Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Romantic/Marital, Parental, and Familial Relationship Policies in the US

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Family Policies Across the Globe

Abstract

Throughout its history, the United States of America (USA) has been characterized by a duality of cultural value sets that focus on (a) individuality, self-initiative, and privacy as well as (b) social conformity, charity, and social stability. Although there have been time periods when one value set has had more influence on family policy, neither value set has been able to retain prominence. This fluctuation in value prominence has resulted in policies that are transitory and prone to change. In addition, multiple levels of government (e.g., local, state, federal) can create family laws/policies, and there might be little consistency across the levels. Collectively, these conditions contribute to a public policy system that is fluid and emergent. This chapter will provide an overview of the (a) socioeconomic context and (b) specific aspects of family life (e.g., marriage, childrearing, work, care for vulnerable individuals) that are impacted by US policies. A list of specific policies (Table 24.1) is provided to exemplify the development of family laws over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amato, P. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. (2006). The impact of state TANF policy decision on kinship care providers. Child Welfare, 85, 715–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, A., Duncan, S., James, G., & Park, A. (2005). Cohabitation, marriage and the law: Social change and legal reform in the 21st century. Portland, OR: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batavia, A., & Schriner, K. (2001). The Americans with Disabilities Act as engine of social change: Models of disability and the potential of a civil rights approach. Policy Studies Journal, 29, 690–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bomar, H. (1934). The Lindbergh law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 1, 435–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremer, W. (1975). Along the “American way”: The New Deal’s work relief programs for the unemployed. The Journal of American History, 62, 636–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadhead-Fearn, D., & White, K. (2006). The role of self-efficacy in predicting rule-following behaviors in shelters for homeless youth: A test of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burks, J., & Rubenstein, M. (1980). “Looking backward” from 2030 (with apologies to Edward Bellamy). Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 9, 144–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, N. (2006). State representation of children’s interests. Family Law Quarterly, 40, 109–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, R. (2003). Head Start, other preschool programs and life success in a youth cohort. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30, 105–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, N. (1991). Parens patriae: History and present status of state intervention into the parent- child relationship. Current Perspectives in Psychological, Legal and Ethical Issues, 1, 109–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornille, T., Mullis, A., & Mullis, R. (2004). A partnership model for family service agencies and universities to improve service utilization. Journal of Family Social Work, 7, 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, D., Bevilacqua, J., & McFarland, B. (2003). Four decades of community mental health: A symphony in four movements. Community Mental Health Journal, 39, 381–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, B. (1988). Our mothers’ grief: Racial-ethnic women and the maintenance of families. Journal of Family History, 13, 415–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbie, D. (2009). Evolving strategies of labor-community coalition-building. Journal of Community Practice, 17, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumon, W., & Aldous, J. (1979). European and United States political contexts for family policy research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J. (2010). A critical consideration of executive orders: Glimmerings of autopoiesis in the executive role. Vermont Law Review, 35, 333–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, E., Stürzenhofecker, G., & Johnson, B. (2006). The elusive romance of motherhood: Drugs, gender, and reproduction in inner-city distressed households. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 5, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshelman, P., & Evans, G. (2002). Home again: Environmental predictors of place attachment and self-esteem for new retirement community residents. Journal of Interior Design, 28, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethridge, M., & Percy, S. (1993). A new kind of public policy encounters disappointing results: Implementing Learnfare in Wisconsin. Public Administration Review, 53, 340–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldblum, C., & Appleberry, R. (2006). Legislatures, agencies, courts and advocates: How laws are made, interpreted, and modified. In M. Pitt-Castouples, E. Kossek, & S. Swelt (Eds.), Work-family handbook: Multidisciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches (pp. 627–650). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M., Schwebel, A., & James-Meyers, L. (1987). Family stability in Black families: Values underlying three different perspectives. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 18, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, J., & Gomez, T. (1997). Still caught in a trap: The continued povertization of women. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 12, 318–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friese, B., & Bogenschneider, K. (2009). The voice of experience: How social scientists communicate family research to policymakers. Family Relations, 58, 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, R. (2007). Guess who’s been coming to dinner? Trends in interracial marriage over the 20th century. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, W. (2003). Family changes over the long term: A sociological commentary. Journal of Family History, 28, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, E. (2003). Native American family continuity as resistance: The Indian Child Welfare Act as legitimation for an effective social work practice. Journal of Social Work, 3, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V. (2006). Principles of U.S. family law. Faculty Publications Paper, 184 31–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartog, H. (2000). Man and wife in America: A history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, J. (2012). Gay rights one baby-step at a time: Protecting hospital visitation rights for same-sex partners while the lack of surrogacy rights lingers. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 9, 361–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. (2005). “Rent a mom” and other services: Markets, meanings and emotions. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 1, 74–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, L., & Ruffin, V. (2002). Why are so many U.S. families adopting internationally? A social exchange perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 6, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, S., & Kilkenny, M. (2007). Regional welfare program and labour force participation. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (2010). Making domestic violence arrests: A test of expectancy theory. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33, 531–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamerman, S., & Kahn, A. (2001). Child and family policies in the United States at the opening of the twenty-first century. Social Policy and Administration, 35, 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G. (2011). Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science, 331, 719–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppelman, A. (2004). The decline and fall of the case against same-sex marriage. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 2, 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krinsky, J. (2007). The urban politics of workfare: New York City’s welfare reforms and the dimensions of welfare policy making. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 771–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laslett, B. (1973). The family as a public and private institution: An historical perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35, 480–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, R., Witt, R., & Witte, A. (2007). The transition from welfare to work. Eastern Economic Journal, 33, 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leon, I. (2002). Adoption losses: Naturally occurring or socially constructed? Child Development, 73, 652–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J., & Cotter, L. (2005). The effects of Megan’s law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M., & Levine, A. (2011). Who said the government can’t do anything right? The World War II GI Bill, the growth of science and American prosperity. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsiglio, W., & Hinojosa, R. (2007). Managing the multifather family: Stepfathers as father allies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 845–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. (2010). Fragmentation and consolidation in the law of marriage and same-sex relationships. American Journal of Comparative Law, 58, 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, B. (2010). The poverty of culture: Notes toward a theory. Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 26, 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natale, A., & Miller-Cribbs, J. (2012). Same-sex marriage policy: Advancing social, political, and economic justice. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8, 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. (2011). Between family and friendship: The right to care for Anna. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novkov, J. (2000). Historicizing the figure of the child in legal discourse: The battle over the regulation of child labor. American Journal of Legal History, 44, 369–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, K. (1998). Comparative family policy: Eight countries’ stories. Ottawa, ON: Renouf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, G. (2007). Toward global welfare state convergence? Family policy and health care in Sweden, Canada and the United States. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 34, 143–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pargas, D. (2009). Disposing of human property: American slave families and forced separation in comparative perspective. Journal of Family History, 34, 251–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, S., & Bartle, E. (2003). Participants’ perceptions of the childcare subsidy system. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30, 157–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterman, L., & Jones, T. (2003). Defending family privacy. Journal of Law and Family Studies, 5, 71–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, L., & Magill, R. (1994). Politics versus research in social policy. The Social Service Review, 68, 503–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, N., Teitler, J., & Curtis, M. (2005). TANF sanctioning and hardship. The Social Service Review, 79, 215–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, R. (Producer). (1986). After the sexual revolution. [Television broadcast]. New York: American Broadcasting Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, N. (2007). Race and the politics of polio: Warm Springs, Tuskegee, and the March of Dimes. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 784–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. (1995). The new reproductive technologies: Defying God’s dominion? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 20, 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanzoni, J. (2001). From the normal family to alternate families to the quest for diversity with interdependence. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 688–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seccombe, K. (2000). Families in poverty in the 1990s: Trends, causes, consequences, and lessons learned. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1094–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semonche, J. (1965). Common-law marriage in North Carolina: A study in legal history. American Journal of Legal History, 9, 320–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenkman, R. (1988). Legends, lies & cherished myths of American history. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter, E., Reyes, K., & Ballard, R. (2011). Parental management of adoptive identities during challenging encounters: Adoptive parents as “protectors” and “educators”. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 28, 242–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teitelbaum, L. (1985). Family history and family law. Wisconsin Law Review, 5, 1135–1181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tharp, R. (2006). Four hundred years of evidence: Culture, pedagogy, and Native America. Journal of American Indian Education, 45, 6–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. (1995). Exchanging welfare checks for wedding rings: Welfare reform in New Jersey and Wisconsin. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 10, 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl, L. (2002). Intentional parenthood and the nuclear family. The Journal of Medical Humanities, 23, 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. (2012). Family policy in transformation US and UK policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Development & Family Studies Department, Texas Tech University, 1301 Akron Avenue, 507 College of Human Sciences, 1230, Lubbock, TX, 79409-1230, USA

    Jacki Fitzpatrick Ph.D. & Erin Kostina-Ritchey M.A., M.Ed.

Authors
  1. Jacki Fitzpatrick Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin Kostina-Ritchey M.A., M.Ed.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacki Fitzpatrick Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Family Studies, City University of New Y, Queens College, Kissena Blvd. 65-30, Flushing, 11367-1597, New York, USA

    Mihaela Robila

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fitzpatrick, J., Kostina-Ritchey, E. (2014). Romantic/Marital, Parental, and Familial Relationship Policies in the US. In: Robila, M. (eds) Handbook of Family Policies Across the Globe. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6771-7_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation