Advantages and Disadvantages of Universal Legal Definition of Family - Essay Example

Advantages and Disadvantages of Universal Legal Definition of Family Advantages and Disadvantages of Universal Legal Definition of Family According to policymakers, a universal definition of a family in the United States is said to limit access to significant resources such as health care facilities, insurance, education and recreation. They clarify how societal beliefs come up as a result, thus implicating social sanction. It is worth knowing that, the definition of a family has many negative impacts compared to the positive impacts. It is a very serious matter that calls for attention and proper clarification so that it is discouraged from the United States, as a society. Universal definition of families and their impact on society According to scholars, there is no appropriate definition of the family. The law is perceives the family has no legal status but determined by the circumstance. The role of the law in this matter simply defines and enforces the rights of the individuals as members of the family. This explains the reason as to why in the field of law, especially the family law, was changed and now called the family. The main subject of the family law is not defined by the rights of the family, but of its people (Mary, 2002, p. 11). The most challenging approach in defining families is the judgmental approach. It lands nontraditional lifestyles that are unrelated to psychological support and dependence relationships that should be reflected. On the other hand, a pragmatic approach may be realized when a closely involved unit as a family is considered for some purposes. Anyone trying to make a definition of the family is like trying to do the impossible. It will feel foolish and the definition cannot make any sense, as far as what the term encompasses. Instead of settling for a universal definition of the term, it is easier to define families in accordance with the issue involved. For instance, policies that have to do with the children’s socialization might use a definition of family that involves minor or even dependent children (Moen, 1987). A structural definition contends children to be related either by blood or adoption, while a functional definition may define family as anyone available to take care of a child. In other related cases of caring for frail elderly individuals, structuralism will base their definition based on whoever has legal responsibility for the defendant, while functionalists would insist on one who is providing the care. A definition should reinforce instead of overturning the intent of a particular policy (Eshleman, 2001). Although the law and public policy have many references to the family, there is no legal definition of family. It is impossible to define the term in the Wisconsin Statutes of America. However, this cannot deter the courts and legal makes from making decisions on particular views of a family, despite lacking an explicit definition of the family. In most cases, the decision is based on the traditional grounds. Apparently, American family law is middle-class, mid-western and middle-aged. A definition should diversify the entire American families. According to Rockwell (2008), the family is may be termed as universal because it exists in multiple societies including the religious backgrounds and learning institutions. The universal term encompasses a variety of categorical ages. This can be boys and girls to parents and community elders. (p. 34) Goran (2004) categorizes families according to socioeconomic characteristics, structures, family life cycle stage, and other family contexts such as racial, ethnic and cultural background (pp. 61-67). In a country like the United States, that pride on a multitude of all types of people and backgrounds, coming up with a universal definition is a hard nut to crack that no nation can define in the State. Universal legal definition of family has paved way to the raising bearings of access to significant resources such as health care facilities, life insurance, education and recreation. Societal beliefs about what is acceptable implicates social sanction come up. When the form of the family is not very traditional, there is a complication of the definition. Informal families whereby, parents are not married, many problems arise. It is common even on the changing societal attitudes where it pops up as a middle class ranks that form the skeleton of many societies in the US that is expressed in statutes and case law under public policy (cited in Therborn, 2004). In his book, Goran (2004) some of the definitions that are based on relationships neglect people and give priority to lovers. Many domestic partnership policies provide specification only for same sex relationships, which is an unfair trend. There is a call for people who are generating these policies to expand definitions. This is aimed at pushing for a universal family issue as opposed to same sex relationships (p. 36). General Impact of Definitions on Families and Society The emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of family members in units has the advantage of allowing individuals in nontraditional relationships to assert rights and seek possible remedies without directly depending on family law doctrines or relationships involving the family (Hamilton, 2006, p. 32). The Lebanese philosopher Charles Malik (2005) argued that, “The family depriving from marriage