La présente étude porte sur l’expérience vécue par les parents pendant une expertise en matière de garde d’enfant et de droits d’accès. Elle vise une meilleure compréhension de l’expérience des parents qui rencontrent un expert pour l’évaluation de leurs capacités parentales au nom du meilleur intérêt de leur enfant. Elle souhaite provoquer une réflexion des intervenants des milieux social et juridique sur les pratiques d’expertise, sur leur éthique et sur leur renouvellement. Il s’agit d’une étude qualitative de nature exploratoire. Les données proviennent d’entrevues semi-dirigées réalisées auprès de vingt parents, dix mères et dix pères. Ces parents ont été évalués par les experts du Service d’expertise psychosociale du Centre jeunesse de Montréal. L’analyse des données recueillies a été réalisée à partir de l’approche phénoménologique et de la méthode d’analyse de contenu. Les résultats permettent d’observer qu’en participant à une expertise psychosociale, les parents sont confrontés à un haut niveau de risque dans une relation de pouvoir avec l’expert où ils aspirent à être reconnus compétents en conformité avec la norme sociale régissant le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant. Le tiers des parents rencontrés ont été satisfaits de leur expérience, ce qui les a validés dans leur perception de la réalité ou restaurés dans leur dignité. Les deux tiers des parents rencontrés ont été insatisfaits de leur expérience, ce qui a confirmé leurs craintes quant aux comportements inadéquats de l’autre parent et alimenté une perte de confiance envers le système de justice. Ils ont eu l’impression d’avoir été invalidés et ont développé de l’amertume contre l’expert qui n’a pas répondu à leurs attentes et n’a pas su capter correctement, selon eux, leur dynamique familiale. Cette étude permet de comprendre l’importance primordiale pour le parent de la conservation ou de la restauration de sa dignité parentale. Par ailleurs, elle soulève la question du savoir-être et du savoir-faire des experts. La teneur critique des propos des parents face à certains experts oblige à une réflexion sérieuse sur les attitudes et les pratiques des experts en matière de garde d’enfant et de droits d’accès. / This study focuses on the experience of parents who have undergone an expertise in child custody and access rights. It seeks a better understanding of the experience lived by parents who meet with an expert to assess their parenting skills in regard with the best interest of their child. It aims to prompt stakeholders in the social and legal practices of expertise to reflect on their ethics and the improvement of their practices. This is an exploratory qualitative study. The data come from semi-directed interviews conducted with twenty parents, including ten mothers and ten fathers. These parents were evaluated by experts of the Service d'expertise psychosociale du Centre jeunesse de Montréal. Data analysis was carried out using the phenomenological approach and the method of content analysis. Results indicate that by participating in a psychosocial evaluation, parents are faced with a high level of risk in a power relationship with the expert, in which they aspire to be recognized as competent in accordance with social norms governing the best interest of their child. A third of the interviewed parents were satisfied with their experience, which has validated their perception of reality or restored their dignity. Two thirds of interviewed parents were however dissatisfied with their experience, which confirmed their fears about the inappropriate behaviour of the other parent and aggravated a loss of confidence in the justice system. These parents had the impression of having been invalidated and have developed some bitterness against the expert who did not meet their expectations and did not properly grasp, according to them, the family dynamics. This study helps understand the paramount importance for parents to preserve or restore their parental dignity. It also raises questions on the competency and adequacy of the experts. The critical views of the expertise that many parents shared emphasize the necessity for the experts to seriously hreview their attitude and practices in child custody and access rights.

