‘Gay Men Seeking Surrogacy to Achieve Parenthood’, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 27 (2013), 271–79Google Scholar
Nozawa, J., ‘Drawing the Line: Same-Sex Adoption and the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR on the Application of the “European consensus” Standard under Article 14’, Merkourios – Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 29 (77) (2013), 66–75Google Scholar
O’Connell, R., ‘Cinderella Comes to the Ball: Article 14 and the Right to Non-Discrimination in the ECHR’, Legal Studies, 29(2) (2009), 211–29Google Scholar
O’Mahony, C., ‘Irreconcilable Differences? Article 8 ECHR and Irish Law on Non-Traditional Families’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26(1) (2012), 31–61Google Scholar
Ostner, I., ‘A New Role for Fathers? The German Case’ in Hobson, B. (ed.), Making Men into Fathers – Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of Fatherhood (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 150–67Google Scholar
Pavlich, G., ‘Paradigmatic Case’ in Mills, A. J., Durepos, G. and Wiebe, E. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, vol II (Sage, 2010), pp. 645–47Google Scholar
Peroni, L. and Timmer, A., ‘Gender Stereotyping in Domestic Violence Cases – An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence’ in Brems, E. and Timmer, A. (eds.), Stereotypes and Human Rights Law (Intersentia, 2016), pp. 39–66Google Scholar
Perreau, B., The Politics of Adoption – Gender and the Making of French Citizenship (MIT Press, 2014)Google Scholar
Plantin, L., Back-Wiklund, M., Kovacheva, S. and Guerreiro, M., ‘Comparing Transitions to Fatherhood Across Contexts’ in Nilsen, A., Brannen, J. and Lewis, S. (eds.), Transitions to Parenthood in Europe – A Comparative Life Course Perspective (Policy Press, 2012), pp. 67–88Google Scholar
Plantin, L., Mansson, S. and Kearney, J., ‘Talking and Doing Fatherhood: On Fatherhood and Masculinity in Sweden and England’, Fathering, 1(1) (2003), 3–24Google Scholar
Pleck, J., ‘American Fathering in Historical Perspective’ in Kimmel, M. (ed.), Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity (Sage, 1987), pp. 83–97Google Scholar
Pleck, J., ‘Fatherhood and Masculinity’ in Lamb, M. (ed.), The Role of the Father in Child Development (Wiley, 2010), pp. 27–57Google Scholar
Polikoff, N., ‘Recognising Partners but Not Parents/Recognising Parents but Not Partners: Gay and Lesbian Family Law in Europe and the United States’, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, 17 (2000–2001), 711–51Google Scholar
Rainey, B., Wicks, E. and Ovey, C., Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th edn (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar
Rainey, B., Wicks, E. and Ovey, C., Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 7th edn (Oxford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar
Rao, R., ‘Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Threat to the Traditional Family’, Hastings Law Journal, 47 (1996), 951–66Google Scholar
Rhoades, H., ‘The Rise and Rise of Shared Parenting Laws – A Critical Reflection’, Canadian Journal of Family Law, 19 (2002), 75–113Google Scholar
Rubio Marín, R., ‘A New European Parity–Democracy Sex Equality Model and Why It won’t Fly in the United States’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 60 (2012), 99–126Google Scholar
Ruddick, S., ‘The Idea of Fatherhood’ in Nelson, H. L. (ed.), Feminism and Families (Routledge, 1997), pp. 205–20Google Scholar
Ruspini, E., Diversity in Family Life – Gender, Relationships and Social Change (Policy Press, 2013)Google Scholar
Ruspini, E. and Crespi, I., Balancing Work and Family in a Changing Society: The Fathers’ Perspective (Palgrave, 2016)Google Scholar
Ryan, C., ‘Europe’s Moral Margin: Parental Aspirations and the European Court of Human Rights’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 56 (2018), 467–523Google Scholar
Sabatello, M., ‘Are the Kids All Right? A Child-Centred Approach to Assisted Reproductive Technologies’, Netherlands Quarterly Human Rights, 31(1) (2013), 74–98Google Scholar
Sadl, U. and Panagis, Y., ‘What Is a Leading Case in EU law? An Empirical Analysis’, European Law Review, 40(1) (2015), 15–34Google Scholar
Scherpe, J. M. (ed.), European Family Law – Family Law in a European Perspective, vol. III (Edward Elgar, 2016)Google Scholar
