UPDATES IN MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW

Paternity law | Recent developments

Nancy Ver Steegh in her Annual Survey of Periodical Literature published in the Family Law Quarterly, Vol 40, No 4, Winter 2007 has compiled a useful digest of recent law review articles dealing with the topic of paternity:

Nancy E. Dowd, Fathers and the Supreme Court: Founding Fathers and Nurturing Fathers, 54 EMORY L.J. 1271 (2005). The author examines bias against fathers in parenting matters, critiquing the Supreme Court’s stereotypic view of fatherhood as a status and suggesting that the Court use a relational, nurturing standard for determining a father’s parental rights.

Parentage at Birth: Birthfathers and Social Fatherhood, 14 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 909 (2006). This author recommends revision of the Uniform Parentage Act to include recognition of both birth fathers and social fathers.

Ronald K. Henry, The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud, 40 FAM. L.Q. 51 (2006). This article examines the issue of paternity fraud with particular attention to the plight of low-income minority men. The author urges use of routine DNA testing.

David D. Meyer, The Constitutionality of Best Interests Parentage, 14 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 857 (2006). This article considers traditional parentage law and the constitutionality of the emerging best interest parentage law. The author concludes that the constitutional limits on state power to define family are justified.

Jane C. Murphy, Legal Images of Fatherhood: Welfare Reform, Child Support Enforcement, and Fatherless Children, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV, 325 (2005). This article provides a historical perspective on the definition of fatherhood and also discusses fatherhood in the context of biology and economic support. The author evaluates the impact of child support enforcement and welfare reform on fatherhood and offers proposals for reform.

Jana Singer, Marriage, Biology, and Paternity: The Case for Revitalizing the Marital Presumption, 65 MD. L. REV. 246 (2006). The author analyzes use of the marital presumption in paternity cases and concludes that it would be in the best interest of children to revitalize it.

E. Gary Spitko, The Constitutional Function of Biological Paternity: Evidence of the Biological Mother’s Consent to the Biological Father’s Co-Parenting of Her Child, 48 ARIZ. L. REV. 97 (2006). The author recommends that courts determine parental rights based on the amount of parental labor expended.

Thanks to Diana Skaggs, blogger, Divorce Law Journal for bringing this to our attention.

Nancy Ver Steegh in her Annual Survey of Periodical Literature published in the Family Law Quarterly, Vol 40, No 4, Winter 2007 has compiled a useful digest of recent law review articles dealing with the topic of paternity:

Nancy E. Dowd, Fathers and the Supreme Court: Founding Fathers and Nurturing Fathers, 54 EMORY L.J. 1271 (2005). The author examines bias against fathers in parenting matters, critiquing the Supreme Court’s stereotypic view of fatherhood as a status and suggesting that the Court use a relational, nurturing standard for determining a father’s parental rights.

Parentage at Birth: Birthfathers and Social Fatherhood, 14 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 909 (2006). This author recommends revision of the Uniform Parentage Act to include recognition of both birth fathers and social fathers.

Ronald K. Henry, The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud, 40 FAM. L.Q. 51 (2006). This article examines the issue of paternity fraud with particular attention to the plight of low-income minority men. The author urges use of routine DNA testing.

David D. Meyer, The Constitutionality of Best Interests Parentage, 14 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 857 (2006). This article considers traditional parentage law and the constitutionality of the emerging best interest parentage law. The author concludes that the constitutional limits on state power to define family are justified.

Jane C. Murphy, Legal Images of Fatherhood: Welfare Reform, Child Support Enforcement, and Fatherless Children, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV, 325 (2005). This article provides a historical perspective on the definition of fatherhood and also discusses fatherhood in the context of biology and economic support. The author evaluates the impact of child support enforcement and welfare reform on fatherhood and offers proposals for reform.

Jana Singer, Marriage, Biology, and Paternity: The Case for Revitalizing the Marital Presumption, 65 MD. L. REV. 246 (2006). The author analyzes use of the marital presumption in paternity cases and concludes that it would be in the best interest of children to revitalize it.

E. Gary Spitko, The Constitutional Function of Biological Paternity: Evidence of the Biological Mother’s Consent to the Biological Father’s Co-Parenting of Her Child, 48 ARIZ. L. REV. 97 (2006). The author recommends that courts determine parental rights based on the amount of parental labor expended.

