Victoria Mather
Victoria Mather served as Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs at St. Mary’s University School of Law from 2005 to 2016. She teaches in the areas of property law, family law, and wills, estates and trusts. She has also offered courses in planning and drafting wills and trusts, land use planning, environmental law, and human rights, particularly in the area of population law and policy.
After graduating from the University of Illinois College of Law, she practiced in the areas of family law, real estate transactions, wills and trusts, landlord tenant and small business. She returned to the University of Illinois to complete her masters in law, concentrating on the property and land use areas. She joined the faculty at St. Mary’s in 1985.
Her research interests include family law, gender and the law, land use planning, and the intersection of family law and wealth transfer at death.
After graduating from the University of Illinois College of Law, she practiced in the areas of family law, real estate transactions, wills and trusts, landlord tenant and small business. She returned to the University of Illinois to complete her masters in law, concentrating on the property and land use areas. She joined the faculty at St. Mary’s in 1985.
Her research interests include family law, gender and the law, land use planning, and the intersection of family law and wealth transfer at death.
less
Related Authors
Uploads
Papers by Victoria Mather
Like many states, Texas has enacted statutory provisions, in both the Family Code and Probate Code, indicating that adopted children should be treated as natural-born children. Although testators may make any conveyances they wish, and exclude any person they wish, it appears to be the public policy of this state to start with a presumption in favor of inclusion of adopted children in testamentary class gifts.
Applying the Miller-Roth test, liberals believe that pornography is protected speech until it crosses the line into obscenity. This is an attempt to recognize that there is some value in sexually-oriented speech, whether emotional or intellectual. However, the feminists criticize this view for promoting a harmful view of women (i.e., the subordination of women). Feminists believe that sexually-oriented speech should be controlled and defined under current First Amendment jurisprudence to favor a more viewpoint-neutral theory and incorporate more of the feminine perspective.
Current laws have the ability to limit or prohibit the most potentially harmful forms of pornography. However, a new test or rule may be created, explicitly designed to deal with violent or hard-core pornography, outside of the obscenity law altogether. Some portions of the legal system should be revamped to accommodate the need for the feminine perspective in resolving these fundamental issues.
The problem concerning this type of violence is a combination of societal attitudes about women and attitudes about violence. However, feminists believe the issue is completely shaped by gender-related discrimination, and so distrust the political (male-dominated) solution.
Instead, the focus should be on the vulnerability of the victims of violence, and that this vulnerability is not exclusively linked to sexism in the system: legal or social. The views and treatment of women needs to be changed. Part of that change will in fact be accomplished through the revision of legal rules, consciousness-raising, and education. But the sea of change will have to come about through deeper, tougher, and more fundamental revision of our thoughts about violence. Sexism in the family, in the social system, and in the legal system must go, but so must violence.
The use of expert testimony in homicide cases where an allegedly battered wife kills her abuser and then claims self-defense is a controversial proposition. The evidence, however, shows that women are frequently the victims of abuse, that patterns of behavior associated with battering relationships usually exist, and that modern American society has been unable to understand or cope with the problem. This failure to deal with the issue of battering extends to the criminal justice system as a whole--police, prosecutors, judges, and juries. Traditional notions of self-defense and traditional rules regarding admissibility of expert testimony do not transfer well to the battered woman's situation. The law must take a realistic view of the physical and social differences between men and women when evaluating a battered woman's claim of self-defense. Courts must admit expert testimony to explain the battered woman syndrome to the jurors.
Family law will continue to evolve because of three critical developments. First is the expansion of the concept of what constitutes a “family” in the modern context. Next is the treatment of children as autonomous individuals, separate and distinct from their parents in the legal sense of family. Third is the revolution in reproductive technology. Each of these trends will have a significant impact on the future of family law, which is the vehicle that is frequently used to grapple with serious, meaningful, and essential questions about our lives.