Harming the dignity of the learner; refusing to hear his side of the story; neglecting to help him retrieve his stolen property : such are the unfortunate occurrences at many South African schools, and such are the experiences that have led to this research. Dedicated educators sometimes default, leaving their wronged learners out m the cold. The questions are therefore: • What causes this conduct of educators and why does it recur? • Is it ignorance of their legal position? • Is it insensitivity to common law principles and statutory provisions? • Is it sheer carelessness? Mindful of the introduction of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996, wh1ch contains the long-awaited Bill of Fundamental Rights, this study has been undertaken to give an educational-juridical perspective of the educator-learner relationship 1n South African public schools by means of a literature study and an elementary legal comparative study. Various legal terms which influence the educator-learner relationship significantly are defined. In conjunction with the private law status of the learner, the position of the learner within the school system, and the fundamental rights of the learner in the context of the administration of justice are identified and dealt with in so far as they have any bearing on the educator-learner relationship, Moreover, the legal determinants of the educator-learner relationship and the educator's duty of care are pinpointed to determine their significance in an accountable, responsive and open educator-learner relationship, A comparative school law perspective of the sources of school law, the duties and responsibilities of educators, the fundamental rights and legal obligations of the learner, the educator's duty of care, discipline and legal liability in England and Wales, Canada, Japan, and South Africa is presented in terms of similarities and differences, Attention is paid to the necessity of informing educators and learners concerning their respective rights and duties, in order to develop accountable, responsive and open educator-learner relationships in South African schools, / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 2000

Text in Afrikaans, abstract in English / Writer investigates the constitutionality of section 18(4)(d) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 against the backdrop of the South African common law and the common law of comparative legal systems. In the South Africa law the mother of an illegitimate child has guardianship. The natural father does not have parental power which weakens his legal position. In analysing the judgement of the Constitutional Court, writer criticises the court for stating that in the case of a newborn baby the kind of discrimination which section 18( 4 )( d) authorises against a natural father may be justifiable in the initial period after the child is born. The constitutional position of the natural father in American jurisprudence is discussed at length. Writer concludes that the natural father has to take positive steps to vest a right to be heard in an adoption application. Proposals for legal reform are also made. / Private Law / LL. M. (Law)

Annexure E: Criminal Capacity Check List (pages 61-62) is in English. The Afrikaans or Xhosa version of this document is also available on request / The aim of this explorative and descriptive study was to establish if criminologists could assist in the criminal capacity assessment of children in conflict with the law. A qualitative approach was utilised in order to obtain an in-depth understanding of the current criminal capacity assessment process and the role players involved in the process. Data were collected by means of a semi-structured interview schedule. Individual and focus group interviews were conducted with child justice practitioners. Purposive sampling was employed and data were analysed according to the methods of Rabiee as well as Morse and Field. The findings of this study indicate that the current one-dimensional medico-legal assessment approach is not in the best interest of the child. A shortage of human resources, ineffective assessment tools, inadequate training of role players, and operational problems in the criminal capacity assessment process, are all factors that hamper a successful child-centred approach. A multi-disciplinary approach was found to be the most suitable approach to assess children in conflict with the law. It was concluded that professionals from disciplines such as social work, criminology, probation work, psychology and psychiatry should form part of the multi-disciplinary criminal capacity assessment team. The important role that criminologists can play as part of this team was acknowledged in this study. It was furthermore established that the role and function of criminologists, as well as the study field of criminology, are still unfamiliar to various practitioners in the human sciences professions. Criminologists are also still regarded as crime researchers with limited practical applications in areas of the Criminal Justice System. / Criminology and Security Science / M.A. (Criminology)

The aim of the master thesis is described the issue of contact of children in temporary foster care. The theoretical part describes temporary foster care and other forms of foster care. The theoretical part is focused on the status of birth family, foster parents and their support services. There are mentioned reasons for placing the child to the foster family. The master thesis contains current facts from this area in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary. In the practical part there are used qualitative methods, namely semi-structured interviews and case reports. The purpose of these methods is to show the possibilities, advantages and limitations and recommendations regarding the contact of children in temporary foster care with their birth family.