Scherpe, J. M. (ed.), European Family Law – The Impact of Institutions and Organisations on European Family Law, vol. I (Edward Elgar, 2016)Google Scholar
Scherpe, J. M. (ed.), European Family Law – The Present and the Future of European Family Law, vol. IV (Edward Elgar, 2016)Google Scholar
Scherpe, J. M., ‘Medically Assisted Procreation: This Margin Needs to Be Appreciated – ECtHR, Grand Chamber 3. 11.2011 (S.H. and Others v Austria)’, Cambridge Law Journal, (2012), 276–79Google Scholar
Schokkenbroek, J., ‘The Prohibition of Discrimination in Article 14 of the Convention and the Margin of Appreciation’, Human Rights Law Review, 19(1) (1998), 20–34Google Scholar
Scott, J. and Clery, E., ‘Gender Roles: An Incomplete Revolution?’ in Park, A., Bryson, C., Clery, E., Curtice, J. and Phillips, M. (eds.), British Social Attitudes: The 30th Report, online at http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38723/bsa30_full_report_final.pdf (last access on 15 February 2019)Google Scholar
Sevenhuijsen, S., ‘The Gendered Juridification of Parenthood’, Social and Legal Studies, 1(1) (1992), 71–83Google Scholar
Shany, Y., ‘Towards a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law ?’, European Journal of International Law, 16(5) (2005), 907–40Google Scholar
Sharp, L., ‘Blood Ties, Bioethics and the Bright-Line of the Law’ in Feuillet-Liger, B., Callus, T. and Orfali, K. (eds.), Reproductive Technology and Changing Perceptions of Parenthood Around the World (Bruylant, 2014), pp. 15–18Google Scholar
Sheldon, S., ‘Fragmenting Fatherhood: The Regulation of Reproductive Technologies’, Modern Law Review, 68 (2005), 523–53Google Scholar
Sheldon, S., ‘From “Absent Objects of Blame” to “Fathers Who Want to Take the Responsibility”: Reforming Birth Registration Law’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 31(4) (2009), 373–89Google Scholar
Shultz, M. M., ‘Reproductive Technology and Intent-based Parenthood: An Opportunity for Gender Neutrality’, Wisconsin Law Review, (1990), 297–398Google Scholar
Simpson, B., Jessup, J. and McCarthy, P., ‘Fathers after Divorce’ in Bainham, A., Lindley, B., Richards, M. and Trinder, L. (eds.), Children and Their Families: Contact, Rights and Welfare (Hart, 2003), pp. 201–22Google Scholar
Singh, R., ‘Is There a Role for the “Margin of Appreciation” in National Law after the Human Rights Act?’, European Human Rights Law Review, 1 (1999), 15–22Google Scholar
Smart, C., ‘Equal Shares: Rights for Fathers of Recognition for Children?’, Critical Social Policy, 24(4) (2004), 484–503Google Scholar
Smart, C., ‘Making Kin: Relationality and Law’ in Bottomley, A. and Wong, S., Changing Contours of Domestic Life, Family and Law – Caring and Sharing (Hart, 2009), pp. 7–23Google Scholar
Smart, C. and Neale, B., ‘“It’s My Life Too” – Children’s Perspectives on Post-Divorce Parenting’, Family Law, 30 (2000), 163–69Google Scholar
Smet, S., ‘X and Others v Austria (Part II): A Narrow Ruling on a Narrow Issue’, Strasbourg Observers, 6 March 2013, online at https://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/03/06/x-and-others-v-austria-part-ii-a-narrow-ruling-on-a-narrow-issue/ (last access on 15 February 2019)Google Scholar
Smith, L., ‘Clashing Symbols? Reconciling Support for Fathers and Fatherless Families after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 22 (2010), 46–70Google Scholar
Stalford, H., ‘Concepts of Family Law under EU Law – Lessons from the ECHR’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 16 (2002), 410–34Google Scholar
Strathern, M., After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century (Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar
Suk, J., ‘Are Gender Stereotypes Bad for Women? Rethinking Antidiscrimination Law and Work-Family Reconciliation’, Columbia Law Review, 110(1) (2010), 1–69Google Scholar
Suk, J., ‘From Antidiscrimination to Equality: Stereotypes and the Life Cycle in the United States and Europe’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 75 (2012), 75–98Google Scholar
Swennen, F. and Croce, M., ‘Family (Law) Assemblages: New Modes of Being (Legal)’, Journal of Law and Society, 44(4) (2017), 532–58Google Scholar
Timmer, A., ‘From Inclusion to Transformation: Rewriting Konstantin Markin v Russia’ in Brems, E. (ed.), Diversity and European Human Rights: Rewriting Judgments of the ECHR (Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 148–69Google Scholar
