|
Contact Us
| |
Petitioner, in preparation of this writ, was surprised by the difficulty in finding a
single Supreme Court or other Federal Court citation for a parent simply demanding the
right to a jury in a proceeding effecting their relationship with their children. I was
able to find some examples of state rulings, Matter of Sean B.W., 381 NYS 2d 656
(Key Number: 230K19.10 - Trial by Jury/Domestic Relations) and the common rationale was:
- Custody/adoption proceedings were unknown at common law.
- There is no constitutional right to a trial by jury in custody proceedings.
As stated previously in this document's section on Constitutional Provisions.
Petitioner prays the court will examine these issues in light of the evolution of divorce
into just another civil suit between individuals. Like life & liberty, the decision to
interfere with a child's relationship with a parent - should not always be left to one
person.
This was "brought home" to the Petitioner when making oral argument in front
of the Appellate Division. While speaking on the pain of separation for both parent and
child, I was interrupted by the presiding Justice, who commented, "but you get to
be with your child quite often I believe, every other weekend is a four day weekend."
I see my child 4 days out of every 14.
Justices, what a personal question that was. One that really strikes to the essence
of this petition. What burden of proof must be overcome before the "state"
is allowed to force its "opinion" into one of our most personal choices. How
would each of you and staff members answer that question when thinking about your own
children, or your prior relationship with a loving parent. Would you have settled for 4
days out of 14, and considered that quite often?
In discussion with lawyers and professionals involved in the system - I have also heard
remarks similar to the following:
- "Well, people want to protect their privacy in these matters - don't want a jury
there" This may be true in some cases. A jury is not required, but optional. A
person accused of a crime, may overcome embarrassment to avoid an unjust prosecution. A
parent, facing years of limited contact with their children, should have the same option.
It does effect two people - but this may operate to encourage settlement and a negotiated
agreement.
- "It would be much more stressful for a child if required to testify with jurors
present." In our modern times, it would certainly be possible to videotape
testimony of children for the jurors. In any case, are we doing a child a favor by
avoiding a few hours of stress, but then condemning them to a childhood of separation from
a parent.
- "My God! The system is overloaded with cases as it is - how much slower will things
get with juries present!" With a presumption of an equal relationship between
parents, and the hurdle of convincing a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise - it may
encourage more settlements when an attorney can tell a client, "Look, you may not
like your spouse, but they are not a threat to the kids and also deserve to be a parent -
do you really think you can convince a jury otherwise?".
- Also, it may encourage state legislatures to pay more attention to encouraging
realistic marriages. There appears to be so much attention to legislation fixing the
effects of failed marriages - it may help to spend effort on pre-marriage classes prior to
issuing a license, the development of "default" prenuptial agreements that
future spouses could agree to do as is - or be free to modify.
A. National need for "Miranda" rights for families.
The Court has exerted its power to protect those accused of crime, but what of parent's
and children facing separation? So many parents have been "zipped" through the
system, without ever really knowing what their real rights were (if any). A right to
Counsel, a right to a Jury of your Peers - these need to become standards all are aware
of.
B. Citizens have a right to a Jury determination in a proceeding
effecting Child Custody.
Certainly, the right to a Jury is one of our most important right's in the Bill of
Rights. The founders of our nation knew a "jury of your peers" was necessary to
protect the freedom of its citizenry from unwarranted intrusion by the "State" -
even if this is under the mask of "benign" intrusion, or "good public
policy".
The extensive argument which follows highlights United States Supreme Court decisions
which have upheld the special nature of the parent/child bond. It is but a natural
extension this bond also be afforded the protection of a jury, and of a standard of proof
"beyond a reasonable doubt" - that which we afford our most valued liberties.
The excerpt which follows has been edited for size and content, the substance of the
brief was from a similar case in Wisconsin, permission was given by the attorney to use
portions of the argument. The Petitioner did not do all the voluminous research referenced
in the following argument. It has TWO major sections, first including "legal"
research, next "social" research.
Dated: May 5, 1994
Copy permission granted by Travis Ballard, JD, Adrian MI
In recent years whenever the marital status of two parents changed from married to
divorced the child loses one parent in most instances. In nine out ten cases, the child
lives with the mother and "visits" with the father every other weekend. Dr.
