Saturday, January 1, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Marriage and Family Law Research Project is pleased to invite all interested scholars to attend a Symposium on Belonging, the Family, and Family Law that will convene in room 472 of the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University on Friday, January 28, 2011. The Marriage and Family Law Research Project at the BYU Law School will be hosting this event. The purpose of this symposium is to provide an opportunity for respected experts and scholars of family law, particularly those whose work has focused on constitutional family law, upon the significance of family as a legal entity, and upon the concept of belonging as it relates to family and family law present papers addressing one or more of those topics. With numerous public policy issues being debated today concerning the definition, structure, regulation, protection and reconstitution of families in society and in the law, and with the methods, tools and processes for creating and enforcing such legal regulations, these three dimensions of family law are particularly relevant today. Confirmed presenters include Professor Helen Alvare (George Mason), Professor Robert Burt (Yale Law School), Professor Linda Elrod (Washburn), Ann Laquer Estin (Iowa), Professor Scott FitzGibbon (Boston College), Professor Akira Morita (Toyo, Japan), Laurence Nolan (Howard), Ya'ir Ronen (Negev, Israel), Robin F. Wilson (Washington & Lee) & Lynn Wardle (BYU), who will explore these topics from a variety of perspectives. Scholars interested in attending should RSVP to Lorelie Sander at firstname.lastname@example.org ; no registration fee will be charged for academics (except a nominal charge for those seeking CLE) but RSVP is needed. Further information about the symposium is available at http://www.law2.byu.edu/organizations/marriage_family/index.php .
Feeling the pessure yet?!
From The Washington Post:
Whom you kiss [tonight] can set the course for a good year. Really. It's not magic - it's chemistry and neuroscience. And no matter how painstakingly you set the scene, in the end chemistry trumps mood music. From a scientific perspective, a kiss is a natural litmus test to help us identify a good partner. Start the first moments of 2011 with the right one, and you're beginning the year on a natural high.
If you can handle the pressure, read more here.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
From the Wall Street Journal on international baby creation markets:
In a hospital room on the Greek island of Crete with views of a sapphire sea lapping at ancient fortress walls, a Bulgarian woman plans to deliver a baby whose biological mother is an anonymous European egg donor, whose father is Italian, and whose birth is being orchestrated from Los Angeles.
The birth mother is Katia Antonova, a surrogate. She emigrated to Greece from Bulgaria and is a waitress with a husband and three children of her own. She will use the money from her surrogacy to send at least one of her own children to university.
Mr. Rupak is a pioneer in a controversial field at the crossroads of reproductive technology and international adoption. Prospective parents put off by the rigor of traditional adoptions are bypassing that system by producing babies of their own—often using an egg donor from one country, a sperm donor from another, and a surrogate who will deliver in a third country to make what some industry participants call "a world baby."
They turn to PlanetHospital and a handful of other companies. "We take care of all aspects of the process, like a concierge service," says Mr. Rupak, a 41-year-old Canadian.
Clients tend to be people who want children but can't do it themselves: families suffering from infertility; gay male couples. They may also have trouble adopting because of age or other obstacles.
And they're price sensitive. PlanetHospital's services run from $32,000 to around $68,000, versus up to $200,000 for a U.S. surrogate.
Overseas surrogacy has other advantages. Surrogates in some poorer countries have little or no legal right to the baby. In Greece, a surrogate can be prosecuted for trying to keep a child. By contrast, some U.S. surrogates have tried to legally claim the children they've carried.
The process can bring profound dilemmas. In some cases, clinics end up creating more fetuses than a couple needs, forcing a decision over whether to abort one or more pregnancies. Babies carried to term occasionally find themselves temporarily unable to get a passport.
Mr. Rupak is learning to navigate the uncharted nature of his field—the stateless babies, the ethical complexities. His expansion to Greece, a European Union member nation, is specifically intended to lessen the likelihood of the passport problem for European parents-to-be.
Some of his own clients have faced the abortion decision, Mr. Rupak says. "Sometimes they find the money" to pay for more children than they expected, he says. After all, they went to such lengths. And if they decide otherwise, Mr. Rupak says, "We don't judge."
Critics say the business is strewn with pitfalls. "The potential for abuse on many levels is big," says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, discussing the industry in general terms. "You're straddling all these [international] boundaries to buy the ingredients and the equipment." Mr. Caplan calls it the "wild, wild west of medicine."
Laws are vague and can conflict from country to country. In 2008, baby Manji was born to an Indian surrogate just weeks after the divorce of her Japanese parents-to-be. (The family wasn't a PlanetHospital client.) According to a Duke University case study in legal ethics, it led to a tangle of Indian and Japanese law that first prevented the little girl from being issued a birth certificate, and later made it difficult for her father bring her home to Japan. Months went by. To fix the problem, Japan issued a special humanitarian visa.
"This area of law is very unsettled," says Evgenia Terehova, PlanetHospital's lawyer. "There can be all sorts of unforeseen circumstances."
Read the full article here.
A new CNN article by Leah Ward Sears considers the "marriage gap":
Wilcox's study finds that over the last 30 years, among what the report calls "Middle Americans" (the 58% of moderately educated Americans who have a high school degree), the proportion of children born outside of marriage skyrocketed from 13% to 44% while the portion of adults in an intact first marriage dropped from 73% to 45%.
Meanwhile, among financially well-off Americans (the 30% who have a college degree or higher), the proportion of children born outside of marriage climbed only slightly from 2% to 6%, the divorce rate dropped from 15% to 11%, and intact first marriages dropped from 73% to 56%.
In sum, the relationships of Middle Americans increasingly resemble those of the poor, while marriages among upscale Americans are getting better in many respects.
