Site Meter

Author: Solangel Maldonado

5

Polygamists Indicted in British Columbia

The day after I posted What Exactly is Wrong with Polygamy, the Canadian press reported that two alleged leaders of the polygamous community of Bountiful in British Columbia had been charged with practicing polygamy in violation of the Criminal Code. The Code makes it a crime for any person to enter into “any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time.” One of the charged men is alleged to have 20 wives; the other man is alleged to have two wives. There is no allegation that the defendants’ wives are underage. Although no charges have been brought against any of the wives, as Angela Campbell has pointed out, “[e]nforcing the criminal law against polygamy risks imprisoning not only the women’s husbands, but also them.”

The criminal indictment has placed the issue of polygamy at the forefront of Canadian constitutional law. The British Columbia authorities have been aware of the practice of polygamy in Bountiful for decades, but had chosen not to prosecute, in part, because some legal experts believe that the prohibition on polygamy will not survive a constitutional challenge. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects “freedom of conscience and religion.” In fact, the British Columbia Attorney General sought legal advice from three independent sources before deciding to approve the indictment and two recommended against charging the men with polygamy. The opinion of the third source has not been released.

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, which has rejected claims of religious freedom to practice polygamy, the Supreme Court of Canada has never addressed whether laws prohibiting polygamy violate the guarantee of religious freedom under the Charter of Rights. The accused men, who are alleging religious persecution, are likely to claim religious freedom as a defense to the charges. It will be interesting to see how this case develops.

59

What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

Thanks to Concurring Opinions for inviting me back to blog this month. I look forward to your comments.

I have been thinking a lot about polygamy lately. As I prepare to teach Family Law once again, I am confronted with polygamy everywhere I turn. First, the third season of Big Love, the HBO series about a Utah entrepreneur struggling to support and “satisfy” his three wives and eight children, begins next week. Second, last April, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed 468 children from their homes in a polygamous ranch. Although the Texas Supreme Court ordered the children’s return to their parents after finding no immediate danger warranting emergency removal, child protective services has continued its investigation in a handful of cases. Third, I have been following Professor Angela Campbell’s research on the polygamous community of Bountiful in British Columbia, which has challenged some of my assumptions about polygamous wives. Finally, I recently learned that polygamy is practiced in the U.S., not only by members of a fundamentalist Mormon sect in Utah, Arizona, and Texas, but also by Black Muslims and African immigrants in New York and Philadelphia. This brings me to the question I would like to raise: What exactly is wrong with polygamy? I will discuss some frequently made arguments and look forward to reading yours.

Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. Yet, it is estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 men, women, and children live in polygamous households in the U.S. Most polygamists do not enter into plural marriages for purely personal reasons, but rather are guided by religious beliefs. Members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (which broke with the Mormon church in 1890 when the latter disavowed polygamy) believe that only men who have at least three wives will enter the highest level of heaven and that women can only get to heaven if their husbands take them there. The United States Supreme Court, in Reynolds v. United States , rejected claims of religious freedom under the First Amendment to practice polygamy.

Read More

12

Facilitating Paternal Involvement

In a post last week, I discussed some of the reasons why so many noncustodial fathers disengage from their children. I received many thoughtful comments, some of which discussed the law’s unstated preference for maternal custody and mothers’ interference with visitation. Admittedly, some mothers do interfere with visitation and courts should do more to enforce fathers’ rights. However, we cannot ignore the opposite problem—fathers who do not see their children even when there is no one preventing them from doing so. There are many fathers who see their children less often than the custodial mother would like and less often than they are entitled to under the custody and visitation order. However, while residential parents may not legally interfere with the other parent’s access to the child, there are no legal or social sanctions imposed on fathers who fail to pick up their children for the evening or weekend as scheduled. Some mothers have actually gone to court asking the judge to force their child’s father to exercise his visitation rights only to be informed that there is nothing the law can do.

I disagree. The law can do something. The social and legal forces I discussed last week may have pushed some fathers away from their children. Thus, the law has a responsibility to facilitate paternal involvement. Unacceptably high rates of paternal absence call for drastic measures. That is why I propose that the law attempt to bring fathers back into their children’s lives by adopting a presumption of joint legal custody and requiring that they participate in their children’s upbringing.

Read More

18

Why Have Fathers Disappeared?

For years, policymakers have known that a significant proportion of fathers have little contact with their children once their relationship with their children’s mother ends. Although fathers today are less likely to disengage from their children than divorced fathers in previous decades, 20% to 30% of children have little or no contact with their fathers. Disengaged fathers—those who have had no contact with their children in the past year—pose a significant problem for society, especially their children. Although some studies suggest that children are no worse off when they have no contact with their fathers, other studies suggest otherwise. These latter studies have found that children who have regular “quality contact” (defined below) with their fathers tend to

■ adapt better to their parents’ divorce

■ have higher self-esteem

■ suffer lower rates of depression

■ experience fewer behavioral problems

■ enjoy higher levels of cognitive development, and

■ are more emotionally stable than children who have little or no contact with their fathers.

There is also evidence suggesting that children who share close relationships with their fathers might be less likely to

■ use drugs

■ attempt suicide

■ drop out of school

■ be unemployed

■ engage in early sexual activity and become pregnant at a young age

■ engage in anti-social and criminal behavior, or

■ disengage from their children–become absent fathers themselves

Just as important or perhaps even more so, children want to see their fathers and feel rejected when contact is infrequent. They blame themselves for their fathers’ absence, believing that their fathers abandoned them because they were “bad” or because they are simply unlovable.

Read More

5

The Mommy Wars and Breast Milk

Last month, we saw the revival of the “Mommy Wars” once again. Triggered by the publication of Leslie Bennetts’ book, The Feminine Mistake, major newspapers, magazines, and blogs debated Bennetts’ premise that mothers who leave the workplace to raise children, even temporarily, risk significant economic losses in the future. As commentators debated the pros and cons of women’s life choices, and the effects on their children, there was little discussion of an issue that may have a much greater impact on children—outsourcing of breast milk. Yes, you read it right the first time. Although women have always breastfed other women’s children, as Time magazine recently reported, only now is there a clear for-profit market in human breast milk in the United States.

Studies have shown that breast-fed babies enjoy numerous health benefits which infant formula simply cannot replicate. Clearly, breast milk is best but the question is “whose breast milk?” An infant might benefit most from his own mother’s milk, but there is evidence that another woman’s breast milk is preferable to infant formula. Some mothers are physically unable to provide their children with their own breast milk, while others choose not to because, according to Time, they have “high powered careers.” If the market for human breast milk continues to grow, this latter group (although small) might find itself in the center of the Mommy Wars.

Women who purchase human breast milk are generally wealthier than the women they employ to nurse their children. Although at a salary of $1,000 per week, wet nurses earn more than most nannies, and demand for their services is increasing, some people are uncomfortable with the class and racial implications of this line of work. Let’s not forget that during slavery, Black women often nursed their masters’ children.

Read More

11

Should the Law Recognize Grandparents’ Changing Roles?

Social scientists have long been aware of the significant role that grandparents in many minority and low-income families play in their grandchildren’s upbringing. These grandparents often live with or in close proximity to their grandchildren and provide much of their day to day care. The reasons are, in part, economic as the cost of child care has become prohibitive for many families, but they are also cultural. For example, African-American families have long been more likely than the rest of the U.S. population to rely on extended family members for child care. They are also more likely to encourage what I call quasi-parental relationships between grandparents and grandchildren as opposed to the “companionate” role that, according to sociologists Andrew Cherlin and Frank Furtensberg, the majority of grandparents play. Companionate grandparents play with their grandchildren, they buy them presents, and according to Dr. Kornhaber, the author of various grandparenting books, they become “a buddy,” “pal,” “secret confidante, and, at times, even a lighthearted conspirator” to their grandchildren. However, companionate grandparents have relatively little influence over their grandchildren’s upbringing and little desire for greater involvement.

If the majority of grandparents play only a companionate role in their grandchildren’s upbringing, current jurisprudence on grandparents’ rights makes a lot of sense. The Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville (2000) held that parents’ constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit requires that their decisions to deny grandparents and other non-parents access to their children be granted “special weight.” Although the Court never defined “special weight,” the majority of lower courts interpreting Troxel have applied a presumption that parents’ decisions to deny non-parents visitation with their children is in children’s best interests.

Read More

8

Why So Few Black Ballerinas?

There was an interesting article in yesterday’s NY Times discussing the absence of Black ballerinas in prominent ballet companies in the U.S. The reasons are many and complex, including economic (ballet is expensive), the pool of qualified dancers is very small, and access to ballet training is quite limited in the U.S. But I was struck by the suggestion that ballet companies are reluctant to hire even exceptionally gifted Black ballerinas because they are afraid to challenge their subscriber base and their expectation of “a ballet company, the way you thought ballet was.” Other Black ballerinas suggested that stereotyping of Black women was a major obstacle to their success because “Black women are perceived as being forceful, which doesn’t square with the ethereal image of a ballerina.”

I must confess that my exposure to ballet is quite limited. Thus, I found it hard to believe that dance companies would pass up the opportunity to recruit talented dancers because they feared their audience reaction. Then I remembered a column which appeared in the NY Times Magazine last December. A reader asked “The Ethicist” columnist whether she was racist because her enjoyment of “The Nutcracker” ballet had been “severely marred by the appearance of a black snowflake and then, even worse, a black Snow King.” According to this anonymous reader, “the aesthetic incongruity was inconceivable. The entire ballet was spoiled.” I am not sure what to make of this reader’s question, but it does suggest that ballet companies’ concerns about their audience’s ability to welcome Black dancers are not completely unfounded. Any thoughts?

8

China Tightens Restrictions on International Adoption—Will Demand for African-American Children Increase?

Thank you for the introduction and the opportunity to guest blog this month. I look forward to everyone’s comments.

The Chinese government’s new restrictions on international adoptions went into effect earlier this week. The new rules require that all adoptive parents be married at least two years (to a person of the opposite sex), that they have at least a high school education, and that their family assets total at least $80,000. Most Americans seeking to adopt internationally have no objection to the educational and financial requirements, possibly because most Americans adopting from China are upper middle class. However, there has been a lot of discussion on the adoption blogs about China’s new age and health requirements. According to the U.S. Department of State, China now requires that all foreigners seeking to adopt be 50 years of age or younger. They also must be free of certain medical conditions such as “mental disorders requiring medication for more than two years, including depression, mania, or anxiety neurosis” or a “Body Mass Index (BMI) of 40 or more.” Persons with severe facial deformities, limb paralysis or dysfunction, or blindness (even if only in one eye) are also disqualified.

Many sending countries place even greater restrictions on foreigners seeking to adopt. In addition, Russia has recently stopped accepting applications from American adoption agencies as it attempts once again to curb rampant corruption in its adoption system. Guatemala has similarly announced that it will impose greater restrictions on international adoptions as it attempts to comply with Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. As a result, many Americans must come to terms with the reality that their odds of creating or expanding their families through international adoption anytime soon might be reduced.

Read More