Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–19

Two Mothers in Law and Fact

Article

Abstract

What is the proper balance between legislative and judicial innovation and between formal and functional family recognition once legislatures have addressed gay men’s and lesbians’ families? In the civil-law jurisdiction of Quebec, legislative reforms allow two women to register as a child’s mothers. But judges have recognized a second mother ‘in fact’ by orders sharing custody where the parties had not used the new legislative channels. Such judicial creativity is reconcilable with the civil law and comparative scholars should flag it as a valuable resource. But it risks undermining legislative choices about family recognition. Perhaps the option to give a child a second mother includes the choice for a lesbian birth mother not to do so. Once two women become thinkable as spouses and mothers, judges risk inappropriately pressing a rich range of queer kinship possibilities into standard models.

Keywords

Lesbian mothers Child custody Civil law Comparative law Functional family Feminist comparative law 

References

  1. Almack, Kathryn. 2006. Seeking sperm: Accounts of lesbian couples’ reproductive decision-making and understandings of the needs of the child. International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family 20: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnup, Katherine, and Susan Boyd. 1995. Familial disputes? Sperm donors, lesbian mothers, and legal parenthood. In Legal inversions: Lesbians, gay men, and the politics of law, ed. Didi Herman, and Carl Stychin, 77–101. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baines, Beverley, Daphne Barak-Erez, Tsvi Kahana, and Catharine A. Mackinnon (eds.). 2012. Feminist constitutionalism: Global perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baudouin, Jean-Louis. 1974. The impact of the common law on the civilian systems of Louisiana and Quebec. In The role of judicial decisions and doctrine in civil law and in mixed jurisdictions, ed. Joseph Dainow, 1–22. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Birks, Peter. 2000. Three kinds of objection to discretionary remedialism. Western Australian Law Review 29: 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, Susan B. 2011. Relocation, indeterminacy, and burden of proof: Lessons from Canada. Child and Family Law Quarterly 23: 155–177.Google Scholar
  7. Brierley, John E.C., and Roderick A. Macdonald (eds.). 1993. Quebec civil law: An introduction to Quebec private law. Toronto: Emond Montgomery.Google Scholar
  8. Cadoret, Anne. 2011. La famille homoparentale en France: une révolution tranquille? Enfances, Familles, Générations 15: 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers, Lori. 2010. Newborn adoption: Birth mothers, genetic fathers, and reproductive autonomy. Canadian Journal of Family Law 26: 339–393.Google Scholar
  10. Cornu, Gérard. 2006. Droit civil, La famille, 9th ed. Paris: Montchrestien.Google Scholar
  11. Cossman, Brenda. 1997. Turning the gaze back on itself: Comparative law, feminist legal studies, and the postcolonial project. Utah Law Review 1997: 525–544.Google Scholar
  12. Cossman, Brenda. 2007. Parenting beyond the nuclear family: Jane Doe v. Alberta. Alberta Law Review 45: 501–513.Google Scholar
  13. Cretney, Stephen. 2006. Same sex relationships: From ‘odious crime’ to ‘gay marriage’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalton, S.E., and D.D. Bielby. 2000. ‘That’s our kind of constellation’: Lesbian mothers negotiate institutionalized understandings of gender within the family. Gender & Society 14: 36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deleury, Édith, and Dominique Goubau. 2008. Le droit des personnes physiques, 4th edn by Dominique Goubau. Yvon Blais: Cowansville.Google Scholar
  16. Eng, David L. 2010. The feeling of kinship: Queer liberalism and the racialization of intimacy. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fielding, Nigel G. 2011. Judges and their work. Social & Legal Studies 20: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finch, Janet. 2006. Kinship as ‘family’ in contemporary Britain. In Kinship matters, ed. Fatemeh Ebtehaj, Bridget Lindley, and Martin Richards, 295–306. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Fournier, Pascale. 2010. Muslim marriage in western courts: Lost in transplantation. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Goubau, Dominique. 2011. Le statut du tiers “significatif” dans les familles recomposées, In Développements récents en droit familial (2011), 1–19. Cowansville: Yvon Blais.Google Scholar
