Family Justice Uganda Best Practices
  • Home
  • About
  • Solutions
    • Children
    • Communication
    • Domestic Violence
    • Income
    • Living
    • Process
    • Learning Videos
  • Success Stories
  • Guide
  • FAQs
  • Downloads

Living

Family maintenance
Property and housing arrangements
Fair living arrangements for children
Family maintenance
Parents should provide support to the other spouse until both become self-sufficient and independent

Spousal maintenance are agreements where one of the parties provide financial support. Agreements that provide financial support for a limited time until both sides are able to support themselves are recommended. This type of maintenance is known as non-permanent and it can help both parents to become more empowered. Permanent spousal maintenance is where the agreement is to continue providing financial support indefinitely, which can cause dependency.

Becoming self-sufficient and financially independent of the former spouse is important, as long as it does not negatively affect the children.

What practitioners say

Consistent with literature search:

Quantify income levels. Make sure to create an inventory of the declared income levels, assets and contributions of the man and woman in order to be able to reach fair agreements.

Consider non-monetary contributions. For calculating spousal maintenance, consider non-monetary as well as monetary contributions.

Involve a neutral third party. A neutral practitioner can help to assess the income support level that is needed.

Parties should help each other financially. The party with better financial standing should support the other – taking the interest of the child into consideration.

Other suggested practices:

Involve others who know the situation. Involve extended family, local leaders or other appropriate community members to provide insight.

Local leaders can help enforce agreements. Local leaders such as religious leaders and elders can help to enforce agreements, especially if there’s a breach.

Resources and Methodology

  • Most plausible interventions
  • PICO question
  • Assessment and grading of evidence
  • Recommendation
During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify the following interventions for spousal maintenance:
  • Non-permanent spousal maintenance:
    • Rehabilitative spousal maintenance
    • Limited duration spousal maintenance
  • Permanent spousal maintenance
Rehabilitative spousal maintenance provides a former spouse with support for a limited period of time to allow for the development of the skills, training, or education necessary for self-support. It presupposes the existence of a future capacity for self-support (Greene, p. 9) and is designed to improve the recipient’s employment prospects (Shehan et al, p. 310). Limited duration spousal maintenance (also known as transitional support) is periodic maintenance or terminable maintenance; an amount regularly paid to a recipient for a fixed period. This form of maintenance is meant as a financial buffer to help the former spouse become self-supporting during the period of transition from married life. If the recipient is not self-supporting and cannot become so, limited duration alimony may not be awarded. Limited duration spousal maintenance is not modifiable and cannot be discontinued even if the recipient remarries within the repayment period (Shehan et al, p. 310). Permanent spousal maintenance is awarded as the primary source of support for the recipient (Greene, p. 9). A modification is permitted upon showing a change in the circumstances of the parties. If a spouse who has been awarded permanent alimony subsequently becomes self-sufficient, termination or reduction of the permanent alimony award normally follows (Greene, p. 14). The duration of a permanent award is generally until the death or remarriage of the recipient. Permanent spousal maintenance is most likely to be provided when the recipient is aged, infirm, or unable to be self-supporting. The amount of the award is based on the level of financial need and the standard of living enjoyed in the marriage (Shehan et al, p.310). For the purpose of this PICO question, we compare permanent spousal maintenance with the two other forms of nonpermanent spousal maintenance: Limited and rehabilitative spousal maintenance. Limited and rehabilitative spousal maintenance both focus on self-sufficiency, while permanent spousal maintenance does not
For separated spouses, is non-permanent spousal maintenance more effective than permanent spousal maintenance post-separation?
The main sources used for this particular subject are:
  • Jean van Houtte and Corinne de Vocht, The Obligation to Provide Maintenance between Divorced Husband and Wife in Belgium (1982)
  • Cynthia L. Greene, Alimony is Not Forever (1988)
  • Constance. L. Shehan, Alimony: An Anomaly in Family Social Science (2002)
  • Twila B. Larkin, Guidelines for Alimony: The New Mexico Experiment (2004)
These sources include observational and empirical studies. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘moderate’
Desirable outcomes Research shows that efforts by the supported spouse to remain or become self-supporting and independent of the former spouse are favoured. Limited and rehabilitative maintenance focus on the recipient parent becoming self-sufficient (Greene, p. 11; 22-23; Shehan et al, p. 310). Rehabilitative spousal maintenance is needed particularly for women who entered marriage under a very different set of rules, for example where they abandoned their own jobs and careers to the expected, traditional roles of mother and wife. In those years in which they would have developed job skills and careers. Such women were unable to attain or incapable of attaining self-sufficiency (as cited in Greene, p 13). Rehabilitative spousal maintenance can assist them to develop their own lives. Spousal maintenance would be appropriate:
  1. Where the recipient abandoned her job and career to fulfill the expected, traditional roles of a mother, wife and hostess… (as cited in Greene, p. 13)
  2. Where there are minor children under the age of five and it is not practical for the recipient to generate income in excess of work-related child-care costs, or both parties are committed to one parent remaining home with the child(ren) (Larkin, p. 53).
Undesirable outcomes Permanent spousal maintenance presumes that the recipient cannot become self-sufficient (Greene, p. 9). However, some recipients might come to rely on these payments rather than taking the initiative to obtain additional training or education, a job or resume a career (Shehan et al, p. 309). Permanent payment might keep alive the hostility. Maintenance could alter the post-marital distribution of power between spouses. For example, when bitterness grows between the separated litigants, one party often seeks to have the other punished for their failure to pay maintenance (Shehan et al, p. 309). Balance of outcomes In determining whether non-permanent spousal maintenance is more effective than permanent spousal maintenance post-separation, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered. Permanent spousal maintenance is appropriate only where the recipient is unemployable. Rehabilitative or limited duration spousal maintenance is appropriate in the event of a need for maintenance and should be awarded until the recipient becomes self-sufficient, implicitly requiring the former spouse to make reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient. Accordingly, non-permanent spousal maintenance is more effective than permanent spousal maintenance. Recommendation Taking into account the balance of outcomes, including, the effect on former spouses’ well-being (in particular self-sufficiency) and the strength of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: Non-permanent spousal maintenance is more effective than permanent spousal maintenance

