Family Law Prof Blog

Morocco proposes family law reforms to improve women’s rights

From CNBC Africa: 

Morocco aims to grant women more rights over child custody and guardianship as well as a veto over polygamous marriage, in the first review of its family code in 20 years, the justice and Islamic affairs ministers said on Tuesday.

Women’s rights campaigners have been pushing for a revision of regulations governing the rights of women and children within the family in Morocco, where Islam is the state religion.

The draft code proposes more than 100 amendments, notably allowing women to stipulate opposition to polygamy in a marriage contract, justice minister Abdellatif Ouahbi told reporters.

In the absence of such opposition, a husband can take a second wife under certain circumstances such as the first wife’s infertility, he said, putting more restrictions on polygamy.

It also aims to simplify and shorten divorce procedures, considers chid custody a shared right between spouses and gives either spouse the right to retain the marital home in the event of the other’s death, he said.

Read more here.

China’s foreign adoption ban leaves hundreds of children and families in limbo

From PBS News:

China’s announcement in September that it was ending international adoptions was a crushing blow for families awaiting the arrival of their adopted children. The policy change has now left more than 270 American families in limbo, unsure of where their adoption journey will lead. Stephanie Sy reports.

Read more/listen to audio transcript the here.

Happy Winter Break!

The Family Law Prof Blog will be taking a break for the holidays from December 22-January 1. We will be back in the new year.

5 Questions With Family Studies: Navigating Stepfamily Dynamics During The Holidays

From Institute for Family Studies:

Stepfamilies are a fundamentally different kind of family from a first-time family. In a stepfamily, one or both adults bring children from a previous relationship into their new family. Whether the adults are married or cohabiting, their stepfamily structure will have a profound impact on the dynamics they will face and the decisions they will need to make about everything from elder care to inheritance, support for adult children, and handling everyday finances. 

Critically important at this time of year is how to handle the holidays. Members of a stepfamily may bring differences in everything from the “right” thingshttps://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d83423995853ef/post/compose# to put on a Christmas tree to whether to have a tree at all. Meanwhile, they are trying to develop new ways to celebrate together. Adults may be excited about this, but children may feel grief or even guilt as they handle the realities of their new families. 

With this in mind, we’ve worked together—as women with both personal and professional experience with the issue of divorce and stepfamily dynamics—to develop questions and answers that reflect some of these emotions with the hope that we can be helpful to “blended families,” especially during the holidays. 

Read more here. 

5 Questions With Family Studies: Navigating Stepfamily Dynamics During The Holidays

From Institute for Family Studies:

Stepfamilies are a fundamentally different kind of family from a first-time family. In a stepfamily, one or both adults bring children from a previous relationship into their new family. Whether the adults are married or cohabiting, their stepfamily structure will have a profound impact on the dynamics they will face and the decisions they will need to make about everything from elder care to inheritance, support for adult children, and handling everyday finances. 

Critically important at this time of year is how to handle the holidays. Members of a stepfamily may bring differences in everything from the “right” thingshttps://www.typepad.com/site/blogs/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d83423995853ef/post/compose# to put on a Christmas tree to whether to have a tree at all. Meanwhile, they are trying to develop new ways to celebrate together. Adults may be excited about this, but children may feel grief or even guilt as they handle the realities of their new families. 

With this in mind, we’ve worked together—as women with both personal and professional experience with the issue of divorce and stepfamily dynamics—to develop questions and answers that reflect some of these emotions with the hope that we can be helpful to “blended families,” especially during the holidays. 

Read more here. 

Bernstein: "Gatekeeping Screen Time: Configuring the Regulation of Addictive Technologies and Kids' Privacy Rights"

Gaia Bernstein (Seton Hall Law School) has recently posted to SSRN her paper, (De)Funding Family Separations.  Here is the abstract:

We all, and especially our kids, spend many hours on screens. Many current studies uncover the harms of excessive screen time for kids. In reaction, legislatures in many states, as well as Congress, advanced laws to protect kids from addictive technologies. The tech industry, whose revenues depend on extending users’ time online, reacted by raising freedom of speech claims to repeal these laws. Through hijacking the debate and focusing it on the First Amendment, tech companies obstructed the real issue at stake -- how can legislatures most effectively regulate addictive technologies to reduce kids’ screen time?

