Proximal End Root Morphology Characteristics in Antemortem Anagen Head Hairs

The proximal end morphology of antemortem anagen head hair was compared with the characteristics documented to occur in postmortem hairs. Antemortem anagen and telogen head hairs (N = 967) were recovered following exposure to seven environments. Root morphology characteristics consistent with those reported in postmortem hairs were observed in 66 (14%) hairs exposed to a water, normal saline, outdoor soil, or indoor shower environment. Thirty‐three anagen hairs (7%) exhibited a root band at the proximal end. The mean distance from the root tip to the onset of the root band ranged from 0.23 to 0.7 mm, depending on the environment. The mean distance from the root tip to the onset of the root band was 0.46 mm, with a mean band length of 0.44 mm. The results illustrate the need to better characterize postmortem banding through quantitative measurements, including the range for root tip to band distance and the overall band length.     

An Exploratory Study of Custody Challenges Experienced by Affirming Mothers of Transgender and Gender‐Nonconforming Children

Family courts have lacked familiarity with evidence‐based recommendations regarding the best interests of transgender and gender‐nonconforming (TGNC) children, resulting in some affirming parents losing physical and/or legal custody. This exploratory, qualitative study with 10 affirming mothers of TGNC children who had experienced custody‐related challenges reported on salient themes, including “blame” for causing children's gender nonconformity, coercion by ex‐partners, bias in the courts, negative impact on children, emotional and financial toll on participants, and the critical importance of adequate resources. Findings indicate the need for better‐educated family court professionals, as well as socioemotional support and financial and legal assistance for affirming parents of TGNC children.     

Race and decision making within juvenile justice: The importance of context

Previous tests of the influence of race on decision making within juvenile justice proceedings have traditionally focused on case-level variables and/or macrolevel factors that characterize the jurisdictions under study. Often excluded are measures of the attitudinal context within which decision making occurs. Using a revised conflict perspective that incorporates the role of racial stereotyping, hypotheses are developed centering on racial differences in case processing decisions within four midwest jurisdictions. Attitudes of juvenile court officials toward the punitiveness of the juvenile court and perceptions regarding differences between the behavior and attitudes of whites and those of African Americans are included in additive and race interactive models of five decision-making stages. Results indicate both lenient and harsh treatment of African Americans compared to whites. Hypotheses regarding racial stereotyping in the decision-making process receive some support and the discussion focuses on how inconsistent racial effects may be a function of variation in structural “coupling” across system decision points.     

Adolescent mothers' knowledge of child development and expectations for their own infants

Adolescent mothers of 8- to 14-month-old infants gave fewer correct responses on the Developmental Milestones Survey (DMS) and were less accurate in predicting whether or not their infants would pass Bayley items than adult mothers of same-aged infants. Adolescent mothers were more likely to underestimate their infant's performance if the mothers received lower scores on the DMS, especially if they were likely to guess too young an age when they missed DMS items. Adult mothers, on the other hand, were more likely to underestimate their infant's performance if the mothers were likely to guess too old an age when they missed DMS items. Some adolescent mothers thus expect too little too late from their own infant and too much too soon from the average infant. These mothers may fail to encourage their infant's development and may perceive their infant as less competent than other infants because of these expectations.This article is based on a master's thesis completed by the second author. An earlier version of these findings was presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 1993.Received Ph.D., from Michigan State University. Research interests include adults' perceptions of infants and infant emotional regulation.Received M.A. from West Virginia University. Research interests include adolescent parenting and infant social development.     

Inconceivable? Deducting the costs of fertility treatment

This Article considers whether infertile taxpayers can deduct their fertility treatment costs as medical expenses under Internal Revenue Code section 213 and whether they should be able to deduct them. Internal Revenue Code section 213 defines medical expenses as "amounts paid-for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body." This definition is interpreted by reference to a baseline of normal biological functioning, which includes reproductive functioning. Most people conceive and bear children without having to incur expenses for fertility treatment. Expenses incurred to approximate the baseline of normal reproductive health are deductible, even if the taxpayer winds up better off, with a child, after the fertility treatment. The medical profession recognizes that infertility is a disease or condition. Infertility is a loss, just as a broken leg is a loss. Fertility treatment costs are thus medical expenses under section 213. In addition, given the existence of the medical expense deduction, taxpayers should be able to deduct the cost of fertility treatments, including IVF, egg donor, and surrogate procedures, under either an "ability-to-pay" or consequentialist normative approach. Reproduction is extremely important to most people. In addition, allowing taxpayers to deduct the costs of fertility treatment will encourage infertile taxpayers to elect the most effective treatment option and reduce the rate of risky multifetal pregnancies. This Article concludes that fertility treatment costs are deductible as medical expenses under current law and should be deductible as medical expenses.