Property and housing arrangements

After changes in the family structure, parents and children should all be ensured of housing

In case of a change in the family structure (such as separation), one or both parents are likely to move out of the matrimonial home. Parents may experience economic insecurity and conflicts about property and housing.

The main aim is to secure safe housing for both parents and children. In order to ensure this, parents can temporarily move into their relatives’ households. For example, the house of their parents, siblings or other extended family members. The extended family can provide support until both parents are able to stand on their own feet again.

.

 

What practitioners say

Consistent with literature research:

All family members should have suitable housing. In cases where families are separating, it is very important to ensure that parents and children both have a safe house to live in.

Try to arrange both new homes close to each other. If possible, parents should live close to each other so that children can have frequent contact with both parents.

Siblings should stay together. Do not split up siblings in cases of separation into different households.

Follow up on new housing arrangements. Ensure agreements are working for all family members and make changes if necessary.

Other suggested practices:

Plan your housing finance together. Have a clear and transparent financing plan from the beginning of owning or renting a property.

Both spouses should share the responsibility for housing. Both parents should contribute to the house whether financially or in-kind. From maintenance and construction to household chores, both the man and the woman should be involved.

Make sure children are safe. In cases of domestic abuse remove the children from the abusive parent. Ensure that both houses are comfortable and safe environment for children.

Married couples should be encouraged to co-own the matrimonial home. A matrimonial home is a shared home for both parents and children. Therefore joint-ownership is encouraged.

Agree on how to handle housing arrangements. Housing arrangements should be mutually agreed upon. Prenuptial arrangements should be encouraged to specify who owns what property before marriage.

In cases of separation, jointly decide on fair compensation for jointly owned property. The value of the house should be estimated by someone with expertise in valuation. One party could then buy the house against this price or it can be jointly decided to sell the property.

Both the women and the man should access land in order to support themselves. When both men and women and children are dependent on their land for food and living, they should both have access to this. The family and community should ensure that all family members have access to land and suitable housing.

