Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal

Pesquisar nos:
Filter by Categorias
Aeronautical Sciences
Agricultural Engineering
Chemical engineering
Civil Engineering
Computer Engineering
Computer science
Electrical engineering
Environmental Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Naval Administration
Physical Education
Production engineering
Production engineering
Science of Religion
Social Sciences
Pesquisar por:
Selecionar todos
Anexos / Arquivos

Multiparentality: possibilities of socio-affective parenting based on the principle of the best interest of the child

RC: 140314
132 Readings
5/5 - (10 votes)



ARAÚJO, Gizelda Rodrigues de [1]

ARAÚJO, Gizelda Rodrigues de. Multiparentality: possibilities of socio-affective parenting based on the principle of the best interest of the child. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento. Year. 07, Ed. 08, Vol. 04, pp. 162-183. August 2022. ISSN: 2448-0959, Access link:


This work aims to address the rights of the family, bringing up reflections on family relationships regarding the possibility of multi-parenting regarding socio-affective paternity. In this perspective, the theme of the article revolves around a concrete case, which deals with reconstituted families, and has as question: what possible rights does Jorge have over his stepson Lucas? Thus, in order to find an answer to this question, this work aims to present a legal view of the possibility of rights and limits in cases of multiparentality, as well as its effects, analyzing socio-affective paternity based on the principle of the best interest of the child. For that, an exploratory bibliographical analysis with a qualitative approach was carried out. With this, it can be concluded that the possibility of establishing the concomitance of socio-affective and biological parenting is not a rule, on the contrary, multiparenting is casuistic, subject to knowledge in the hypotheses in which the factual circumstances justify it. Thus, within the outlined discussion, observing the concrete case, the relevance of understanding the nuances that cover multi-parenting with regard to its effects, limitations and possibilities remained evident.

Keywords: Multiparentality, Socio-Affective Paternity, Family Law, Interest of the Child.


This work aims to address, in general terms, family law, bringing to the fore reflections on family relationships with regard to the possibilities of multi-parenting in terms of socio-affective paternity. From this perspective, the main theme revolves around a concrete case that deals with reconstituted families, namely:

Maria e Alberto ficaram casados por 15 anos, tendo nascido um filho, Lucas. Quando ele tinha três anos, os pais se divorciaram e Maria acabou por se casar com Jorge, com quem ficou por mais 7 anos. Jorge cuidava de Lucas como se seu filho fosse, muito embora Alberto não só pagasse a pensão como, ainda, dedicasse grande parte de seu tempo a seu filho. Após o término de seu casamento com Maria, Jorge pretendeu continuar a visitar Lucas e a definir seu futuro, manifestando-se acerca de suas atividades escolares. Insatisfeita com a ingerência de seu ex-marido na vida de seu filho, Maria quer saber se Jorge tem algum direito com relação a Lucas. (MACEDO, 2018).

In this vein, through the case presented, the question is: what possible rights does Jorge have over his stepson Lucas? In order to find an answer to this question, this work aims to present a legal view of the possibilities of rights and limits in cases of multiparentality, as well as its effects, analyzing socio-affective paternity based on the principle of the best interest of the child.

As is known, the family is the primary cell of society and an important space for the development of its members, since it is through it that the subject gains a first and last name, learns his values and develops the deepest feelings of love, or even hate.

In this context, Santos (2019, p.14) asserts that the family has undergone considerable changes in its pillars and that such changes reached medieval dogmas regarding the family constitution, making it conducive to the dissemination of new forms of emergence of families.

After the decline of patriarchal society, the emergence of feminist movements, the entry of women into the labor market, marriage based on romantic love and the importance attributed to the well-being and health of children, contributed to these family transformations culminate in what is now called the “traditional nuclear family” (PAULA, 2004).

Through this constant and significant evolution, it is observed, therefore, that family law, especially with the entry into force of the Federal Constitution of 1988, gained space in the interpretation of causes based on constitutional principles, rather than on the ordinary rule (PÓVOAS , 2017, p. 19).

In this way, still according to Póvoas (2017), the principle of human dignity and affectivity are no longer just vague and distant norms, and have become fundamentals for resolving issues such as dual paternity, among others that involve socio-affectivity. Thus, in the interweaving of these principles, the doctrine and the courts have made a true legal and social revolution in the area of family law.

