Eugene: Here is a partial answer to your question.
I think that the legislation and jurisprudence on parental custody - that wives would have primary custody of children after a divorce -- contrary to the old English rule -- developed shortly after the development of married women's property statutes. The movement for protective labor legislation -- that was successful in Mueller v. Oregon was tied to the movement against child labor and in many states these child labor statutes were easily passed. Hammer v. Daggenhart struck down a federal law limiting child labor, but by then there were a significant number of states that had prohibited some form of child labor at the state level and all these laws (as far as I know), like the law in Mueller, survived challenges. The law in Hammer did not survive because it was based on the US Constitution. It is worth remembering that the Constitutional Amendment to ban child labor had enormous support that was probably tied to women voting, but maybe some politial scientist out there has some number to help us out. I think you can also track mandatory school attendance to the agitation by women and the rise of political activity by women even before universal suffrage for women. I do not know the status of the protection of children in the early states that allowed women to vote but perhaps someone can tell us about this. ---- Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Tue, 8/4/09, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: From: Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 7:03 PM Hmm -- is there any evidence supporting the proposition that recognizing women's rights has indeed caused greater recognition of children's rights? I would think that many people would see the two as very different matters; we've had over 150 years in many states of Married Women's Property Acts, for instance, but I take it that most people are quite comfortable with parents' having considerable control over their children's property (though not unlimited control in certain circumstances, to be sure). Now perhaps the theory below is indeed correct -- I guess I'm just skeptical unless there's some clearer evidence. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:00 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > I share the same experiences as Alan mentions. Part of what we are dealing > with > here are the consequences of the women's rights movement. As women's status > has moved from property to persons, so has children's though more > slowly. The > status assumptions color judgments about proper parenting - as well as proper > treatment of spouses. > Marci > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Brownstein, Alan" <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> > > Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:43:48 > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Subject: RE: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > messages to others. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