Thanks to Diana Skaggs, blogger, Divorce Law Journal for bringing this to our attention.

One, two, three GO!

The Family Scholars Blog posted an Op-ed piece from the New York Times by Elizabeth Marquardt, published on July 17, 2007. The topic is "triple parenting." It seems that a court in Pennsylvania recently held that both lesbian mothers and also the sperm donor are the legal parents of two children and all are liable for support.

 

But the Court did not stop with the issue of support. It decided that each of the three parents was entitled to visitation. Most folks involved in family law matters understand that it's difficult for children to transition between two different homes. Imagine children having to transition between three homes! How often do we hear about the rights of children -- as opposed to parental rights which are claimed to be inviolate?

 

You can read Marquardt's New York Times editorial When Three Really is a Crowd on the Family Scholars Blog.

The case, Jacobs v Schultz-Jacobs, can be read here.

See also Stanley Kurtz's column Ma, Pa, and Ma in PA published in The Coner National Review Online.

Technorati tags: child support, child custody, visitation, parenting time, same-sex unions, same-sex relationships

American attitudes about marriage, divorce, cohabitation, non-marital births, and same sex marriage

A new study of American attitudes about marriage, divorce, cohabitation, non-marital births, and same sex marriage was released on Sunday, July 1, 2007. The results of a national survey were published by the Pew Research Center.  A 91-page PDF copy of this study is available on the Internet.

Marriage. According to this survey, only 4 in 10 of those interviewed say that children are important to a successful marriage. As an illustration of how times have changed, in 1990, 65% of those interviewed felt this way.

The respondents were interviewed on their views of what makes a marriage work. 93% ranked faithfulness as important. [Well, I guess that eliminates a fair portion of Hollywood, if those tabloid headlines are right. No, no, I don't buy those things! But they scream at me when I stand in line at the grocery store!]

Only 12% said that agreement on politics was essential. Other ingredients to a successful marriage were adequate income, good housing, shared religious beliefs, and common tastes and interests. Not surprising, given an increase in the number of 2-income families in the U.S., satisfaction in marriage also depends upon how much a spouse shares in household chores.

Most respondents said that they want to marry. Married persons expressed greater satisfaction with their lives than those who are not married. [I suppose it  is handy not to wonder who's taking you to the ball.]

Other findings of the study mirror earlier research by Pamela Smock of the University of Michigan Institute of Social Research. There is wide divergence in attitudes regarding whether there is a stigma attached to non-marital births and shacking up.

Massachusetts | Legislature protects same-sex marriage laws

 The Massachusetts Legislature, according to coverage by The Boston Globe, "in a vote as swift as it was historic, reaffirmed the state's first-in-the-nation same-sex marriage ruling yesterday, unequivocally protecting the rights of gays and lesbians to wed in Massachusetts until at least 2012.

The vote followed 3 1/2 years of fierce arguments, emotional testimonies, and controversial legal decisions. It came on a day filled with cheering and jeering in the streets of Beacon Hill."

See Rights of gays to marry set for years to come | Vote keeps proposed ban off 2008 state ballot [One-time registration may be required.]

Extensive coverage in the Globe is found in links associated with this news article. See, in particular, Personal stories changed minds and Mass may inspire advocates in other states to action.

Technorati tags: same sex marriage, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, gay rights 

Massachusetts | Latest news on same-sex marriage laws

The Boston Globe reported on May 17, 2007 that efforts to keep a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex in Massachusetts off the ballot in November is “clinging to a razor-thin margin in the Legislature.” It appears that opponents of the measure may have a four-vote margin that would prevent the issue from reaching the voters on the 2008 ballot. Read the entire Boston Globe article here.

Technorati tags: same-sex marriage, gay marriage, gay rights

Massachusetts | Latest news on same-sex marriage laws

Gay rights advocates and state Democratic leaders are lobbying the national party to help them pressure a handful of state legislators to change their position and vote to kill a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

Read more in the May 3rd edition of the Boston Globe: Marriage battle could broaden: Gay rights activists ask aid from DNC.