Note: Ugandan law does not regulate prenuptial agreements

Resources and Methodology

  • Most plausible interventions
  • PICO question
  • Assessment and grading of evidence
  • Recommendation
During a first assessment of the available literature, we were able to identify an intervention for sharing information with children, this being: parents limiting the disclosure of information about the separation
For children, is actively limiting disclosure of information about the other parent more effective than sharing all information for their well-being?
The three main sources used for this particular subject are: Matthew R. Sanders, W. Kim Halford and Brett C. Behrens, Parental Divorce and Premarital Couple Communication (1999) Tamara D. Afifi, Tara McManus, Susan Hutchinson and Birgitta Baker, Inappropriate Parental Divorce Disclosures, the Factors that Prompt them, and their Impact on Parents’ and Adolescents’ Well-Being (2007) Paul Schrodt and Tamara D. Afifi, Communication Processes that Predict Young Adults’ Feelings of Being Caught and their Associations with Mental Health and Family Satisfaction (2007) The article by Sanders, Halford and Behrens is based on a detailed observational analysis of couples’ interaction. The article by Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson and Baker bases its findings mostly on clinical and empirical evidence. The article by Schrodt and Afifi uses both empirical and meta-analysis to support its findings. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘low’ to ‘moderate’.
Desirable outcomes It is important to note that, based on uncertainty reduction theory, children need some information about the separation in order to reduce their uncertainty about the state of their family (Afifi, McManus, p. 80). Undesirable outcomes Research has shown that parents’ inappropriate disclosures give children psychological distress, physical ailments and feelings of being caught between their parents (Afifi, McManus, p. 79). Examples of inappropriate information are: negative information about the other parent (including complaints on lack of child-support), sensitive information and information judged not to be suitable (such as on financial issues, the reason for separation and personal concerns of the parent), and information that makes children feel caught between their parents (Schrodt, p. 209). If children are completely uninformed about the separation, they can feel deceived, which can produce mistrust, diminished satisfaction with their parental communication, and a fear of establishing committed romantic relationships upon maturity (Afifi, McManus, p. 80). It can be difficult to for some parents to determine the fine line between disclosing the right amount of information and inappropriate information. Balance of outcomes In determining whether actively limiting disclosure of information to children about the other parent is more effective than sharing all information for their well-being, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered. The available literature suggests that certain information is not to be disclosed for the sake of the wellbeing of the child. In particular, revealing negative information about one parent would have severe negative effect physically and psychologically in both the long and short term. This type of information is classified as ‘inappropriate’. However, it is important to keep in mind that children should be informed during the separation process. Recommendation In light of the undesired outcomes of revealing inappropriate information to children, we make the following recommendation: For the well-being of children, it is appropriate that parents disclose information on the separation, albeit in a considered and limited way.

Fair living arrangements for children

This section provides recommendations on fair living arrangements for children, for example in case of separation. They are intended to provide better social development and academic achievements. The recommendations are divided into 3 separate age categories, reflecting the different needs of the age groups.

Infants and toddlers (0-4 years old). For children it is important to be able to stay at both their parents’ houses. This enhances emotional involvement of parents with their children, which benefits the parent-child relationship. Close family relationships are essential to the wellbeing of the entire family.

Young children (5-9 years old). Both parents should support and have contact with their children during school week (Monday to Friday). This is beneficial to children’s academic achievements and wellbeing.

Adolescents (10-18 years old). Children should have a home at both their parent’s houses. International research suggests that shared residency adolescents are better off academically, emotionally and psychologically compared to sole residence children.

It must be ensured there is no indication or history of violence. If there is a risk of violence or abuse, this intervention is not recommended.

There should be a suitable housing situation and willingness from both parents to engage in such an arrangement

What practitioners say

Consistent with literature research:

Encourage active (emotional) involvement. Both parents should be encouraged to play an active role in the lives of the children. This includes attending school, emotional support and help with homework.

Both parents should agree on visitations. Both parents should be well-informed about any visitations when they are happening.

Parents should provide oversight. Parents should have control over their children and be aware of where their children are and what is happening in their lives.

Involve a neutral decision-maker. In case parents cannot agree together in mediation, they should involve a neutral third party to make a decision for them.

Ongoing follow-up and after-care. Ensure that arrangements are working and that agreements are being respected.

Other suggested practices:

Ensure both homes are safe and child-friendly. In cases where there is a risk of domestic abuse towards children by parents or new spouses, children should be removed until it is safe again.

Involve role models where needed. For example, in cases where one parent is unwilling to play a significant role, a respected role model can intervene.

