Final 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 believe in the tender year doctrine more than people think. Artis’ credibility is very strong as she interviewed actual judges on the matter; however it is weak 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 judges are still favor the tender year doctrine. They say that the mother is the natural nurturer and caretaker, then the father. New gender-neutral law wants custody awarded in the sense of how much the child spent with each parent before the divorce. Older judges and male judges use the tender year doctrine more then female judges. Artis argues that some judges that said they don’t use the tender year doctrine later use it in the decision of cases or as a tiebreaker to make their decision. 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. Some judges agree that whoever uses the tender year doctrine is making the custody unfair to fathers. Fathers can bond and be the primary care giver just like the mother can. Many judges use gut instinct when is comes to custody cases. 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 old doctrine still award the children to the mother 80 percent of the time. Artis states in her findings that judges 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 wrote an examination of the decline in women’s household labor with another person which appeared in, Journal of Marriage and Family. Her work being published means that her research is 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 article, 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. 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 judges were for their decision. (Artis 769-806)
Artis biography states she is an Assistant Professor, however doesn’t state if into the law major. Her gathering of information was excellent, but her research could have been more in depth if she had gotten actual cases to collaborate her findings. Artis has very good basic form, but she is lacking in case evidence on how judges came to their verdict. She asked them to answer hypothetical cases but the cases were age sensitive. 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, that in the arena of child custody law, state legislatures have adopted a seemingly gender-neutral standard, the “best interests of the child.” This standard has replaced gender-specific laws that granted custody, particularly of young children, to the mother. 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 her feelings or how 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 article, 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. I agree with her on being against the tender year doctrine just by what the judges have said. (Artis 769-806)
Artis ethos are not to try to change anyone’s views, just try to educate people in law and legal fields to understand what goes on behind the minds of judges. Anyone reading this article can agree or disagree with the judges. Each person can take this publication and stress each aspect, but still view it as they want to. She hasn’t made me change my view; I still think fathers don’t get the rights they should when it comes to wanting their children.
According to the logos that Artis got from interviewing, more than half of the judges expressed support for the tender year doctrine at some point. Is there no justice for fathers in this matter? Was there ever justice for fathers? In the reading, until the late 1960s, the tender year doctrine was the custody law in most states, emphasizing mothers’ biological superiority as a parent especially during infancy, resulting in a legal preference for mothers. The text justified, that mostly older judges, express a belief in the tender year doctrine as a factor in custody decisions. How does a judge decides when a mother and father both want custody, who gets the kids? The text told me that some judges use the tender year doctrine as a tiebreaker. (Artis 769-806)
Artis’ pathos intended this article for law and family rights, it was published in the magazine, Law and Society View. People that view this article may have mixed feelings. A few judges state in the interview, “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? I disagree with both judges comments. I 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 the judge’s views are and how they stand with their judgments. (Artis 769-806)
The pathos usage is very frequent 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. 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.
Her logos and pathos interlock in this article, because mothers are often the caretakers of small children, they receive custody more often. What about fathers that are caretakers of children? It states, there’s no reason why a father can’t bond and provide care giving duties to an infant just like a mother can. Some judges think the tender year doctrine is unfair to fathers. Why do some use it? Like one judge remarked, “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 get treated unfairly. Why break the father’s bond? Don’t men and women both share in the duties of children? (Artis 769-806)
Artis gets the information you need from the right people, the judges but need to get the case information to make it stronger. Tender year doctrine is replaced by the gender-neutral standard, but judges still use the doctrine because that is what they think is right. Some judges think that fathers and mothers getting equal rights is fair while others use the doctrine as a tiebreaker. Fairness is not being met by judges and now we an understanding of why. So the couple at the beginning asking about the children…. they both got them equally it is in the best interest of the children.

Works Cited:
Artis, Julie E. “Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges' Accounts of the Tender
Years Doctrine.” Law & Society Review 2004: Vol. 38 Issue 4, p769-806.