The possibility of imposing shared child residence after divorce - even against the wishes of one of the parents - has been recently introduced in several countries. In the Netherlands such possibility was first part of a Private MP Bill. After its initial rejection, it became incorporated by amendment into the Governmental Bill that became law on 1 March 2009 - against the will of the Minister. Due to this turbulent legislative history and rather unclear wording of the legislation uncertainty remained as to whether shared residence can be imposed against the will of one of the parents and whether the judge is obliged to consider it as a first option in each child residence case. The recent decision of the Supreme Court finally clarified the situation: both questions are answered in the affirmative, however the best interest of the child remains the leading consideration for the judge deciding the case.

On March the first 2009 the compulsory parenting plan was introduced in Dutch law. The plan is a binding agreement between parents on the consequences of the divorce for their children. During the parliamentary debate, the compulsory character of the parenting plan was frequently criticised. The author scrutinises the relevant case law on the parenting plan over the last two and a half years to examine how it operates in practice. Questions about accessibility of the judicial procedure, the minimum requirements and the completion if the parents do not come to an agreement are discussed. The author concludes that considering the judicial decisions and the small amount of publicised case law the compulsory parenting plan does not seem to cause many problems or delays in the divorce proceedings. More research is necessary to determine whether the parenting plan is able to fulfill its goal to reduce the amount of conflicts between parents after a divorce.

In recent years many changes occurred in procedural divorce law and divorce practice in the Netherlands. The bottomline of these changes is that divorcing partners themselves should settle the consequences of the divorce as much as possible by mutual agreement. The author describes how in the same period divorce mediation boomed, especially after the introduction in 2009 of the so-called collaborative divorce. This type of mediation is characterised by the presence of lawyers acting for each of the two parties and the line-up of a team of experts. In general the supply of divorce guidance has diversified substantially. It is important that clients are able to choose the form of divorce guidance that suits them best. Divorce mediators should have enough experience and knowledge to handle the psychological as well as the legal aspects of a divorce. Finally the chances of a good ‘after marriage’ are enhanced by ensuring access to affordable mediation for all divorcing couples.

In this study the authors examine changes over the past decade in the number of divorces and divorce-related proceedings. Furthermore, the authors look at the accompanying expenses for subsidised legal aid. They observed that, after six years of relative stability, divorce proceeding prevalence increased in 2010. Moreover, there were fewer adversarial divorce proceedings in 2010 than in previous years, while the number of divorce proceedings upon a joint petition and proceedings without opposition increased substantially. Proceeding prevalence for child custody and alimony nearly doubled over the past decade. The recent increase of divorce proceeding prevalence is presumably due to the discontinuation of flash divorce in 2009. Mitigation of opposition may stem from the introduction of the mandatory parenting plan in 2009. Legal aid expenses for divorce roughly followed the trend in the number of divorce proceedings. The expenses for divorce-related proceedings increased far more than the expenses for divorce proceedings. It can be expected that expenses and proceeding prevalence for divorce-related matters will decrease in the future due to the introduction of the parenting plan.

The article deals with so-called ‘koude uitsluiting’ (‘cold exclusion’), a certain type of matrimonial property contract, in which spouses diverge from the standard matrimonial system of community of all property, without any other compensating provisions. Cohabitants who do not have a cohabitation agreement, are in a similar situation. After a divorce or a separation especially many women with children encounter serious financial problems, while the former spouse often experiences an improvement of his financial situation. The article is based on an empirical and (partly comparative) legal study, which proposes new legislation to overcome the most unjust effects of ‘koude uitsluiting’. The author gives a short overview of these proposals.

During a transnational divorce, spouses can get into contact with two different legal systems, each with its own procedures, courts and documents. This article focuses on transnational divorces between the Netherlands and Morocco. In these divorces Moroccan and Dutch family law interact in several ways. First of all, as determined by Dutch Private International Law, Moroccan family law can be applied in the Netherlands, by Dutch judges. Especially with regard to the division of property, the Dutch and Moroccan family law systems can produce significantly different outcomes. Moreover, a divorce from Morocco is not automatically valid in the Netherlands and vice versa. Using four examples of Dutch-Moroccan divorce cases the author shows how, in this complicated situation, spouses in transnational marriages make use of economic, social and cultural capital in both countries to obtain their divorce.