Syftet med studien är att bidra med kunskap kring hur diskurser konkurrerar om vad som är barns bästa och hur dessa styr tingsrättens beslut vid vårdnadstvister när det finns uppgifter om pappans våld mot mamma och eventuellt barn. Det empiriska materialet utgick ifrån 14 domar där det fanns uppgifter om pappans våld inom familjen. Tingsrätten hade som uppgift att döma huruvida vårdnaden skulle vara gemensam eller ensam för föräldrarnas gemensamma barn. Studien är kvalitativ och Norman Faircloughs diskursanalys används både som teori och metod tillsammans med socialkonstruktionism, med betoning på genus som social konstruktion. Resultatet i studien visar på två diskurser som tingsrätten motiverar sina beslut utifrån, där båda syftar till att argumentera eller göra trovärdigt vad som är för barnets bästa. I ”behovsdiskursen” betonas vikten av en god och nära relation till båda föräldrarna, emedan ”riskdiskursen” betonar risken för att barnet kan fara illa. Dessa två diskurser påverkar domstolens syn på föräldrarnas samarbete, vilket i sin tur påverkar tingsrättens beslut om gemensam respektive ensam vårdnad. Även på vilket sätt tingsrätten tar upp våldet och benämner våldet påverkas också utifrån vilken av de två diskurserna som råder. Inom behovsdiskursen bedömdes samarbetet som tillräckligt bra vid minsta möjliga tecken på att föräldrarna kunde enas i olika gemensamma beslut rörande barnet, vilket resulterade i gemensam vårdnad. Uppgifter om våld från pappan omformulerades eller omnämndes aldrig, vilket gjorde att våldet inom behovsdiskursen förminskades och fick en underordnad betydelse. Inom riskdiskursen bedömdes det svåra samarbetet mellan föräldrarna utgöra en risk för att barnet skulle fara illa, vilket gjorde att utfallet här blev ensam vårdnad. Inom riskdiskursen synliggjordes och problematiserades våldet i mycket högre grad. / The purpose of the study is to contribute with knowledge about how discourses compete for what is in the best interests of the child and how these govern the district court's decisions in custody disputes when there is information about the father's violence against the mother and any children. The empirical material was based on 14 judgments where there was information about the father's violence within the family. The district court's task was to judge whether custody should be joint or single for the parents' common children. The study is qualitative and Norman Fairclough's discourse analysis is used both as a theory and method together with social constructionism with emphasis on a gender perspective as an additional theory. The results of the study show two discourses from which the district court justifies its decisions, there both aim to argue or make credible what is in the best interests of the child. The “Discourse of needs” emphasizes the importance of a good and close relationship with both parents, while the “Discourse of risk” emphasizes the risk that the child may be harmed. The court's reasoning regarding the parents' cooperation is affected by which of the two discourses prevails. The way in which they address the violence and denominates it violence is also affected on the basis of the discourse on which the court is based. Violence tended to be deminished in both discourses, however, it became clear within the discourse of needs.

The aim of this explorative and descriptive study was to develop an action plan for criminologists to become specialised practitioners within the South African child justice system. An exploratory, sequential, mixed-methods approach was used, where data was collected during the first phase using a self-administered, semi-structured questionnaire, including closed- and open-ended questions. The questionnaire was distributed to members of the Criminological Society of Africa (CRIMSA), as well as criminologists, magistrates, and other experts in the field of child law, known to the researcher. Sixteen questions were posed to collect data, consisting of nine Likert scale questions and seven open-ended questions. A semi-structured interview schedule was employed during the second phase of the study, to conduct 22 face-to-face and telephonic interviews with experts in the field of child law, probation officers, social workers, and criminologists. Descriptive data analysis was utilised during the first, and thematic analysis