Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T06:23:03.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Definitions of the Family as an Impetus for Legal Change in Custody Decision Making: Suggestions from an Empirical Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Mellisa Holtzman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legal scholars and social scientists are increasingly calling on legislators, lawyers, and judges to recognize and embrace expanding definitions of the family. Implicit in such calls is the expectation that legal recognition of expanding definitions of the family will protect children's attachment relationships with adults, irrespective of their biological ties to those adults. Through a detailed, historical examination of custody decisions in disputes between biological and nonbiological parents in the state of Iowa, this research suggests that judicial recognition of more expansive definitions may not result in decisions that protect children's attachment relationships. This is true because the legal impact of family definitions appears to be contingent upon cultural and political factors that may undermine the expected effects of changing definitions. This research also suggests that judicial recognition of children's rights may be the most apt way to promote legal changes that will protect children's attachment relationships.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Winter 2006 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2006 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Acton, Lord, and Acton., Patricia Nassif 1995. To Go Free: A Treasury of Iowa's Legal Heritage. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Google Scholar
Ainsworth, Mary D. Salter. 1989. Attachments Beyond Infancy. American Psychologist 44: 709–16.Google Scholar
Alaimo, Kathleen, and Klug, Brian, eds. 2002. Children as Equals: Exploring the Rights of the Child. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Google Scholar
Alaimo, Kathleen. 2002. Historical Roots of Children's Rights in Europe and the United States. In Alaimo and Klug 2002.Google Scholar
Bartholet, Elizabeth. 1993. Family Bonds: Adoption and the Politics of Parenting. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar
Bartlett, Katharine. 1984. Rethinking Parenthood as an Exclusive Status: The Need for Legal Alternatives when the Premise of the Nuclear Family has Failed. Virginia Law Review 70: 879–963.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Katharine. 2001. Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy 8: 1–85.Google Scholar
Beatty, Jerry K. 1970. The Historical Development and Composition of the Iowa Supreme Court. Annals of Iowa 40: 210–19.Google Scholar
Beatty, Jerry, Green, Justin, Ross, Russell M., and Schmidhauser., John R. 1974. The Iowa Unified Court System. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Google Scholar
Becker, Francis. 1988. Judicial Evolution: The C. Edwin Moore Years. Drake Law Review 38: 729–35.Google Scholar
Bellon, Christina M. 2002. The Promise of Rights for Children: Best Interests and Evolving Capacities. In Alaimo and Klug 2002.Google Scholar
Berg, Larry J., Green, Justin J., Schmidhauser, John R., and Schneider., Ronald S. 1975. The Consequences of Judicial Reform: A Comparative Analysis of the California and Iowa Appellate Systems. The Western Political Quarterly 263–80.Google Scholar
Bernard, Jessie. 1975. Women, Wives, Mothers. Chicago: Aldine. Google Scholar
Boskey, James B. 1995. The Swamps of Home: A Reconstruction of the Parent-Child Relationship. University of Toledo Law Review 26: 805–53.Google Scholar
Bowlby, John. 1958. The Nature of the Child's Tie to His Mother. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 39: 350–73.Google Scholar
Bowlby, John. 1960. Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 15: 9–52.Google Scholar
Bumpass, Larry and Sweet., J. 1989. National Estimates of Cohabitation. Demography 26: 615–25.Google Scholar
Burks, Kristine L. 1994. Redefining Parenthood: Child Custody and Visitation when Nontraditional Families Dissolve. Golden Gate University Law Review 24: 223–58.Google Scholar
Cahn, Naomi R. 1997. Reframing Child Custody Decisionmaking. Ohio State Law Journal 58: 1–60.Google Scholar
Carp, E. Wayne. 1998. Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
Cartwright, Bliss. 1975. Conclusion: Disputes and Reported Cases. Law and Society Review 1975: 369–84.Google Scholar
Cherlin, Andrew. 1992. Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
Cott, Nancy. 2000. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
Davis, Peggy C. 1987. “There Is a Book Out…”: An Analysis of Judicial Absorption of Legislative Facts. Harvard Law Review 100: 1539–1604.Google Scholar
Eagle, Rita. 1994. The Separation Experience of Children in Long-Term Care: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 64: 421–34.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Uggen, Christopher, and Erlanger., Howard S. 1999. The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth. American Journal of Sociology 105: 406–54.Google Scholar
Gillis, John. 1996. A World of Their Own Making: Myth, Ritual, and the Quest for Family Values. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
Glick, Paul C. 1988. Fifty Years of Family Demography: A Record of Social Change. Journal of Marriage and Family 50: 861–73.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joseph, Freud, Anna, and Solnit., Albert 1973. Beyond the Best Interests of the Child. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
Griel, Arthur. 1991. Not Yet Pregnant: Infertile Couples in Contemporary America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Google Scholar
Grossberg, Michael. 1985. Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Google Scholar
Guggenheim, Martin. 1983. The Political and Legal Implications of the Psychological Parenting Theory. Review of Law and Social Change 12: 549–55.Google Scholar
Guggenheim, Martin. 1994. The Best Interests of the Child: Much Ado about Nothing? In Child, Parent, and State, eds. Humm, S. Randall, Ort, Beate Anna, Anbari, Martin Mazen, Lader, Wendy S., and Biel, William Scott. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Google Scholar
Hall, Kermit. 1989. The Magic Mirror: Law in American History. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Hans, Jason D. 2002. Stepparenting After Divorce: Stepparents’ Legal Position Regarding Custody, Access, and Support. Family Relations 51: 301–07.Google Scholar
Hartog, Hendrik. 2000. Man and Wife in America: A History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A. 2001. Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System. Iowa Law Review 86: 601–65.Google Scholar
Hill, John Lawrence. 1991. What Does It Mean to be a “Parent”? The Claim of Biology as the Basis for Parental Rights. New York University Law Review 66: 353–420.Google Scholar
Holmes, Gilbert A. 1994. The Tie that Binds: The Constitutional Right of Children to Maintain Relationships with Parent-Like Individuals. Maryland Law Review 53: 358–411.Google Scholar
Holtzman, Mellisa. 2002. The “Family Relations” Doctrine: Extending Supreme Court Precedent to Custody Disputes Between Biological and Nonbiological Parents. Family Relations 51: 335–43.Google Scholar
Holtzman, Mellisa. 2003. Theorizing Legal Change: Doctrinal Shifts in Custody Disputes Between Biological and Nonbiological Parents in the State of Iowa. Ph.D. diss. Department of Sociology, University of Iowa, Iowa City. IA.Google Scholar
Iowa Judicial Branch, http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/about/history/justices. Retrieved 01/22/02.Google Scholar
Kaas, Carolyn Wilkes. 1996. Breaking Up a Family or Putting It Back Together Again: Refining the Preference in Favor of the Parent in Third-Party Custody Disputes. William and Mary Law Review 37: 1045–1136.Google Scholar
Khaleque, Abdul, and Rohner., Ronald P. 2002. Perceived Parental Acceptance-Rejection and Psychological Adjustment: A Meta-Analysis of Cross-Cultural and Intracultural Studies. Journal of Marriage and Family 64: 54–65.Google Scholar
Ladd, Rosalind Ekman. 2002. Rights of the Child: A Philosophical Approach. In Alaimo and Klug 2002.Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 1995. Understanding Changed Readings: Fidelity and Theory. Stanford Law Review 47: 395–472.Google Scholar
Lewin, Ellen. 1993. Lesbian Mothers: Accounts of Gender in American Culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar
Luker, Kristin. 1996. Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
Mahoney, Margaret M. 1994. Reformulating the Legal Definition of the Stepparent-Child Relationship. In Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not?, eds. Booth, Alan and Dunn, Judy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
Mason, Mary Ann. 1994. From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
Mason, Mary Ann, and Mauldon., Jane 1996. The New Stepfamily Needs a New Public Policy. Journal of Social Issues 52: 11–27.Google Scholar
