Family Law Quarterly Home

A scholarly journal designed to keep practitioners current with an analytical view of existing and emerging family law issues, Family Law Quarterly will keep you informed on the year's hot topics, including "Family Law in the Fifty States: Case Digests" and "A Review of the Year in Family Law." A subscription to FLQ is included with your Family Law Section membership. For more information about FLQ, use the links provided at the right or check out the current volume below.

Family Law Section members can read articles online as PDFs! The table of contents for the latest volume of the Quarterly is below, along with links to pdfs of the articles. Non-member subscribers and non-subscribers may read abstracts of the articles. (Archives of article abstracts are available for volumes dating back to 2001.)


Family Law Quarterly
Volume 48, No. 3 (Fall 2014)

Symposium on Same-Sex Marriage,
Marital Dissolution, and Related Issues

Table of Contents

Please note that pursuant to the ABA's copyright and reprint policies, these articles may not be disseminated without written permission.

Editor's Note
Linda D. Elrod

Putting the Cart before the Horse: Why Supreme Court Law Regarding Access to Courts Requires Fifty State Same-Sex Divorce

Wendy Dunne DiChristina

Read article

Premarital Agreements and the Migratory Same-Sex Couple

Linda J. Ravdin

With the advent of marriage equality in the U.S., same-sex couples are increasingly seeking premarital agreements.  A premarital agreement should include a choice-of-law clause specifying the law that will govern a dispute about whether the agreement is valid, a claim of breach or a disagreement about how the agreement is to be interpreted.  Such a clause can provide predictability as to enforcement of the agreement when the couple divorces or one party dies in a state other than that of the chosen law.  Nevertheless, choice-of-law principles allow for a court of a forum state to reject the parties’ contractual choice of law on public policy grounds.  In more than half of the 20 current marriage equality states (as of June 2014), the standards for validity of the agreement as a whole, or for enforceability of a spousal support waiver, are such as to create a basis for a court of that state to invoke fundamental public policy to reject a choice-of-law clause and apply the law of the forum that may be more favorable to the challenging party.  This is and likely will remain an area of uncertainty for all couples who enter into a premarital agreement and then go to live in another state whose laws may demand more procedural or substantive fairness than that of the chosen law.  A court in a nonrecognition state can be expected to enforce a same-sex couple’s premarital agreement.  It need not recognize the validity of the marriage to do so.  There is ample authority supporting enforcement of the agreement as a contract.

Read article

The Prima Facie Parent: Implementing a Simple, Fair, and Efficient Standing Test in Courts Considering Custody Disputes by Unmarried Gay or Lesbian Parents

Kendra Huard Fershee

Read article

The Two Faces of Rational Basis Review nd the Implications for Marriage Equality

Kenneth J. Bartschi

When the Supreme Court decides whether excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the question arises as to the level of scrutiny the Court will apply.  While good reasons exist to apply some form of heightened scrutiny, the author posits that the Court will avoid this question by applying rational basis review to strike down marriage bans.  After providing a brief history of marriage equality, the article explores the difference between the traditional and highly deferential form of rational basis review and the more skeptical version the Court has applied to unpopular classes or reactionary legislation or both.  The author concludes that marriage bans will not survive this form of rational basis review.

Read article

Leaving No (Nonmarital) Child Behind

Courtney G. Joslin

Almost ten years, in 2005, I wrote a piece for the Family Law Quarterly describing the legal status of children born to same-sex couples. This Essay explores the some of the positive and some of the worrisome developments in the law since that time. On the positive side, as compared to 2005, many more states today extend some level of protection to the relationships between nonbiological same-sex parents and their children. Moreover, in many of these states, lesbian nonbiological parents are now treated as full, equal legal parents, even in the absence of an adoption. There are other recent developments, however, that should be cause for concern. Specifically, this Essay considers recent legislative proposals that contract (rather than expand) existing protections for functional, nonmarital parents. I conclude by arguing that while advocates should celebrate the growing availability of marriage for same-sex couples, they must also be careful not to push legislative efforts that inadequately protect the large and growing numbers of families that exist outside of marriage.

Read article

The Second Rape: Legal Options for Rape Survivors to Terminate Parental Rights

Moriah Silver

Read article

All in the Constitutional Family: Revisiting the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Definition of Family Relationships

Aaron Young

This Article argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definitional provisions unconstitutionally burden choices in family composition and structure.  Absent congressional or executive action, courts following the recent same-sex marriage case, United States v. Windsor, should apply heightened scrutiny to remaining federal definitions of family relationships, or at least take a hard look at those policies under rational basis scrutiny, especially when a federal definition excludes an authentic relationship recognized by a state.  The federalism, substantive due process, and equal protection principles raised in Windsor are applicable beyond the same-sex context from that case.

Read article

Overturning In re Gardiner: Ending Transgender Discrimination in Kansas

Lindsee A. Acton

Modern medical and psychological distinctions between the complex concepts of "sex" and "gender" form the basis for understanding the issues transgendered individuals face and for helping them overcome those issues, i.e. legitimizing their transition within society's binary gender model. Current judicial interpretations of this issue, like the Kansas Supreme Court's holding in In re Gardiner, are absolutely incongruent with modern medical and psychological practice, which seeks to give effect to the transgendered's transitions to promote their life-long psychological wellbeing. This paper seeks to explain how judicial adoption of the medical and psychological model stance on the treatment of transgendered individuals in no way violates public policy. 

Read article

Publication Date: December 2014

Ordering Information

You can purchase a hard copy or downloadable pdf of this issue through the ABA Web Store. To order hard copy by phone, call the ABA Service Center at 1-800-285-2221 and request PC 51301004703.