MUDDLING THROUGH THE MURKY WATERS OF TROXEL

A critical case in the area of third-party visitation rights was decided by the U. S. Supreme Court in July 2000 ( Troxel v. Granville ). A plurality in this case held that a Washington grandparent visitation statute was not facially unconstitutional but was as applied to the facts of that case. The author discusses the varying opinions of the Supreme Court justices in the Troxel decision. Next, he analyzes the plurality opinion to determine the appropriate standard of review in grandparent visitation cases. Following is a consideration of how the decision will affect other state grandparent visitation legislation. Examining these issues, the author concludes that future third-party visitation cases will be decided on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis.     

GRANDPARENT VISITATION RIGHTS

In recent years, legislators in all fifty states have given grandparents rights to petition for visitation privileges with grandchildren that can be enforced over parental objections. Grandparent visitation rights reflect an effort to protect meaningful relationships children enjoy with nonparental caregivers, enlist the assistance of extended family when the child's nuclear family is disrupted, and defend the interests of grandparents themselves. This psycholegal analysis explores the direct and indirect consequences of grandparent visitation statutes for family functioning. Statutory provisions are summarized, and the effects of these statutes are evaluated in light of what is known about the role of grandparents in child development, how courts evaluate children's "best interests" in grandparent visitation disputes, and how these statutes can alter family functioning in informal ways. The authors conclude that there are risks as well as benefits to children and families in grandparent visitation statutes, and suggest directions for procedural and statutory reform.     

TROXEL v. GRANVILLE AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

Troxel v. Granville , a case arising out of the application of a statute permitting court-ordered grandparent visitation based on a judicial determination of the best interest of the child, provided the opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to demonstrate its receptivity to therapeutic concerns. The decade preceding Troxel had seen the emergence of a school of thought labeled "therapeutic jurisprudence" that seemed a perfect fit for addressing the subject matter before the Court. In this article, the author discusses the rise of therapeutic jurisprudence, its relevance to the subject matter before the Court in Troxel , and the lessons to be learned from the Court's failure to embrace therapeutic concerns in its resolution of this case.     

HOW JUDGES DECIDE WHETHER SOCIAL PARENTS HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS: A FIVE‐FACTOR TYPOLOGY

Courts have issued conflicting rulings regarding the rights (e.g., custody, visitation) and responsibilities (e.g., child support) of non‐biological gay parents. This analysis establishes a typology of five factors that most commonly influence judges' decisions. These factors include: interpretation of parenting statutes, legislative intent, parental intent, legal documents establishing parenthood, and the child's best interests. Despite these common themes, there is still much discrepancy among court rulings. Based on this analysis, there are steps parents can take to protect their legal rights and living arrangements. Finally, policy suggestions are offered for courts and lawmakers. These legal actors can take steps (e.g., clarifying statutes) that would provide certainty for families in case of parental separation or the biological parent's death.     

MANDATORY VISITATION

The term visitation rights connotes that noncutodial parents have the discretion, not the responsibility, to visit their children. This article examines the assertion that visitation rights should instead be viewed as an obligation owed by noncustodial parents to their children. Excluding circumstances in which visitation would be injurious to a child, the expectation of visitation should be enforced by the courts.     

“I WANT MY MOMMIES”: THE CRY FOR MINI‐DOMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES*

In child custody cases, courts will look to the best interests of a child to maintain visitation/custody rights only with the child's biological parent, not third parties. However, with a same‐sex couple, it is inevitable that one parent will not be the biological parent. Thus, when that parent is in a mini‐DOMA state, where same‐sex couples from non‐mini‐DOMA states do not have to be recognized, that parent will be viewed as a third party and lose all visitation/custody rights if the couple separates. This note advocates that mini‐DOMAs allow both the biological and nonbiological parents of a same‐sex couple to have visitation/custody rights of their children if it would be in the best interest of the children to do so.     

State Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Protection of Civil Liberties

Advocates of federalism, both in the United States and elsewhere, often cite the potential for enhanced protection of individual civil liberties as an emerging rationale for a federal system dividing governmental responsibilities between central and regional governments and central and regional judiciaries. Echoing this, some judicial officials and scholars, confronting an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, have called for state supreme courts to use the state constitutional grounds to preserve and increase the protections of the Bill of Rights. Using event count analysis, we examine state search-and-seizure cases for 1981 to 1993 to ascertain under what circumstances state courts would use this opportunity to eliminate Supreme Court review. We find that the relative ideological position of the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court often prevents, or does away with the need for, liberal courts to use the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine to expand the rights of criminal defendants and that state supreme court justices react more predictably in the assertion of constitutional protection law than the general consensus suggests.     

EVALUATING "NONTRADITIONAL" RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

This article suggests a model for objectively evaluating "nontraditional" religious practices in child custody and visitation rights cases. The model draws a distinction between religious beliefs and religiously motivated behavior. This distinction assists the evaluator in approaching the family in an unbiased, objective, and respectful manner. Emphasis is placed on considering the religiously motivated behavior in a constitutionally sensitive procedure that simultaneously protects the fundamental rights of parents and children and the children's best interests.     

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

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.     

Pat‐Downs But No Hugs: Why Prison Visitation Protocol Should be Changed to Help Keep Familial Structures Intact

In the United States there are almost three million children who have one or both parents incarcerated. Parental incarceration negatively impacts children in several ways. Visitation protocol varies across facilities nationwide with no modification in protocol for minors. Parental rights are disrupted by visitation protocol because of cost‐prohibitive access and extreme security measures. This Note proposes a model statute that would change visitation protocol to facilitate a clear‐cut set of visitation processes that are tailored to ensure prison safety while also fostering and maintaining a positive relationship between a minor child and his/her incarcerated parent.     

Family Law,Parents with Disabilities,and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Parents with disabilities contend with bias within the family law system, often threatening their custody and visitation rights. The overarching goal of this article is to explore the experiences of parents with disabilities involved in custody and visitation disputes and the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in these cases. This article begins with an overview of parents with disabilities and their interactions with the family law system. Next, the article examines the ADA and its applicability to custody and visitation disputes. Finally, the article offers thoughts about strategies that can be utilized by attorneys to ensure that the rights of parents with disabilities are protected.     

RESPONSE TO TROXEL v. GRANVILLE

In today's world, children grow up in families that take many different forms, and society can no longer consider the traditional nuclear family the normal or optimal family structure. As a result, in cases of divorce, courts are increasingly relying on the results of psychological research when awarding custody and visitation privileges. In contrast to recent trends, however, the U.S. Supreme Court's majority decision in Troxel v. Granville favors biological parents' rights over the psychological interests of children. This article discusses the potential contributions of attachment theory to the contest between biology and psychology in America's divorce courts.     

Empowerment and State Education: Rights of Choice and Participation

Two separate discourses surround the involvement of parents in their children's education in schools. One is concerned with what is often referred to as 'parent power,' based on the conferment on parents of rights to a degree of choice and participation in respect of their children's education, a feature of legislative changes to the governance of state education that started with the Education Act 1980 and which, in part, rests on consumerist and liberal rights based notions. The other focuses on the home-school partnership ideal in which parents and schools have obligations to support each other in realising children's potential. Labour and Conservative 2005 general election campaigns included proposals to 'empower' parents. But social rights such as those in education, which are important to notions of citizenship, tend to be weak. This article concludes that over the past 25 years little power has been ceded to parents, individually or collectively, and that, in the case of rights of choice at least, any further empowerment seems unrealistic. Moreover, the principal mechanism of parental involvement, particularly since 1997, has been the enforcement of parental responsibility, a form of 'technology of citizenship'. The extent to which children hold participation and choice rights is also considered.     

The importance of an industrial court in the interpretation of labour statutes

The paper highlights the National Industrial Court of Nigeria’s (NICN) importance over the general courts in the interpretation of labour statutes. It compares the judicial interpretation of some provisions of labour statutes by the general courts in Nigeria (represented herein by the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s interpretation of same provisions) with the interpretation of the NICN of same provisions. It argues that the NICN’s interpretation is more favourable to labour rights than that of the general courts. It makes use of the rules of judicial interpretation and Ronald Dworkin’s discussion on interpretation as a framework and adds to it by comparing the judicial interpretation of some provisions of labour statutes by the general courts with that of the NICN. It noted that the NICN’s interpretation was more purposive and promoted labour rights than that of the general courts. The Supreme Court cases used to represent the position of the general courts were those decided before exclusive jurisdiction on employment and labour matters was conferred on the NICN in 2010. Presently, even though the general courts no more have jurisdiction to hear and interpret employment and labour matters the NICN’s interpretations continues to promote labour rights.     

Lochner redeemed: family privacy after Troxel and Carhart

At least since its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court has differentiated its review of abortion laws from its scrutiny of other intrusions on family privacy. Whereas abortion restrictions are reviewed under the middling "undue burden" standard, incursions on other family-related liberties, including marriage, kinship, and child rearing are said to be subject to the strict scrutiny ordinarily employed in the defense of fundamental rights. This Article contends that the Court's most recent decisions in this context give reason to reconsider both sides of that equation. Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down Nebraska's ban on "partial-birth" abortions, suggests that the Court's scrutiny in the abortion context will be more aggressive and rigid than most had supposed. At the same time, its decision in Troxel v. Granville, limiting states' authority to order grandparent visitation over the objects of a parent, suggest that there is more fluidity in the Court's review of other family liberties than is conventionally assumed. Together the cases signal a convergence in both sorts of family-privacy controversies toward a common standard of "reasonableness." That standard bears, for many, an uncomfortable association with the much-maligned "natural law-due process formula" of the Lochner era, but Professor Meyer argues that it is precisely the right approach in the context of family privacy. Although more rigid doctrinal formulae are sometimes preferred on the ground that they constrain judicial judgment, here they are undesirable precisely because they obscure the value judgments that are inevitably at the core of every family-privacy decision.     

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.

     

IN THE AFTERMATH OF TROXEL V. GRANVILLE

While the Court in Troxel v. Granville opines about the problems litigation creates, that of both expense and intrusion into the lives of families in the midst of grandparent visitation disputes, the Court decision falls short of posing a solution. The focus of this note is to propose a standard for mediation as a viable alternative to traditional litigation in such cases. The hope is that mediation will serve the best interests of the child.     

论人民代表大会制度下司法对规范的违宪审查

为了建构我国的民主政治体制,切实保障公民权利的实现,树立宪法的最高权威,充分发挥司法权的内在功能,克服立法机关违宪审查机制的弊端和微效,我国应参考世界通行做法,导入司法对规范的违宪审查制度。20年来,决策层总是以司法违宪审查制度与人民代表大会制度相抵触而拒纳,这是对人民代表大会制度的误读。其实两者不矛盾,可以共存。综合各种因素考虑,我国最好建立宪法法院与普通法院相结合的司法对规范的违宪审查制度。     

Juvenile Waiver 2003: Where Are We Now?

Juvenile waiver has received much attention from the public, practitioners, and scholars during the last decade. Prior studies have documented the increased use and effects of waiver. In this study we examine the current state of the law regarding juvenile waiver. We replicate a 1995 study of state waiver statutes and detail the changes in prosecutorial, judicial, and legislative waiver since 1995. While the juvenile crime rate has slowed, legislatures' fascination with waiver has increased. In less than 10 years, the number of states utilizing prosecutorial waiver has increased 25%, 27 states have modified their judicial waiver statutes, and 30 states have modified their legislative waiver statutes.