That said, this work is an empirical research with a methodology of bibliographic analysis, since it was made from materials published electronically, such as: books, scientific articles and texts from web sites (MATOS and LERCHE, 2001, p. 40). In terms of the research classification level, “exploratory studies, which allow the researcher to increase his experience around a given problem”, are appropriate here. In the meantime, the author points out that it can also serve “to raise possible research problems” (TRIVIÑOS, 1987, p. 109).

In addition, this research has a qualitative approach, considering that, “in addition to being an option of the researcher, it is justified, above all, as an adequate way to understand the nature of a social phenomenon” (RICHARDSON, 1999, p. 79).

Therefore, in order to solve the case in question from a legal point of view, a brief consideration will be made about family law and its evolution over time; then, two principles of CF/1988 will be presented that have become representative and were widely used in solving the demand of families; and, finally, it will deal with multiparentality with a view to its possibilities in socio-affective relationships.


Over the course of several generations, the institution of the family has undergone a series of transformations, evolving both in the sense of the family expression, before the members, and in the way they relate to each other.

A long way has come under cultural and religious influences, from patriarchy, where authority was centered only on the father, that is, on the head of the family, to the present day, in which family authority is shared between the parents.

Thus, through all these changes, it was necessary for the law to adapt to the new modalities that were emerging, since it is recognized that it is in the social environment, as Lima (1989) alludes to, that “the law arises and develops, for the fulfillment of the objectives sought in society”.


According to Article 26, caput of the Federal Constitution of 1988, the family is the basis of society and has special protection from the State (BRASIL, 1988).

For Diniz (2020), in a technical sense, family would be a closed group of people, composed of parents and children, and, for limited purposes, of other relatives, united by coexistence and affection, in the same economy and under the same direction.

É, portanto, o ramo do direito civil concernente às relações entre pessoas unidas pelo matrimônio, pela união estável ou pelo parentesco e aos institutos complementares de direito protetivo ou assistencial, pois, embora a tutela e a curatela não advenham de relações familiares, têm, devido a sua finalidade, conexão com o direito de família (DINIZ, 2020, p. 17).

For Venosa (2016, p. 20), it is important to consider the family, in a broad sense, as kinship, that is, as the set of people united by a legal bond of a family nature. In this sense, ascendants, descendants and collaterals of a lineage are understood, including ascendants, descendants and collaterals of the spouse, which are called relatives by affinity or affines. In this understanding, the spouse is included, who is not considered a relative.

In the legal field, Diniz (2020) lists three fundamental meanings of the word family, namely: the very broad sense, the “lata” sense and the restricted sense.

That way:

No sentido amplíssimo, o termo abrange todos os indivíduos que estiverem ligados pelo vínculo da consanguinidade ou da afinidade Na acepção “lata”, além dos cônjuges ou companheiros, e de seus filhos, abrange os parentes da linha reta ou colateral, bem como os afins (os parentes do outro cônjuge ou companheiro). Já na significação restrita é a família o conjunto de pessoas unidas pelo laço do matrimônio e da filiação, ou seja, unicamente os cônjuges e a prole (CC. Arts.1.567 e 1.716), e entidade familiar a comunidade formada pelos pais, que vivem em união estável, ou por qualquer dos pais e descendentes, independentemente de existir o vínculo conjugal, que a originou (DINIZ, 2020, p. 24).

Thus, the comment by Vasconcelos (2014, p. 15) is highlighted, which states that the national legislation covers these three meanings brought by Diniz (2020), which are applied in different aspects of family relationships, according to the proximity of the family circle.

In this sense, for a better understanding of its historical evolution, family law can be divided into three major stages.

Therefore, according to Póvoas (2017, p. 24-28), the first stage is the one that covers the legal system before the entry into force of the civil code of 1916, beginning in 1595 with the Filipino Ordinances,[2] whose rules were gradually being revoked in Brazil, by scattered legislation, until the Proclamation of the Republic, which had as one of its consequences the split of the Church/State relationship.

Also according to the author, the substantial change occurred in parallel with the edition of the Civil Code of 1916, with which the entire legal system of family law was consolidated into a single legislation. Then, the second stage, considered one of the outstanding points for family law, was marked by the enactment of the Federal Constitution of 1988[3], which gave family issues the status of a constitutional norm.

Soon after, with the approval of the new Civil Code (Law 10,406, of 10.01.2002), the third stage of family law began.

