Revised Response Paper

Child Custody Laws
“I want a divorce and I want the kids!” “No, I want the kids!” Now that I have your attention lets talk. When divorcing, child custody is based on the best interest of the child or is it? In the article, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, written by Julie E. Artis, many Indiana judges have many different views on the subject. Some judges believe in the Tender Year Doctrine more than people think. Artis’ credibility is very strong in this piece because she interviewed actual judges on the matter. It is somewhat weakened because of lack of actual case information about how some decisions were made.
Julie E. Artis in her writing, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, focuses on the judges of Indiana and their views of the tender year doctrine where the children automatically go to the mother and the new gender-neutral laws. The new statue of Indiana states the new gender-neutral law but some of the lawyers in Indiana still favor the tender year doctrine. Many times the mother gets custody of infants or young children just because of the tender year doctrine. Judges say that the mother is the natural nurturer, then that of the father. Usually, mothers are the caretakers of small children and that is why they get the custody of the children. New gender-neutral law wants custody awarded in the same way as how much the child spent with each parent before the divorce. Male judges usually use the tender year doctrine more then female judges. The older the judge the more that judge believes in the tender year doctrine. Artis argues that some judges that said they don’t use the tender year doctrine later use it in the decision of cases. These judges use tender year doctrine as a tiebreaker to make their decision. Artis asserted the question about the tender year doctrine and ten judges agreed that they use it. Some lawyers try to tell the fathers to get custody finalized before court because it is less of a hassle. When there is a father who is way involved in his children and there is reason to believe the mother is not as concerned about the children then go to court. When deciding custody judges look at which parent is there for the child emotionally, how strong the bond is between each parent and the children, adjustments to home and environment around them, health of all people in the home, time spent with the children, and who is there to care for them. Other judges agree that those who use the tender year doctrine are making the custody unfair to fathers. Fathers can bond and be the primary care giver just like the mother can. Artis asked about an infant who is breastfeeding who should get custody… automatically some judges said mother just because of breastfeeding. Other judges use their gut instinct when is comes to custody cases while others use right or wrong. Whether or not a judge agrees to the tender year doctrine…eighty-two percent of the time mothers get custody. When there is a contested custody case then the judge tries to award the children equally between the mother and father. Judges that have dealt with contested custody and are against the tender year doctrine they award the children to the mother eighty percent of the time. Artis states that in her findings judges still use the tender year doctrine as the best interests of the child instead of the gender-neutral.
Julie E. Artis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at DePaul University. She has also written an examination of the decline in women’s household labor with another person which appeared in the magazine, Journal of Marriage and Family. With her work being published means that her research is well needed. In the article, Judging the Best Interest of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Year Doctrine, she went through interviewing judges in the state of Indiana. She states in her article1, that she conducted twenty five face-to-face interviews with judges during summer 1998, and that most of her interviews lasted between one and two hours. I agree that with the interviews lasting that long because Artis got significant amount of information to put this article together. She stays consistent throughout the whole article by asking them the same questions. Even when each judge had a different point of view about the tender year doctrine she stayed to the main focus by asking more questions to clarify why the judge was for their decision.
Artis biography states that she is an Assistant Professor, however this article1 doesn’t state if she is into the law major, which makes her ethos a little weak. Her gathering this information was excellent, but her research could have been more in depth if she had gotten actual cases to collaborate with her findings. Artis has very good basic form, but she is lacking in the case evidence on how the judges come to their verdict. She asked the judges to answer hypothetical cases but the cases were age sensitive. Ages were for children age six and younger and age seven and older. Some cases were about the mothers’ biological ties to the children. Why not the fathers’ biological tie? Nothing is mentioned about the father. Artis states in her article1, that in the arena of child custody law, state legislatures have adopted a seemingly gender-neutral standard, the “best interests of the child.” This new standard has replaced gender-specific laws that granted custody, particularly of young children, to the mother. With that being said I ask again, why nothing mentioned about the father’s biological tie to the children. Does this infer that Artis is against fathers getting custody of the children?
Artis ethos on the matter is just about getting the interviews into the article but she doesn’t discuss how her feelings or others would feel towards what these judges say. Is she for or against tender year doctrine? She is not that clear on it, but in her summary before reading the article1, it states, “Should children be placed with an “open, empathetic” father or with a “stern but value-supporting mother?” That leads me to believe that she is for the new gender-neutral standard and not the tender year doctrine. I agree with her on being against the tender year doctrine just by what the judges have said.