Ensure there is close contact with both parents. Young children should not necessarily be in boarding schools. They should stay in the family home until a reasonable age. If they are in boarding school then both parents should visit regularly and be involved.

Involve children’s needs in decisions. Children’s wishes on living and visiting arrangements should be considered

 

Resources and Methodology

  • Most plausible interventions
  • PICO question
  • Assessment and grading of evidence
  • Recommendation

During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify the following interventions:

Active measures [with the goal to generate more income]
  • Generate more working hours
  • Self-employment
  • Migration to areas with better employment opportunities

Other [passive] measures

  • Applying for and receiving public assistance
  • Remarrying
  • Cutting back on expenditures

Financial resources are an important factor in the adaptations families make. Families save up in good times, and spend savings or borrow in bad. Families who do not have such savings, will not be able to do this (Yuen & Hofferth, p. 7). The analysis done by Yuen and Hofferth distinguishes between active measures (e.g. migration and increasing partner’s work effort) and other measures (e.g. relying on public assistance) (Yuen & Hofferth, p. 7 and 25). Families with substantial income and assets and those who live in low unemployment areas tend to take active measures, whereas families with little resources or in high unemployment areas are likely to rely on public assistance, remarriage or cutting back on expenditures (Yuen & Hofferth, p. 25). For purpose of the PICO question, we compare active (which generate more income) and passive measures, as the available literature makes, a distinction between these two strategies in overcoming post-divorce financial distress

For families, is taking active measures with the goal of generating more income more effective than taking passive measures, for their financial well-being?

The main sources used for this particular subject are:

  • Wei-Jun Jean Yueng and Sandra L. Hofferth, Family Adaptations to Income and Job Loss in the U.S. (1998)
  • Linda Scott, Catherine Dolan, Mary Johnstone-Lous, Kimberly Sugden, Maryalice Wu, Enterprise and Inequality: A Study of Avon in South Africa (2012)
  • Caroline Dewilde and Wilfred Uunk, Remarriage as a Way to Overcome the Financial Consequences of Divorce- A Test of the Economic Need
  • Hypothesis for European Women (2008)
  • Naila Kabeer, Gender equality and women’s empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal 1 (2005)

These sources are largely based on empirical studies. Evidence can be regarded as being low.

Desirable outcomes

One of the indicators to measure gender equality and women’s empowerment is the increase of women’s share of wage employment (Kabeer, p. 1). Paid work has the potential to shift the balance of power within the family. It also leads to a long-term reduction in domestic violence, as well as an increase in women’s assets (Kabeer, p. 18). In some cases, women’s participation in wage employment has allowed them to have greater economic independence and even to escape abusive marriages (Kabeer, p. 19).

Geographic migration has been viewed as a means of improving the allocation of human resources (Yueng & Hofferth, p. 5-6).

Undesirable outcomes

Seeking public assistance is stigmatizing and is seen as only a short term-option (Yueng & Hofferth, p. 24).

When it comes to cutting back on expenditures, cutting food expenditures points to the possibility of deteriorating living conditions that may threaten the survival of family members. (Yueng & Hofferth, p. 24).

Operating within a social setting unfriendly to women will be challenging due to, for example, pervasive violence. Women might encounter difficulties in running a door-to-door business in a country where no one opens the door out of fear. Moreover, women moving about to make sales, deliver products and meet teams are easy targets for such predators (Scott. et al., p. 562).

Migration to an area of better employment opportunities may weaken the family’s support network and detract from children’s school progress (Yueng & Hofferth, p. 24).

Balance of outcomes

In determining whether taking active measures with the goal of generating more income is more effective than taking passive measures, for the financial well-being of persons, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered.

An analysis of the outcomes shows a lack of consensus regarding which measure works. Research shows difficulties with using these strategies particularly due to national contexts. A suitable option is arguably exploring active measures because of efforts by divorced spouses to become self-supporting and self-sufficient.

Recommendation

Taking into account the balance towards the desired outcomes and the strength of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: Taking active measures to generate more income is more effective than taking passive measures for the well-being of families

  • Home
  • About
  • Solutions
  • Success Stories
  • Guide
  • FAQs
  • Downloads
HIIL | Supported by The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law