Richard Warshak, The Custody Revolution (1992). Indeed, this is so common that it is
called "standard" visitation, In short, it is the arrangement that is meted out
to children in the absence of compelling proof that some other arrangement would better
serve the needs of the child. While the child is continually told that the divorce is
"not your fault" the child is routinely punished by the change in marital status
of his parents by the loss of one of those parents as a major factor in the child's life.
This brief takes the position that this current state of affairs is a destructive
holdover of the prevailing cultural paradigms in existence at the time that divorce rates
began to rise. The scientific evidence concerning the results of these policies points
clearly to the damage suffered by children and society when the relationship with either
parent is significantly weakened. It further indicates that, contrary to the cultural
assumptions in existence in the decade which spawned the high divorce rate, men and women
are equally good at parenting and equally important to the well being of the child. Finally,
it is argued that any schema which impairs the parent/child relationship without clear and
convincing evidence of a compelling state interest for doing so violate the Equal
Protection and Due Process rights of both the parent and the child.
Dr. Richard Warshak, America's leading expert on father custody, described the history
of routine custody arrangements as follows:
"In earlier times it was assumed that men, by nature, are better suited to protect
and provide for children. Since 1920, it has been assumed that women, by nature, are
better suited to love and care for children.
"These assumptions, which so powerfully affect so many children's lives, are based
on nothing more than folklore and sexual stereotypes .... As guidelines for custody
dispositions, folklore, sentiment, and stereotypes are poor substitutes for factual
information. In the last two decades, social scientists have examined different custody
arrangements and their effects on children's development. If this information is ignored,
and we continue to allow myth and sentiment to rule custody decisions, we short change our
children and we short change ourselves."
Extensive evidence will be presented in this brief which indicates that it is
imperative that the child/parent relationship with both parents be maintained as much as
possible.
Unfortunately, current arrangement do not routinely maintain both relationships.
Indeed, the current policy results in a situation in which 42% of fathers fail to see
their children at all after divorce. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Christine Winquist
Nord, "Parenting Apart: Patterns of Childbearing after Marital Disruption,"
Journal of Marriage and the Family 47, no. 4 (November 1985): 874, cited in Sylvia Ann
Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks (1991) at 286Ä87.
As the rate of divorce triples between 1960 and 1982 before leveling off at the 50
percent mark, a generation of children raised in fatherless families has been extensively
studied. Despite the overwhelming evidence that children need both parents-even after the
dissolution of a marriage- America has been slow to change the paradigm it holds which
presumes that the post-divorce family will have only a single parent. "The main
obstacle to progress is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
The U.S. Supreme Court long ago noted that a parent's right to "the companionship,
care, custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more
precious" than any property right. May v Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, 97 L.Ed. 1221,
73 S. Ct. 840, 843 (1952). In Lassiter v Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27,
68 L.Ed. 2d 640, 102 S.Ct. 2153, 2159-60 (1981), the Court stressed that the parent-child
relationship" is an important interest that 'undeniably warrants a deference and,
absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.'" quoting Stanley v Illinois,
405 U.S. 645, 651, 31 L. Ed.2d 551, 92 S.Ct.1208 (1972). See also Franz v United States,
707 F.2d 582, 594-602 and 712 F.2d 1428 (D.C.Cir. 1983) (interest of non-custodial parent
in consortium with child constitutionally protected); Sherrod v Berry, 827 F2d 195, 207(7th
Cir. 1987), parental association a constitutionally protected liberty interest.
This is not to say that courts should blindly or automatically impose joint custody
arrangements. Clearly, there are many situation where joint custody is neither appropriate
nor practical. Whenever a parent/child relationship is restricted by a family court order,
however, such a restriction must be done in the least restrictive manner.
