Search results

Child custody has evolved to the point where, at a minimum, states provide a mediated process by which parents may formulate parenting plans with court-appointed assistance. At a maximum state legislatures and courts increasingly consider joint physical custody awards. While joint physical custody safeguards the fundamental rights of parents, it nonetheless prompts practical concerns in awarding child support. Today, child support begins with state statutory guidelines, but the guidelines often fail to adequately address the economic consequences of two complete residences, one supported by a parent with fewer economic resources, and the fact that oftentimes the child drifts from one to the other soon after the court order. This Article argues that child custody and child support should be formulated in the similar fashion. That is, borrowing the approach proposed by the American Law Institute, it is prudent for separating couples to be assisted in developing a child support plan, just as they are assisted in developing a child parenting (custody) plan. The federalization of child support, the guidelines, and the enforcement mechanisms involved, distract states from the urgency of involving parents, together with professionals, in formulating workable child support plans. The child support guidelines are and will remain the first step, but they cannot be the last if child support is to be equal with child custody in providing for the best interest of the child.

Child custody has evolved to the point where, at a minimum, states provide a mediated process by which parents may formulate parenting plans with court-appointed assistance. At a maximum state legislatures and courts increasingly consider joint physical custody awards. While joint physical custody safeguards the fundamental rights of parents, it nonetheless prompts practical concerns in awarding child support. Today, child support begins with state statutory guidelines, but the guidelines often fail to adequately address the economic consequences of two complete residences, one supported by a parent with fewer economic resources, and the fact that oftentimes the child drifts from one to the other soon after the court order. This Article argues that child custody and child support should be formulated in the similar fashion. That is, borrowing the approach proposed by the American Law Institute, it is prudent for separating couples to be assisted in developing a child support plan, just as they are assisted in developing a child parenting (custody) plan. The federalization of child support, the guidelines, and the enforcement mechanisms involved, distract states from the urgency of involving parents, together with professionals, in formulating workable child support plans. The child support guidelines are and will remain the first step, but they cannot be the last if child support is to be equal with child custody in providing for the best interest of the child.

This Article discusses the evolution of family structure and the ascendency of privacy, liberty, and self-determination. Partially in response, an array of nonmarital unions have become commonplace in the past fifty years in the United States. Cases reveal the insufficiency of remedies avail- able to these nonmarital couples at dissolution-even for those couples living in states willing to enforce express or implied nonmarital agreements. Strikingly, there are fewer remedies for nonmarital cohabitants at death. Public policy mandates concern for all citizens, including the evolu- tion of individualized family structures formed by its citizens. The issue addressed in this Article is whether public policy concerns warrant an extension of the marital presumptions traditionally associated with the commitment structure of marriage to a defined group of nonmarital co-habitants. Although increasingly rejected by state legislatures-in an effort to better control the workhorse functions of marriage-common law marriage may offer a remedy if enacted as common law commitment. Freed of the nitpicking elements of legislative proposals, common law commitment may better meet the needs of modern-day evolutions in human nature.

After human DNA was first defined in 1953, the parallel science of assisted reproductive technology achieved a successful human birth through in vitro fertilization in 1978. Science then went on to facilitate gestational surrogacy, banking human reproductive materials, such as embryos, and greater opportunities for couples and individuals to become parents. Fertility clinics were established throughout the world to help persons and couples achieve parenthood, contributing to a steady increase in babies born through assisted reproductive means. Gradually, both federal and state laws in the United States were enacted to collect data from the fertility clinics, mandate insurance coverage of assisted reproductive procedures, prohibit funding for human embryo research, and either forbid or enable surrogacy contracts. Societal changes occurred, too, including marriage entitlement for same-sex couples, a dramatic rise in the number of nonmarital cohabitants, and the rapid pace of scientific achievements related to human reproduction. Throughout this evolutionary period there was a concomitant increase in transnational scientific cooperation, illustrated by international committees and treaties. By utilizing medical tourism, individuals who could afford to do so imposed their own medical needs on foreign scientific communities. The global scientific community became increasingly aware that it was now possible to edit both the human genome and a woman's egg to eliminate mitochondrial disease. Both genome editing and mitochondrial replacement have the potential to eliminate serious disease and vastly improve human society. Amidst this scientific optimism, companies that are able to harness the power of new technological achievements have opportunities for monetary gains. However, there are also drawbacks which include the ethical and moral concerns over possible misuse of human materials; the opportunity to create designer babies; the unknown ramifications upon the human germline; the lack of consent of any resulting child; the disparity in the ability to pay for treatment; and the impact on the racial, gender, and the physical plurality existent in human society. American legislation, illustrated by the federal Dickey-Wicker Amendment and its regulatory system, and as evidenced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Coordinated Framework, is inattentive to the challenges posed by genome editing and mitochondrial replacement. In addition, international treaties and agreements are inapplicable to many countries and ineffective to regulate the research of privately funded scientists. For example, in spite of public condemnation, a baby boy was born in Mexico in 2016 following mitochondrial replacement; in 2018 twin girls were born in China following genome editing. This article addresses the scientific opportunities and challenges of recent developments precipitated by the immediacy of genome editing and mitochondrial replacement. Although scientific academies in the United States and the United Kingdom suggest caution, transparency, and international scrutiny, science advances at an accelerating pace. This article suggests immediate congressional involvement, an update to the federal regulatory process, and clear coordination with international scientific communities. Additionally, to safeguard the human values involved, this article suggests specific goals should apply to the construction of a functional pathway that addresses the human possibility and challenge in genome editing and mitochondrial replacement.