Miall, Charlene. 1994. Community Constructs of Involuntary Childlessness: Sympathy, Stigma, and Social Support. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 31: 392–421.Google Scholar
Mitford, Jessica. 1966. A Question of Custody. McCalls May: 97: 166–170.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H. 1975. Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy. Law and Contemporary Problems 39: 227–.Google Scholar
Modell, Judith S. 2002. A Sealed and Secret Kinship. New York: Berghahn Books. Google Scholar
Nitti, Theresa. 1994. Stepping Back From the Psychological Parenting Theory: A Comment on In Re J.C. Rutgers Law Review 46: 1003–39.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, James G. 1991. The Need to Consider Children's Rights in Biological Parent v. Third Party Custody Disputes. Chicago-Kent Law Review 67: 1077–1105.Google Scholar
Parent and Child. 1966. Harvard Law Review 79: 1710–16.Google Scholar
Parker, Stephen. 1994. The Best Interests of the Child—Principles and Problems. In The Best Interests of the Child: Reconciling Culture and Human Rights, ed. Philip Alston. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, and Bales., Robert Freed 1955. Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Google Scholar
Patterson, Charlotte J., and Redding., Richard E. 1996. Lesbian and Gay Families with Children: Implications of Social Science Research for Policy. Journal of Social Issues 52: 29–50.Google Scholar
Rae, Nicol. 1989. The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans From 1952 to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Reinhard, David W. 1983. The Republican Right Since 1945. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Google Scholar
Richman, Kimberly. 2002. Lovers, Legal Strangers, and Parents: Negotiating Parental and Sexual Identity in Family Law. Law and Society Review 36: 285–324.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy. 1995. The Genetic Tie. The University of Chicago Law Review 62: 209–73.Google Scholar
Ross, Russell M. 1962. Iowa Wins Battle for Judicial Reform. National Civic Review 462–63.Google Scholar
Salthe, Eric P. 1990. Would Abolishing the Natural Parent Preference in Custody Disputes Be in Everyone's Best Interest? Journal of Family Law 29: 539–48.Google Scholar
Schneider, Carl E. 1991. Discretion, Rules, and Law: Child Custody and the UMDA's Best-Interest Standard. Michigan Law Review 89: 2215–93.Google Scholar
Schoeman, Ferdinand. 1990. Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family. Ethics 91: 6–19.Google Scholar
Schoenwald, Jonathan. 2001. A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Siegelman, Peter, and Donohue, John J. III. 1990. Studying the Iceberg from Its Tip: A Comparison of Published and Unpublished Employment Discrimination Cases. Law and Society Review 24: 1133–70.Google Scholar
Sisk, Gregory C., Heise, Michael, and Morriss., Andrew P. 1998. Charting the Influences on the Judicial Mind: An Empirical Study of Judicial Reasoning. New York University Law Review 73: 1377–1500.Google Scholar
Shanley, Mary. 2002. Collaboration and Commodification in Assisted Procreation: Reflections on an Open Market and Anonymous Donation in Human Sperm and Eggs. Law and Society Review 36: 257–84.Google Scholar
Skinner, Denise A. and Kohler., Julie K. 2002. Parental Rights in Diverse Family Contexts: Current Legal Developments. Family Relations 51: 293–300.Google Scholar
Smith, Joan M. 2002. A Child-Centered Jurisprudence: Reconciling the Rights of Children and Parents within the Family. In Alaimo and Klug 2002.Google Scholar
Smith, Stephanie H. 1978. Psychological Parents vs. Biological Parents: The Courts’ Response to New Directions in Child Custody Dispute Resolution. Journal of Family Law 17: 545–76.Google Scholar
Solinger, Rickie. 2000. Wake Up Little Susie. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
Stack, Carol. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
Talk of the Town, The. April 2, 1966. The New Yorker. 35–36.Google Scholar
Tanford, J. Alexander. 1990. The Limits of a Scientific Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court and Psychology. Indiana Law Journal 66: 137–71.Google Scholar
Thornton, Arland, and Young-DeMarco., Linda 2001. Four Decades of Trends in Attitudes Toward Family Issues in the United States: The 1960s Through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family 63: 1009–37.Google Scholar