Maximizing time with each parent is the only Constitutional manner by which a parent
is able to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship after divorce. While
geographic distance, school schedules and the like must be factored into the
custody/visitation calculus, trial courts faced with a custody/visitation decision must
accord appropriate constitutional respect to maintaining a healthy parent-child
relationship by granting each parent as much time as possible with the child under the
circumstances of each case. "No bond is more precious and none should be more
zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." Carson v Elrod,
411 F. Supp, 645, 649 (1976).
Application of constitutional protections to custody/visitation rights is a necessary
corollary to the Bill of Rights because individual liberty cannot be secured unless
"certain kinds of highly personal relationships" are afforded "a
substantial measure of sanctuary from unjustified interference by the State." See
Karst, The Freedom of Intimate Association, 89 Yale L.J. 624 (1980). Providing
constitutional shelter for a parent-child relationship simply reflects the realization
that individuals draw much of their emotional enrichment from such relationships and that
the sanctity of family relationship is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history."
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977).
If there is any fundamental proposition of government on which all would agree, it
is that one of the highest goals of society must be to achieve and maintain equality
before the law. Yet this ideal remains an empty form of words unless rights are
equally enforced. The appropriate manner for enforcing the constitutional right to a
meaningful parent-child relationship after divorce is for courts to maximize the time the
child spends with each parent absent compelling reasons to the contrary. "It is a
vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are
reciprocal." Ashby v White 2 Ld. Raym. 938, 953 (1703).
In the Court of Appeal in Jermstead v. McNelis (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 528, a statutory
criteria for child placement in adoption proceedings of a "best interest of the
child" was weighed against a parent's federal constitutional rights to a parental
relationship with one's children:
"We are constrained to read section 7017,subdivision (d)(2) in a manner which
avoids a potential for conflict with the federal constitution. [Citations omitted.] If
read to bar a parental preference of a natural father who has appropriately grasped his
custodial opportunity interest the statute would present such a conflict. The statute, as
we said, lends itself to conformity with the constitutional concerns. In a case where the
natural father has diligently sought to shoulder the burdens of the paternal relationship,
including the burden of custody, the requirement of parental preference arises from the
federal Constitution. Accordingly, the statutory criteria of section 7017 for the best
interest of the child regarding retention of parental rights under the statute must be
read in the light of this requirement. The statute admits of such an accommodation."
Id. at 541.
Clearly the "best interests of the child" standard is to be read in light
of the requirement that the parental-child relationship remain intact.
In those cases where joint custody is not ordered in a divorce setting, the parent
without custody has been deprived of physical custody, just as in any other setting. The
identity of the person who has custody of the child is irrelevant to the requisite proof
required to deprive one parent of physical custody. Surely an action to determine whether
a parental right should be retained is as fundamental to the parent child relationship as
an action to terminate that relationship.
The impact these judicial decisions have on the lives of all concerned cannot be over
estimated. Childhood passes rapidly and it quickly becomes too late to unring the bell.
Expanded visitation or joint custody may seem unimportant, but only to those who have
never experienced the hollow time of forced separation. "No human bond is cemented
with grater strength than that of parent and child." Michelle W. v Ronald W., 39 Cal
3d 354 (1985).
Standard of Proof
Similarly in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 proceeding, the standard of
proof before a parent may be deprived of physical custody of a child is clear and
convincing evidence. (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal. App.3d 540, 548) The standard is
the same when there is a supplemental petition to remove a child from a parent's physical
custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387. (In re Fred J. (1979) 89
Cal.App.3d 168, 173-174)
In those cases where joint custody is not ordered in a divorce setting, the parent
without custody has been deprived of physical custody, just as in any other setting. The
identity of the person who has custody of the child is irrelevant to the requisite proof
required to deprive one parent of physical custody. Surely an action to determine whether
a parental right should be retained is as fundamental to the parent child relationship as
an action to terminate that relationship.
The impact these judicial decisions have on the lives of all concerned cannot be over
estimated. Childhood passes rapidly and it quickly becomes too late to unring the bell.
Expanded visitation or joint custody may seem unimportant, but only to those who have
never experienced the hollow time of forced separation. "No human bond is cemented
with grater strength than that of parent and child." Michelle W. v Ronald W., 39 Cal
3d 354 (1985).