As a result, there were many changes in the legal text, however, the greatest benefit of the new Civil Code in the area of the family was to consolidate, again, in a single law, all the existing scattered rules on the matter, including the constitutional text, and, also, make jurisprudential understandings legal.

From the perspective of Leite (2005, p. 31-32), there are some fundamental changes observed in the new Civil Code:

a) A qualificação da família como legítima foi substituída pelo reconhecimento de outras de conjugalidade, ao lado da família legítima (arts.1.723 a 1.727).

b) A diferença de estatutos entre o homem e a mulher, que agasalhava o mais assimétrico tratamento de gênero, no CC/1916, é substituída pela igualdade absoluta entre o homem e a mulher. (art.1.511 a 1.569).

c) A categorização dos filhos com a diversidade de estatutos ganha nova dimensão com a paridade entre filhos de qualquer origem. (art.1.596).

d) A indissolubilidade do vínculo matrimonial (já resgatada pela Lei 6.515/1977) adentra no universo codificado do Direito Civil. (art.1.571 a 1.582).

e) A proscrição do concubinato é substituída pelo reconhecimento das uniões estáveis, em capítulo, igualmente próprio (Título III, Da união estável).

In view of the above, it is noted that, in Brazil, the most considerable advance was made from the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution, which brought a form of acceptance to the demands of the time, not only covering the matrimonial family, but also the unions constituted outside of marriage, in his image and likeness, as stated in articles 226, § 4 (BRASIL, 1988).

In this way, with the evolution of family law, its concept has expanded, establishing the contours in its scope of coverage, since there are several types of family formation, where each one of them has its distinct characteristics.

In this sense, the concrete case of Maria and Jorge comes to light, in which the affective bond created between Jorge and Lucas, in their visits, when Jorge started to perform educational functions, helping Lucas in his school tasks in the perspective of defining his future.

Nowadays, families, due to the elevation of human dignity, are not only linked by blood ties, but also by ties of freedom, responsibility and, above all, affection, according to the words of Lôbo (2018): “as long as there is affectio there will be a family united by these bonds, as long as it is consolidated in symmetry, in collaboration, in the communion of life”.

Complementing this thought, Dias (2011, p. 55) identifies this new trend of family involvement through affectivity as the “eudemonist” family, which states that “the pursuit of happiness, the supremacy of love, the victory of solidarity entails the recognition of affection as the only effective way of defining the family and preserving life”.

With this, a new family without defined standards is observed and which aims at the process of emancipation of its members through affection. In this same line of thought, Fachin (1999) brilliantly discusses this change of paradigms with regard to family rights present in the current legal system, arising from the 1988 Constitution, praising the principle of human dignity, in the words:

Sob as relações de afeto, de solidariedade e de cooperação, proclama-se, com mais assento, a concepção eudemonista da família: não é mais o indivíduo que existe para a família e para o casamento, mas a família e o casamento existem para o seu desenvolvimento pessoal, em busca de sua aspiração à felicidade (FACHIN,1999, p. 22).

In view of the above, according to the Federal Court of Justice (STF)[4] (2017), it is observed that: “The right to the pursuit of happiness works as a shield of the human being in the face of attempts by the State to frame their family reality in models preconceived by the law”.

That said, it is understood that eudemonism considers the family as the one structured by the principle of the dignity of the human person, where the existing bond is not legal or biological, but essentially affective. Therefore, the following topic will discuss the two principles and the socio-affective affiliation action.


In view of what was explained, it was evident that the classic notion of family has undergone numerous changes throughout history.

In this sense, Lôbo (2019) asserts that the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution not only instituted the return of the Democratic and Social State of Law, but also listed the supreme values enshrined by the Brazilian legal order. It is with this privileged status and structuring principle that the principle of human dignity raised the portico of the constitutional normative building.

This issue has gained visibility and power within the scope of Brazilian family law. However, it is known that one of the greatest challenges in this transformative scenario is related to the apprehension of affectivity as a legal principle and foundation of family relationships today.


With the constitutionalization of Civil Law, there was an elevation of the fundamental rights of the person, and the dignity of the human being came to the forefront.