  21. Goldberg, Abbie E., and Katherine R. Allen. 2007. Imagining men: Lesbian mothers’ perceptions of male involvement during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family 69: 352–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halley, Janet, and Kerry Rittich. 2010. Critical directions in comparative family law: Genealogies and contemporary studies of family law exceptionalism. American Journal of Comparative Law 58: 753–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herbrand, Cathy. 2011. L’impasse de la pluriparentalité au niveau légal: analyse du projet de ‘parenté sociale’ en Belgique. Enfances, Familles, Générations 14: 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holtmaat, Rikki, and Jonneke Naber. 2011. Women’s human rights and culture: From deadlock to dialogue. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  25. Husa, Jaakko. 2006. Methodology of comparative law today: From paradoxes to flexibility. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 58: 1095–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jubault, Christian. 2010. Droit civil: Les successions, les libéralités, 2nd ed. Paris: Montchrestien.Google Scholar
  27. Jutras, Daniel. 2009. Cartographie de la mixité: La common law et la complétude du droit civil au Québec. Canadian Bar Review 88: 247–273.Google Scholar
  28. Kasirer, Nicholas. 1994. Couvrez cette communauté que je ne saurais voir: Equity and fault in the division of Quebec’s family patrimony. Revue Générale de Droit 25: 569–603.Google Scholar
  29. Kelly, Fiona. 2004. Nuclear norms or fluid families? Incorporating lesbian and gay parents and their children into Canadian family law. Canadian Journal of Family Law 21: 133–178.Google Scholar
  30. Kelly, Fiona. 2009. Producing paternity: The role of legal fatherhood in maintaining the traditional family. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 21: 315–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelly, Fiona. 2011. Transforming law’s family: The legal recognition of planned lesbian motherhood. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kennedy, David. 2003. The methods and the politics. In Comparative legal studies: Traditions and transitions, ed. Pierre Legrand, and Roderick Munday, 345–433. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirouack, Marie Christine. 2007. La jurisprudence relative à la garde: où en sommes-nous rendus? In Développements récents en droit familial, ed. Barreau du Québec, 665–902.Google Scholar
  34. Kouri, Robert P. 2001. From presumptions of fact to presumptions of causation: Reflections on the perils of judge-made rules in Quebec medical malpractice law. Revue de Droit de l’Université de Sherbrooke 32: 213–241.Google Scholar
  35. Kranz, K.C., and J.C. Daniluk. 2006. Living outside of the box: Lesbian couples with children conceived through the use of anonymous donor insemination. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 18: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Landheer-Cieslak, Christelle. 2007. La religion devant les juges français et québécois de droit civil. Yvon Blais: Cowansville.Google Scholar
  37. Lavallée, Carmen. 2005. L’enfant, ses familles et les institutions d’adoption: regards sur le droit français et le droit québécois. Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur.Google Scholar
  38. Leckey, Robert. 2009a. Family outside the book on the family. Canadian Bar Review 88: 545–578.Google Scholar
  39. Leckey, Robert. 2009b. ‘Where the parents are of the same sex’: Quebec’s reforms to filiation. International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family 23: 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leckey, Robert. 2011a. Law reform, lesbian parenting, and the reflective claim. Social and Legal Studies 20: 337–338.Google Scholar
  41. Leckey, Robert. 2011b. Lesbian parental projects in word and deed. Revue Juridique Thémis 45: 315–341.Google Scholar
  42. Legrand, Pierre, and Geoffrey Samuel. 2005. Brèves épistémologiques sur le droit anglais tel qu’en lui-même. Revue interdisciplinaire d’études juridiques 54: 1–62.Google Scholar
