70 Va. L. Rev. 879 (1984)
Rethinking Parenthood As an Exclusive Status: The Need for Legal Alternatives when the Premise of the Nuclear Family Has Failed; Bartlett, Katharine T.

handle is hein.journals/valr70 and id is 889 raw text is: RETHINKING PARENTHOOD AS AN EXCLUSIVE STATUS:
THE NEED FOR LEGAL ALTERNATIVES WHEN THE
PREMISE OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY HAS FAILED
Katharine T. Bartlett*
P ARENTHOOD, with few exceptions, is an exclusive status.
The law recognizes only one set of parents for a child at any
one time, and these parents are autonomous, possessing compre-
hensive privileges and duties that they share with no one else.
A fundamental premise of the law of exclusive parenthood is
that parents raise their own children in nuclear families. The nu-
clear family, which is the preferred social unit in our society, is
itself an exclusive unit, its membership reserved to a married
couple and their dependent children. Exclusivity gives the family
much of its moral power over the lives of its members, for it forges
in them   a sense of common destiny and mutual commitment.2 Pa-
* Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Duke University. I am grateful to Sara Beale,
Herma Hill Kay, David Lange, Millie Mishkin, Chris Schroeder, and Sally Sharp for their
comments on earlier drafts of this article. I thank also Amy Flick, Pamela Gerr, Lori Larson,
Mindy McNichols, Cindy Rerucha, Howard Vingan, and William Werner, law students at
Duke University who provided useful research assistance.
I The term nuclear family in this paper refers to the conjugal household consisting of a
husband, wife, and their dependent children. The term family has implied different living
arrangements throughout history and among different social classes. See P. Aries, Centuries
of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life (1962); J. Dempsey, The Family and Public
Policy 9-10 (1981); M. Glendon, The New Family and the New Property 11-17 (1981); M.
Poster, A Critical Theory of the Family 168-205 (1978); E. Shorter, The Making of the Mod-
em Family (1975); Gordon, Introduction, in The Nuclear Family in Crisis: The Search for
an Alternative 2-10 (M. Gordon ed. 1972); Laslett, The Family as a Public and Private
Institution, in Intimacy, Family, and Society 94-114 (A. Skolnick & J. Skolnick eds. 1974).
Nonetheless, the private, largely self-contained, marriage-centered nuclear family has been
the norm throughout most of American history.
s A. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments 219-20 (D. Raphael & A. Macfie eds. 1976)
(1st ed. London 1759). R. Laing describes this mutual identification in terms of expectations
as well as sentiment-
The family is a common we, in contrast to them outside the family .... When I
identify myself as one of us, I expect you to do likewise. Then there are three, you
and he or she and me, each becomes one of us. In such a family we, each of us,
recognize(s) not only his or her own family synthesis, but expects a comparable fam-
ily synthesis to exist in you, him, or her also.
R. Laing, The Family and the 'Family,' in The Politics of the Family and Other Essays 3,4-

Purchase Short-Term Access to HeinOnline

Prices starting as low as $29.95

Already a Subscriber?

What Is HeinOnline?

Learn More About the Law Journal Library (pdf)

We also offer annual subscriptions to universities, colleges, law firms, organizations, and other institutions. To request a quote please visit http://home.heinonline.org/subscriptions/request-a-quote/

Please note: the content in the Law Journal Library is constantly changing and some content has restrictions as required per the license. Therefore, please review the available content via the following link to ensure the material you wish to access is included in the database. For a complete list of content included in the Law Journal Library, please view http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/CSV.csv?index=journals&collection=journals