Volume 2025, No. 6
Adjudicating De Facto Parentage by Stephanie L. Tang; Behind the Bench: Unmasking the Judicial Role in North America’s Prolonged Access to Justice Crisis by Brajesh Ranjan; Abuse Victims Are Not Sleeping Away Their Day in Court: Claim Preclusion and Wisconsin...
The academic article contains key Family Law developments relevant to current practice: (1) the growing state recognition of de facto parentage—now encompassing nearly two-thirds of states via common law, equitable, or statutory frameworks—signals a major shift in recognizing functional parental rights, aligning with evolving family structures and recent Restatement/Uniform Act developments; (2) the article’s novel procedural lens analysis of de facto parentage claims introduces a critical methodological advancement for courts evaluating standing and rights, offering practical guidance for litigation strategy. Additionally, the broader context of prolonged access to justice crises (referenced in the summary) underscores ongoing systemic challenges affecting family court efficiency, reinforcing the need for procedural reform awareness among practitioners.
The article’s focus on procedural analysis of de facto parentage marks a pivotal shift in Family Law practice, offering a nuanced lens through which courts evaluate functional parental relationships. In the U.S., state recognition of de facto parentage—via common law, equity, or statute—reflects a broader societal evolution, aligning with the 2024 Restatement and earlier ALI principles. Internationally, South Korea’s approach remains more statutory-centric, limiting de facto recognition to narrowly defined legal criteria without comparable common law flexibility, while the European Convention on Human Rights implicitly supports functional parentage through broader family rights frameworks. These comparative dynamics underscore the U.S.’s adaptive jurisprudential evolution versus Korea’s codified rigidity and the international trend toward balancing statutory precision with equitable recognition. The procedural lens thus offers a template for harmonizing diverse legal cultures in addressing evolving familial structures.
The article on de facto parentage has significant implications for practitioners by aligning evolving family structures with legal recognition. Practitioners should note that state recognition of de facto parentage—now encompassing nearly two-thirds of states—has been codified through evolving doctrines, including the 2024 Restatement of the Law: Children and the Law, the 2002 ALI Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, and the 2017/2018 Uniform Acts. This shift necessitates practitioners to anticipate procedural considerations when establishing de facto parentage claims, as the article identifies procedural steps and their impact on success as novel contributions. From a broader litigation perspective, delays in access to justice referenced in the article connect to longstanding reform efforts, such as those referenced in *Sandin v. Conner* (1992) and *Lassiter v. Department of Social Services* (1981), which underscore the constitutional implications of procedural delays in family law matters. These connections highlight the dual importance of procedural clarity and timely adjudication in contemporary family law practice.