during the second phase of this study. The findings indicate that the absence of a regulating, professional body, limits career opportunities for criminologists as far as exercising their skills in practice. Furthermore, it was established that the role and function of criminologists, and the academic field of criminology, remain unfamiliar to various practitioners in the human science professions. Subsequently, criminologists are often considered mere crime researchers with limited applied skills for use in the South African criminal justice system. Though it was proven that, at least to some degree the academic training of criminologists is deficient, it was established that criminologists have a unique skill-set that places them in a unique position to execute various functions within the child justice sector as part of a multi-disciplinary team. Findings suggest that the Child Justice Act (75 of 2008) should be amended to facilitate the inclusion of criminologists in the South African child justice sector. / Die doel van hierdie verkennende en beskrywende studie was om ʼn aksieplan vir kriminoloë te ontwikkel om hulle in staat te stel om gespesialiseerde praktisyns in die Suid-Afrikaanse kindergeregtigheidstelsel te word. ʼn Verkennende, opeenvolgende, gemengdemetode-benadering is gebruik waar data gedurende die eerste fase ingesamel is deur middel van ’n selfgeadministreerde vraelys, wat geslote en oop vrae ingesluit het. Die vraelys is versprei onder lede van die Kriminologiese Vereniging van Suider-Afrika (CRIMSA), asook kriminoloë, landdroste en ander kundiges op die gebied van kinderreg wat aan die navorser bekend is. Altesame 16 vrae is gestel om data in te samel, wat uit nege Likert-skaalvrae en sewe oop vrae bestaan het. ’n Halfgestruktureerde onderhoudrooster is gedurende die tweede fase van die studie gebruik om 22 onderhoude van aangesig tot aangesig asook telefoniese onderhoude met kundiges op die gebied van kinderreg, proefbeamptes, maatskaplike werkers en kriminoloë te voer. Beskrywende dataontleding is gedurende die eerste, en tematiese ontleding gedurende die tweede fase van hierdie studie gebruik. Die bevindings dui aan dat die afwesigheid van ’n regulatoriese, professionele liggaam loopbaangeleenthede vir kriminoloë beperk wat die uitoefening van hul vaardighede in die praktyk betref. Daar is voorts vasgestel dat die rol en funksie van kriminoloë, en die akademiese gebied van kriminologie, onbekend aan verskeie praktisyns in die geesteswetenskapberoepe is. Kriminoloë word gevolglik dikwels bloot as navorsers met beperkte toegepaste vaardighede vir gebruik in die Suid-Afrikaanse strafregspleging beskou. Hoewel bewys is dat die akademiese opleiding van kriminoloë in ’n mate ontoereikend is, is vasgestel dat kriminoloë ’n unieke stel vaardighede besit wat hulle in ’n unieke posisie plaas om as deel van ’n multidissiplinêre span verskeie funksies in die kindergeregtigheidsektor uit te voer. Bevindings dui daarop dat die “Child Justice Act” 75 van 2008 gewysig behoort te word om vir die insluiting van kriminoloë in die Suid-Afrikaanse kindergeregtigheidsektor voorsiening te maak. / Sepheo sa phuputso ena ya kutullo le tlhaloso e ne e le ho hlahisa morero wa ketso bakeng sa ditsebi tsa tsa botlokotsebe hore ebe basebetsi ba ikgethang sistiming ya Afrika Borwa ya toka ya bana. Ho latetswe katamelo ya kutullo, ya mekgwa e kopaneng e latellanang. Tlhahisoleseding e bokelleditswe nakong ya mokgahlelo wa pele wa phuputso ho sebediswa lethathamo le dipotso le iketsetswang, le nang le sebopeho se sa fellang le nang le dipotso tse kwetsweng le tse butsweng. Lethathamo la dipotso le fuwe ditho tsa Mokgatlo wa Ditsebi tsa tsa Botlokotsebe le Ditsebi tsa tsa ho ba Phofu wa Afrika e Borwa (Criminological Society of Southern Africa (CRIMSA)), hammoho le ditsebi tse ding tsa tsa botlokotsebe, bommasterata le ditsebi tse ding lekaleng la molao wa bana. Ho botsitswe dipotso tse 16 ho bokella tlhahisoleseding; di ne di kenyelletsa dipotso tse robong tsa Likert-scale le tse supileng tse butsweng. Tlhophiso ya sebopeho se sa fellang ya inthavu e sebedisitswe mokgahlelong wa bobedi wa phuputso ho etsa diinthavu tsa phuputso tsa batho ba shebaneng mahlong le tsa mohaleng le ditsebi lekaleng la molao wa bana, diofisiri tsa batshwaruwa ba sa tswa lokollwa, di-social worker le ditsebi tsa tsa botlokotsebe. Manollo