The "Family Relations" Doctrine: Extending Supreme Court Precedent to Custody Disputes between Biological and Nonbiological Parents

By Holtzman, Mellisa | Family Relations, October 2002 | Go to article overview

The "Family Relations" Doctrine: Extending Supreme Court Precedent to Custody Disputes between Biological and Nonbiological Parents


Holtzman, Mellisa, Family Relations


The "Family Relations" Doctrine: Extending Supreme Court Precedent to Custody Disputes Between Biological and Nonbiological Parents*

Key Words: child custody, family, law, parental rights.

Custody disputes between biological and nonbiological parents typically are decided on the basis of one of two custody doctrines: the parental rights or the best interests doctrine. Each of these standards has faced criticism and an extensive amount of legal and social science literature is devoted to pitting these doctrines against one another. Other scholarly work is focused on proposing alternatives to these doctrines. Here the benefits and shortcomings of the two doctrines are reviewed and previously proposed alternative standards are evaluated. Through a detailed analysis of 5 Supreme Court cases, an entirely new doctrine-the `family relations" doctrine-is suggested. The family relations doctrine gives considerable weight to the child's current and past relationships and his or her "perceived" family. It protects the child's present psychological reality while simultaneously safeguarding both the child's and the adult's interest in maintaining past relationships, or possibly even affecting future ones.

Key Words: child custody, family, law, parental rights.

In the early 1960s, research by Bowlby on social attachment theory started to get recognition within family law (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980; see also Ainsworth, 1962). In 1973 Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit released a book that was premised on the tenets of social attachment theory, which ultimately had a profound impact on family law (Taub, 1984). Beyond the Best Interests of the Child suggested that in order to truly protect the best interests of children involved in custody disputes, courts needed to go beyond their typical analysis of determining the child's best interests based on the income, education, available housing, available medical insurance, and so forth of the competing adults. Instead, courts needed to place the child with the adult to whom he or she was psychologically attached-that is, with the person to whom the child looked for daily emotional care (Goldstein, Freud, & Solnit, 1973).

Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit's focus on the importance of psychological attachments merged with the growing research on social attachment theory and a burgeoning literature on the intersection of law and social science to stimulate an important change in custody disputes between biological and nonbiological parents. Courts began to decide these disputes by considering which of the adults might best serve the child's interests, rather than automatically placing custody with the biological parent (Davis, 1987). However, doing so did not initiate a long-term trend toward using only the best interests standard in these disputes; instead, it intensified the conflict between children's rights and parents' rights by aggravating the conflict between the two custody doctrines. The implications of this conflict are discussed here and two previously proposed alternative custody doctrines, the parental preference and the psychological parent doctrines, are considered. Because even these alternatives fall short of protecting both children and adults in a fair and consistent manner, an entirely new custody doctrine is discussed, and the foundation for this new doctrine is found in the rulings of five recent Supreme Court cases.

Background

Although the phrase "custody dispute" typically evokes images of two divorcing, biological parents engaged in a bitter court battle, each vying for custody of their child, custody disputes also arise between biological and nonbiological parents. The term "nonbiological parent" refers to anyone who is not the biological parent of a child, but who has nonetheless acted as a parent to the child. Nonbiological parents can be distinguished from persons who are "third parties" to a family unit, such as babysitters, close family friends, and even grandparents with whom the child has never lived.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The "Family Relations" Doctrine: Extending Supreme Court Precedent to Custody Disputes between Biological and Nonbiological Parents
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.