Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Michigan Law Review

Abstract

"GoldsteinFreudandSolnit" is a common term in the parlance of lawyers concerned with child custody and parental rights. It evokes a familiar set of beliefs about child development and child placement decisionmaking. The term is regularly intoned in family proceedings as authority for the view that assuring continuity of care should be the virtually exclusive criterion for child placement determinations. It is invoked to urge a process of identifying the adult with whom a child is primarily bonded - the child's "psychological parent" - and protecting the permanence and autonomy of the psychological parent-child relationship. Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit have promoted these beliefs in concise, accessible volumes addressed to legal, child welfare, and mental health professionals. In the legal context, the authors' goal has been "to provide a basis for critically evaluating and revising [consistently with their beliefs about psychological parenthood] the procedure and substance of court decisions, as well as statutes." In this, they have had notable success. The theories and recommendations of these scholars have stimulated a significant, albeit incomplete, restructuring of statutes and common law governing child placement decisionmaking. The effect of psychological parent theory upon legislative schemes has been complex and interesting. Its effect upon judicial applications and elaborations of law has been more controversial. Like other conspicuous demonstrations of the power of a scientific theory to influence the law, the impact of psychological parent theory upon judicial decision making has led - predictably and appropriately - to concern about the processes by which outcomes are determined and changes in law are effected.

First Page

1096

DOI

https://doi.org/10.2307/1289156

Volume

86

Publication Date

1988

Download

Share

COinS