Artis uses her logos in this article by interviewing judges. According to the Artis1, more than half of the judges expressed support for the tender year doctrine at some point during the interview. The fact that each judge supported it at one point or another about made me puke. Is there no justice for fathers in this matter? Was there ever justice for fathers? I got my answer while reading 1until the late 1960s, the tender year doctrine was the custody law in most states. This doctrine emphasized mothers’ biological superiority as a parent especially during infancy, resulting in a legal preference for mothers. Must be that many of the judges that agreed to the support of the tender year doctrine are older. This statement is justified almost to a key in the text1 most judges, especially older judges, express a belief in the tender year doctrine as a factor in custody decisions. I want to know how a judge decides when a mother and father both want custody, who gets the kids? I didn’t have to go far, the text told me that some judges use the tender year doctrine as a tiebreaker. Using the tender year doctrine as a tiebreaker makes me feel real confident in how our lawyers take care of young children.
Artis uses he pathos to explain that she intended this article for law and family rights, I am assuming. It was published in the magazine, Law and Society View. People that view this article may have mixed feelings. As a few judges state in the interview1, “Although I couldn’t say it on a public platform without being pilloried, I believe that the mother has the stronger natural nurturing instinct” or “I don’t mean to be sexist here… I believe other things equal, that at that kind of age… the mother is a better caregiver.” How does this make you feel? It makes me pissed, why does the legal system work this way. I disagree with both judges comments. I really don’t think she intended for this publication to be read by college students, let alone be analyzed as a resource for a paper. I think it is a very good publication to use for my paper. I think she would want people to know what judges views are and how they stand against their judgments.
I think that Artis ethos is really not try to change anyone’s views, she is just trying to educate people in law and other legal fields to understand what goes on behind the minds of judges. As anyone can see from this article, that many people can agree with the judges or disagree with the judges. Each person can take this publication and stress each aspect to the brim, but still each person will view it as they want to. She hasn’t made me change my views, I still think fathers don’t get the rights they should when it comes to wanting their children. All the judges make me mad because they support the tender year doctrine and never even think about the fathers’ views or feelings in the matter. Judges go by what they want and not by the facts or defending support of the fathers to their children.
Her logos and pathos interlock in parts of this article. According to the article1, because mothers are so often the caretakers of small children, they receive custody more often. WHAT? What about fathers that are caretakers of children? It states1, there’s no reason why a father can’t bond and provide caregiving duties to an infant just like a mother can. Some judges think that the tender year doctrine is unfair to fathers. Then why do some use it? Like one judge remarked1, “I think it’s unfair to fathers. It’s sort of giving a mixed message. It’s saying to fathers: ‘You really need to be involved and you need to do things to get involved’ and when they do, it’s not enough to make them an equal in the eyes of the law…” I agree fathers that are way involved in their children’s life get screwed when in court. They get treated as they don’t give a care in the world about their children. Some men can’t wait to be a father and when they do it is a special bond between him and that child. Why break the bond? Don’t men and women both share in the duties of children?
There is pathos used very frequently in this article to get attention. Some judges use the gut feeling method on who gets the children. How do you know if the feeling is good or bad? Judges are to make the right decision for the children. Not gut instinct. Eighty-two percent of the time custody goes to the mother, whether or not a judge is for the tender year doctrine. In some contested cases custody could be equally split between the parents.
The logos, pathos, and ethos put up a good strong part but this article is still a little weak but she does get the information you need from the right people, the judges who deal with child custody. Tender year doctrine is replaced by the gender-neutral standard, but some judges still use the doctrine because that is what they think is right. Fathers and mothers getting equal rights is what some judges think while others use the doctrine as a tiebreaker. Fairness is not being met by judges and now we understand a few of the ones that were interviewed. Artis shows us how the law works in case. So the couple at the beginning asking about the children…. they both got them equally it is in the best interest of the children.
1 Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges' Accounts of the Tender Years Doctrine.Artis, Julie E.1 jartis@depaul.edu Law & Society Review; 2004, Vol. 38 Issue 4, p769-806, 38p,