Law can never be enforced unless fear supports it.
—Sophocles （Ancient Greek dramatist）
家庭法，是指调整婚姻家庭关系的法律。家庭法是民法体系中的一项基本制度。有着基督教传统的美国家庭被认为是美国社会最基本的单位，家庭的和谐与稳定被认为是影响社会和谐与稳定的重要因素。美国的家庭法完全属于州法律的范畴，联邦政府无权在这一领域制定法律。不过，联邦宪法可以从保护公民自由权利的角度影响各州家庭法的制定和实施。从历史来看，美国的家庭法内容深受英国普通法的影响，了解英国普通法婚姻家庭关系的传统，有利于我们更好地理解美国的家庭法。
Family Law System in England and Wales
The family law system is in this article used to refer to the laws， procedures and rules governing family matters as well as the authorities， agencies and groups which participate in or influence the outcome of private disputes or social decisions involving family law. Such a view of family law may be regarded as assisting the understanding of the context in which the law works and to indicate the policy areas where improvements can be made.
The UK is made up of three jurisdictions： Scotland， Northern Ireland， and England and Wales. Each has quite different systems of family law and courts.
Types of family law
Family law encompasses divorce，adoption，wardship，child abduction and parental responsibility. It can either be public law or private law. Family law cases are heard in both County Courts and Family Proceedings Courts （ Magistrates Courts） ， both of which operate under codes of Family Procedure Rules. There is also a specialist division of the High Court of Justice—the Family Division， which hears family law cases.
Court judgments not open to public scrutiny
A full analysis of the facts of any particular case heard in Court is made difficult by the“in camera”rule that prohibits any reporting of family law cases in England and Wales. The Court of Appeal， however allows the reporting of certain cases， provided the family remains anonymous. It is argued by some， including campaigners for“fathers rights”， that， although it is important to preserve the anonymity of all people involved in a case， there would be better protection against abuses if family court judgments could be published in the same anonymised fashion as Appeal Court judgments are； this is allowed in Scotland， which has different family laws. See Father and Mother Appeal CourtJudgmentfor an example of an English Appeal Courtjudgment and for some insight into what can go wrong and eventually be put right in one case. Although statistics are published about cases that pass through the courts， these in their nature cannot answer claims that abuses of the system are not identified and that there are effectively no quality controls. Those who wish to see this rule lifted claim that justice must be seen to be done， and this is not applied to family law cases. It is said， rightly or wrongly， that a rule which was put in place to respect the sensibilities of children involved in distressing circumstances may have become a cloak behind which considerable inhumanity can go unnoticed by society at large.
Lawyers vested interests
One claim is that early intervention is a far more effective approach， and thatshared residency rather than sole orders should be the presumed outcome of any agreement by consent or court order. Judicially led initiatives， having occurred in parts of Florida and elsewhere， have demonstrated that where clear guidance is provided atthe outset by the court about what the expected outcome will be， then this results in less hostility and therefore in a reduced workload for the courts. Some fathers rights campaigners claim that vested interests in the legal profession are politically operative to preserve lawyers revenue streams from this type of business. Judicial powers already exist to endeavour to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children s lives.
Adversarial court system
The current adversarial system， existing in England and Wales， is said by some to encourage each parent to identify their fears， real or imagined， about what will affect their children now that the parents have separated. Some hold that when a parent expresses these fears about the other parent in this circumstance， even when fears are unfounded， they can nevertheless be treated as fact. Courts tend to be very particular about taking account of mothers expressed fears， and then the father has somehow to demonstrate that he presents no risk to the children， and that the advantages that he will confer on them are real.
Fathers rights proponents say that in such circumstances， the case can easily become a witch-hunt. Any aggression that the father may have manifested in the past is claimed to be treated as justification for limiting his involvement in his children s upbringing. If he is inexperienced at parenthood， perhaps due to value judgments about his background， or because this is a first child， the result may be that he is initially not trusted to provide basic care. In one case， for example， a father was restricted to visiting his child in a contact centre for six years， seeing his son for two hours a week without missing a single occasion， because of the mother s fears that he would otherwise abduct the child abroad. Even when he is able to demonstrate that he presents no risk， the mere fact of the mother expressing imagined fears can be used to argue that her fears affect the child and that the father s involvement should be restricted or eliminated.
Most fathers rights campaigners have had experiences that follow a similar pattern， and they are aiming that the law should be changed to prevent situations as theirs arising.
It is further claimed the whole idea of adversarial court cases to resolve family disputes has led to a sub-culture considered by people who have encountered it to be completely absurd. A typical outcome might involve a father who is a teacher， and therefore trusted to teach a class of children， but who is nevertheless not allowed to see his own children.