Uhlenhopp, Judge Harvey. 1958. Our Outmoded Courts. Iowan 6: 16–17, 52–54.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul. 1997. The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change. The Journal of Politics 59: 778–802.Google Scholar
Waite, Linda J. 1995. Does Marriage Matter? Demography 32: 483–507.Google Scholar
Weaver-Catalana, Bernadette. 1995. The Battle for Baby Jessica: A Conflict of Best Interests. Buffalo Law Review 43: 583–615.Google Scholar
Wegar, Katarina. 2000. Adoption, Family Ideology, and Social Stigma: Bias in Community Attitudes, Adoption Research, and Practice. Family Relations 49: 363–70.Google Scholar
Weitzman, Lenore. 1985. The Divorce Revolution. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
Wilson, Alissa M. 1997. The Best Interests of Children in the Cultural Context of the Indian Child Welfare Act in In re S.S. and R.S. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 28: 839.Google Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara Bennett. 1993. Hatching the Egg: A Child-Centered Perspective on Parents’ Rights. Cardozo Law Review 14: 1747–1865.Google Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara Bennett. 1994. “Out of Children's Needs, Children's Rights”: The Child's Voice in Defining Family. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law 8: 321–41.Google Scholar
Yngvesson, Barbara. 2002. Placing the “Gift Child” in Transnational Adoption. Law and Society Review 36: 227–56.Google Scholar
Young, A. H. 1998. Reconceiving the Family: Challenging the Paradigm of the Exclusive Family. American University Journal of Gender & Law 6: 505–56.Google Scholar
Zainaldin, Jamil S. 1979. The Emergence of a Modern American Family Law: Child Custody, Adoption, and the Courts, 1796–1851. Northwestern University Law Review 73: 1038–89.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Alex v. Alex, 161 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 1968).Google Scholar
Alingh v. Alingh, 144 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 1966).Google Scholar
Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979).Google Scholar
Dickson v. Lascaris, 423 N.E.2d 361 (N.Y. 1981).Google Scholar
Garvin v. Garvin, 152 N.W.2d 206 (Iowa 1967).Google Scholar
Halstead v. Halstead, 144 N.W.2d 861 (Iowa 1966).Google Scholar
Herr v. Lazor, 28 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 1947).Google Scholar
Hulbert v. Hines, 178 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 1970).Google Scholar
In Interest of B.G.C., 496 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1992).Google Scholar
In re Adoption of Moriaty, 152 N.W.2d 218 (Iowa 1967).Google Scholar
In re Chad, 318 N.W.2d 213 (Iowa 1982).Google Scholar
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar
In re Marriage of Halvorsen, 521 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 1994).Google Scholar
Jensen v. Jensen, 20 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa 1945).Google Scholar
Joiner v. Knieriem, 52 N.W.2d 21 (Iowa 1952).Google Scholar
LaCrois v. Deyo, 447 N.Y.S.2d 864 (1981).Google Scholar
Lancey v. Shelley, 2 N.W.2d 781 (Iowa 1942).Google Scholar
Lursen v. Henrichs, 33 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 1948).Google Scholar
Matter of Guardianship of Sams, 256 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1977).Google Scholar
Matter of Guardianship of Stewart, 369 N.W.2d 820 (Iowa 1985).Google Scholar
Matter of Richard N., 389 N.Y.S.2d 743 (1976).Google Scholar
Matter of Roy, 393 N.Y.S.2d 515 (1976).Google Scholar
Meldrum v. Novotny, 640 N.W.2d 460 (S. Dak. 2002). Google Scholar
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).Google Scholar
McKay v. Ruffcorn, 73 N.W.2d 78 (Iowa 1955).Google Scholar
Michael H. v. Gerald D., 504 U.S. 905 (1992).Google Scholar
Northland v. Starr, 581 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa 1998).Google Scholar
Painter v. Bannister, 140 N.W.2d 152 (Iowa 1966).Google Scholar
Petition of Kirchner, 649 N.E.2d 324 (Ill. 1995).Google Scholar
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).Google Scholar
Sampson v. Holton, 185 N.W.2d 216 (Iowa 1971).Google Scholar
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).Google Scholar
Stevenson v. McMillan, 95 N.W.2d 719 (Iowa 1959).Google Scholar
Thein v. Squires, 97 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1959).Google Scholar
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).Google Scholar
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).Google Scholar
Watt v. Dunn, 17 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa 1945).Google Scholar