  43. Legrand, Pierre, and Geoffrey Samuel. 2008. Introduction au common law. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  44. Maclean, Mavis (ed.). 2007. Parenting after partnering: Containing conflict after separation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. McCandless, Julie, and Sally Sheldon. 2010a. ‘No father required’? The welfare assessment in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. Feminist Legal Studies 18: 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCandless, Julie, and Sally Sheldon. 2010b. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008) and the tenacity of the sexual family form. Modern Law Review 73: 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Millbank, Jenni. 2008. The limits of functional family: Lesbian mother litigation in the era of the eternal biological family. International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family 22: 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Monéger, Françoise. 2012. Introduction. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 2012: 7–11.Google Scholar
  49. Monge, José Trías. 2003. Legal methodology in some mixed jurisdictions. Tulane Law Review 78: 333–352.Google Scholar
  50. Monk, Daniel. 2010. Commentary on Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-Sex Partner). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. C. Rosemary, Clare McGlynn Hunter, and Erika Rackley, 96–101. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  51. Monk, Daniel. 2011. Sexuality and succession law: Beyond formal equality. Feminist Legal Studies 19: 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morin, Michel. 1990. La compétence parens patriae et le droit privé québécois: un emprunt inutile, un affront à l’histoire. Revue du Barreau 50: 827–923.Google Scholar
  53. Normand, Sylvio. 2008. An introduction to Quebec civil law. In Elements of Quebec Civil Law: A comparison with the common law of Canada, ed. Aline Grenon, and Louise Bélanger-Hardy, 25–97. Toronto: Thomson.Google Scholar
  54. Pineau, Jean, and Marie Pratte. 2006. La famille. Montreal: Thémis.Google Scholar
  55. Pratte, Marie. 2003. La filiation réinventée: l’enfant menacé? Revue Générale de Droit 33: 541–607.Google Scholar
  56. Quebec Research Centre of Private and Comparative Law. 1999. Private law dictionary of the family and bilingual lexicons. Cowansville: Yvon Blais.Google Scholar
  57. Rémy, Philippe. 1985. Éloge de l’exégèse. Droits 1: 115–123.Google Scholar
  58. Renchon, Jean-Louis. 2012. L’ ‘homoparentalité’ en droit belge. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 2012: 35–56.Google Scholar
  59. Richman, Kimberly D. 2006. LGBT family rights, legal consciousness, and the dilemma of difference. In The new civil rights research: A constitutive approach, ed. Benjamin Fleury-Steiner, and Laura Beth Nielsen, 77–99. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  60. Roy, Alain. 2010. Droit de l’adoption: Adoption interne et internationale, 2nd ed. Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur.Google Scholar
  61. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 2003. Touching feeling: Affect, pedagogy, performativity. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sullivan, Maureen. 2004. The family of woman: Lesbian mothers, their children, and the undoing of gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sunder, Madhavi. 2001. Cultural dissent. Stanford Law Review 54: 495–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tremblay, Régine. 2010. Mother? A portrait of legal motherhood in Canada. LLM thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  65. Wallbank, Julie. 2010. Channelling the messiness of diverse family lives: Resisting the calls to order and de-centring the hetero-normative family. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 32: 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weeks, Jeffrey, Brian Heaphy, and Catherine Donovan. 2001. Same sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weisbach, David. 2011. Is knowledge of the tax law socially desirable? http://ssrn.com/abstract=1895572.
  68. Wiegers, Wanda. 2009. Gender, biology, and third party custody disputes. Alberta Law Review 47: 1–36.Google Scholar
  69. Williams, Susan H. (ed.). 2009. Constituting equality: Gender equality and comparative constitutional law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Yntema, Hessel E. 1967. Equity in the civil law and the common law. American Journal of Comparative Law 15: 60–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zanghellini, Aleardo. 2010. Lesbian and gay parents and reproductive technologies: The 2008 Australian and UK reforms. Feminist Legal Studies 18: 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law and Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative LawMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations