John Moore Jr.: \u3ci\u3eMoore v. City of East Cleveland\u3c/i\u3e and Children’s Constitutional Arguments

This Article is divided into three parts. First, I retell the story of Moore from John Jr.’s perspective and frame his potential claims. Second, I explore constitutional arguments under existing doctrine, using contemporary equal protection and substantive due process analyses. Finally, I suggest how a children’s rights perspective might be even more persuasive as a strategy for John Jr. as well as for achieving opportunity and equality on behalf of contemporary children living amid and affected by structural inequalities that impact their developmental capacity

ThermoPhyl : a software tool for selecting phylogenetically optimized conventional and quantitative-PCR taxon-targeted assays for use with complex samples

The ability to specifically and sensitively target genotypes of interest is critical for the success of many PCR-based analyses of environmental or clinical samples that contain multiple templates.Next-generation sequence data clearly show that such samples can harbour hundreds to thousands of operational taxonomic units; a richness which precludes the manual evaluation of candidate assay specificity and sensitivity using multiple sequence alignments. To solve this problem we have developed and validated a free software tool which automates the identification of PCR assays targeting specific genotypes in complex samples. ThermoPhyl uses user-defined target and non-target sequence databases to assess the phylogenetic sensitivity and specificity of thermodynamically optimised candidate assays derived from primer design software packages. ThermoPhyl takes its name from its central premise of testing Thermodynamically optimal assays for Phylogenetic specificity and sensitivity and can be used for two primer (traditional PCR) or two primers with an internal probe (e.g. TaqMan® qPCR) applications and potentially for oligonucleotide probes.Here we describe the use of ThermoPhyl for traditional PCR and qPCR assays. PCR assays selected using ThermoPhyl were validated using 454 pyrosequencing of a traditional specific PCR assay and with a set of four genotype-specific qPCR assays applied to estuarine sediment samples

Parentage at Birth: Birthfathers and Social Fatherhood

Deciding who should be a child\u27s legal parents at birth seems a simple task. Instinctively, the answer is the child\u27s biological mother and father. Historically, the answer would have been different depending on whether the child was born within a marriage or not; marriage trumped biology, at least with respect to fathers. A husband was generally presumed to be the father of a child born to his wife, even if there was no genetic connection. A number of changes have moved parentage away from the marital/genetic/patriarchal model that valued the marital family above genes or social fatherhood. Modern principles of parentage center on children\u27s well-being and social benefit. The question raised by our changed context is how we should define parentage consistent with those principles. This article focuses on parentage by looking exclusively at fathers

Women\u27s, Men\u27s and Children\u27s Equalities: Some Reflections and Uncertainties

One of the most striking ideas that Edward J. McCaffery suggests in Taxing Women is that equality, of the right sort, must be thought of in gendered terms. We must relinquish the idea that we can find or declare some neutral principle that will achieve the goal of equality, particularly with respect to the relationship between work and family, because the social context makes it impossible. Rather, we need to devise gender-specific strategies to achieve equality, even if they are couched in gender-neutral language. In my recent work examining single parent families, I have come to much the same conclusion: meaningful support for single parents, albeit extremely unlikely in the present political climate, requires separate consideration of the needs of single mothers and single fathers. The dominant patterns of work and family for single mothers and fathers are remarkably distinct; thus, their greatest needs are quite different. Single mothers most need economic support for nurturing, while single fathers most need cultural support for a reconstructed notion of fatherhood. McCaffery similarly argues that in order to achieve work-family equality, married women need to have their wage work taxed less, while married men need to have their wage work taxed more. This essay discusses some of the equality issues generated by McCaffery\u27s revolutionary yet modest gender-specific proposal for tax reform. In addition to considering some potential consequences for women and men, I also briefly consider the perspective of children. The essay proceeds in the following manner: Part I concentrates on McCaffery\u27s proposal to eliminate gender bias in the tax structure by taxing women less so that it is in accord with widely accepted notions of formal equality. Part II focuses on McCaffery’s argument that we should tax men more, precisely on account of their insistence on working as they always have and precisely until their behavior, in the aggregate, becomes as variable and susceptible to social and other pressures as women\u27s behavior is.” Part III discusses children’s equality and how the removal of gender bias and redistribution of workforce responsibility is presumed to be to children’s benefit. Finally, Professor Dowd concludes by recommending society takes a look at McCaffery\u27s proposal from the perspectives of women\u27s, men\u27s and children\u27s equality and consider how that complicates the analysis further by considering the separate interests of inherently connected groups

Liberty vs. Equality: In Defense of Privileged White Males

In this book review, Professor Dowd reviews Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws, by Richard A. Epstein (1992). First, Professor Dowd sets forth the thesis and arguments of Epstein’s book and explores her general criticisms in more detail. Next, she explores Epstein’s core argument pitting liberty against equality from two perspectives: that of the privileged white male and that of minorities and women. Finally, Professor Dowd argues that Epstein’s position cannot be viewed as an argument that most minorities or women would make, as it fails to take account of their stories

(Re)Constructing The Framework of Work/Family

When we talk about the connections between work, family, and marriage, what are our assumptions or our implicit model? In this essay, I hope to expose the importance of questioning the framework within which we operate. Marriage continues to be a core focus of the typical family law course. As a matter of public policy, supporting and valuing marriage, and concern about the conflict between work and family because of the strains it imposes on marriage, makes balancing work and family within a marital framework a focus of law and policy. In this essay, I argue that we need to consider whether to change that framework, and suggest a different set of questions that we might ask. Our perspective should shift to expressly focus on supporting and promoting equality for children, by supporting a range of families. That requires focusing on race, gender, and class inequalities between and within families as core principles of family law and policy. Envisioning equality goals necessitates particular attention to economic needs. Formal equality norms dominate family law. Colorblindness is the polestar for racial equality; gender neutrality is the norm for gender equality. Economic differences are largely ignored and implicitly permitted. Real inequalities, however, characterize the realities of families. By ignoring them, we do much to maintain family policy and law as classed, raced, and gendered. Failing to face these inequalities, in my view, challenges the moral center of policy and law if it operates to perpetuate these inequalities. What is needed is a race-conscious, gender-specific, class sensitive approach, measuring or evaluating the impact of rules, policy, or proposals by their ability to achieve meaningful equality, both within and between families. In the first Part of this Essay I present an ecological model within which to consider models and assumptions. In Part II, I critique the traditional family law model of the relationship between work, family, and marriage. In the final Part of the Essay, I suggest a different set of questions both with respect to policy and with respect to teaching family law

Asking the Man Question: Masculinities Analysis and Feminist Theory

Masculinities scholarship is an essential piece of feminist analysis and of critical equality analysis. It requires that we ask the man question to further unravel inequalities. This symposium marks one of several movements toward examining and considering what masculinities scholarship can offer. In this introduction, I suggest a framework of masculinities analysis and describe its relationship to feminist theory. First, I consider why we should ask the man question, and how we should ask it. Second, I explore how masculinities analysis might be useful in our examination of the man question. Masculinities work can be used to understand more clearly how male privilege and dominance are constructed. It can make us see harms suffered by boys and men that we have largely ignored. It may also reinforce and strengthen the commitment to antiessentialism in feminist theory. Exposing the complexities and multiplicity of masculinities leads toward understanding intersectional and multiple forms of discrimination more clearly. In this way, it is analogous to noticing that the issues and positions of all women are not the same and include instances of women subordinating women