Before and during marriage, grandparents can provide substantial financial and emotional support to a family. Grandparents often pay for weddings, put down payments on the family home, and create college funds. In addition to lending or gifting money, grandparents also volunteer to babysit daily when both parents have to return to work. The grandparent who provides daycare often transports the children to extracurricular activities and enriches their education. Grandparents may also volunteer to take the children for overnights when the parents need a date night and time alone to nurture their relationship. During marriage, grandparents can play an integral role in child rearing. However, this potentially close and beneficial relationship between grandparent and grandchild may not be so honored upon divorce.

According to the statistics released by AARP, the average grandparent spends approximately $1,000 on his or her grandchild each year. However, despite their generosity and support, grandparents receive little protection in a divorce proceeding. Upon divorce, for a variety of reasons, one parent may limit the visitation of a grandparent. The grandparent may be prohibited from visiting with his or her grandchild while that child is in the care of one parent. The consequences of this prohibition can be devastating if the hostile parent is awarded physical custody while the other is only permitted specific visitation. This sudden change in the grandparent-grandchild relationship is traumatizing for both parties involved.

Although many grandparents attempt to intervene in divorce proceedings to assert their rights to visitation, they are rarely rewarded with victory. In 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Troxel v. Granville. In this case, grandparents petitioned for visitation rights after the mother limited visitation to one day per month and some holidays. The Supreme Court relied on a parent’s fundamental right under the Constitution to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children in making their decision. The Court held that requiring a parent to facilitate grandparent visitation against his or her wishes violates that parent’s right to make decisions regarding the “care, custody and control” of his or her children. Despite this particular holding, the Court did not find that visitation laws are per se unconstitutional, therefore California still allows grandparents to seek visitation rights.

There has been a back and forth trend in custody and visitation legislation preferring one sex to the other. The first custody laws in the United States automatically granted father custody of the child unless he was determined to be unfit, unavailable, or agreed to grant the mother custody. Later, the “tender years presumption” replaced the paternalistic custody laws. Under this new presumption, mothers became the preferred custodian because they were seen as nurturing and in the best position to provide children with the care they needed. Eventually, this notion faded because it merely perpetrated a gender stereotype and opponents argued that it was unconstitutional. Under the California Family Code today there is no stated gender preference. However, both men and women argue that gender bias exists in the courts against their respective sexes.

The Father’s Rights Movement began in the 1970’s as a new perspective on which parent is the preferable custodian in a custody dispute. Supporters argue that the family courts are consumed with gender bias against men and blindly award support and custody to women by virtue of their sex. These groups promote changes to family law that emphasize the rights of parents or the child’s rights to both parents.

Divorce lawyers have begun targeting husbands who may subscribe to the notion that the family laws and courts are predisposed to favor women. This new type of law firm advertises to men through sports magazines, on the radio, and on television. It targets programming most often viewed by men and less likely to be watched or listened to by women. The men who hire the “divorce for men” law firms fear losing their children and money on the basis of gender. They argue that women are automatically awarded custody and spousal support because of the existence of gender stereotypes and bias. One such firm claims to “specialize in men’s issues.” This statement is based on the assumption that “men’s issues” exist currently in San Diego family law courts. The controlling standard in any child custody and visitation case is the best interest of the child. When considering the various factors outlined by the family code, there is no indication that the gender of each parent should be addressed at all.

After five years of marriage Katie Holmes filed for divorce from husband Tom Cruise on June 28, 2012. However, the most surprising part of this celebrity divorce is the quick resolution. Just eleven days after filing the initial paperwork, Katie’s attorney announced that the couple reached a final settlement of the case. TomKat have been hesitant to comment on the split, but have released a statement regarding their six-year-old daughter, Suri. The vague statement expressed a desire to accomplish what is in Suri’s best interest, keep private family matters out of the press, and explained the mutual respect Katie and Tom have for each other’s respective beliefs. This reference to religious beliefs might be an indication that Tom’s emersion in the religion of Scientology may have contributed to the split.

There is much speculation surrounding the quick and secretive manner in which the divorce was filed. The debate centers on whether Katie was trying to escape Scientologists or the media frenzy that surrounds public figures. The fact that the couple reached such a quick settlement tends to establish that Katie was not working on ending the marriage alone. Other experts speculate that a prenuptial agreement may have hurried the process along. Katie’s quick moves took careful planning over many months. Rumors indicate that she obtained a disposable phone and many laptops in order to keep discussions with her attorney private.