This Article analyzes the legislative landscape to provide the answer to this question. It reveals that while different in their mechanisms, the laws converge into two models. Each model embraces different conceptions of who should be the gatekeeper of kids’ screen time on social media, games and other online platforms. One model – The Tech Liability Model – places the responsibility directly on tech companies. The Second model – The Parent Gatekeeper Model – places the responsibility on parents, by requiring tech companies to provide parents tools to block or monitor kids’ online.

This Article argues that the Tech Liability Model, is essential to successfully regulate addictive technologies and reduce kids’ screen time. First, it explains that the Parent Gatekeeper Model risks shifting responsibility from the party to blame – the tech companies – to parents. Second, it cautions that years of experience with parental controls indicate that parental gatekeeping laws are unlikely to be effective. Third, it explains that the Parent Gatekeeper Model can raise privacy concerns that would create unnecessary pitfalls. The Article proposes however, that hybrid laws, combining both models, could be successful if carefully executed. Specifically, it proposes that timing matters. legislatures can effectively enact parent gatekeeping laws if they do so simultaneously with or after implementing laws under the Tech Liability Model.

Leib: "Fiduciary Parenting of Transgender Youth"

Ethan J. Leib (Fordham University School of Law) has recently posted to SSRN his paper, Fiduciary Parenting of Transgender Youth.  Here is the abstract:

This Article aims to evaluate whether parents of minors who identify as transgender have moral duties to help their children achieve social or medical transition and whether they have moral permissions to take a more oppositional posture--and, if so, under what conditions. Very child-centered theories of parenting might recommend that children should get to make their own decisions without parental gate-keeping; and very parent-centered theories of parenting might recommend that parental interests or values are appropriate to guide decision-making, instead. A particular account of fiduciary parenting, the view developed and defended here, does not require that parents always accede to their children's demands for gender transitions. However, parents have obligations stemming from their fiduciary role to evaluate their children's demands with careful deliberation, conscientiousness, and sensitivity to dynamic change. In particular, children can require from their parents a decision procedure that properly orients parents towards children's welfare rather than parents' own and a decision procedure that also doesn't center "irreversibility" as a core anchoring mechanism, an entailment of careful and conscientious deliberation. It is an essential moment--as the Supreme Court is about to take up state bans on gender-affirming care for minors--to gain more clarity about how "first-responder" parents should be managing demands from their children about their gender expressions.

CFPB Report Finds Mortgage Companies Create Obstacles for Homeowners After Death or Divorce

From Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a report on the experiences of homeowners dealing with their mortgage company after divorce or the death of an original borrower. Many homeowners report that their servicers push them to take on new, higher-interest loans instead of keeping their existing mortgage. Homeowners also report recurring requests from servicers for the same or updated documents extending over months and sometimes years, at the same time they are dealing with the death of a loved one or a divorce. Domestic violence survivors face additional challenges, including mortgage companies continuing to send critical mortgage information to the abuser and thus putting the survivor’s safety at risk. Servicers generally blame investor requirements, processing volumes, or “systems issues,” rather than taking responsibility for their shoddy customer service.

“When someone loses a spouse or goes through a divorce, the last thing they need is their mortgage servicer giving them the runaround or pushing them into an unaffordable loan,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Mortgage servicers have clear obligations under federal law to help these homeowners.”

“Assumptions are a fundamental feature of a VA-guaranteed loan, and when a Veteran passes away, their qualified surviving spouse should be able to assume the loan without further delay,” said Joshua Jacobs, Under Secretary for Benefits at the Department of Veterans Affairs. “It’s unacceptable that anyone would target surviving spouses in their time of need. VA has published guidance to remind holders and servicers of assumption guidelines — and we’ve outlined how VA will address any failure to comply with these requirements.”

Read more here.

Family Law Wrestles With Ethics as It Embraces Technology

From Best Lawyers:

There is no going back; we are past the pixel of no return.

Technological advances like generative AI (“GAI”) have created a paradigm shift in society, impacting the practice of family law in surprising ways and raising important ethical and legal questions.

