LCGLLuxembourg Computer Gaming League
LCGLLanding Craft Gun Large (hull classification; US Navy)
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Still, in order to ease fears of sliding down the slippery slope, the court formed a three-way solution in the shape of what it termed the "safety valves" which would help to categorize the various claims children might bring against their parents: (158) (1) if the defense set out in [section] 22 of the LCGL (acting in the best interests of the child) is fulfilled, the lawsuit is rejected; (2) if the act was de minimis, (159) the lawsuit is rejected; and (3) the need to accept this kind of lawsuit only in limited and very special circumstances, like the Amin case, in order to prevent the flooding of the courts.
Is it really possible to rely on the very general protection given by [section] 22 of the LCGL? It would seem that the court itself did not rely solely on this section.
Actually establishing definitive and extensive criteria beyond those set out in the LCGL will provide clear answers and lessen the fear of the slippery slope.
This gap, which means that the law declares a norm but does not necessarily enforce it, is especially visible in the following examples: the civil duty of a child to obey his parents in relation to every matter belonging to their guardianship over him, according to [section] 26 of UNCRC and [section] 16 of the Israeli LCGL and as derived from the Restatement; (224) and Scandinavian civil legislation in relation to corporal punishment of children by their parents.
This criterion is in the spirit of one of the limitations on the doctrine of parental immunity found in American law (228) and in [section] 22 of the Israeli LCGL. (229) When the parent is able, without investing great effort, to maintain minor emotional contact with his child and he deliberately does not do so, there will be a tendency to recognize the claim.
Note that LCGL does not establish sanctions for violation of the duties set out therein.
(134.) It was held that satisfying emotional duties was also important under the LCGL, and included the positive duty of love.
They also argued that the father had breached the statutory duties imposed on him by [section] 29 of the LCGL, because he had failed to act in the way that a devoted parent would have acted in the circumstances of the matter.