A few state legislatures have either considered or enacted statutes protecting municipalities from state or federal antitrust liability. However, preemption analysis is problematic because it only avoids second-guessing local governments in their economic and social decision making.
Proposed solutions to problems of analysis and application of the Parker doctrine of 1943 and its progeny range from complete immunity for municipalities to mere modifications of the balancing test. Anything short of total immunity retains many of the flaws of the traditional state action rule. The Local Government Antitrust Act, as enacted by Congress, is a step in the right direction. However, the protection offered by the Act does not go far enough. Congress should extend complete antitrust immunity to local governments.
Like many states, Texas has enacted statutory provisions, in both the Family Code and Probate Code, indicating that adopted children should be treated as natural-born children. Although testators may make any conveyances they wish, and exclude any person they wish, it appears to be the public policy of this state to start with a presumption in favor of inclusion of adopted children in testamentary class gifts.
Applying the Miller-Roth test, liberals believe that pornography is protected speech until it crosses the line into obscenity. This is an attempt to recognize that there is some value in sexually-oriented speech, whether emotional or intellectual. However, the feminists criticize this view for promoting a harmful view of women (i.e., the subordination of women). Feminists believe that sexually-oriented speech should be controlled and defined under current First Amendment jurisprudence to favor a more viewpoint-neutral theory and incorporate more of the feminine perspective.
Current laws have the ability to limit or prohibit the most potentially harmful forms of pornography. However, a new test or rule may be created, explicitly designed to deal with violent or hard-core pornography, outside of the obscenity law altogether. Some portions of the legal system should be revamped to accommodate the need for the feminine perspective in resolving these fundamental issues.
The problem concerning this type of violence is a combination of societal attitudes about women and attitudes about violence. However, feminists believe the issue is completely shaped by gender-related discrimination, and so distrust the political (male-dominated) solution.
Instead, the focus should be on the vulnerability of the victims of violence, and that this vulnerability is not exclusively linked to sexism in the system: legal or social. The views and treatment of women needs to be changed. Part of that change will in fact be accomplished through the revision of legal rules, consciousness-raising, and education. But the sea of change will have to come about through deeper, tougher, and more fundamental revision of our thoughts about violence. Sexism in the family, in the social system, and in the legal system must go, but so must violence.
The use of expert testimony in homicide cases where an allegedly battered wife kills her abuser and then claims self-defense is a controversial proposition. The evidence, however, shows that women are frequently the victims of abuse, that patterns of behavior associated with battering relationships usually exist, and that modern American society has been unable to understand or cope with the problem. This failure to deal with the issue of battering extends to the criminal justice system as a whole--police, prosecutors, judges, and juries. Traditional notions of self-defense and traditional rules regarding admissibility of expert testimony do not transfer well to the battered woman's situation. The law must take a realistic view of the physical and social differences between men and women when evaluating a battered woman's claim of self-defense. Courts must admit expert testimony to explain the battered woman syndrome to the jurors.
Family law will continue to evolve because of three critical developments. First is the expansion of the concept of what constitutes a “family” in the modern context. Next is the treatment of children as autonomous individuals, separate and distinct from their parents in the legal sense of family. Third is the revolution in reproductive technology. Each of these trends will have a significant impact on the future of family law, which is the vehicle that is frequently used to grapple with serious, meaningful, and essential questions about our lives.
A few state legislatures have either considered or enacted statutes protecting municipalities from state or federal antitrust liability. However, preemption analysis is problematic because it only avoids second-guessing local governments in their economic and social decision making.
Proposed solutions to problems of analysis and application of the Parker doctrine of 1943 and its progeny range from complete immunity for municipalities to mere modifications of the balancing test. Anything short of total immunity retains many of the flaws of the traditional state action rule. The Local Government Antitrust Act, as enacted by Congress, is a step in the right direction. However, the protection offered by the Act does not go far enough. Congress should extend complete antitrust immunity to local governments.