Reason for Hope? The Spotted Owl Injunctions and Policy Change

Under what conditions can US courts contribute to policy change? This article shows how a case study can be used to test and develop a theory of judicial policy making answering this question. In The Hollow Hope (1991, 2008), Gerald Rosenberg theorizes that judicial policy making is constrained by the limited nature of constitutional rights, the lack of judicial independence, and the judiciary's inability to implement its rulings. Ninth Circuit injunctions protecting the Northern Spotted Owl and orders to manage ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest invalidate and help reformulate Rosenberg's theory. These rulings show how judicial interpretations of statutes, regulations, precedent, and facts allow judicial policy making if these interpretations are accepted by the legal and political culture when Congress and the presidency are too divided to override them. The owl rulings also show how statutes facilitate the implementation of judicial rulings, a point not developed by Rosenberg, while additionally providing further evidence for Rosenberg's specification of conditions allowing implementation.     

Dodging the Donor Daddy Drama: Creating a Model Statute for Determining Parental Status of Known Sperm Donors

Despite recent innovations in alternative reproduction technology and the increased use of artificial insemination procedures, courts and legislatures have been unable to develop a clear and consistent test to establish the parental rights and obligations of sperm donors. As a result, there are mixed outcomes in cases where intended parents seek child support from an unsuspecting donor or when donors petition the court for visitation with their biological children. This Note seeks to resolve the ambiguity in determining sperm donors’ parental status by proposing a model state statute that makes nonpaternity the default rule. Under the statute, sperm donors would not be subject to any of the parental rights or obligations of a traditional biological father. However, the presumption of nonpaternity could be overcome if the parties agree, in writing, prior to the insemination. Further, the model statute provides an exception to the default rule if the donor has played an active role in the child's life. Adopting this model statute will not only facilitate a market for sperm donation but also make donor rights and obligations clear from the onset.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Today, infants born using artificial reproduction technology (ART) represent more than one percent of children born in the United States annually.
• When a donor is anonymous, the law is clear: the donor is not a legal parent. However, the law regarding known donors is less straightforward. Depending on the state and the particular circumstances, the parental status of a known donor is questionable.
• The ambiguity in the law creates confusion and disagreement among the parties in a donor agreement. By comparing factually similar cases, in which courts interpreted donor statutes with identical language, in completely opposite ways, it is easy to see the unpredictability in ART cases.
• The proposed model statute provides unambiguous legislation that sets out a clear standard to be used in determining the parental status of known donors. If adopted by state legislatures, courts across the country would finally have a consistent rule to apply, leading to less confusion and contradictory rulings.
• The key issue is honoring intentional parentage and the proactive choice to use ART to have a child on one's own terms.

     

MOVING BEYOND GENERALIZATIONS AND STEREOTYPES TO DEVELOP INDIVIDUALIZED APPROACHES FOR WORKING WITH FAMILIES AFFECTED BY PARENTAL INCARCERATION

Competing narratives about incarcerated parents and their children are provided by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”) and the Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights (“Bill of Rights”). Both the “child‐at‐risk” narrative of ASFA and the “good mother” narrative of the Bill of Rights are stereotyped and oversimplified and contribute, in opposite ways, to misperceptions about incarcerated parents and their children by suggesting a uniformity of situations and appropriate responses that does not actually exist. The time‐driven approach of ASFA—and many state termination of parental rights statutes—is overly rigid, while the Bill of Rights overlooks important differences among families, as well as tensions and trade‐offs among policy choices. In actuality, the situations of the parents and children involved vary widely and defy easy analysis and solutions. We should therefore be taking an individualized, qualitative approach that is nuanced and based on actual information about incarcerated parents and their children, rather than a quantitative, categorical approach based on generalized and simplistic assumptions. Only if we recognize and grapple with the complexities of parental incarceration can we develop sound legal and social policy to meet the needs of these families.     

Surrogacy,Identity, Parentage and Childrenʼs Rights – Through the Eyes of a Child

In this article I will focus on two important aspects of children's rights which are impacted by artificial reproductive technology (particularly surrogacy); being the rights to identity and the rights to legal parentage. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child acknowledges the importance of a child's right to identity, to be protected from discrimination on the basis of the status or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians or family members. For many children born through surrogacy arrangements, they may have only one or no legally recognized parent. The adults caring for them may have parental responsibility orders but this falls well short of providing children with the benefits and protections that legal parentage does. The issue of identity can be complex. Increasingly, states have recognized the importance of children knowing the circumstances of their birth and being able to access biological and genetic information including medical information. From a child's perspective the issues of identity and parenthood are intertwined. Given the importance of identity, more needs to be done to ensure that identifying information about children born as a result of artificial reproductive technology is properly stored and readily accessible for these children. Denying a child legal parentage when there are no concerns about the care being provided by their parents cannot be justified when considered from a children's rights perspective.     