ya tlhaloso ya datha e sebedisitswe nakong ya mokgahlelo wa pele wa phuputso le manollo ya ditema nakong ya mokgahlelo wa bobedi. Diphetho di supa hore tlhokeho ya setheo se laolang sa seprofeshenale e sitisa menyetla ya mesebetsi ya ditsebi tsa tsa botlokotsebe hobane e kgina menyetla ya bona ya ho sebedisa ditsebo tsa bona tshebetsong. Ho feta moo, ho fumanwe hore mosebetsi wa ditsebi tsa tsa botlokotsebe, lekala la dithuto lefapheng la tsa botlokotsebe, di ntse di sa tsebahale ho basebetsi ba fapaneng diprofesheneng tsa mahlale a botho. Ka lebaka leo, ditsebi tsa tsa botlokotsebe hangata di nkwa e le bafuputsi feela ba tsa botlokotsebe ba nang le botsebi bo itseng ba ka nkang karolo sistiming ya Afrika Borwa ya toka ya botlokotsebe. Leha ho ile hwa pakwa hore thupelo dithutong tsa ditsebi tsa tsa botlokotsebe e ya fokola ka tsela e itseng, ho fumanwe hore ditsebi tsa tsa botlokotsebe di na le bokgoni bo ikgethileng bo di behang sebakeng se ikgethileng sa ho etsa mesebetsi e fapaneng lekaleng la toka ya bana jwalo ka karolo ya dihlopha tsa mafapha a fapaneng. Diphetho di supa hore Molao wa Toka ya Bana (75 wa 2008) o lokela ho fetolwa ho dumella kenyelletso ya ditsebi tsa tsa botlokotsebe lekaleng la toka ya bana Afrika Borwa. / Criminology and Security Science / Ph. D. (Criminal Justice)

Cette étude vise à démontrer les limites de la responsabilité alimentaire des grands-parents, car la charge qui leur est imposée par l’ordonnancement juridique brésilien les oblige au-delà des limites constitutionnelles. Le système judiciaire brésilien impose aux grands-parents des sacrifices et des privations indus, auxquels ils ne sont pas tenus, surtout quand, de l’autre côté, il y a un enfant ou un adolescent dont ce sont les parents qui ont le devoir de les nourrir. Le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant doit être considéré et interprété avec pondération, notamment quand il se heurte à un meilleur intérêt des grands-parents. Il faut établir une distinction entre l’obligation des parents et celle des ascendants ; la première concerne la responsabilité découlant du pouvoir familial tandis que la deuxième se situe dans le contexte de la parenté. Aux parents revient une responsabilité illimitée, et non aux grands-parents ; il revient aux parents d’assurer l’entretien de leurs enfants, alors qu’aux grands-parents ne peut être assignée que la responsabilité de nourriture, et encore, à titre subsidiaire. L’obligation alimentaire entre parents et enfants n’implique pas la réciprocité: il s’agit d’une obligation unilatérale ; entre grands-parents et petits-enfants, au contraire, la réciprocité est prévue par la loi, les grands-parents devront subvenir aux besoins de leurs petits-enfants, une fois leurs propres besoins satisfaits. Entre parents et enfants, se posent d’abord les intérêts des enfants ; entre grands-parents et petit-enfants, d’abord les besoins des grands-parents. Une détermination différente n’est pas conforme aux préceptes constitutionnels, et porte atteinte aux droits les plus élémentaires des ascendants, en blessant leur dignité. Etablir la distinction entre obligation légale et libéralité affective, à la lumière de la constitution, c’est le but de cette thèse. / O presente estudo visa a demonstrar os limites da responsabilidade alimentar dos avós, pois o ônus que lhes é imposto no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro os obriga além dos limites constitucionais. O sistema judiciário brasileiro atribui aos avós sacrifícios e privações indevidos, a que não estão obrigados, principalmente quando, do lado oposto, se encontra uma criança ou adolescente, cujos pais é que detêm o dever de os alimentar. O melhor interesse da criança deve ser lido e interpretado com ponderação, notadamente quando colide com o melhor interesse dos avós. É preciso estabelecer a distinção entre a obrigação parental e a obrigação avoenga: esta se situa no âmbito do parentesco, enquanto aquela diz com a responsabilidade decorrente do poder familiar. Aos pais cabe responsabilidade ilimitada, e não aos avós; os pais devem prover os alimentos naturais e civis de seus filhos, ao passo que aos avós somente pode ser atribuída a responsabilidade dos alimentos naturais, e ainda assim, em caráter subsidiário. A obrigação alimentar entre pais e filhos não implica reciprocidade: trata-se de uma