Read more, including an analysis of this gap, here.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Michael King and Becky Batagol (Monash University Faculty of Law) have posted "Enforcer, Manager or Leader? The Judicial Role in Family Violence Courts" (33 Int'l J. Law & Psychiatry 406) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Judicial supervision of offenders is an important component of many family violence courts. Skepticism concerning the ability of offenders to reform and a desire to protect victims has led to some judges to use supervision as a form of deterrence. Supervision is also used to hold offenders accountable for following court orders. Some family violence courts apply processes used in drug courts, such as rewards and sanctions, to promote offender rehabilitation. This article suggests that while protection and support of victims should be the prime concern of family violence courts, a form of judging that engages offenders in the development and implementation of solutions for their problems and supports their implementation is more likely to promote their positive behavioral change than other approaches to judicial supervision. The approach to judging proposed in this article draws from therapeutic jurisprudence, feminist theory, transformational leadership and solution-focused brief therapy principles.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Triger: "Fear of the Wandering Gay: Some Reflections on Citizenship, Nationalism, and Recognition in Same-Sex Relationships"
Zvi Triger (The College of Management Academic Studies School of Law) has posted "Fear of the Wandering Gay: Some Reflections on Citizenship, Nationalism, and Recognition in Same-Sex Relationships" (forthcoming International Journal of Law in Context) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This is an article about the fear of the Wandering Gay, about ways in which this fear has influenced domestic and international law regarding recognition in same-sex relationships, and about the ways this fear can be overcome. The article proceeds as follows: In part II I introduce the Wandering Gay as a hidden driving cultural concept behind a state’s reluctance (and in some places, outright objection) to fully recognize same-sex relationships. In part III I compare American and Israeli immigration policies concerning immigrants’ sexuality, and discuss the different foci of each system: While American policy (prior to its reform) was mainly concerned with sexual “deviancy,” Israeli policy has been concerned with otherness, particularly non-Jewishness, in general. However, as I argue, homosexuality is one way in which individuals are ‘othered’ by Israeli immigration policy, since they cannot acquire legal status based on their marital status.
Finally, in part IV I argue that marriage is being used as a weapon against LGBT individuals, and that this is done from within a discourse that elevates marriage to a right that only heterosexual citizens are entitled to. I argue that marriage is used as a means of discrimination against minorities and I question whether the proper solution to this violation of human rights is indeed to add more and more minorities to the privileged class of those who can get married, thus equipping them with the weapon of marriage to use against others.
Harding: "The Harmonisation of Private International Law in Europe: Taking the Character Out of Family Law?"
EU regulations are now in place providing for the enforcement and recognition of judgments made concerning maintenance and marital status. A draft regulation for the standardisation of the applicable law governing divorce has received a lukewarm response while a regulation for the harmonisation of applicable law to matrimonial property dispute is currently being drafted.
These various regulations have divided a typical divorce into three main issues – the legal declaration of end of marriage, maintenance issues and property concerns. However, this simply is not the case in common law countries where a ‘package solution’ is common and the issues of maintenance, matrimonial property and status of the marriage are often intertwined. These proposals fail to take into account that it is not only the substantive law of these three issues that is a matter of national identity but also how the three issues relate to each other and are balanced by the courts.
Nancy Levit (University of Missouri at Kansas City - School of Law) posted Reshaping the Narrative Debate, 34 Seattle University Law Review (forthcoming 2011). Here is the abstract:
In Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter, Joan Williams sets out to alter the terms of the public discussion about working, caregiving, and work-family conflicts. In doing so, Williams also reframes part of the conversation about the use of narratives in legal analysis and policy-making.
This essay describes the debate about narrative or storytelling in the legal academy. Two decades ago, a pitched jurisprudential battle surfaced in the pages of law reviews about the value of storytelling as legal scholarship. Since that time, narrative has sifted into academic texts: people are telling stories all over the place. Research is also emerging in cognitive neuroscience about the value of stories to human comprehension. And law schools are beginning to consciously recognize that part of what they do is to train storytellers. Another narrative phenomenon has also become more pronounced during this same time frame. The overwhelming majority of the information people acquire comes from press accounts rather than reading original materials. The media have a singular ability to prioritize public issues and mold perceptions. Thus, press-constructed stories have become an increasingly powerful tool impelling or obstructing policy change.
Part I of this essay describes the history of the debate about the value of narrative as legal scholarship. Part II examines the explosion of stories and attention to storytelling both inside and outside the legal academy. It also reviews emerging evidence from cognitive neuroscience about the importance of stories to the ways humans understand the world. In Part III, the essay centers on media-created narratives and focuses on Joan Williams’ instructive methodology for interrogating press-constructed myths. Moving from dismantling to reconstruction, Part IV circles back to the importance of stories—and the ways academics can develop counter narratives that can help reshape public understandings about work, families and fairness.
Monday, December 27, 2010
From The Washington Post:
HELENA, Mont. -- The Montana Supreme Court is considering restrictions to public access of certain information now available throughout the court system, including a proposal to seal all documents filed in family law cases except for final orders.
Freedom of information advocates say the proposals are unnecessary and would run counter to the right-to-know provisions in the state constitution.
The Supreme Court put the recommendations out for public comment on Dec. 7. The comment period will last for 90 days.
State Law Librarian Judith Meadows, one of the authors of the proposals, said a change is needed because the court system's existing privacy rules aren't being applied evenly and people not represented by lawyers don't understand them.
That means sensitive information about children involved a custody dispute, divorce or another court proceeding could find its way to the Internet, where it could be gathered by child predators or be used to bully a child, Meadows said.
Read more here.