SusanGolombok, Modern Families; Parents and Children in New Family Forms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 267 pp, pb, £19.99.
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12186 |
| Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Published date | 01 March 2016 |
Reviews
at times. This is amply demonstrated by the final chapter of the book which
captures the crux of the argument in the following pithy statement: ‘[t]he re-
sulting concept of the employer continues to rely on a single definition, whilst
recognizing the potential exercise of employer functions across a range of enti-
ties: the unitary concept has become functional’ (227). A potential avenue for
further scholarly enquiry is whether the ‘functionalised’ unitary model which
it is proposed should be adopted for labour law purposes, ought to be extended
to the law of taxation and vicarious liability. Of course, this is an issue for tax
and tort scholars to ponder in light of competing policy concerns, but leaving
aside the discipline of labour law where Prassl’s approach has undoubtedly
made a valuable contribution to scholarship, his research could certainly have
implications for theoretical approaches to legal problems beyond that domain.
David Cabrelli∗
Susan Golombok,Modern Families; Parents and Children in New Family
Forms , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 267 pp, pb, £19.99.
The author’s aim is to ‘enhance the debate’ on modern families which is ‘often
based on speculation and assumption’ by collating the relevant ‘empirical resea-
rch’ (xii). Right-on — aka politically-correct-perhaps-even-gone-mad —
readers will hope it supplies credible information to counter those whom they
see as rationalising, via the life chances of the children, their dislike of homosex-
uals, intentional single parenters, assisted reproducers and surrogacy commis-
sioners. Golombok calls these units ‘new families’, ie those that ‘either did not
exist or were hidden from society until the latter part of the twentieth century’,
as opposed to ‘non-traditional’ families, ie those arising from parental separation
and re-partnering (3). The impact on children of the latter has already been
widely studied, Golombok reminds us, and points out that the ‘traditional’ nu-
clear family of a heterosexual married couple with biologically related children
remains the gold standard against which all the others are measured. She also
points out that, with sperm and egg donors, a host surrogate mother and two
further people to bring up the resultant child, there can be five ‘parents’. One
could play with this further, by pointing out that the gender division of the re-
sulting six people can range from two female (F)/four male (M) through3F/3M
and 4F/2M all the way to 5F/1M. ‘Legal’ parentsin England and Wales are more
easily classified, ie either one or two at any one time, either M/F, M/M or F/F.
Consideration of the possible numbers and identities of persons having ‘parental
responsibility’ under the Children Act 1989 can await another occasion.
Topped and tailed by an ‘Introduction’ and ‘Conclusions’, we ‘cover the
waterfront’ — my phrase, but there is a lot of Americana here — via chapters
on ‘Lesbian mother families’, ‘“Test-tube” baby families’, ‘Surrogacy families’,
‘Solo mother families’ and ‘Gay father families’; perhaps the distancing of the
∗Senior Lecturer in Commercial Law, University of Edinburgh.
C2016The Author. The Modern Law Review C2016The Moder n LawReview Limited.
(2016) 79(2) MLR 364–379 367
bs_bs_banner
To continue reading
Request your trial