David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This Article analyzes the issue of paternity disestablishment, an issue courts and legislatures have been struggling with over the last several years. For a variety of reasons explored in this Article, an increasing number of fathers have filed requests to set aside paternity orders seeking to be relieved of the legal obligations of fatherhood. As a result families have been destabilized and children are becoming fatherless. The implications for the future of the family are profound. Although some scholars have examined this phenomenon, none have addressed the link between paternity disestablishment and welfare reform. This Article explores the law's evolving definition of fatherhood and concludes that the law's response to the paternity disestablishment crisis threatens to impose a narrow definition of fatherhood based on biology. This new definition of fatherhood has not developed to serve any of the traditional goals of family law, protecting children and preserving family stability. Rather, this trend appears to be one of the unintended consequences of two decades of federal and state policy designed to reform the nation's welfare system. The broad goals of these policies may be well founded. But modern child support enforcement policy, so central to welfare reform and aimed most aggressively against low income fathers, is pushing fathers to seek disestablishment of paternity. In response, courts and legislatures are reinstating a construct of paternal functions defined in economic terms and grounded in biology. This new definition of fatherhood ignores other bases for fatherhood based on marriage, care taking or both. As a result, the state's interests in collecting child support, protecting children and preserving families are undermined by the very laws that should protect those interests.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kenneth Hickey & Laurie Lyckholm (2004). Child Welfare Versus Parental Autonomy: Medical Ethics, the Law, and Faith-Based Healing. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):265-276.
Paula A. Monopoli, Nonmarital Children and Post-Death Parentage: A Different Path for Inheritance Law?
Lon Nease & Michael W. Austin (eds.) (2010). Fatherhood - Philosophy for Everyone: The Dao of Daddy. Wiley-Blackwell.
Paul Litton, Non-Beneficial Pediatric Research and the Best Interests Standard: A Legal and Ethical Reconciliation.
Ayman Shabana (2012). Paternity Between Law and Biology: The Reconstruction of the Islamic Law of Paternity in the Wake of Dna Testing. Zygon 47 (1):214-239.
Gregory E. Kaebnick (2004). The Natural Father: Genetic Paternity Testing, Marriage, and Fatherhood. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13 (1):49-60.
Elizabeth Brake (2005). Fatherhood and Child Support: Do Men Have a Right to Choose? Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):55–73.
Arlene S. Kanter, Permanency Planning for Children with Disabilities: Enforcing the Right of All Children to Live with a Family.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #317,293 of 1,938,720 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #452,035 of 1,938,720 )
How can I increase my downloads?