Confirming this thought, the words of Tepedino (2004, p. 22) clarify that:

Trata-se, em uma palavra, de estabelecer novos parâmetros para a definição de ordem pública, relendo o Direito Civil à luz da Constituição, de maneira a privilegiar, insista-se ainda uma vez, os valores não-patrimoniais e, em particular, a dignidade da pessoa humana, o desenvolvimento de sua personalidade, os direitos sociais e a justiça distributiva, para cujo atendimento deve se voltar a iniciativa econômica privada e as situações jurídicas patrimoniais.

Therefore, from an extremely patrimonialist concern, it moved to a concern with the human person, since the principle of the dignity of the human person became one of the foundations of the republic, provided for in article 1, § III, of the Carta Maior ( BRAZIL, 1988).

In classical antiquity, it was understood that the dignity of the human person was related to their social position; therefore, it was said that the more important and influential a person was, the greater their dignity and vice versa (PÓVOAS, 2017, p. 58).

However, for Stoic thought, all men were endowed with the same dignity and that was what distinguished them from other creatures. Thus, at the end of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed the church’s idea that, because he was made in the image and likeness of God, man has dignity.

In this context, Sarlet (2010, p. 70 apud PÓVOAS, 2017, p. 62) points out that the dignity of the human person concerns:

A qualidade intrínseca e distintiva reconhecida em cada ser humano que o faz merecedor do mesmo respeito e consideração por parte do Estado e da comunidade, implicando, neste sentido, um complexo de direitos e deveres fundamentais que assegurem a pessoa tanto contra todo e qualquer ato de cunho degradante e desumano, como venham a lhe garantir as condições existenciais mínimas para uma vida saudável.

Analyzing the concept, it is urgent to verify that dignity is the foundation that serves as a basis for the interpretation of other constitutional precepts.

In this sense, the Law, in general, and, mainly, the Family Law, became less bureaucratic and more humane, gaining prominence to the dignity of the human person and the affection, which are more invoked, every day, in all sort of demands.

Thus, it is hoped, through the case of Maria and Jorge, that such structuring and intertwined principles can contribute to the resolution of this problem.


As seen, the principle of affectivity came to be understood as a structuring paradigm of family relationships. Its presence is verified in the formation and maintenance of the various family arrangements, which are based exclusively on freedom and people’s desire to live with each other (LOBO, 2021, p. 22).

In view of this, it is observed that the time has passed in which the cold letter of the law was the basis of decisions in family law. Complementing this thought, Dias (2006, p. 38) asserts that:

Como diz Tereza Wambier, a cara da família moderna mudou. O seu principal papel é de suporte emocional do indivíduo, em que há flexibilidade, e indubitavelmente, mais intensidade no que diz respeito aos laços afetivos.

In this sense, Tartuce and Simão (2010, p. 47) explain that:

Mesmo não constando a expressão afeto do texto maior como sendo um direito fundamental, pode se afirmar que ele decorre da valorização constante da dignidade humana.

In these terms, it is worth expanding the sense of affection in the words of Welter (2009, p. 55), who considers that:

A afetividade não é somente o direito de amar, de ser feliz, mas também o dever de compreender e estar com o outro, porquanto existir não é apenas estar no mundo, é, também, inevitavelmente, estar com alguém, estar em família, rompendo com a individualidade e com os conceitos prévios (pré-conceitos, pré-juízos).

With this, it is observed that parental relationships were restricted for a long time only to biological or registration ties. However, currently, space has been opened for a new paradigm, that of socio-affectivity.

From this point of view, it is clear that paternity is no longer verified solely in the biological relationship based on consanguinity. In this sense, Lôbo (2006, p. 47) states that:

O ponto essencial é que a relação de paternidade não depende mais da exclusiva relação biológica entre pai e filho. Toda paternidade é necessariamente socioafetiva, podendo ter origem biológica ou não biológica; em outras palavras, a paternidade socioafetiva é gênero do qual são espécies a paternidade biológica e a paternidade não-biológica.

Therefore, the relevance of affectivity in the relationship between father and son is characterized and that this does not occur only through blood ties.

Complementing this idea, Lobo (2021, p. 23) points out that affection, as an expression of feeling, is a foreign element to Law, but its projection as a duty of affection is received as a legal principle.

In this context, it is worth discussing the words of Minister Andrighi, who stated that:

O Direito não regula sentimentos, mas define as relações com base neles geradas, o que não permite que a própria norma, que veda a discriminação de qualquer ordem, seja revestida de conteúdo discriminatório. O núcleo do sistema jurídico deve, portanto, muito mais garantir liberdades do que impor limitações na esfera pessoal dos seres humanos.

