《处女简和其他无意为人父母的故事

J. Carbone, Naomi R. Cahn
{"title":"《处女简和其他无意为人父母的故事","authors":"J. Carbone, Naomi R. Cahn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2942868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we contrast the roles of intent, function, biology and marriage in establishing legal parenthood, focusing on differences between elite and non-elite reproduction. Central to these differences are the distinctions between intent at the time of conception and birth of a child versus the assumption of parental roles that occurs after birth, and between functional roles that correspond to formal agreements or institutions and those which arise through less formal arrangements. \nLGBT families have used the concept of intent, as it originated in ART cases, to argue for recognition of families of choice, without either biological ties or the formalities of marriage or adoption. Their success in winning formal legal regulation culminated in the Supreme Court’s embrace of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is likely to increase once again the role of marriage in integrating prebirth intent with legal recognition of parentage for couples in intact unions. \nAt the same time, women have used the creation of families outside of marriage to form alternative families on the basis of a different type of private ordering. Nonelite couples are less likely to reach consistent understandings about their relationships before pregnancy, birth or the assumption of parental roles. Instead, community norms order these understandings. Such norms treat a decision not to marry as part of a system that gives mothers more say vis-a-vis fathers outside of marriage than within it. These relationships are a form of private ordering in that they reflect choices made in accordance with community norms rather than formal institutions or publicly-imposed mandates. These couples, who lack access to the family planning systems and lawyers who help inform elite practices, achieve their greatest autonomy in creating families of choice by staying out of court and often by staying away from each other. \nThe article shows how both of these systems are today under assault: the integration of marriage and elite planning is likely to weaken recognition of families on the basis of intent alone, and reforms are underway to reimpose elite family norms on nonelite parents, undermining their ability to create family terms on their own. This article concludes that the law ought to recognize the variety of arrangements parents adopt rather than apply a single model to all.","PeriodicalId":326558,"journal":{"name":"UC Irvine law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jane the Virgin and Other Stories of Unintentional Parenthood\",\"authors\":\"J. Carbone, Naomi R. Cahn\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2942868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, we contrast the roles of intent, function, biology and marriage in establishing legal parenthood, focusing on differences between elite and non-elite reproduction. Central to these differences are the distinctions between intent at the time of conception and birth of a child versus the assumption of parental roles that occurs after birth, and between functional roles that correspond to formal agreements or institutions and those which arise through less formal arrangements. \\nLGBT families have used the concept of intent, as it originated in ART cases, to argue for recognition of families of choice, without either biological ties or the formalities of marriage or adoption. Their success in winning formal legal regulation culminated in the Supreme Court’s embrace of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is likely to increase once again the role of marriage in integrating prebirth intent with legal recognition of parentage for couples in intact unions. \\nAt the same time, women have used the creation of families outside of marriage to form alternative families on the basis of a different type of private ordering. Nonelite couples are less likely to reach consistent understandings about their relationships before pregnancy, birth or the assumption of parental roles. Instead, community norms order these understandings. Such norms treat a decision not to marry as part of a system that gives mothers more say vis-a-vis fathers outside of marriage than within it. These relationships are a form of private ordering in that they reflect choices made in accordance with community norms rather than formal institutions or publicly-imposed mandates. These couples, who lack access to the family planning systems and lawyers who help inform elite practices, achieve their greatest autonomy in creating families of choice by staying out of court and often by staying away from each other. \\nThe article shows how both of these systems are today under assault: the integration of marriage and elite planning is likely to weaken recognition of families on the basis of intent alone, and reforms are underway to reimpose elite family norms on nonelite parents, undermining their ability to create family terms on their own. This article concludes that the law ought to recognize the variety of arrangements parents adopt rather than apply a single model to all.\",\"PeriodicalId\":326558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UC Irvine law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UC Irvine law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2942868\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UC Irvine law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2942868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

在本文中,我们对比了意图、功能、生物学和婚姻在建立合法父母关系中的作用,重点讨论了精英和非精英生殖之间的差异。这些差异的核心是怀孕和孩子出生时的意图与出生后父母角色的假设之间的区别,以及对应于正式协议或制度的功能角色与通过不太正式的安排产生的功能角色之间的区别。同性恋家庭使用意图的概念,因为它起源于ART案例,来主张承认家庭的选择,既没有血缘关系,也没有结婚或收养的手续。在奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案(Obergefell v. Hodges)中,最高法院对婚姻平等的支持使他们在赢得正式法律监管方面取得了成功,这可能会再次增强婚姻在将产前意图与法律认可的完整结合的夫妇的亲子关系结合起来方面的作用。与此同时,妇女利用在婚姻之外建立家庭的机会,在另一种私人秩序的基础上形成另一种家庭。非精英夫妇在怀孕、分娩或承担父母角色之前,不太可能对他们的关系达成一致的理解。相反,社区规范规范了这些理解。这种规范将不结婚的决定视为一种制度的一部分,这种制度使母亲在婚姻之外比在婚姻之内对父亲有更多的发言权。这些关系是私人秩序的一种形式,因为它们反映了根据社区规范而不是正式机构或公共强加的命令作出的选择。这些夫妇无法获得计划生育系统的帮助,也无法获得为精英执业提供信息的律师的帮助,他们不上法庭,而且往往彼此远离,从而在创造家庭选择方面获得了最大的自主权。这篇文章展示了这两种制度在今天是如何受到攻击的:婚姻和精英计划的整合可能会削弱人们对家庭的认可,而改革正在进行中,以重新将精英家庭的规范强加给非精英父母,削弱了他们自己创造家庭条件的能力。本文的结论是,法律应该承认父母采取的各种安排,而不是对所有人都适用单一模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jane the Virgin and Other Stories of Unintentional Parenthood
In this article, we contrast the roles of intent, function, biology and marriage in establishing legal parenthood, focusing on differences between elite and non-elite reproduction. Central to these differences are the distinctions between intent at the time of conception and birth of a child versus the assumption of parental roles that occurs after birth, and between functional roles that correspond to formal agreements or institutions and those which arise through less formal arrangements. LGBT families have used the concept of intent, as it originated in ART cases, to argue for recognition of families of choice, without either biological ties or the formalities of marriage or adoption. Their success in winning formal legal regulation culminated in the Supreme Court’s embrace of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is likely to increase once again the role of marriage in integrating prebirth intent with legal recognition of parentage for couples in intact unions. At the same time, women have used the creation of families outside of marriage to form alternative families on the basis of a different type of private ordering. Nonelite couples are less likely to reach consistent understandings about their relationships before pregnancy, birth or the assumption of parental roles. Instead, community norms order these understandings. Such norms treat a decision not to marry as part of a system that gives mothers more say vis-a-vis fathers outside of marriage than within it. These relationships are a form of private ordering in that they reflect choices made in accordance with community norms rather than formal institutions or publicly-imposed mandates. These couples, who lack access to the family planning systems and lawyers who help inform elite practices, achieve their greatest autonomy in creating families of choice by staying out of court and often by staying away from each other. The article shows how both of these systems are today under assault: the integration of marriage and elite planning is likely to weaken recognition of families on the basis of intent alone, and reforms are underway to reimpose elite family norms on nonelite parents, undermining their ability to create family terms on their own. This article concludes that the law ought to recognize the variety of arrangements parents adopt rather than apply a single model to all.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信