The last decade (S) of american family law

Journal of Legal Education

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 546-556

  Teitelbaum, Lee E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21744457623     PISSN: 00222208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. For example, the Family Support Act of 1988 requires states to promulgate guidelines applicable to all child support orders within the state. The guidelines must operate as a rebuttable presumption. 42 U. S. C. § 667.
2. Criteria for child support guidelines are set out in 45 C. F. R. § 302.56.
3. See, e.g., Lutwak v. United States, 344 U. S. 604 (1953). The parties had gone through marriage ceremonies so that the foreign spouses would qualify for an immigration preference under the War Brides Act. They also agreed that they would not cohabit and would seek an annulment afterarrival in this country. Although it seems likely that these limited-purpose marriages would have been held valid as a matter of domestic relations law, the Court held them to be invalid for immigration purposes.
4. On the history of tax treatment of families, see Judith T. Younger, Marital Regimes: A Story of Compromise and Demoralization, Together with Criticism and Suggestions for Reform, 67 Cornell L. Rev. 45 (1981). On tax policy and families
5. See Lawrence Zelenak, Marriage and the Income Tax. 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 339 (1994).
6. Bankruptcy and divorce often go together. For treatments of some of the resulting issues, see Sheryl L. Scheible, Bankruptcy and the Modification of Support: Fresh Start, Head Start, or False Start? 69 N. C. L. Rev. 577 (1991);
7. Sheryl L. Scheible, Defining "Support" Under Bankruptcy Law: Revitalization of the "Necessaries" Doctrine, 41 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (1988).
8. See Lee E. Teitelbaum, Intergenerational Responsibility and Family Obligation: On Sharing, 1992 Utah L. Rev. 765, 794-99.
9. Documented compellingly by Carl E. Schneider. See Moral Discourse and the Transformation of American Family Law, 83 Mich. L. Rev. 1803 (1985);
10. Marriage, Morals, and the Law: No-Fault Divorce and Moral Discourse, 1994 Utah L. Rev. 503.
11. See Lee E. Teitelbaum, The Family as a System: A Preliminary Sketch, - Utah L. Rev. - (forthcoming).
12. Pierone v. Pierone, 293 N. Y. S.2d 256, 258 (Sup. Ct. 1968).
13. 1985 Surrey of American Family Law, 11 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 3015, 3015 (1985).
14. E.g., Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act § 305 (b);
15. Desrochers v. Desrochers, 347 A.2d 150 (N. H. 1975);
16. McCoy v. McCoy, 225 S. E.2d 682 (Ga. 1976).
17. Gleason v. Gleason, 256 N. E.2d 513, 516 (N. Y. 1970)
18. (quoting Adelman v. Adelman, 296 N. Y. S.2d 999, 1003 (Sup. Ct. 1969)).
19. For a recent summary of divorce grounds, see Linda D. Elrod & Robert G. Spector, A Review of the Year in Family Law: Children's Issues Take Spotlight, 29 Fam. L. Q. 741, 773 Table 4 (1996). On the requirement that an incompatibility divorce be granted even if one spouse wishes to continue the marriage
20. See, e.g., Desrochers v. Desrochers, 347 A.2d 150 (N. H. 1975).
21. For the development of the maternal preference, see Michael Grossberg, Governing the Hearth: Law and the American Family in Nineteenth Century America 248-49 (Chapel Hill, 1985).
22. E.g., McCann v. McCann, 173 A. 7, 9 (Md. 1934) (joint control of child "to be avoided, whenever possible, as an evil fruitful in the destruction of discipline, in the creation of distrust, and in the production of mental distress in the child").
23. See Rhonda R. Rivera, Queer Law: Sexual Orientation Law in the Mid-Eighties (pt. 2), 11 U. Dayton L. Rev. 275, 329 (1986);
24. S. E. G. v. R. A. G., 735 S. W.2d 164 (Mo. 1987).
25. This emphasis is most familiarly expressed in Joseph Goldstein et al., Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (New York, 1979).
26. E.g., Pusey v. Pusey, 728 P.2d 117 (Utah 1986).
27. E.g., Burchard v. Garay, 724 P.2d 486 (Cal. 1986);
28. Garska v. McCoy, 278 S. E.2d 357 (W. Va. 1981).
29. See, e.g., Mel Roman & William Haddad, The Disposable Parent: The Case for Joint Custody (New York, 1978).
30. For an empirical study of joint custody in California, see Eleanor E. Maccoby & Robert H. Mnookin, Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody (Cambridge, Mass., 1992). They found that joint legal custody had become the norm, awarded in about threequarters of all cases studied. Id. at 107. Awards of joint physical custody were far less frequent, appearing in 20 percent of the cases. Id. at 113.