As technology pervades all aspects of modern life, family law practitioners must adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

Technology touches every aspect of our lives, influencing how we communicate, work and play. Smartphones, Facebook, Zoom, Netflix and Uber are seamlessly integrated into our daily lives, and new advancements are emerging rapidly.

Unsurprisingly, the societal shifts brought about by technology have also profoundly influenced the practice of family law.

Read more here.

Kohm: "The Abolition of Woman"

Lynne Marie Kohm (Regent University School of Law) has recently posted to SSRN his paper, The Abolition of Woman.  Here is the abstract:

This Article examines whether the notion of “woman” may be being reimagined toward annihilation by ideology that deconstructs the uniqueness of women, unwittingly creating the potential abolition of woman. Section I of this Article examines the basis and history of feminist jurisprudence, affirming the genesis of women’s rights as unique to women. It then traces how that ideology has become a bit twisted in the twenty-first century. Section II examines and analyzes three areas of law that affect women most uniquely: reproduction, gender fluidity, and motherhood. Examining these areas and the incidents surrounding each tends to reveal a devolution of the concept of woman. Section II also demonstrates how feminism uses language of reproductive freedom to limit women, how feminism uses gender fluidity to eliminate women, and how feminism has begun to speak about motherhood in order to replace women. Section III then presents a solution to metamodern feminism’s destructive treatment of women and looks to context for the next generation to stanchion female flourishing.

International Society of Family Law – North American Regional Conference Family Law in an Age of Political Contestation

Philadelphia, June 16, 2025

CALL FOR PAPERS

The ISFL North American Regional Conference will take place at the Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia on June 16, 2025. The theme of the conference is "Family Law in an Age of Political Contestation."

We encourage papers that approach family law from the lens of critical theory, intersectional analysis, abolitionism, and/or law and economic inequality. We especially welcome proposals that focus on the impact of the current political moment on families who are vulnerable or otherwise marginalized due to their members' identities (LGBTQIA+, immigration status, race, disability, income status, for example).

Please submit abstracts of maximum 1000 words here. When doing so, please also include your current position and institutional affiliation. The deadline for submissions is February 1, 2025. We will notify those whose papers have been selected shortly thereafter.

You are also invited to attend without giving a paper. If you wish to do so, please check the box next to the "Attend, but not present scholarship" option at the submission website. If you are interested in serving as a moderator or commentator on a panel, please register for the conference and check the appropriate box on the submission form by February 1, 2025.  

There may be a modest registration fee (no more than $30). Unfortunately, we cannot offer any financial support for our speakers, but we nevertheless hope that we will be able to welcome you in Philadelphia in June 2025. Please email [email protected] with any questions.

Conveners:
Prof. Sarah Katz (Temple University School of Law)
Prof. Dara Purvis (Temple University School of Law)
Dean Rachel Rebouche (Temple University School of Law)

Prof. Emily Stolzenberg (Villanova University School of Law)

Netherlands to phase out international adoption over next six years

From Reuters:

The Netherlands is to phase out international adoption over the next six years, following a 2021 report that raised concerns about potential abuse.

 

In the past 50 years, Dutch parents have adopted around 40,000 children from 80 countries. However, the practice has declined significantly in recent years, with only 50 adoptions from abroad in 2023, according to the independent Dutch Youth Institute think tank.

 

Adoptees have often discovered as adults that their birth documents are forged or lost, or that their adoptions were illegal.

 

The Netherlands had already frozen international adoptions between February 2021 and November 2022, after a government commission found that children had been stolen or bought from their birth parents in cases going back to the 1960s.

 

The lengthy phase-out is intended to allow countries of origin to adjust and to allow agencies permitted to act as intermediaries to complete procedures and continue to submit applications for overseas adoption until May 1, 2030.

 

Read more here.

Parenting Among Married Same-Sex Couples: Experiences, Aspirations, and Barriers

From UCLA School of Law Williams Institute:

Executive Summary

This report focuses on current parenting, desire to parent, and perceived barriers to parenthood among married same-sex couples who are under the age of 50. The analysis is based on a subsample of 263 participants of a larger sample of 448 married same-sex couples, ranging in age from early 20s to 80s. The current subsample represents 58.7% of the larger sample.1

In limiting the sample to participants under age 50, we aimed to capture participants who were actively parenting children under 18 and those who were in the stage of life where they could or might consider future parenthood.