obrigação unilateral; entre avós e netos, ao contrário, existe a reciprocidade prevista em lei, e deverão os avós complementar as necessidades dos netos somente depois de supridas as suas próprias. Entre pais e filhos, em primeiro lugar, põem-se os interesses do filho; entre avós e netos, em primeiro lugar, estão as necessidades dos avós. Determinar de forma diversa desrespeita os preceitos constitucionais, atentando contra os mais elementares direitos dos progenitores, ferindo sua dignidade. Demonstrar a distinção entre a obrigação legal e a liberalidade afetiva, à luz da constituição, e situar o papel dos avós nesse contexto é o que se propõe este estudo. / The present thesis aims at analyzing the limits of child support by grandparents as the Brazilian Judicial System imposes them an obligation beyond constitutional boundaries. Furthermore, the Brazilian Judiciary inflicts on them sacrifices, ordeals and privations which ought to be imputed to parents. Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish between parenting and grandparenting obligation – the latter is related to family ties, and the first to family power; therefore, parents have an unlimited responsibility, contrary to grandparents, whose responsibility should be regarded as subsidiary. In view of that, the best interest of the child has to be interpreted with ponderation, mainly when it collides with the best interest of the grandparents; nonetheless, parental child support is a unilateral obligation which does not require reciprocity. Regardless of the fact grandparent child support reciprocity is lawful, grandparents should ensure the needs of the child only after providing for their own. Notwithstanding, parents are the ones to secure for the best interest of their children; consequently, in a relationship involving grandparents and grandchildren, the best interest of the grandparents are to come first - the contrary would not only be unconstitutional, but would also hurt their dignity. Finally, it is also the aim of this paper to establish the difference between legal obligation and liberality at the light of the Constitution. / El presente estudio pretende demostrar los límites de la responsabilidad alimentaria de los abuelos y abuelas, pues el encargo que les da el ordenamiento brasilero los obliga allá de los límites constitucionales. El sistema jurídico brasileño hace que los abuelos y abuelas tengan sacrificios y privaciones indebidas, a los cuales no están obligados, principalmente cuando en el otro lado se encuentra un niño, una niña o un adolescente cuyos padres y madres tienen el deber de los alimentar. El mejor interés del niño y de la niña, debe ser leído e interpretado con ponderación, principalmente cuando se encuentra con el mejor interés de los abuelos y abuelas. Es necesario que se establezca la distinción entre la obligación de los padres y madres y la obligación de los abuelos y abuelas; esa está ubicada en el ámbito del parentesco, mientras la otra deviene del ejercicio de la responsabilidad parental. A los padres y madres les compete la responsabilidad sin límites, y no a los abuelos o abuelas; los primeros deben dar sustento a los hijos e hijas y darles los alimentos naturales y civiles, al paso que a los abuelos y abuelas solamente se les puede atribuir la responsabilidad de los alimentos naturales, en carácter subsidiario. La obligación alimentar entre los padres y madres y los hijos e hijas no implica reciprocidad, pues es una obligación unilateral, al paso que entre abuelos y abuelas y nietos y nietas, al contrario, existe reciprocidad establecida en ley y los abuelos deben, sí, complementar las necesidades de sus nietos y nietas, pero solamente después que sus propias necesidades están ya satisfechas. Entre padres y madres e hijos e hijas, en primero lugar se ponen los intereses de éstos últimos, pero entre abuelos y abuelas y nietos y nietas, primeramente están ubicadas las necesidades de las personas adultas mayores. Hacerlo de forma diversa es irrespeto a los preceptos constitucionales, y atenta con los más elementares derechos de los progenitores, hiriendo de muerte su dignidad. Demostrar la distinción entre la obligación legal y la liberalidad afectiva, bajo de la luz de la Constitución Política, y ubicar el rol de los abuelos y abuelas en ese contexto, es lo que se propone en este estudio.