31. See, e.g., S. N. E. v. R. L. B., 699 P.2d 875 (Alaska 1985);
32. Guinan v. Guinan, 477 N. Y. S.2d 830 (App. Div. 1984);
33. M. A. B. v. R. B., 510 N. Y. S.2d 960 (Sup. Ct. 1986).
34. See M. A. B. v. R. B., 510 N. Y. S.2d 960 (Sup. Ct. 1986).
35. On marriage and divorce trends, see Andrew Cherlin, The Trends: Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, in The Family in Transition, eds. Arlene Skolnick & Jerome Skolnick, 5th ed., 80 (Boston, 1986).
36. Section 308 of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act precludes consideration of "marital misconduct" in establishing spousal support. See also Chalmers v. Chalmers, 320 A.2d 478 (N. J. 1974).
37. E.g., Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act § 308.
38. See, e.g., Lenore J. Weitzman & Ruth B. Dixon, The Alimony Myth: Does No-Fault Divorce Make a Difference? 14 Fam. L. Q. 141, 180 (1980) (9% to 15.4% of divorced women were awarded permanent alimony between 1887 and 1922).
39. See Bureau of the Census, U. S. Dep't of Commerce, Child Support and Alimony: 1983 (Supp. Report, Current Population Reports, Special Studies, Series P-23, No. 148) (1986).
40. See Teitelbaum, supra note 6;
41. Carl E. Schneider, Rethinking Alimony: Marital Decisions and Moral Discourse, 1991 B. Y. U. L. Rev. 197, 203-09.
42. On the complexity and variety of blended families, see, e.g., Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., The New Extended Family: The Experience of Parents and Children After Remarriage, in Remarriage and Stepparenting, eds. Kay Pasley & Marilyn Ihinger-Tallman, 42 (New York, 1987);
43. David Chambers, Stepparents, Biologic Parents, and the Law's Perceptions of "Family" After Divorce, in Divorce Reform at the Crossroads, eds. Stephen D. Sugarman & Herma Hill Kay, 102 (New Haven, 1990).
44. E.g., N. H. Stat. Ann. §§ 546-A: 1, 54G-A:2;
45. Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.1. These statutes often seek to reduce the state's public assistance to children by imposing a support duty on stepparents. Some courts will extend the support duty even after the stepparent and biological parent have divorced, relying on principles of equitable estoppel.
46. E.g., M. H. B. v. H. T. B., 498 A.2d 775 (N. J. 1985).
47. See, e.g., Carter v. Brodrick, 644 P.2d 850 (Alaska 1982);
48. Hickenbottom v. Hickenbottom, 477 N. W.2d 8 (Neb. 1991).
49. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Dep't of Commerce, The Diverse Living Arrangements of Children: Summer 1991, at3 (Current Population Reports P70-38) (1991).
50. Mark F. Testa, Introduction, in Early Parenthood and Coming of Age in the 1990s, eds. Margaret K. Rosenheim & Mark F. Testa, 1, 6 (New Brunswick, 1992).
51. Id.
52. 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993).
53. 388 U. S. 1 (1967).
54. E.g., In re Barbara Haven, 86 Pa. D. & C. 141 (Orphan'sCt. 1953). For a review of research on the significance of marital age
55. See Lynn D. Wardle, Rethinking Marital Age Restrictions, 22 J. Fam. L. 1 (1983-84).
56. The United States Supreme Court has never held that states are bound to recognize valid sister-state marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A considerable literature regarding this issue has developed in the last few years. E.g., Deborah M. Henson, Will Same-Sex Marriages Be Recognized in Sister States?: Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Limitations on States' Choice of Law Regarding the Status and Incidents of Homosexual Marriage Following Hawaii's Baehr v. Lewin, 32 J. Fam. L. 551 (1993-94);
57. Thomas M. Keane, Note, Aloha, Marriage? Constitutional and Choice of Law Arguments for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 499 (1995).
58. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 283 (2) (1971);
59. Willis L. M. Reese, Marriage in American Conflict of Laws, 26 Int. & Comp. L. Q. 952, 965-69 (1977).
60. The Utah Code was amended in 1993 to provide specifically that marriages between persons of the same sex "are prohibited and declared void," Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-2 (5), and in 1995 to provide that a "marriage solemnized in any other country, state, or territory, if valid where solemnized, is valid here, unless it is a marriage... that would be prohibited and declared void in this state under Subsection 30-1-2 (1), (3), or (5)."
61. Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4 (1).
62. Since this piece was written, Congress has passed legislation authorizing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)
63. (to be codified at 1 œU. S. C. § 7
64. 28 U. S. C. § 1738C).