Normas tempranas de custodia americanos y mito de derechos del Padre- Early American Custody Standards And The Father’s Rights Myth

http://tomjameslaw.com/blog/early-american-custody-standards-and-the-fathers-rights-myth/

A menudo se dice que las leyes estadounidenses del siglo XIX temprano dio padres un derecho absoluto o casi absoluto de la custodia de sus hijos. De hecho, sin embargo, los tribunales norteamericanos decidieron primeros custodia de los niños entre divorcio y separación de los padres sobre la base de lo que creían sería servir a los mejores intereses del niño. Para decidir lo que era en el mejor interés del niño, los tribunales americanos tempranos reconocieron una preferencia general por el cónyuge que no tuvo la culpa de la ruptura del matrimonio, si el cónyuge es el padre o la madre. En general, la mayoría de los tribunales no aplicaron una preferencia generalizada por los miembros de un sexo respecto al otro, excepto en los casos de niños pequeños, en los que la mayoría de los jueces expresaron una preferencia general para colocar a los niños con sus madres.

(Richard Brunton, Mrs Reuben Humphreys of East Granby, Connecticut, 1800)

It is often said that early nineteenth century American law gave fathers an absolute or near-absolute right to custody of their children. In fact, however, early American courts decided custody of children between divorcing and separating parents on the basis of what they believed would serve the best interests of the child. In deciding what was in a child’s best interests, early American courts recognized a general preference for the spouse who was not at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, whether that spouse was the father or the mother. In general, most courts did not apply a generalized preference for members of one sex relative to the other except in cases involving young children, in which most judges expressed a general preference for placing children with their mothers.[1]

The notion that early American law gave fathers something like an absolute property right to custody regardless of what was in the best interests of the children has been repeated countless times in academic circles, judicial opinions, law review articles and legal treatises.[2] It seems almost heretical to point out that it is not true.The idea may be attributable, in some part, to a mistaken belief that American courts adopted and continued to apply English custody law.[3]Pertinacious as this idea may be, it is not true. As we have seen, American courts did not consider themselves constrained to follow English legal precedents, particularly with regard to custody law. Nineteenth century American courts never regarded children as the property of their fathers.[4] And many courts expressly rejected the English rule that fathers have a paramount right to custody in disputes between parents.[5] Early nineteenth century American custody law differed significantly from early nineteenth century English custody law.[6]