Legal parent versus biological parent: the impact of disclosure

This article addresses arguments regarding disclosure of information to donor-conceived individuals, showing that disclosure is entirely different from the recognition of parental rights and responsibilities for the gamete providers. It argues that disclosure of information is not equivalent to saying: "donors are parents". Instead, information release simply provides a basis for donors, donor-conceived individuals and recipient parents to exchange information about themselves. When a jurisdiction enacts laws that provide for such information release, these statutes are distinct from any other legal rights and responsibilities for any members of the donor-conceived community. In its first section, the article briefly explains the means for determining legal parentage before reviewing research on how parents tell their children about their means of conception. Next, it explores studies of why members of the donor-conceived world search, providing an empirical basis for the claim that disclosure does not equal parenthood. The article explores concerns about information release, and, in the final section, suggests possible approaches for protecting the rights of donor-conceived people while reinforcing the legal separation between social and biological parents.     

Best Interest of the Child and Parental Alienation: A Survey of State Statutes

State statutes regarding the best interests of the child (BIC) in deciding disputed custody were reviewed and independently coded with respect to three issues (i) the child's preference and any limits (ii) parental alienation and (iii) psychological maltreatment. Results revealed that many states allowed for the child's preferences to be considered and none qualified that preference when undue influence has occurred; parental alienation as a term was not found in any state statutes but 70% of the states included at least one BIC factor relevant to its core construct of the parent supporting the child's relationship to the other parent; and many states included a history of domestic violence or child abuse but only three states explicitly mentioned psychological maltreatment. These findings highlight yet another way in which the BICS factors lack specificity in ways that could negatively impact children caught in their parents’ conflict.     

A Survey: Children’s Rights Post Termination of Parental Rights and Pre-Adoption

This survey of the statutory provisions and case law of all 50 states and the District of Columbia includes the rights of children to parental support, inheritance, and familial association remaining upon termination of parental rights. A majority of states terminate all the child’s rights at the time parental rights are severed. However, a number of states by explicit statutes or statutory construction have determined that a child’s rights to parental support survives termination of parental rights. This survey examines the prevailing law in each state and suggests statutory reforms to protect the legal status and rights of children.     

Court Considerations in the Termination of Parental Rights: A Comprehensive Analysis of Israeli Court Decisions

Court decisions to terminate parental rights (TPR) have a major impact on parents and children, but the decision‐making process is unclear. Analysis of 261 Israeli TPR court cases indicated the dominance of considerations relating to normative parental functioning, the parents' ability to change, the impact of separating a child from his family, the parents' social normativity and educational ability. The legal considerations relate to the importance of the biological family, the necessity of adoption and the importance of a fair legal process. Insufficient consideration is accorded to cultural differences in parenting practices and the voice of the child.     

Why Requiring Parents to Pay for Postsecondary Education is Unconstituional and Bad Policy

For divorced parents, the question of who should pay for their child's college tuition is very difficult, especially when the issue was never addressed in their separation agreement. Consequently, some states allow judges the discretion to extend child support duties for noncustodial parents after considering certain factors. Such factors may lead to the requirement of parental contributions to their child's postsecondary education. While many states have amended their statutes to encompass extended child support, Pennsylvania is the only state to have found their statute unconstitutional. Based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Curtis v. Kline, this Note argues that, in order to diminish inequalities between divorced and nondivorced parents, as well as between children of divorced and nondivorced parents, all states should amend their child support statutes to declare that no parent is obligated to pay for his/her child's postsecondary education, unless voluntarily agreed to, in writing, prior to the child entering college.     

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF REFERRAL ISSUES AND “ULTIMATE ISSUE” RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARENTS IN CHILD PROTECTION CASES*

Mental health professionals frequently respond to requests for clinical information on parents in child protection cases; however, little data exist on the issues precipitating requests or on the controversial practice of offering “ultimate issue” recommendations in forensic clinical reports. We investigated 243 requests for clinical information on parents and 204 clinician reports submitted for use in child abuse and neglect proceedings in a large, urban juvenile court system. We coded 56 objective and qualitative characteristics regarding referral questions, pending legal issues, and four levels of recommendations. We found that the most common referral questions related to service planning, parenting ability, and/or parents' mental health functioning, and the most common pending legal issues were selection or change of a permanency goal and visitation arrangements. Levels of recommendations varied with type of legal decision, in that clinicians always offered direct recommendations for narrow, statute‐based issues (e.g., termination of rights, adoption) and less so for other issues. Community‐based evaluators were more likely to offer direct recommendations than court‐based clinicians. Based on the findings, we offer practice recommendations and directions for further research in forensic parenting assessment.     

