Kramer vs. Kramer and the Kafkaesque Resolution of Disputes in Family Law

By: Avanish Kar

Edited By: Allison Rhee and Danielle Spitz

The 1979 classic film Kramer vs. Kramer, starring Academy Award-winning performers Meryl Streep, Dustin Hoffman, and Justin Henry, portrays the struggles of an American couple fighting over custody of their only child, who is wedged in between his parents’ marital issues. While the movie showcases the struggle between two adults and the pain and suffering they cause their child, it also asks a broader and more socially relevant question: is our legal system obstructing justice instead of providing it?

Although the movie was released over 40 years ago, the problems portrayed in the plot still persist in our families and courtrooms. The story centers around Ted Kramer, a New York-based workaholic executive at a top advertising firm who is too busy to pay attention to his family life. This work-life imbalance causes his homemaker wife Joanna emotional turmoil, and his son Ben to be devoid of paternal care and attention. While Ted achieves new heights in his career, his wife’s displeasure increases and he comes home one day to find his wife leaving him and their son. The following few weeks are difficult for Ted and Ben, who face a great deal of trouble balancing Ted’s career, Ben’s schoolwork, daily chores, and the painful loss of the woman of the house. However, as time passes, Ted realizes the importance of Ben in his life and reciprocally, Ben develops an unbreakable bond with his once emotionally distant father. In a turn of events, after being away for 18 months, Joanna is back to regain custody over Ben. Ted, being possessive of his son, refuses to give in to Joanna’s demands and what ensues is a mentally and financially taxing courtroom battle between Ted and Joanna. 

Ted perfectly embodies the problems inherent in our legal system when asked by his lawyer to list the pros and cons of pursuing the case against Joanna for custody of their child. There was no entry in the “pros'' column, while there were many in the “cons” column, which included: “Money,” “No Privacy,” “Work affected” and “No social life.” While these are very valid concerns for any litigant, they draw attention to additional problems with our legal systems that need to be highlighted and addressed. 

The very purpose of legal systems worldwide is to ensure that our dispute resolution processes are easy, accessible and beneficial to all parties whilst maintaining a degree of objectivity and fairness during the entire process. The legal drama between Ted and Joanna in the movie is completely absent of these elements, which make any legal system reliable and credible. 

The most problematic aspect of what was showcased in the movie during the legal proceedings was that there was an adversarial system of dispute resolution between an ex-husband and an ex-wife.The adversarial system has many benefits, especially in criminal trials. One of these is that “the right to confront your accuser” which is enshrined in the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is in the best way exercised [1]. However, even the most tenuous of relationships between a husband and wife should ideally not be characterized as one which is adversarial (unless there are criminal charges involved). This is because the focus of the attorneys shifts from arguing on the merits of the case with respect to the law, to engaging in a character assassination of the litigants. 

This was seen in Kramer vs. Kramer quite evidently, especially when Ted’s lawyer informs him that their side has the burden to prove that Joanna was an unfit or cruel mother in order to ensure that he gets custody of Ben. Ted’s lawyer follows through with this idea and engages in a very harsh line of questioning, even going so far as to asking her how many boyfriends she has had in order to extract a confession that she has not been a good mother. This is reciprocated by Joanna’s lawyer, when he tries to allude to the fact that Ted was an inept parent because he failed to protect Ben from an injury which was purely accidental and beyond his control. This type of adversarial questioning only worsens the relations between two already distant individuals and does no good to either side. 

Furthermore, the role of the court in perpetuating gender norms by assigning particular roles to men and women is an example of outdated thinking and arbitrariness, which is aptly dismantled by the movie. The fact that emphasis was placed on ideas like “motherliness”, where women have the exclusive ability to care for their children in certain ways, was refuted by showing the audience that with the right amount of intent and diligence, men can take care of the child like a woman is traditionally expected to. This is very poignantly expressed in the movie. In the beginning of the movie, Ted is unable to make French toast for Ben, but when Ben is ready to go to his mother after she wins the court case, Ted perfectly makes it. This shows us that changes are possible and that the rigid legal system must be reformed to account for the possibility of change. 

Therefore, in light of the above arguments, it can certainly be said that as shown in Kramer vs. Kramer, the litigant, who for the courts is merely a litigant, loses out as a parent regardless of the outcome of the case. This happens when they are subjected to the Kafkaesque injustices that are meted out by the courts which have failed in their primary duty of providing justice in a non-prejudicial manner. The only way to improve this is by making judges rethink their gender biases. 

Recent examples of initiatives in this direction are the international conferences organized by the National Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico where hundreds of judges engaged in a thoughtful discussion of court decisions from across the globe with regard to gender bias [2]. More such initiatives should be encouraged in other jurisdictions which are in desperate need of a gender sensitive judiciary.

NOTES:

1. “Right to Confront Witness.”, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness

2. Vanessa Ruiz, “The Role of Women Judges and a Gender Perspective in Ensuring Judicial Independence and Integrity. (Ruiz 2019)”, January 8, 2019, UNODC https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2019/01/the-role-of-women-judges-and-a-gender-perspective-in-ensuring-judicial-independence-and-integrity.html

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Benton, Robert, dir. 1979. Kramer vs. Kramer.

Ruiz, Vanessa. 2019. “The Role of Women Judges and a Gender Perspective in Ensuring Judicial Independence and Integrity.” UNODC. https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2019/01/the-role-of-women-judges-and-a-gender-perspective-in-ensuring-judicial-independence-and-integrity.html.

Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. n.d. “Right to Confront Witness.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed September 23, 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness.