“What’s in a name?
That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”
In those immortalized words of Shakespeare Juliet insisted that her love for Romeo bested their surnames, and the fact that their families had a long and storied warring history. However a name carries meaning with it, and in their case an impossibly complex web of hatred that made insurmountable for them their desire to love and wed.
Regularly gathering with terrific family law thinkers and colleagues to discuss issues, laws and ideas we’re tasked with evaluating is a great privilege of mine. Legislative changes and consequent changes in nomenclature, have consumed more than a little of our time this past spring.
The words “custody” and “visitation”, long employed to describe the time children of divorce spend between their parents, seem arcane and problematic. The words are loaded with meaning- property and possessions come immediately to mind. Legislative changes are now afoot to alter the language[1]- perhaps “residential responsibility” and “parental decision making” better describe the post-divorce experience of both parents and their children.
Could new names create a culture that more accurately attends to children’s needs?
Conceivably the elimination of language that is territorial by nature could result in the establishment of more collaborative parental goals. Would families who are restructuring then be more encouraged to create a child-centered framework? And by invoking different language, could shared parenting arrangements be crafted that are truly grounded in children’s best interests?
Despite Juliet’s passionate declaration of her love for Romeo, we all know that in the end Romeo’s life was lost amidst their historical familial loathing.
“What’s in a name?
That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”… or perhaps sweeter?”
[1] Substantive statutory changes are also being proposed- see MA House Bill 4107