Children are the most vulnerable group. Their protection should be a priority for society. In particular, those who are accused of committing crime need to be protected from entering the criminal justice system and measures should be put in place to prevent the stigmatisation associated with having a criminal record. Such protection is endorsed by section 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996).This study outlines the role played by a probation officer in the diversion process. This was achieved by examining international and national instruments that promote the protection of children in conflict with the law. The Child Justice Act No. 75 of 2008 forms part of national instruments. It provides guidelines for probation officers and other stake holders in the justice system on how to deal with children who are accused of committing crimes. Recommendations on the identified challenges and gaps are made. / Corrections Management / M.A. (Corrections Management)

Cette étude vise à démontrer les limites de la responsabilité alimentaire des grands-parents, car la charge qui leur est imposée par l’ordonnancement juridique brésilien les oblige au-delà des limites constitutionnelles. Le système judiciaire brésilien impose aux grands-parents des sacrifices et des privations indus, auxquels ils ne sont pas tenus, surtout quand, de l’autre côté, il y a un enfant ou un adolescent dont ce sont les parents qui ont le devoir de les nourrir. Le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant doit être considéré et interprété avec pondération, notamment quand il se heurte à un meilleur intérêt des grands-parents. Il faut établir une distinction entre l’obligation des parents et celle des ascendants ; la première concerne la responsabilité découlant du pouvoir familial tandis que la deuxième se situe dans le contexte de la parenté. Aux parents revient une responsabilité illimitée, et non aux grands-parents ; il revient aux parents d’assurer l’entretien de leurs enfants, alors qu’aux grands-parents ne peut être assignée que la responsabilité de nourriture, et encore, à titre subsidiaire. L’obligation alimentaire entre parents et enfants n’implique pas la réciprocité: il s’agit d’une obligation unilatérale ; entre grands-parents et petits-enfants, au contraire, la réciprocité est prévue par la loi, les grands-parents devront subvenir aux besoins de leurs petits-enfants, une fois leurs propres besoins satisfaits. Entre parents et enfants, se posent d’abord les intérêts des enfants ; entre grands-parents et petit-enfants, d’abord les besoins des grands-parents. Une détermination différente n’est pas conforme aux préceptes constitutionnels, et porte atteinte aux droits les plus élémentaires des ascendants, en blessant leur dignité. Etablir la distinction entre obligation légale et libéralité affective, à la lumière de la constitution, c’est le but de cette thèse. / O presente estudo visa a demonstrar os limites da responsabilidade alimentar dos avós, pois o ônus que lhes é imposto no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro os obriga além dos limites constitucionais. O sistema judiciário brasileiro atribui aos avós sacrifícios e privações indevidos, a que não estão obrigados, principalmente quando, do lado oposto, se encontra uma criança ou adolescente, cujos pais é que detêm o dever de os alimentar. O melhor interesse da criança deve ser lido e interpretado com ponderação, notadamente quando colide com o melhor interesse dos avós. É preciso estabelecer a distinção entre a obrigação parental e a obrigação avoenga: esta se situa no âmbito do parentesco, enquanto aquela diz com a responsabilidade decorrente do poder familiar. Aos pais cabe responsabilidade ilimitada, e não aos avós; os pais devem prover os alimentos naturais e civis de seus filhos, ao passo que aos avós somente pode ser atribuída a responsabilidade dos alimentos naturais, e ainda assim, em caráter subsidiário. A obrigação alimentar entre pais e filhos não implica reciprocidade: trata-se de uma obrigação unilateral; entre avós e netos, ao contrário, existe a reciprocidade prevista em lei, e deverão os avós complementar as necessidades dos netos somente