Read more here.

Divorce Need Not Ignite Estate Litigation, But Too Often It Does

From JD Supra:

Certain life events demand that estate planners work with client testators to adjust their estate plans. Divorce and remarriage are at the top of that list. When matrimony devolves into acrimony – setting the stage for expensive and counterproductive “scorched earth” litigation – everyone loses.

We strive here to give estate planners a look into what can spark expensive and protracted litigation, and how to avoid it. We offer background on relevant legal concepts, including revocation upon divorce, joint tenancy, ademption and abatement, and estate modification. Careful attention to these concepts and vigilance when a client’s circumstances change can save enormous headaches for estate lawyers and their clients down the line.

First, we urge planners to read “When Death and Divorce Collide” by Charles M. Riffle, Kathleen A. Durrans, and Melissa R. Karlsten (the “Death and Divorce authors”). Though published in 2005, the value of their analysis and insights endures. The authors explain – in the context of dividing assets – the tension between family court and probate court in California. The two court systems can differ substantively in how they answer important questions like these:

• When a spouse dies before a couple’s divorce is final, how is joint tenancy of real or personal property allocated?
• What are the reimbursement rights of a spouse who contributed property to acquire joint property during the marriage?
• How are pensions, profit sharing, or retirement plans distributed to either the surviving spouse or the heirs of the deceased spouse?

Read more here.

LGBTQ+ parents are rushing to adopt their children before Trump is sworn in

From 19th News:

After three rounds of fertility treatments, Haley Swenson and her wife, Alieza Durana, had a baby boy in March 2023. Because Swenson carried their baby and was the biological mother, only she was seen as the parent in the eyes of the law. Durana would have to adopt her own son.

That process is expensive — at least a couple thousand dollars — so they put it off as the costs of raising an infant mounted. But the day after Donald Trump was reelected, the couple felt a new urgency: Would the incoming administration strip away their rights to call themselves moms? They had to seriously consider taking extra steps to ensure their child would, legally, always be considered theirs.

Ahead of a second Trump administration that is likely to be hostile to LGBTQ+ people, queer parents across the country are calling attorneys and researching how they can protect themselves in the event that a Republican-controlled White House and Congress attempts to strip back protections for LGBTQ+ families.

Read more here.

Gupta-Kagan: "(De)Funding Family Separations"

Josh Gupta-Kagan (Columbia Law School) has recently posted to SSRN his paper, (De)Funding Family Separations.  Here is the abstract:

ederal foster care funding exists in tension with foundational family law principles. The law protects family integrity: the state may only separate parents and children in extreme cases and, when it does, the state must work to reunify families. Yet the federal funding system directs billions of federal dollars to support CPS agencies and pay subsidies to foster parents, adoptive parents, and guardians. It does so via an open-ended entitlement, so that the more families a state separates, the more federal funds it receives. This system makes it relatively cheaper for CPS agencies to take custody of children, incentivizes states to support permanent destruction of families and creation of new ones through terminations of parental rights and subsequent adoptions, and diminishes state courts' role in checking state agency power by enlisting them in efforts to maximize federal funding. The federal funding system also incentivizes families to agree to parent-child separations as a condition of aiding kinship caregivers, and incentivizes foster parents to seek permanent destruction of families and new permanent custody arrangements. The federal funding system's history and operation demonstrates how it serves to divert public benefits from parents, specifically CPS agencies and kinship and non-kinship foster parents, adoptive parents, and guardians.

Any reforms need to enable parents to receive necessary public benefits--which an increasing body of research shows limits child maltreatment and CPS agency involvement--and provide aid to kinship caregivers without requiring family separation or incentivizing family destruction. This article proposes a range of reforms to align financial incentives with the law's commitment to family integrity, and thus push the system towards separating families only when necessary. First, it proposes a set of incremental reforms to limit the worst incentives of the present system. Second, it proposes a mechanism to provide support to kinship caregivers without requiring the separation of parents and children. Third, it proposes a fundamental rethinking of the federal funding system: Congress should repeal the open-ended entitlement nature of the federal funding system, and direct similar funds to states to invest in efforts to prevent child maltreatment and prevention activities or foster care costs.