It is accepted constitutional doctrine that the due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment protects interests that are recognized as constituting "life,"
"liberty," or "property." In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court
has recognized that individuals possess a fundamental liberty interest-entitled to
constitutional protection-regarding such matters as the decision whether to have children,
decisions concerning the upbringing of their children, and the retention of their children
through exercise of custody. Read together, the cases clearly establish a zone of
privacy around the parent-child relationship, which only can be invaded by the state when
the state possesses a sufficiently compelling reason to do so. As a result, when the
marital breakdown occurs, both parents are entitled to constitutional protection of their
right to continue to direct the upbringing of their children through the exercise of
custody. Adequate protection of this parental right requires that parents be awarded
joint custody [or expansive visitation] ... unless a compelling state interest directs
otherwise. H.L. Robinson, Joint Custody: Constitutional Imperatives, 54 Cinn. L. Rev.
27, 40-41 (1985) (footnotes omitted). See also, Ellen Canacakos, "Joint Custody as a
Fundamental Right", Arizona Law Review, Vol 23, No 2 (Tuscon, AZ: University of
Arizona Law College), Tuscon, 95721.
This proposition that the parent-child relationship in a traditional custody/visitation
dispute commands constitutional al respect is admittedly lacking a long life of specific
case authority approving it. This lack of specific case authority is not fatal to the
proposition's vitality. At least one federal court has found that the paucity of cases
recognizing the constitutional sanctity of this relationship is readily explained by the
relative rarity of divorce in American society in the past. That court further held that
the historical absence of a strong tradition should not result in denial of the
constitutional protection for such relationships as they become increasingly prevalent.
Maximizing the child's time with each parent is the constitutional mandate absent a
compelling state interest of protecting the child from harm. There is no evidence that
maximizing the child's time with both parents would cause the child any harm. The evidence
is quite the opposite.
To further underscore the need for courts to consider the constitutional protections
which attach in family law matters, one need only look to recent civil rights decisions.
In Smith v City of Fontana, 818 F2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987), the court of appeals
held that in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 where police had killed a
detainee, the children had a cognizable interest under the due process clause.
The analysis of the court included a finding that "a parent has a constitutionally
protected liberty interest in the companionship and society of his or her child. Id at
1418, citing Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1985). In
Smith the court stated: "We now hold that this constitutional interest in familial
companionship and society logically extends to protect children from unwarranted state
interference with their relationships with their parents."
B. Overwhelming Research Favors Joint Custody as the Preferred
Alternative
In all actions involving child custody of visitation the issue is. "What are the
best interests of the child'?" or, in other words, "What disposition serves the
best interests of the child?" See, e.g. Burich v. Burich, 314 N.W. 2d 82, 85 (1981).
The most recent scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that paradigms of family law
which do not give a preference to joint custody must be viewed as a threat to the best
interests of children who find themselves with divorcing parents.
Research of the past decade has revealed new insights into how children of divorce are
affected by the custody and visitation arrangements imposed on them by the family law
courts of our nation. Numerous shibboleths about so-called impracticalities of joint
custody or expansive parental contact arrangements have been disproved. The evidence is
simply overwhelming that joint custody or expansive parental contact is the optimal way to
promote the best interests of the child.
The Children's Rights Council conducted a "comprehensive survey of more than 50
studies showing the greater risks (on a variety of indicators) for children raised in
single- parent homes...whether the single parent is a father or a mother." D. Levy,
Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents, A Guide to Shared Parenting in the 21st
Century, Children's Rights Council (1993) at p. 118, fn. 38.
The majority view of the psychiatric and pediatric profession is that mothers and
fathers are equals as parents. See J. Atkinson, "Criteria for Deciding Child Custody
in the Trial and Appellate Courts, " Family Law Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, No 1 (Spring
1984). A close relationship with both parents is necessary to maximize the child's chances
for a healthy and productive life.
Dr. Richard Warshak described the results of the most recent research as follows:
"Much of the earlier work in infant development concerned the 'bonding' between
the mother and child. Under the influence of the motherhood mystique, we had always
assumed that these bonds were the exclusive providence of mothers and children."
We were wrong. Numerous studies have established beyond a doubt that infants form
close attachment bonds with their fathers and that this occurs at about the same time that
they form attachments to their mothers. Although father and mother usually play
different roles in their child's life, 'different' does not mean more or less important.
***
Psychologists Ross Parke, of the University of Illinois, and Douglas Sawin, of the
University of Texas...carefully observed fathers and mothers bottle-feeding their newborns.