depois de supridas as suas próprias. Entre pais e filhos, em primeiro lugar, põem-se os interesses do filho; entre avós e netos, em primeiro lugar, estão as necessidades dos avós. Determinar de forma diversa desrespeita os preceitos constitucionais, atentando contra os mais elementares direitos dos progenitores, ferindo sua dignidade. Demonstrar a distinção entre a obrigação legal e a liberalidade afetiva, à luz da constituição, e situar o papel dos avós nesse contexto é o que se propõe este estudo. / The present thesis aims at analyzing the limits of child support by grandparents as the Brazilian Judicial System imposes them an obligation beyond constitutional boundaries. Furthermore, the Brazilian Judiciary inflicts on them sacrifices, ordeals and privations which ought to be imputed to parents. Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish between parenting and grandparenting obligation – the latter is related to family ties, and the first to family power; therefore, parents have an unlimited responsibility, contrary to grandparents, whose responsibility should be regarded as subsidiary. In view of that, the best interest of the child has to be interpreted with ponderation, mainly when it collides with the best interest of the grandparents; nonetheless, parental child support is a unilateral obligation which does not require reciprocity. Regardless of the fact grandparent child support reciprocity is lawful, grandparents should ensure the needs of the child only after providing for their own. Notwithstanding, parents are the ones to secure for the best interest of their children; consequently, in a relationship involving grandparents and grandchildren, the best interest of the grandparents are to come first - the contrary would not only be unconstitutional, but would also hurt their dignity. Finally, it is also the aim of this paper to establish the difference between legal obligation and liberality at the light of the Constitution. / El presente estudio pretende demostrar los límites de la responsabilidad alimentaria de los abuelos y abuelas, pues el encargo que les da el ordenamiento brasilero los obliga allá de los límites constitucionales. El sistema jurídico brasileño hace que los abuelos y abuelas tengan sacrificios y privaciones indebidas, a los cuales no están obligados, principalmente cuando en el otro lado se encuentra un niño, una niña o un adolescente cuyos padres y madres tienen el deber de los alimentar. El mejor interés del niño y de la niña, debe ser leído e interpretado con ponderación, principalmente cuando se encuentra con el mejor interés de los abuelos y abuelas. Es necesario que se establezca la distinción entre la obligación de los padres y madres y la obligación de los abuelos y abuelas; esa está ubicada en el ámbito del parentesco, mientras la otra deviene del ejercicio de la responsabilidad parental. A los padres y madres les compete la responsabilidad sin límites, y no a los abuelos o abuelas; los primeros deben dar sustento a los hijos e hijas y darles los alimentos naturales y civiles, al paso que a los abuelos y abuelas solamente se les puede atribuir la responsabilidad de los alimentos naturales, en carácter subsidiario. La obligación alimentar entre los padres y madres y los hijos e hijas no implica reciprocidad, pues es una obligación unilateral, al paso que entre abuelos y abuelas y nietos y nietas, al contrario, existe reciprocidad establecida en ley y los abuelos deben, sí, complementar las necesidades de sus nietos y nietas, pero solamente después que sus propias necesidades están ya satisfechas. Entre padres y madres e hijos e hijas, en primero lugar se ponen los intereses de éstos últimos, pero entre abuelos y abuelas y nietos y nietas, primeramente están ubicadas las necesidades de las personas adultas mayores. Hacerlo de forma diversa es irrespeto a los preceptos constitucionales, y atenta con los más elementares derechos de los progenitores, hiriendo de muerte su dignidad. Demostrar la distinción entre la obligación legal y la liberalidad afectiva, bajo de la luz de la Constitución Política, y ubicar el rol de los abuelos y abuelas en ese contexto, es lo que se propone en este estudio.