Disposable Mothers: Paid In-Home Caretaking and the Regulation of Parenthood

T. Schaefer
{"title":"Disposable Mothers: Paid In-Home Caretaking and the Regulation of Parenthood","authors":"T. Schaefer","doi":"10.7916/D8B56QHJ","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent custody decisions in the United States have treated paid in-home caretakers - or nannies - as a substitute for parents who are either unavailable or unable to care for their children. They have created a legal category of nanny that detaches primary caretaking from the caretaker and attributes care provided by in-home caretakers to paying parents. In doing so, courts have imposed outdated norms of family life and childcare to the detriment of women and paid caretakers. This Article sounds a strong warning against this emergent - but thus far unnoticed - judicial approach. The current approach stems from an overwhelming consensus among judges and scholars that paid caretakers are inherently different from parents. The legal category nanny - that is someone who performs one-on-one intensive child care but by definition cannot be considered a parent - fits well with the legal regime and cultural norms that regulate contemporary parenthood. Legally, the parental exclusivity doctrine promotes a nuclear family model by mandating that children can only have one set of two parents at any given time. Culturally, parents are encouraged to utilize intensive, development-focused childrearing methods. The new approach appears compatible with both because it provides children with child-centered care and makes families which do not function as nuclear families appear as if they did. This Article argues that this new approach - and the consensus underpinning it - rest on flawed and potentially harmful assumptions about parenting and caretaking. The detachment of the care from the caretaker is artificial and contradicts the well established judicial and legislative view that performing hands-on caretaking tasks over time creates a parent-child bond. In addition, attributing paid caretakers' labor to hiring parents is unjust: it devalues care work, renders paid caretakers disposable, and places the majority of parents, who cannot afford in-home caretaking, in a disadvantageous position. Furthermore, it endangers the feminist effort to promote policies that allow women to better combine motherhood with workforce participation. The Article urges readers to rethink conventional understandings of parenting and caretaking and to recognize fully the price that the current legal approach exacts - and who pays it.","PeriodicalId":83555,"journal":{"name":"Yale journal of law and feminism","volume":"57 10 1","pages":"305-351"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale journal of law and feminism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8B56QHJ","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent custody decisions in the United States have treated paid in-home caretakers - or nannies - as a substitute for parents who are either unavailable or unable to care for their children. They have created a legal category of nanny that detaches primary caretaking from the caretaker and attributes care provided by in-home caretakers to paying parents. In doing so, courts have imposed outdated norms of family life and childcare to the detriment of women and paid caretakers. This Article sounds a strong warning against this emergent - but thus far unnoticed - judicial approach. The current approach stems from an overwhelming consensus among judges and scholars that paid caretakers are inherently different from parents. The legal category nanny - that is someone who performs one-on-one intensive child care but by definition cannot be considered a parent - fits well with the legal regime and cultural norms that regulate contemporary parenthood. Legally, the parental exclusivity doctrine promotes a nuclear family model by mandating that children can only have one set of two parents at any given time. Culturally, parents are encouraged to utilize intensive, development-focused childrearing methods. The new approach appears compatible with both because it provides children with child-centered care and makes families which do not function as nuclear families appear as if they did. This Article argues that this new approach - and the consensus underpinning it - rest on flawed and potentially harmful assumptions about parenting and caretaking. The detachment of the care from the caretaker is artificial and contradicts the well established judicial and legislative view that performing hands-on caretaking tasks over time creates a parent-child bond. In addition, attributing paid caretakers' labor to hiring parents is unjust: it devalues care work, renders paid caretakers disposable, and places the majority of parents, who cannot afford in-home caretaking, in a disadvantageous position. Furthermore, it endangers the feminist effort to promote policies that allow women to better combine motherhood with workforce participation. The Article urges readers to rethink conventional understandings of parenting and caretaking and to recognize fully the price that the current legal approach exacts - and who pays it.
一次性母亲:有偿在家照顾和父母的监管
美国最近的监护决定将有偿的家庭看护——或保姆——作为无法或无法照顾孩子的父母的替代品。他们创造了一个合法的保姆类别,将主要的照顾从看护人身上分离出来,将家庭看护人提供的照顾归给付费的父母。在这样做的过程中,法院强加了过时的家庭生活和育儿规范,损害了妇女和有偿看护人的利益。这篇文章对这种新兴的——但迄今未被注意到的——司法方法发出了强烈的警告。目前的做法源于法官和学者的压倒性共识,即付费保姆与父母本质上是不同的。法律上的保姆是指一对一地对孩子进行密集照顾的人,但从定义上讲,他们不能被视为父母,这与规范当代父母身份的法律制度和文化规范非常吻合。从法律上讲,父母排他性原则通过强制规定孩子在任何时候只能有一对父母来促进核心家庭模式。在文化上,父母被鼓励采用密集的、以发展为重点的育儿方法。新方法似乎与这两种方法兼容,因为它为儿童提供以儿童为中心的照顾,并使没有核心家庭功能的家庭看起来像核心家庭一样。本文认为,这种新方法——以及支撑它的共识——建立在有缺陷的、潜在有害的关于养育和照顾孩子的假设之上。照顾者与照顾者的分离是人为的,与司法和立法的既定观点相矛盾,即随着时间的推移,执行亲力亲为的照顾任务会建立亲子关系。此外,将有偿看护人的劳动归因于雇佣父母是不公平的:它贬低了看护工作,使有偿看护人被抛弃,并使大多数负担不起家庭看护的父母处于不利地位。此外,它还危及女权主义者推动政策的努力,这些政策允许女性更好地将母性与劳动力参与结合起来。这篇文章敦促读者重新思考对养育和照顾孩子的传统理解,并充分认识到当前法律手段所要求的代价——以及谁来支付代价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信