They found that fathers were as sensitive as mothers to their baby's signals. Fathers,
like mothers, responded to their infant's clues by stopping the feeding for a moment,
talking to the baby. and looking more closely to see what was wrong. Moreover, the amount
of milk consumed by the infants with their mothers and fathers was nearly identical.
"Another series of studies has found that men-even bachelor college students-are
as sensitive as women in discriminating among different crying patterns of infants.
Whether or now we want to attribute these findings to a 'paternal instinct,' these, and
many similar studies conducted at universities throughout the world, have established
beyond a doubt that women have no monopoly on child-care skills."
Dr. Frank Williams, a leading authority on the effects of divorce on children compared
joint custody to traditional visitation arrangements in his October 20, 1990, address in
Washington, D.C. (2)
"It is the continued parental bonding, not the number of homes or vehicular
travel, that will be the crucial determinant of children;s forward psychological
development following divorce. In these days, when both parents frequently work, and rely
on sharing the child-rearing with each other, with other family members, and with
housekeepers and day care personnel, the concept of one 'primary psychological caretaker'
is outdated. Frequently there are two psychological caretakers, or a network of
caretakers, supervised by two parents."
The emotional stability of children of divorced parents is directly related to the
quality of their continuing relationships with both of their parents. "We have
repeatedly described the dissatisfaction of so many youngsters who felt they were not
seeing their fathers often enough, If custody and visiting issues are to be within the
realm of the 'best interest of the child,' then such widespread discontent must be taken
very seriously. "J. Wallerstein and J. Kelly, Surviving the Breakup, 142-143 (1980) .
See also, D. Luepnitz, Child Custody, A Study of Families After Divorce, (1983).
In a revised version of an address presented by Dr. Joan Kelly, who has performed
extensive research on the effects of divorce upon children, at the annual meetings of the
American Psychological Association in 1987, Kelly wrote:
"The primary negative aspect of divorce reported by children in numerous
studies was loss of contact with a parent (Hetherington et al., 1982;
Kurdek & Berg, 1983; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980, Warshak & Santrock, 1983).
The traditional visiting pattern of every other weekend, most often a maximum of four
overnights spent with the father per month, created intense dissatisfaction among
children, and especially young boys. Youngsters expressed profound feelings of deprivation
and loss, and reactive depressions were frequently observed in young school-aged boys
(Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980)." Id.
Indeed, sole custody arrangements with limited visitation by the non-custodial parent
have resulted in children suffering a broad range of emotional disorders including deep
feelings of loss and abandonment, strained interactions with both parents, disturbances in
cognitive performance, and sex role identification problems. Trombetta, Joint Custody:
Recent Research and Overloaded Courtrooms Inspire New Solutions to Custody Disputes, 19 J.
Fam. L. 213, 217-20 (1980).
Researchers Alston and Williams noted that "[a] significant relationship was
found between father absence and self-concepts of the boys. They placed less value on
themselves, had less stable relationships with peers, less interaction with family members
and showed a weaker scholastic performance. D. Alston and A. Williams, "Relationship
Between Father Absence and Self-Concept of Black Adolescent Boys," Journal of Negro
Education, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Spring 1982), 134-138. See also, Richard Koestner, et al.,
The importance of the father was again pointed out by Professor Daniel Shybunko in his
1989 study:
"... The father-child relationship was found to be a good predictor of social
competence regardless of marital status. Moreover, the importance of the father-child
relationship increased dramatically in the divorced family. This supports the view
(Hetherington, Cox & Cox, 1978) that availability of the father is associated with
positive adjustment and social relations, especially with boys." Daniel Shybunko,
"Effects of Post-divorce Relationships on Child Adjustment", Children of
Divorce:
The implications of the social science research on single-custody families was
translated from bland, euphemistic terms of art such as "positive social
behaviors" and "predictors of social competence" into graphic reality by
Professor Stanley Page, while writing for a general audience:
"The homes lacking a father are, obviously, mostly the product of ... divorce ...
Having opted for divorce as the solution to family and marital problems, our society has
created a built-in child-destroying machine. And since there is not, as yet [in 1984],
even the proposal of an idea for remedying the inevitably resultant distortion of the
child-father relationship, we can be confident that the seeds of a vast army of sociopaths
have been sown. Bred in fatherless homes and filled with boundless and amorphous rage for
which they are not to blame, they will overrun this land. They are sure to make it even
more uninhabitable for peace-loving citizenry already troubled by major breakdown in
morality and by all manner of rampant vice and criminality."
One would expect that those divorce parents whose parental rights and responsibilities
were felt most strongly would be where joint custody was ordered. Because both parents
were still "members of the family", payment of child support should be higher
where a paren-tectomy had been performed. In fact, "[t]he Census Bureau reported
similar results in 1992, in the first survey it ever made on the relationship between
joint custody, visitation and support. The Census Bureau found that [parents] with
joint custody paid 90.2 percent of their support, [those] with visitation paid 79.1
percent of their support, and [those] with neither joint custody nor visitation paid only
44.5 percent of their support." U.S. Bureau of Census, "Child Support and
Alimony: 1989," Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 173 (Washington, D.C.:
GPO, 1991), cited in D. Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents, A Guide to Shared
Parenting in the 21st Century,, Children's Rights Council (1993) at p. 22, fn.
37.
The complex dynamics of childhood development within the context of divorce and recent
scientific data related thereto strongly militate against the any paradigm that does not
prefer joint custody arrangements. A simplistic guideline of alternate weekend visitation,
although quicker to mete out, inevitably ignores the unique circumstances of each such
child whose life will be shaped by the trial court's decision.
It is particularly important for a young boy to have significant blocks of times with
his father as a male role model. Healthy social and personality development of young boys
of divorce parents is directly related to the quantity and quality of interaction the boy
is able to enjoy with his father. See Lamb, Michael and Sagi, Abraham, Fatherhood and
Family Policy, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983; Santrock, Warshak, and Elliott, Social
Development and Parent-Child Interaction in Father-Custody and Stepmother Families
Non-Traditional Families: Parenting and Child Development, ed. by Michael Lamb, 1982,
Hodges, William F. supra.
Unfortunately, it is still a common phenomenon to see trial courts bound more by
traditional methods of dealing with child custody and visitation questions rather than
accept more progressive, modern approaches which better serve the best interests of the
minor child.
Devices which are tempting for judicial expediency are poorly equipped to deal with the
individual needs of children of diverse backgrounds who will have their lives so
intimately shaped by the decisions of trial judges. What is called for is a policy which
will expand the range of opportunities for children of divorce rather than one which
imposes such narrow and restrictive limitations on these children.
Trial courts should endeavor to insure that children of divorce have the maximum
opportunity for both physical and emotional contact with each parent unless direct
physical or significant emotional harm to the child will result from this contact.
Dr. Isolina Ricci, Director of California Family Court Services and author of Mom's
House, Dad's House, noted as early as 1980 that Given any voice in the matter, younger
children will almost always choose the newer two-home alternative over the traditional
one-home settlement with one parent consigned to the sidelines. The children I've worked
with inevitably go straight to the heart of the issue, even when their parents are caught
in tunnel vision of a 'real home.' When they 'visit' their non-custodial parent, they
stake out territory ... They shy away from words like 'visit my Dad.' Instead, they say
they're going to 'be with my Dad' or 'live with my Dad this summer.' An for good reasons:
outsiders visit; families live together. Isolina Ricci, Ph.D., Mom's House, Dad's House;
Making Shared Custody Work (1980).
A child's right to a relationship with both parents ought not to be compromised
merely because of the marital status of the parents. The court in Franz v United
States, 707 F.2d 582, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1983) held that "a parent's right to the
preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's
achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability
to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection
from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him being
raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult." Id, at 599.
In Clark v Jeter, 56 U.S.L.W. 4527 (June 6, 1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that
"a child's interest in her relationship with a parent is sufficiently weighty by
itself to constitute a cognizable liberty interests." Id at 1419. See also
Strandberg v City of Lelenas, 791 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1986). Just as a child has
a constitutional interest in the parent-child relationship if the parents never marry, so
the relationship is protected if the parent' marriage fails.
|