Chambers Armstrong: "Just a Place or a Just Place: Domestic Violence, Urban-Rural Differences, and Access to Justice"

Cassie Chambers Armstrong (University of Louisville) has recently posted to SSRN her paper Just a Place or a Just Place: Domestic Violence, Urban-Rural Differences, and Access to Justice, forthcoming Kentucky Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

This Article examines rural court systems to understand how they are serving survivors of domestic violence. It does so by gathering quantitative data about civil protective order proceedings from over one hundred courtrooms across more than seventy-five counties. Specifically, it examines the rate of legal representation, provision of non-court resources and information, the structures of a given court system (open or closed docket, virtual or in-person attendance, dedicated family court or not), and patterns of judicial discretion. For each variable, this Study asks: Are outcomes different in a rural community?

The answer is, resoundingly, yes. Domestic violence survivors navigating rural court systems are less likely to be represented by counsel, and courts are less likely to provide them with information about supportive resources. They are less likely to have access to a dedicated family court judge and unlikely to have a judge enter ancillary orders to address issues of child custody or child support. They are less likely to have meaningful access to virtual court options and more likely to have a court hear their petition in open court instead of a closed proceeding.

These findings, and others, suggest rural survivors face unique challenges in obtaining civil protective orders compared to their urban counterparts. Additionally, these data show that all survivors—whether in urban or rural areas—face barriers navigating court systems. Collectively, these results call for place-based study and policy interventions to ensure that all survivors can seek meaningful justice in the courts.

Marriage Increasingly Protects Against Deaths Of Despair

From Institute for Family Studies:

Vice President-elect J.D. Vance’s memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, documents the toll of economic stagnation on working-class communities across America. Especially among workers with only a high school education, the growth in real median earnings has been slow. Economic stagnation, coupled with the increased availability of prescription opioids for pain, has contributed to an increase in 'deaths of despair'—deaths from drug or alcohol overdose, suicide, or alcoholic liver disease caused by heavy drinking—particularly among less-educated white men. Between 2005 and 2019, an average of 70,000 Americans each year lost their lives this way. New research from Hangqing Ruan, Melody Ge Gao, Yajie Xiong, and Philip N. Cohen shows that between 2000 and 2021, age-adjusted mortality rates increased 1.1% per year for suicide, 2.2% per year for alcohol, and 9% for drug overdose.

Read more here.

USCIS Updates Guidance on Determining Custody for Children Acquiring U.S. Citizenship

From the USCIS:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and Services is issuing guidance regarding the legal and physical custody requirements for purposes of acquisition of U.S. citizenship under section 320 and naturalization under section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We are also expanding guidance on derivation of citizenship before the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, under former INA section 321.

The update clarifies and expands the current guidance on determining legal and physical custody of children of U.S. citizens for acquisition of citizenship purposes. Specifically, the updated guidance:

• Expands guidance on when USCIS considers a child to be in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent, clarifies the effect of a nunc pro tunc (retroactive) correction of a custody order, and clarifies when USCIS may recognize private custody agreements;
• Clarifies that USCIS considers a U.S. citizen parent who has actual uncontested custody of a child to have legal custody for purposes of acquisition of citizenship when there is no judicial determination on legal custody and the relevant jurisdiction’s law does not determine which parent has legal custody of the child;
• Provides that a U.S. citizen parent has physical custody of a child when the child resides or physically lives with the parent;
• Expands guidance on adjudicating derivation of U.S. citizenship claims before the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, by providing detailed clarification on each of the requirements of former INA section 321, including the legal custody requirements; and
• Clarifies that USCIS cannot issue a Certificate of Citizenship to any applicant who does not take the Oath of Allegiance and is not eligible for a waiver of the oath.

This guidance is effective immediately and applies to applications pending on or after Nov. 19, 2024.

Read more here.

A Psychologist Reveals The 4 Types Of People Considering A Divorce

From Forbes:

Divorce is a deeply personal, complex and overwhelming decision. For some, it stems from intense conflict; for others, it’s a slow drift apart. A 2021 study published in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy sheds light on this decision-making process, revealing four distinct types of individuals contemplating divorce, each with unique approaches to addressing their marital struggles.

Here are the four types of people who think about getting a divorce, and how they go about trying to save their marriage, according to the study.

Read more here.