Introduction to the Special Collection on the Intersection of Families and the Law*

• Author: Pamela A. Monroe,Tammy L. Henderson
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00289.x
• Published date: 01 October 2002
• Date: 01 October 2002

2002, Vol. 51, No. 4 289

Special Collection

special collection

Introduction to the Special Collection on the Intersection of

Families and the Law*

Tammy L. Henderson** and Pamela A. Monroe

In the U. S., citizens’ rights are rooted in the founding doc-

uments of American democracy, the United States Consti-

tution and Declaration of Independence. These documents

protect citizens’ individual rights against unwarranted govern-

ment intrusion. As suggested by Williamson (1997), the Consti-

tution protects citizens’ rights through the application of four

basic principles of America’s democracy:

●Equality of Rights: Recognition and implementation in our

public and private lives that all people are created equal and

should be treated equally by the American government; equal-

ity of opportunity, although not guaranteed by the Constitution,

is often thought to follow in the context of equality of rights.

●E Pluribus Unum: Despite our diversity, there is a national

unity that focuses on the principles of equality, liberty, and the

common good.

●Balance of Individual Liberty and Protection of the Common

Good: It is the responsibility of the government to protect the

well-being of citizens using a system of checks and balances

to guard individual liberties, guaranteeing citizens freedom

from unwarranted government intrusion.

●Religious Freedom: Citizens have the right to practice the re-

ligious faith of their choice.

Various interpretations of these documents and principles

create legal tension among citizens because everyone does not

share the views of Williamson (1977). Historically, citizens

failed to reach consensus on the principle of equal rights and

opportunity. At one point, we blatantly tolerated unequal treat-

ment of women (Hoff, 1991) and Blacks (Bell, 1992) because

laws existed on the local, state, and federal levels that limited or

omitted their political involvement. They could not vote or did

not have access to education and fair housing options. Special

rights, instead of fundamental rights, still shape the legal debate

as we struggle with the unequal treatment of lesbian and gay

families (Harvard Law Review [HLR], 1980).

Currently, we face the challenge of balancing the rights of

all citizens, including international residents, with the overall

safety of all Americans. The potential use of a national identi-

f‌ication card and other national security measures are examples

of the legal tension associated with the principles of liberty in-

terests and equal protection versus protecting our society and

*We thank Kay Pasley and Michelle Stevenson for their excellent scholarship and

support in developing this special collection on The Intersection of Families and the Law.

**Human Development (0416), 401-B Wallace Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061–0416 (thender@vt.edu).

(Family Relations, 2002, 51, 289–292)

way of life. Research on issues of privacy rights as inf‌luenced

by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, holds promise for

family scholars as we seek to determine the legal impact of Sep-

tember 11th on U.S. and international families.

Although these principles are not mutually exclusive, an im-

portant aspect of contemporary family law is the balance of in-

dividual liberty and the protection of the common good. We seek

to honor parental autonomy (i.e., Meyer v. Nebraska, 1923;

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972)

while protecting the rights of children (i.e., Prince v. Massachu-

setts, 1944; Wisconsin v. Yoder). We want protection against

unwarranted government intrusion on parental and family auton-

omy balanced with the nation’s responsibility to protect children

from maltreatment or threat of harm (i.e., In re C., 1977; State

v. Thorpe, 1981). We desire to promote strong family values with

the recognition of the diverse, complex familial issues associated

with grandparent visitation rights, lesbian and gay parents, re-

productive technologies, and stepparent rights and responsibili-

ties. Despite our ideological continuum of liberal, moderate, or

conservative, each of us desires to promote healthy families and

the best interests of children. In this special collection, we en-

courage our readers to look at family law against the backdrop

of the balance of rights within and across families.

Over the last 12 years, 14 articles appeared in Family Re-

lations that specif‌ically focused on family case law or presented

research based on court cases or the experiences of attorneys and

judges (see Table 1). During the same period, state and federal

courts issued many decisions affecting family life and the legal

context in which families live. We recognize the need for addi-

tional scholarship focused on family law in a family science

context. We also recognize the needs of individuals and families

who interact with the legal domain and are supported by family

professionals serving in a variety of practitioner roles. For ex-

ample, we have witnessed the increasingly important role me-

diators play as an impartial third person assisting families facing

divorce, child custody, special education disputes, and other

school-related conf‌licts. This is one career choice of family pro-

fessionals interested in the intersection of families and the law

(Emery & Wyer, 1987; Malia, Cummingham, & Wynn, 1995),

as a practitioner who is well-served by the type of scholarly

research presented herein. Monroe (1988) focused on family sci-

entists working in a legislative domain, but the roles she outlined

are transferable to work within the judicial system. She sug-

gested that family professionals inf‌luence the legislative process

as technicians, entrepreneurs, and politicians. In this classif‌ica-

tion scheme (adapted from work by Meltzer, 1972), technicians

conduct research that expands the knowledge of social science;

entrepreneurs conduct policy analysis; and politicians actively

engage in legal decision-making as judges, attorneys, expert wit-