Medicaid is a joint federal-state partnership program that provides medical care to the elderly, blind, and disabled poor. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid will pay for long-term care, leading millions of persons in need of such care to "spend-down" income or assets to qualify as sufficiently needy or poor. However, the state can eventually seek recovery of expenditures made through estate recovery programs following the death of both spouses. As it currently stands, states have no choice but to become increasingly vigilant in pursuing private funds in order to pay for Medicaid expenditures. As a result, elderly citizens and their families will continue to face uncertainty over what will become of family assets demanded to pay for long-term care. This article examines what constitutes an "estate" for purposes of asset recovery to pay for long-term care expenditures. It also analyzes whether it is permissible for estate recovery programs to trace assets of a Medicaid recipient transferred during the recipient's lifetime, thereby depriving the Medicaid recipient or the recipient's spouse of an interest in the asset at the time of death. Finally, this article considers whether an annuity purchased to provide exempt income for a recipient's spouse should be considered a resource sufficient to disqualify an applicant from Medicaid eligibility. The article suggests that with an increase in the elderly population in need of long-term care and increased pressure on the entitlement programs that provide such care, it is crucial that Congress pass comprehensive legislation to make estate recovery programs conform across the states.

Medicaid is a joint federal-state partnership program that provides medical care to the elderly, blind, and disabled poor. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid will pay for long-term care, leading millions of persons in need of such care to "spend-down" income or assets to qualify as sufficiently needy or poor. However, the state can eventually seek recovery of expenditures made through estate recovery programs following the death of both spouses. As it currently stands, states have no choice but to become increasingly vigilant in pursuing private funds in order to pay for Medicaid expenditures. As a result, elderly citizens and their families will continue to face uncertainty over what will become of family assets demanded to pay for long-term care. This article examines what constitutes an "estate" for purposes of asset recovery to pay for long-term care expenditures. It also analyzes whether it is permissible for estate recovery programs to trace assets of a Medicaid recipient transferred during the recipient's lifetime, thereby depriving the Medicaid recipient or the recipient's spouse of an interest in the asset at the time of death. Finally, this article considers whether an annuity purchased to provide exempt income for a recipient's spouse should be considered a resource sufficient to disqualify an applicant from Medicaid eligibility. The article suggests that with an increase in the elderly population in need of long-term care and increased pressure on the entitlement programs that provide such care, it is crucial that Congress pass comprehensive legislation to make estate recovery programs conform across the states.

Among the increasing number of federal statutes impacting family law two continue to impact child permanency and parental rights. First, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 mandates that state courts find that the state child welfare agency made reasonable efforts to reunite a dependent child with his or her parents prior to termination of parental rights. The child is dependent because a state court held that there was sufficient clear and convincing evidence to remove the child from the parents' home. Often that evidence results from parental poverty, mental or physical disability, or the parents are undereducated and unworldly. Once the child is removed states are required to provide reasonable efforts to all parents to promote reunification and to provide permanency of placement for children. Second, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act is impacted by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the continuing economic malaise adversely affecting state budgets. These two federal legislative efforts, although purportedly in the best interest of children, shorten the time parents have to cooperate with reasonable state efforts; failure to meet the statute's deadline requires the state to begin procedures resulting in termination of parental rights. What constitutes reasonable reunification efforts differs according to the individual circumstances. But there has been a uniform challenge occasioned by the formidable obstacles resulting from the national recession commencing in 2008. Decreasing state revenues reduces state expenditures for reasonable reunification efforts, to include treatment programs and classes that could assist parents in overcoming addictive behavior or in developing better parenting skills. Will the recessionary reduction in reasonable state reunification efforts compound the specified time frame that parents have to cooperate with these state efforts prior to termination of their parental rights? A few state courts have already concluded that decreasing state budgets may constitutionally reduce reasonable reunification efforts. Yet, without ongoing reunification efforts parents may not be able to rectify the causes that occasioned the removal of the child or children from their home. And if the causes are not remedied within a specified period of time termination of parental rights will ensue. Inequality results from the varying budget reductions among the states due to the economic recession; inequality also results because the poor, undereducated, unworldly and disabled are singularly targeted for termination of parental rights.