Court of Appeals Clarifies Parental Status
"Should Texas embrace a more 'holistic' view of parenthood?" write Elisa Reiter and Daniel Pollack.
November 13, 2024 at 11:00 AM
9 minute read
Family Law
The issue of parentage is not often disputed—but sometimes it is. A legal parent is someone who is recognized by law as the mother or father of a child. This may include a biological parent, an adoptive parent, a court-appointed guardian, or a parent of a child conceived through assisted reproduction. These definitions grow complicated and the subject of debate, particularly in legal contexts where definitions impact custody and child welfare decisions. The Court of Appeals’ holding in the recent case of In Re N.A., No. 03-24-00145-CV, highlights the complexities surrounding parental identity and rights. Should the definition of a parent evolve based on legal precedents, psychological perspectives, and sociocultural influence? How should courts navigate these intricate dynamics?
|
The Legal Definition of Parenthood
Traditionally, parenthood has been understood through a biological lens—one who begets offspring. However, legal definitions have expanded to encompass various forms of caregiving relationships in certain jurisdictions. In In Re N.A., the court notes that “the term ‘parent' encompasses not only biological connections but also those formed through emotional and caregiving bonds.” This broader interpretation acknowledges that many individuals fulfill parental roles without a biological connection, such as stepparents, adoptive parents, and guardians.
|
Biological vs. Social Parenthood
The distinction between biological and social parenthood is crucial in family law. Biological parents have inherent legal rights regarding their children. Social or psychological parents—those who serve as anchors or who provide care and emotional support—may be able to assert parental rights in certain circumstances. From this perspective, the “anchor” does not weigh the child down, but instead, serves as a nurturing caregiver who the child relies on for nurturing and support. As In Re N.A. notes: “The best interests of the child should guide determinations of parental status,” which may lay the groundwork toward prioritizing the child’s welfare over strict biological definitions.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
8 minute readDoes Videotaping a Supervised CPS Visitation Violate Privacy Rights?
10 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250