FAMILY DEFINITIONS AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN CUSTODY DECISION MAKING: THE IMPORTANCE OF A CHANGING LITIGANT CONTEXT

Recent scholarship has advocated two distinct approaches to promoting the preservation of children's attachment relationships during custody disputes between their biological and nonbiological parents. Some scholars argue that legal recognition of expansive definitions of the family is the key to protecting children's attachments, while others argue that such protection is contingent upon legal recognition of children's rights. This research examines the efficacy of these competing arguments through an analysis of 75 cases decided in 21 states and the District of Columbia between 2004 and 2005. Findings suggest that judicial attention to definitions of the family is generally confined to cases involving specific types of litigants; namely, former homosexual partners, couples who utilized fertility technologies, former stepparents, and presumptive fathers. In these instances, attention to broad conceptions of the family is associated with the maintenance of children's attachment relationships. Beyond this particular context, however, judges focus almost exclusively on balancing children's interests and rights against those of their biological parents. These findings suggest that both children's rights and family definitions influence judicial decisions, but their impact is context specific. For those scholars advocating legal change, this is an important insight because it shifts the debate from an “either/or” focus to one that recognizes the importance of the litigant context in custody decision making.     

Children's Participation in Family Law Proceedings: A Step Too Far or a Step Too Small?

The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 established children's rights to have their views considered in family law proceedings. These rights go further than elsewhere in the UK: in requiring parents to consult their children when making any ‘major decision’, in creating a range of mechanisms for children to state their views and through facilitating children becoming party to legal proceedings if they are legally competent. Such rights are not without controversy, either in abstract (Is it in children's best interests to be involved in court proceedings? Should children have such rights?) or in practice (Do children and parents know of these rights and accompanying duties? How do legal professionals judge a child's competency?). This paper explores such controversies, using findings from a feasibility study undertaken with children, parents and legal professionals.     

Legal Capacity at a Crossroad: Mental Disability and Family Law

In this introductory essay to the Special Issue, I argue that both family law and disability rights law scholars should examine a key point of intersection across areas: legal capacity or the law's recognition of the rights and responsibilities of an individual. For example, parental termination proceedings center on parental fitness and functional capabilities. I contextualize the articles in the Special Issue by Leslie Francis and Robyn Powell on the role of reasonable accommodations for parents with disabilities in parental termination proceedings. In addition, I call upon legal scholars, family law courts, and practitioners to reimagine governing legal standards in family law according to principles of universal design to shift the baseline capabilities associated with parenting and parental fitness.     

Recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings on criminal defendants' right to counsel

The Supreme Court of Canada recently issued a trilogy of decisions pertaining to suspects' right to legal representation. These rulings further a major difference between the US and Canadian law: Canadian criminal suspects have far less access to legal counsel than suspects in the USA. This paper summarizes these decisions and draws comparisons between Canadian and the US criminal procedure with respect to a suspect's rights to legal representation. We present preliminary data on Canadian citizens' misunderstanding of criminal suspects' right to counsel and also Canadian legal professionals' opinions about the right to counsel. We recommend empirical investigation of the hypothesis that Canadian suspects are more likely than the US suspects to make false confessions.     

WHO'S YOUR DADDY?: THE INHERENT UNFAIRNESS OF THE MARITAL PRESUMPTION FOR CHILDREN OF UNMARRIED PARENTS*

Many states have marital presumptions of legitimacy, which provide children born to married parents with protection against paternity lawsuits questioning their legitimacy. However, most states do not have legitimacy presumption statutes for unmarried couples. This lack of equality between married and unmarried couples makes it so that children born to unmarried parents, who have developed a psychological bond with a man they have always thought to be their father, are not afforded the same protection as other children in similar situations, simply because their parents were not married at the time of their birth. Therefore, this Note advocates for states to amend their paternity statutes to provide protection against nonpaternity lawsuits to psychological fathers and their psychological children. State statutes should provide a psychological father with the right to be declared the legal parent of his psychological child in cases where the child's legal father has been substantially absent from the child's life.     

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN EUROPEAN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: WHY ARE FAMILY PRACTICES SO DIFFERENT FROM LEGAL THEORIES?

Debates about child custody following parental separation often have been framed in terms of a battle between the competing rights of different family members. In the United States, advocates of mothers’ rights square off against proponents of fathers’ rights, with each side claiming to truly represent children's rights. Of course, not all advocates lay claim to children's rights in contact and custody disputes merely as a tactical maneuver. Some experts believe that children are entitled to (and benefit from) their own, independent legal advocate in custody cases. In theory, at least, the position that children lay claim to a third set of independent rights is strongly held in Europe, more strongly than in many U.S. states, because of the adoption of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Europe, but not in the United States. In this article, we examine children's rights in custody disputes from a European perspective, particularly children's legal right to contact with their parents, as well as the children's right to be heard in custody and contact disputes. We find that, despite differences in legal theory, tradition, and family demographics, European countries ultimately face a familiar reality: Custody and contact disputes are, in reality, more about renegotiating family relationships than they are a matter of a mother's, father's, or child's rights.     

Juvenile Court Judges' Perceptions of What Factors Affect Juvenile Offenders' Likelihood of Rehabilitation

An instrument was developed to measure whether judges perceive the likelihood of rehabilitation to be influenced by extra‐legal factors. A self‐administered questionnaire was sent to 1,040 juvenile court judges across the United States. Two indices‐extra‐legal and legal‐were created to measure the relationship between judges' perceptions and the factors they consider in their transfer decisions. Primary analysis used frequencies, cross‐tabulations, and measures of association. The factors that judges may consider in their transfer decisions are specified and vary according to state statutes. Extra‐legal factors are never included in the statutes as factors that may be considered. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that judges consider extra‐legal factors in determining an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation. The results suggest that both male and non‐minority judges' perceive that extra‐legal characteristics affect an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation. All judges seem to believe that family structure and prior record are almost equally important factors in determining offenders' likelihood of rehabilitation. Thus, although judges consider legal factors in determining an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation, they also include criteria not explicitly permitted by law.     

Transgender Family Law

Transgender people face unique issues in parentage, custody, and divorce cases. Many transgender people are raising children or wish to do so. This article examines the main legal issues facing transgender people who become parents by giving birth or impregnating a partner, through assisted reproduction, through marriage, by raising a child, or through adoption. In the past, some courts viewed a parent's gender transition as a sufficient reason to terminate parental rights. Today, the law has shifted to provide much more security for transgender parents, though significant bias still remains, particularly in divorce and child custody cases. In addition, many states have not yet fully addressed how to determine the legal parentage of children born through assisted reproduction. I analyze the legal landscape for transgender parents and spouses and offer critical suggestions to ensure that transgender people are able to protect their families and their parental rights.     

Employing the Mental Health System to Control Sex Offenders After Penal Incarceration*

In the 1930s, several states provided civil commitment in mental institutions for certain sex offenders. Civil commitment of these sex offenders abated after most states repealed their statutes in the 1960s. In the 1980s, however, these statutes returned, as outraged citizens deplored the offenses of repeated sex offenders. The author of this essay examines civil commitment statutes for sex offenders in Washington and Minnesota, two of the leading states in this area, as well as recent rulings from each state's Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of these statutes. Particularly, the author focuses on the psychiatric or mental health discussions by the justices in the majority in both state rulings. Furthermore, the author criticizes the legislatively defined mental abnormality statutes that sanction these commitments, proposes use of the ordinary civil commitment statutes for individuals who are seriously mentally ill, and concludes that sex offenders who do not meet the criteria for traditional civil commitment should be handled by the criminal justice system.     

Pondering personal privacy: a pragmatic approach to the Fourth Amendment protection of privacy in the information age

As technology with surveillance capacities has advanced, the debate over the rights of the citizenry to be free from governmental breaches of personal privacy has intensified. Within the United States, government actions legally challenged as intrusions into personal privacy have been analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, but Supreme Court rulings in such cases lack a clear and consistent rationale. Additionally, while more than a dozen federal privacy statutes have been enacted, each piece of legislation pertains to a specific type of information (e.g. driver’s license information, education records, and financial records). There is no overarching federal legislation which protects the individual’s private affairs from warrantless government inspection. A key issue underlying the scope of the debate and the variation in court decisions and public policies pertinent to invasions of privacy by government agencies is the lack of a clear and cogent definition of ‘privacy.’ By means of a review of the evolution of legal protections of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and a review of the evolution of technology with surveillance applications, it is suggested that there is a need for a sound operational definition of privacy. As a starting point for an informed and pragmatic dialogue on this matter, an operational definition of privacy built upon extant case and statutory law is provided.