Enquanto a lei civil permanecer inerte, as novas estruturas de convívio que batem às portas dos Tribunais devem ter sua tutela jurisdicional prestada com base nas leis existentes e nos parâmetros humanitários que norteiam não só o direito constitucional, mas a maioria dos ordenamentos jurídicos existentes no mundo (RECURSO ESPECIAL: REsp 1026981 RJ 2008/0025171-7. Rel. Min. Nancy Andrighi. DJ: 04/01/2010).

As explained, it is worth referring to the concrete case, observing the possibilities of recognition of the socio-affective paternity between Jorge and Lucas, with respect to the will of both, as well as with the consent of Maria and her biological father Alberto, since Lucas is under 12 years old.[5]


In more remote times, the notions of family maintained a concern exclusively with the genetic line, today, however, it is believed that the family is also founded by affection and no longer by procreative intent.

According to Dias (2006, p. 25), “the family entity is arranged in a psychic structure in which each one occupies a place and has a function (father, mother and child), without, however, being necessarily linked by blood ties ”.

Thus, this connection through affection is called socio-affectivity, an expression created by Brazilian law to represent the relationship exercised between two or more people linked by a strong emotional bond and by the exercise of functions and places of father, son or brother.

In this regard, Tartuce (2017, p. 417) adds that “socio-affective affiliation is constituted by the coexistence between an adult and a child or adolescent without a biological bond who, however, from the perspective of social and emotional relationships, its integrality resembles to that of a father or mother and their child”.

That said, it is understood that in socio-affective parenting there is no legal bond (adoption), nor biological, but the state of possession of the child.

In this understanding, it is worth clarifying that socio-affective paternity is based on that person who builds affective bonds, guarantees better living conditions for the child or adolescent and also fulfills the role of father, taking into account the best interests of the child.

Confirming this thought, Veloso (1997, p. 215) states that:

Quem acolhe, protege, educa, orienta, repreende, veste, alimenta, quem ama e cria uma criança, é pai. Pai de fato, mas, sem dúvida, pai. O ‘pai de criação’ tem posse de estado com relação a seu ‘filho de criação’. Há nesta relação uma realidade sociológica e afetiva que o direito tem de enxergar e socorrer. O que cria, o que fica no lugar do pai, tem direitos e deveres para com a criança, observado o que for melhor para os interesses desta.

In this direction, it is worth highlighting the considerations of Fachin (1996, p. 32, apud LOBO, 2021, p. 45), who states that the father cannot be the one to whom the law presumably attributes paternity, because:

A verdadeira paternidade pode também não se explicar apenas na autoria genética da descendência. Pai também é aquele que se revela no comportamento cotidiano de forma sólida e duradoura, capaz de estreitar os laços de paternidade numa relação psicoafetiva; aquele, enfim, que além de poder lhe emprestar o nome de família, trata-o como sendo verdadeiramente seu filho perante ambiente social.

With this, it becomes noticeable that socio-affectivity manifests itself when the child who did not or does not have contact with one of their biological parents, whether due to marital dissolution, death, actual abandonment or loss of family power, starts to living with the then stepfather or stepmother and developing a relationship of affection, often calling them father and mother.

Thus, referring to the concrete case, it was seen that Lucas’ case occurred due to marital dissolution, however, he did not lose contact and affection with his biological father. On the other hand, her stepfather also started to care for her and to worry about her future.

Therefore, in these circumstances, the principle of the best interests of the child[6] and the adolescent must be observed, since this is the beacon for all issues related to the protection of the person of the children, whose basic assumption is centered on the maintenance of bonds affective (LOBO, 2021, p. 24).

As Teixeira (2004 apud PÓVOAS, 2017, p. 85) teaches:

Nesse novo quadro geral de referências, o estado geral que tudo determina e orienta é o bem do menor. Portanto, enquanto as prerrogativas dos pais, tutores, guardiões sofrem todas as limitações que se revelam necessárias à preservação daquele valor, amplia-se a liberdade do menor em benefício do seu fundamental direito de chegar à condição adulta sob as melhores garantias materiais e morais.

Therefore, there is no way to disconnect parenting from the best interest of the child and adolescent.


Multiparentality deals with the legal possibility given to the biological parent and/or the affective parent to invoke the principles of human dignity and affectivity to ensure the maintenance or establishment of parental bonds (ABREU, 2014).

