Biological parents vs. psychological parents: Challenging the judicial entrenchment of psychological bonding.

摘要

A "psychological parent" is a person with whom a child has developed close, parent-child type emotional bonds. This person can be a child's foster parent, prospective adoptive parent or any other primary caregiver.;In the 1970s, the prevailing standard that for decades governed custody disputes between two biological parents, the "best interests of the child," was extended to apply to custody and adoption disputes between biological and psychological parents.;Since that time, social science research on the importance of psychological bonding to child development has strongly influenced the interpretation of the "best interests of the child.".;In this thesis, I take the position that while the best interests of the child should always remain paramount, the courts should recognize the importance of maintaining biological ties.;I begin by examining the larger question of the judicial use of social science information, and then the more specific problem of the judicial reliance on psychological bonding theory. My main premise is that the judicial entrenchment of the theory is unjustified. It has a faulty empirical base and should not be relied on to create legal rules and policies affecting families.;I then argue that biological parents have a right to pursue a relationship with their children, and this right finds support in legislation and in Charter jurisprudence. The uncritical acceptance of psychological bonding theory undermines this parental right. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).