To visit Jeanne Hannah's website for more information, click here:

"Family" as in "Non-traditional families" -- the "F-word?"

Did the panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals deciding National Pride at Work v Governor consider the economic ripple effect of their decision? As Laura Berman and Scott Bassett point out below, think “Brain Drain.” I agree with Scott, who said in a post yesterday on the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Listserv: “Lest anyone think this has no link to family law, keep in mind the role an economic downturn plays on family stress and marital breakdown.”

I believe that the issue of non-traditional families is one that impacts family law, family lawyers, and our court systems every day. Non-traditional families? Yes, you heard me—I used the "F word.” I’m talking about families. What makes them, what breaks them, and what determines where they will live and work. So I’m up here on my soapbox, and if you’re not interested, just hit the delete key.

Demographic studies by Pamela Smock of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan clearly show that the days of the “traditional family,” [you know—like Ozzie, Harriet, David and Rickie] are gone. See: Smock, Pamela. Living Together Unmarried in the United States: Demographic Perspectives and Implications for Family Policy.

As Laura Berman of the Detroit News wrote today:

Michigan Court Rejects Domestic Partnership Benefits

On February 1, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its Opinion in National Pride at Work, Inc v Governor, Docket No. 265870. There were 63 parties in this case.

The issue in this case was whether public universities and governmental entities within the State of Michigan could extend benefits such as healthcare insurance to same-sex / domestic partners of their employees. Michigan’s Attorney General Michael Cox  appealed the Ingham county Circuit court’s decision that the marriage amendment, article 1, section 25 of the Michigan constitution, did not preclude public employers from extending same sex-domestic partnership benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed.

It was not hard to see where the court was going with its decision.  An extensive prefatory comment made the court’s position clear:

Rhode Island to decide whether it has jurisdiction to divorce lesbian couple

According to the Washington Post on November 24, the State of Rhode Island has a pending petition to dissolve a marriage between two lesbians married in Massachusetts. One of the parties has filed for divorce in Rhode Island, which has not state laws regulating the legality of same-sex marriage.

The parties, Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston of Providence were married in the Massachusetts after the Supreme Judicial Court there legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. Read more

To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here.

New Jersey High Court Backs Gay Rights

According to the New York Times on October 26, 2006, New Jersey's highest court ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples. The court ordered the Legislature to decide whether their unions must be called marriage or could be known by another name, giving the Democratic-controlled Legislature 180 days to either expand existing laws or come up with new ones to provide gay couples benefits including tuition assistance, survivors’ benefits under workers’ compensation laws, and spousal privilege in criminal trials.

All seven justices agreed that the state’s Constitution demands full legal rights for same-sex partners. The article throughly discusses the ruling, comparing it with a similar, but broader ruling in Massachusetts. You can read the entire article here.

The New Jersey supreme court's opinion may be read here. Lewis v. Harris (10/25/2006) (PDF file, 90 pages)

Related content from the New York Times:

Gay Marriage Backers Plan Big Push to Sway Trenton Lawmakers

Court Outlines Rights It Says Gay Couples Are Due

As News Sinks In, Plaintiffs Who Call Themselves ‘Second-Class Citizens’ Are Optimistic

The rights of same-sex couples have long been of special interest to Jeanne Hannah. To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here.

Washington State Upholds Ban on Same-sex Marriage

Washington's State Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay marriage Wednesday, July 26, 2006, saying lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to unions between a man and woman.

The court split 5-4 in a decision that disappointed gay-marriage advocates and left Massachusetts as the only state that grants full marriage rights to gay couples. The court's decision favoring gay-marriage opponents was one of several recent significant court rulings dealing a blow to same-sex marriage proponents. Earlier this month, as reported on this blog, New York's high court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to between a man and a woman was constitutional in that state.

The Washington Supreme Court overruled two lower courts that had found the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriage to opposite-sex couples, violated the state constitution and its Equal Rights Amendment.

Interestingly, three of the justices in the majority invited the state Legislature to take another look at the gay marriage ban's effect on same-sex couples, saying: "Given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state."

It is also of interest that the state of Washington has long upheld the rights of unmarried cohabitants to an equitable share of property acquired during a cohabitation relationship and that its courts have applied those principles to same-sex relationships.