The protection of the family
practical application in the brazilian and portuguese legal systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12662/2447-6641oj.v24i45.5854.pe5854.2026Keywords:
comparative normativity, protective measures, family law, Brazil, PortugalAbstract
Objectives: This article aims to analyze how the protection of the family is addressed within the legal frameworks of Brazil and Portugal. To that end, it identifies the relevant legislation in each country, examines significant judicial interpretations issued by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court and the Portuguese Constitutional Court, and highlights governmental measures aimed at implementing family protection.
Methodology: The research adopts a bibliographic, exploratory, descriptive, and quantitative approach. Sources such as books, academic articles, legislation, jurisprudence, and official government platforms were utilized. The study begins with a conceptual delimitation of the family based on objective criteria, avoiding subjective approaches, and proceeds to a critical and comparative analysis of the legal norms and institutional practices in both countries. It also includes a jurisprudential analysis of recent decisions by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court and the Portuguese Constitutional Court, in order to demonstrate how each country’s highest courts apply constitutional principles concerning family protection.
Results: The study showed that both Brazil and Portugal recognize the family as a fundamental element of society in their constitutional texts. Furthermore, relevant judicial decisions were identified that give concrete expression to this protection, such as rulings declaring the unconstitutionality of legal provisions that restricted adoption or allowed the deportation of foreigners with Brazilian children. In practical terms, Brazil implements programs such as PAIF (Protection and Comprehensive Assistance to the Family), whereas in Portugal there are various family support services, even if not clearly framed within a unified governmental program.
Contributions: The main contribution of this article lies in offering a comparative and critical perspective of both legal systems, highlighting the progress made and the gaps that remain in the effective protection of the family. By proposing a functional and objective definition of family, the text provides a theoretical foundation for the development of public policies and the consistent normative interpretation in line with constitutional values. The research also emphasizes the importance of judicial decisions that prioritize family ties over restrictive or omissive legal provisions and calls attention to the ongoing need for the development of legal and institutional mechanisms aimed at family protection.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lília de Sousa Nogueira Andrade
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing
According to the current submission policy, authors retain the rights to their works and grant the Revista Opinião Jurídica the right of first publication, with commercial rights reserved by the publisher under the terms of the non-commercial license used. Revista Opinião Jurídica uses a Creative Commons license. The works published are under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC-SA).
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:
BY: credit must be given to the creator.
NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENT
By submitting an article, the author(s) declare to have sole responsibility for the content of the piece and is(are), therefore, responsible for any judicial or extrajudicial measures referring to it.
1. In case of joint authorship, all authors are considered collectively responsible, except when proved otherwise.
