UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT—SAY GOODBYE TO DONNA REED: RECOGNIZING STEPMOTHERS

PLANNING FOR SAME-SEX AND TRANSGENDER COUPLES TRANSGENDER COUPLES 0 Megan S. Calvo 0 0 Thi s Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Review & Student Publications at Digital Commons @ Western New England University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western New England Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Western New England University School of Law. For more information , please contact Recommended Citation Megan S. Calvo, UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT-SAY GOODBYE TO DONNA REED: RECOGNIZING STEPMOTHERS' RIGHTS, 30 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 773 (2008), http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol30/iss3/5 - UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT—SAY GOODBYE TO DONNA REED: RECOGNIZING STEPMOTHERS' RIGHTS Article 5 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview UNIFORM PARENTAGE ACT-SAY GOODBYE TO DONNA REED: RECOGNIZING STEPMOTHERS' RIGHTS INTRODUCTION Donna Reed has been described as the "quintessential Ameri­ can housewife."! Similarly, her family could be described as the quintessential American family-"a husband who was employed, a wife who was a homemaker, and two or three children."2 However, the definition of the "American family" is constantly in transition. 3 For example, consider the evolution of American families in popu­ lar television since the "Donna Reed era,"4 such as the blended family in The Brady Bunch,5 and the same-sex couple who adopted and raised a son in Will & Grace.6 Statistics also prove that the composition of the American family is ever changing. In 1970, forty 1. Gilmore Girls: That Damn Donna Reed (WB television broadcast Feb. 22, 2001); see also Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic, Pornography and Harm to Women: "No Empirical Evidence?," 53 OHIO ST. L.J. 1037, 1042 n.27 (1992) (stating that "televi­ sion presented images of the idyllic housewife in The Donna Reed Show" (citing The Donna Reed Show (ABC television broadcast 1958-1966»). 2. Lewis A. Silverman, Suffer the Little Children: Justifying Same·Sex Marriage from the Perspective ofa Child of the Union, 102 W. VA. L. REV. 411, 417 n.44 (1999). Furthermore, "[t]he 1950s saw the advent of such television staples as The Ozzie and Harriet Show, Leave it to Beaver, and The Donna Reed Show, all of which featured suburban mothers who cared for their homes and imparted meaningful moral instruc­ tion to their children." Melissa E. Murray, Whatever Happened to G.I. Jane?: Citizen­ ship, Gender, and Social Policy in the Postwar Era, 9 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 91, 123 (2002 ). 3. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 63 (2000) ("The demographic changes of the past century make it difficult to speak of an average American family."). 4. Amy D. Ronner, Women Who Dance on the Professional Track: Custody and the Red Shoes, 23 HARV. WOMEN'S LJ. 173, 184 (2000) ("[O]ne scholar has coined the 'so-called "Donna Reed" era,' with a 'working father and a mother who remained at home with the children' ...." (quoting Debra L. Swank, Day Care and Parental Em­ ployment: What Weight Should They Be Given in Child Custody Disputes?, 41 VILL. L. REV. 909, 919·20 (1996»). 5. The Brady Bunch (ABC television broadcast 1969-1974). This series focused on a blended family in which Mike Brady, who had his three sons from a previous marriage, married Carol, who had three daughters from her previous marriage. ld. 6. Will & Grace: The Finale (NBC television broadcast May 18, 2006). percent of American households consisted of a heterosexual mar­ ried couple with minor children.? By 2003, that percentage had dropped to twenty-three.8 In order to reflect the continuous change in the definition of family, legislatures and courts must say goodbye to the Donna Reed mold and legalize relationships that society al­ ready views as part of the family unit.9 While many states have taken a liberal approach to recognizing new familial relationships, some courts and legislatures have been unwilling to expand their definition of family beyond the traditional nuclear family.lO In Amy G. v. M. W., the California Court of Ap­ peal held that a stepmother, who had raised her stepson since in­ fancy, could not be joined as a necessary party in a maternity suit because she lacked standing as an interested person. l1 The court reasoned that because Amy G. had no biological connection to the child, and the biological mother had also petitioned for maternity, Amy G. did not have standing because she could not be the child's mother.12 In so deciding, the court applied California's enactment of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA).13 This Note examines that 7. JASON FIELDS, V.S. CENSUS BUREAU, AMERICA'S FAMILIES AND LIVING AR­ RANGEMENTS: 2003, at 4 (2003), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20­ 553.pdf. 8. Id. 9. See generally Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (holding that granting marriage licenses to only heterosexual couples violated the Mas­ sachusetts constitution). (...truncated)