According to Farias, Rosenvald and Braga Netto (2019, p. 1869), the term refers to the “the possibility of a person having more than one father and/or more than one mother simultaneously, producing legal effects in relation to all of them at the same time”.

In view of this, it is noteworthy that the issue involving the possibility of multiparenthood gained a new chapter on September 22, 2016, when the highest Court in the country ruled on issue 622, of general repercussion, which had as its paradigm the Extraordinary Appeal No. 898,060, of Santa Catarina, which dealt with the prevalence of socio-affective paternity to the detriment of biological paternity, establishing the thesis: “Socio-affective paternity, declared or not in public record, does not prevent the recognition of the concomitant filiation bond based on biological origin, with the legal effects themselves” (STF, 2017).

In the meantime, in the understanding of Calderón (2017 apud LOBO, 2021), the main reflections of the thesis of general repercussion were the legal recognition of affectivity, the socio-affective and biological bond in an equal degree of legal hierarchy and the legal possibility of multiparentality. Thus, regarding this last aspect, the author considered that the acceptance of the thesis represented an achievement, placing, once again, “the Federal Supreme Court at the forefront of family law”. Furthermore, she added:

A família contemporânea vivencia um processo de transição paradigmática, pelo qual se percebe um palatino decréscimo de influências externas – da religião, do Estado e dos interesses do grupo social – e um crescente espaço destinado à realização existencial afetiva dos seus integrantes. (CALDERÓN, 2017, p. 9 apud LOBO, 2021, p. 85).

In view of this, Dias (2016) mentions that the recognition of multiparenthood heals a gap that family law has long discussed, especially when considering blended families and cases of procreation resulting from assisted reproduction techniques. For her, multi-parenting constitutes a real revolution in terms of filiation, as the binary parental model does not accommodate the reality of family entities.

Bringing up the specific case regarding Maria’s question regarding Jorge’s interference with the rights that he may have in relation to Lucas, it should be noted that if Jorge wanted to claim the recognition of the socio-affective paternal bond with Lucas, such a realization would only be possible in court, since Lucas is under 12 years old, and therefore the best interest of the minor must prevail.

With this, it is observed that the application of multiparentality is only applicable in socio-affective relationships arising from the possession of a state of filiation, however, provided that the best interest of the child and the consent of the biological parents are confirmed, which also confirms that the application of the multiparentality does not always result in the right measure.


Since the stepfather continued to attend Maria’s house in order to help Lucas with school activities, showing concern for the boy’s future, the emotional ties between Jorge and Lucas became noticeable, who lived together for 7 years as if they were a father and son. However, this article aimed to find an answer to Maria’s question: What possible rights does Jorge have in relation to Lucas?

In this scenario, it was understood that this situation actually contemplated all the extrinsic aspects of filiation, that is, possession of the state of a child, leaving Jorge, therefore, the right to claim the recognition of socio-affective paternity, if he wishes.

However, it is worth mentioning that the possibility of multi-parenthood, in the case of Lucas, who is under 12 years old, would only be possible through the courts, observing the best interests of the child, as well as the consent of the biological parents.

Thus, the consent of the biological parents would be mandatory, and the registrar should collect the signatures of Alberto and Maria, as stated in provision 63 of the CNJ[7] (Art. 11, § 3 and § 5), amended by provision 83 of August 14, 2019.

However, it is worth mentioning that Lucas’ biological father not only pays the alimony, but is always present, dedicating part of his time to his son. Thus, this might be one of the biggest obstacles to the procedure.

In addition, it should be remembered that Maria was also dissatisfied with Jorge’s interference, which would create an obstacle to the alleged possibility of recognition of socio-affective paternity.

In this sense, it can be concluded that the possibility of establishing the concomitance of socio-affective and biological parenting is not a rule, on the contrary, multiparenting is casuistic, subject to knowledge in the hypotheses in which the factual circumstances justify it (FROTA, 2018).

Thus, within the outlined discussion, observing the concrete case, the relevance of understanding the nuances that cover multi-parenting with regard to its effects, limitations and possibilities remained evident.


ABREU, K. A. S. de. Multiparentalidade: conceito e consequências jurídicas de seu reconhecimento., 2014. Disponível em: Acesso em: 12 ago. 2021.

ALVES, C. C. A simplificação do registro voluntário de filhos por “pais de criação”., 29 mai. 2020. Disponível em:–pais-de-criacao. Acesso em: 12 ago. 2021.

BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 1988. Disponível em: Acesso em: 07 set. 2021.

BRASIL. Lei nº 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002. Institui o Código Civil. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 2002 Disponível em:,e%20deveres%20na%20ordem%20civil. Acesso em: 07 out. 2022.

BRASIL. Provimento N. 63, de 14 de novembro de 2017. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 20 de novembro de 2017. Disponível em: Acesso em: 12 ago. 2021.

CALDERÓN, R. L. Princípio da Afetividade no Direito de Família. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Forense, 2017.

DIAS, M. B. Manual das Famílias. 8. ed. São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais, 2011.

DIAS, M. B. Manual de direito das famílias. 3. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2006, 542 p

DIAS, M. B. Manual de Direito das Famílias: de acordo com o Novo CPC. 11. ed. São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais, 2016.

DINIZ, M. H. Curso de Direito Civil Brasileiro: Direito de Família. 5. vol. 34. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2020

FACHIN, L. E. Da paternidade: relação biológica e afetiva. Belo Horizonte, Del Rey, 1996.

FACHIN, L. E. Elementos críticos do direito de família: curso de direito civil. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 1999.

FARIAS, C. C. de.; ROSENVALD, N.; BRAGA NETTO, F. Manual de Direito Civil. 4. ed. Salvador: Ed. Juspodivm, 2019.

FREITAS, D. Princípio do Melhor Interesse da Criança., 2015. Disponível em: Acesso em: 12 ago. 2021.

FROTA, J. H. S. Reconhecimento de multiparentalidade está condicionado ao interesse da criança., 2018. Disponível em: Acesso em: 04 out. 2022.

LEITE, E. de O. Direito Civil Aplicado: Direito de Família. 5. Vol. São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais, 2005.

LIMA, H. Introdução à Ciência do Direito. 29. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Freitas Bastos, 1989.

LOBO, F. A. Multiparentalidade: efeitos no Direito de Família. Indaiatuba: Editora Foco, 2021.

LÔBO, P. L. N. A Paternidade socioafetiva e a verdade real. Revista CEJ, Brasília, n. 34, p. 15-21, 2006. Disponível em: Acesso em: 04 out. 2022.

LÔBO, P. L. N. Direito Civil: Famílias. 8. ed. São Paulo: Editora Saraiva Jus, 2018.

LÔBO, P. L. N. Direito Civil: Famílias. 9. ed. 5. vol. São Paulo: Ed. Saraiva, 2019.

MACEDO, C. G. de. Multiparentalidade. JurisWay, 2018. Disponível em: Acesso em: 04 out. 2022.

MATOS, K. S. L; LERCHE, S. V. Pesquisa educacional: o prazer de conhecer. Fortaleza: Demócrito Rocha, 2001.

PAULA, L. de. A Família e as Medidas Socioeducativas: A inserção da família na socioeducação dos adolescentes autores de ato infracional. Dissertação de Mestrado, Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo, 2004. Disponível em: Acesso em: 27 mar. 2021.

PÓVOAS, M. C. Multiparentalidade: A possibilidade de múltipla filiação registral e seus efeitos. 2. ed. Florianópolis: Conceito Editorial, 2017.

RICHARDSON, R. J. Pesquisa social: métodos e técnicas. São Paulo: Editora Atlas, 1999.

SANTOS, K. C. Q. S. Dos limites da paternidade socioafetiva com base no princípio do melhor interesse da criança. Porto Alegre: PLUS/simplíssimo, 2019.

SARLET, I. W. A eficácia dos direitos fundamentais: uma teoria geral dos direitos fundamentais na perspectiva constitucional. 10. ed. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2010.

STF. Supremo Tribunal Federal. RECURSO EXTRAORDINÁRIO 898.060 SÃO PAULO, Rel. Min. Luiz Fux, 2017. Disponível em: Acesso em: 04 out. 2022.

STJ. RECURSO ESPECIAL: REsp 1026981 RJ 2008/0025171-7. Rel. Min. Nancy Andrighi. DJ: 04/01/2010. JusBrasil, 2010. Disponível em: Acesso em: 04 out. 2022.

TARTUCE, F. Direito Civil: direito de famílias. 12. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2017.

TARTUCE, F.; SIMÃO, J. F. Direito Civil: Direito de Família. 5.ed. São Paulo: Método, 2010.

TEPEDINO, G. Temas de Direito Civil. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 2004

TRIVIÑOS, A. N. S. Introdução à pesquisa em ciências sociais. São Paulo: Atlas, 1987.

VELOSO, Z. Direito brasileiro da filiação e paternidade. São Paulo: Malheiros, 1997. 

VENOSA, S. de S. Direito civil: Famílias. 6. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2016.

WELTER, B. P. Teoria Tridimensional do Direito de Família. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado Editora, 2000.


2. The Philippine Ordinances are “[…] a legal compilation marked by the influence of Roman Canon and Germanic law, which together constituted the founding elements of Portuguese law. And, of course, they were forged in a patriarchal and patrimonialist tone. The phase of Colonial Brazil is characterized by the application of the Philippine Ordinances” (AMARAL, 2003, p. 126).

3. The Federal Constitution of 1988 takes care, in Chapter VII of Title VIII, of the family, the child, the adolescent and the elderly. Still preserving the gratuity of civil marriage and the civil effects of religious marriage, it brought, however, remarkable innovations such as the stable union between man and woman, as well as the recognition of equality between both, the deadline for divorce, the children had or not from the marriage relationship or by adoption (ARNOLDO WALD apud DINIZ, 2020, p. 26).

4. Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF).

5. “Recognition of a socio-affective child under the age of twelve is possible only through legal action. Anyone interested in recognizing someone as a child must be over eighteen years of age. There can be no request for recognition of socio-affective paternity between siblings or ascendants. In addition, an age difference of at least sixteen years must be observed between the alleged socio-affective parent and the child to be recognized. When the child to be recognized is between 12 and 17 years old, the consent of the minor in writing is mandatory. Likewise, the consent of the biological parents will be mandatory, and the registrar must collect the signature of the recognized father and mother” (ALVES, 2020).

6. “The Principle of the Best Interest of the Child is extracted from article 227, caput, of the Federal Constitution:

Art. 227. It is the duty of the family, society and the State to ensure the child, adolescent and young person, with absolute priority, the right to life, health, food, education, leisure, professionalization, culture, dignity, respect, freedom and family and community life, in addition to protecting them from all forms of negligence, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and oppression.

And also in the Statute of the Child and Adolescent in its articles 3, 4, 5:

Art. 3º Children and adolescents enjoy all the fundamental rights inherent to the human person, without prejudice to the full protection provided for in this Law, ensuring them, by law or by other means, all opportunities and facilities, in order to provide them with physical, mental, moral, spiritual and social development, in conditions of freedom and dignity.

Art. 4th It is the duty of the family, the community, society in general and the public power to ensure, with absolute priority, the realization of the rights related to life, health, food, education, sport, leisure, professional training, culture, dignity, respect, freedom and family and community coexistence.

Art. 5th No child or adolescent shall be subject to any form of negligence, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and oppression, any attack, by action or omission, against their fundamental rights being punished under the law” (FREITAS, 2015).

7. “The National Court of Justice, within the scope of its regimental competence, edited Provision n. 63, of November 14, 2017 (DJe of November 17, 2017), which institutes single models of birth, marriage and death certificates, to be adopted by the civil registry offices of natural persons, and provides for the voluntary recognition and the entry of socio-affective paternity and maternity in Book “A” and on the birth registration and issuance of the respective certificate of children born through assisted reproduction” (BRASIL, 2017).

[1] Post-graduation in Civil Law – Pontifical Catholic University – PUC-Minas; Specialization in Biology – Federal University of Lavras -UFLA; Specialization in Environmental Management – Faculdade Serra da Mesa – FAZEM; Specialization in Teaching Methods and Techniques – Salgado de Oliveira University – UNIVERSO; Law student – State University of Goiás – UEG; Graduation Degree in Physics – Federal University of Goiás- UFG; Degree in Biology – State University of Goiás- UEG; Degree in Pedagogy – State University of Goiás – UEG. ORCID: 0000-0001-7579-566X.

Submitted: July, 2022.

Approved: August, 2022.

5/5 - (10 votes)
Gizelda Rodrigues de Araújo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Este Artigo ainda não possui registro DOI, sem ele não podemos calcular as Citações!

Search by category…
This ad helps keep Education free
There are no more Articles to display