is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, naturally invented with unquestionable rights applicable to all positive law.” In this context, Malik overlooked into the words “natural” to stress the fact that, marriage based family is endowed with its own, meaning it is natural. (p. 18) Socrates believed that nepotism which is a preferential treatment of a family member by blood was the central cause of divisiveness within a city. This problem could be decisively settled. Whereas having children is common, a family in which the father cannot say ‘my son’ and the son cannot say ‘my father’, society will dilute recognition of the parent and undermine investment in the family. Moreover, it will pave way to violence because of the inhibiting factor of consanguinity would be removed (Amato & Afifi, 2006). In Hamilton’s emphasis on behavior and genetic, explained it this way: Evils such as assaults, unlawful loves, and homicides will happen every time and again for they will not recognize the members of the families left. The children, fathers, and mothers will therefore have the fear of doing crimes, reason being consanguinity. (p. 79) America has made a progress in many companies across the nation regarding employment policies which recognize employees and business partners by providing some benefits. Furthermore, many schools including primary and universities have adopted domestic partnership policies. They have also created various benefits for the students. For instance, the University of North Dakota, created a very clear statement, sort of a priority. It stated that, the school policy reflects on the diversity of families in the Native American population. A domestic policy that reflects the diversity in families was formed. Recognition of expanded families and crossing racial lines is a universal issue that strengthens the position of everyone (Mary & Ann, 2002). The legal position of the Courts on definition When the United States courts are faced with the necessity of determining the existence of these units that make up a family, they usually respond in a manner that can be said that it depends on the circumstances of the case on the table. The United States Supreme Court in its proceedings has often held the municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional by denying the substantive due process. This is to prevent interference of freedom of personal choice in family matters. For the purposes of zoning regulation, the families protected by the US governmental intrusion are extended families (Finley, 2007). Karen (2002) explained how courts in the United States experienced a large volume of cases involving parenting. In regard to the universal trait, both biological and non-biological parents have the right to parenting. One of the most shocking cases of all happened in Minnesota regarding a visitation statute. This was the court ruling, “It is fine in consent of the biological parent, but where there is no consent, the court is not going to enforce any right.” There was no need for them to be in court in the first place if there was consent, as the court has no jurisdiction over the case. (p. 43). In another related case of expanded interpretation of visitation statute, the court was permitted to grant permission and visitation to non-biological parents. On the trial, the court found out the non parent to be a significant adult to that child, hence they granted her some limited visitation. This is the exact meaning of subsidiary, meaning the state may only support both sides and put the disputed families intact when they are in a situation of indefinite circumstances or stress. The state is not meant to disrupt or undermine the nature and inclinations of the family to take care of one another (Finley & Schwartz, 2007). Consequently, a universal legal definition of a family cannot be fully effective in America. It is evident as to any dialogue concerned with defining a family must cross the lines of diversity in American families. However, the court in this matter can define and enforce the rights of families and individuals depending on the subject matter of the circumstance. This is because generating a universal definition of a family will destroy societal rights to individuals. References Amato, P., & Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling Caught Between Parents: Adult Children’s Relations with Parents and subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68(1), 222- 235. Eshleman, J. R., Bulcroft, R. A. (2006). The Family (11th ed.). Boston,MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2007) Father involvement and long term young adult outcomes: The differential contributions of divorce and gender. The Family Court Review, 45(4), 571-587. Goran, T., (2004). Between Sex and Power: Family World (pp. 122-131). New York. Hamilton, W. (2006). The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 17-52. Karen, B. (2002). How Policymaking Affects Families. New York: Nerd Press. Mary, M., Ann, W. (2002). The Family: A Worlds History. London: Oxford UP Malik, C. (2005). The Metaphysics of freedom: Freedom and Man. Washington: Georgetown UP Moen, P, (1987). Dual-career Couples’ work-family Strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 4, 995-1009. Robin, O. (2009). International program in Health Policy and Practice: Family Practice. New York: Commonwealth Fund. Therborn, G. (2004). Between Sex and Power: Family in the World. London: Routledge. Read More