Timmer, A., ‘Toward an Anti-Stereotyping Approach for the European Court of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review, 11(4) (2011), 707–38Google Scholar
Tobin, B., ‘The European Court of Human Rights’ Inconsistent and Incoherent Approach to Second-Parent Adoption’, European Human Rights Law Review, 1 (2017), 59–67Google Scholar
Tobin, J. and McNair, R., ‘Public International Law and the Regulation of Private Spaces: Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child Impose an Obligation on States to Allow Gay and Lesbian to Adopt?’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 23(1) (2009), 110–31Google Scholar
Toulemon, L., ‘Fifty Years of Family Change in Europe: Diversifying Partnerships’, in Mortelmans, D., Matthijs, K., Alofs, E. and Segaert, B. (eds.), Changing Family Dynamics and Demographic Evolution – The Family Kaleidoscope (Edward Elgar, 2016), pp. 25–49Google Scholar
Townsend, N., The Package Deal: Marriage, Work, and Fatherhood in Men’s Lives (Temple University Press, 2004)Google Scholar
Van den Eynde, L., ‘Selecting Landmark Cases’, Strasbourg Observers, 28 August 2015, online at https://strasbourgobservers.com/2015/08/28/selecting-landmark-cases/ (last access on 11 February 2019)Google Scholar
van der Schyff, G., ‘Interpreting the Protection Guaranteed by Two-Stage Rights in the European Convention on Human Rights’ in Brems, E. and Gerards, J. (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR – The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 65–83Google Scholar
Wallbank, J., ‘“Bodies in the Shadows”: Joint Birth Registration, Parental Responsibility and Social Class’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 21(3) (2009), 267–82Google Scholar
Wallbank, J., ‘(En)gendering the Fusion of Rights and Responsibilities in the Law of Contact’ in Wallbank, J., Choudhry, S. and Herring, J. (eds.), Rights, Gender and Family Law (Routledge-Cavendish, 2009), pp. 93–118Google Scholar
Weiler, J., The Constitution of Europe – “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?” and Other Essays on European Integration (Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar
Weldon-Johns, M., ‘EU Work-Family Policies – Challenging Parental Roles or Reinforcing Gendered Stereotypes?’, European Law Journal, 19(5) (2013), 662–81Google Scholar
Wiegers, W., ‘Fatherhood and Misattributed Genetic Paternity in Family Law’, Queen’s Law Journal, 36 (2010–2011), pp. 623–72Google Scholar
Wikeley, N. J., ‘Same Sex Couples, Family Life and Child Support’, Law Quarterly Review, 122 (2006), 542–47Google Scholar
Wildhaber, L., ‘The European Court of Human Rights in Action’, Ritsumeikan Law Review, 21 (2004), 83–92Google Scholar
Wildhaber, L., Hjartarson, A. and Donnelly, S., ‘No Consensus on Consensus? The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Journal, 33 (7–12) (2013), 248–63Google Scholar
Williams, J., Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It (Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar
Williams, J. and Segal, N., ‘Beyond the Maternal Wall: Relief for Family Caregivers Who Are Discriminated against on the Job’, Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 26 (2003), 77–162Google Scholar
Wintemute, R., ‘Strasbourg to the Rescue/Same-Sex Partners and Parents under the European Convention’ in Wintemute, R. and Andenaes, M., (eds.), Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships – A Study of National, European and International Law (Hart, 2001), pp. 713–29Google Scholar
Wintemute, R., ‘“Within the Ambit”: How Big Is the “Gap” in Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights? Part 1, European Human Rights Law Review, 4 (2004), 366–82Google Scholar
Xenos, D., The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention on Human Rights (Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar
Yodanis, C., ‘Divorce Culture and Marital Gender Equality’, Gender and Society, 19(5) (2005), 644–59Google Scholar
Yourow, H., The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Human Rights Jurisprudence (Kluwer Law International, 1996)Google Scholar
Zwart, ‘More Human Rights Than Court: Why the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights Is in Need of Repair and How It Can Be Done’ in Flogaitis, S., Zwart, T. and Fraser, J. (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights and Its Discontents – Turning Criticism into Strength (Edward Elgar, 2013), pp. 71–95Google Scholar