2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 81 Filed 09/25/13 Pg 1 of 2

Pg ID 1916

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION APRIL DEBOER, et al., Plaintiffs, -vsRICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants. __________________________/ NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOW COME THE PLAINTIFFS, April DeBoer, individually and as parent and next friend of N.D.-R, R.D.-R., and J.D.-R, minors, and Jayne Rowse, individually and as parent and next friend of N.D.-R, R.D.-R., and J.D.-R, minors, by and through their attorneys, Dana Nessel and Carole Stanyar, file the attached exhibit in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Respectfully submitted, ED Mi #12-civ-10285 Hon. Bernard A. Friedman

s/Carole M. Stanyar CAROLE M. STANYAR P34830 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 819-3953 cstanyar@wowway.com

s/ Dana Nessel DANA M. NESSEL P51346 645 Griswold Street, #3060 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 556-2300 dananessel@hotmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 81 Filed 09/25/13 Pg 2 of 2

Pg ID 1917

Of counsel: s/Robert A. Sedler ROBERT A. SEDLER P31003 Wayne State University Law School 471 W. Palmer Street Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 577-3968 rsedler@wayne.edu s/ Kenneth M. Mogill Kenneth M. Mogill P17865 MOGILL, POSNER &COHEN 27 E Flint Street, 2nd Floor Lake Orion, MI 48362 (248) 814-9470 kmogill@bignet.net

Dated: September 25, 2013

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 81-1 Filed 09/25/13 Pg 1 of 1

Pg ID 1918

INDEX TO EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Transcript of deposition testimony of Loren Marks, 10/30/09, pp 1, 146-149, 166173, 182-189, 198-205, 274-281, filed in Perry v Schwarzenegger, N.D. Cal. No. 09-CV-2292 (R 243-3, Page ID 7530588), regarding Marks’ observations as to (a) comparative child outcomes in adoptive, married parent households vs biological, married parent households, and (b) “child-needs-a-father”/ “child-needs-a-mother” correlation to child outcomes. Excerpt relates to Deboer v Snyder, 12-10285, R 74, State Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, p 19, n 6, Page ID 1767.

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 1 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 1 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1919

EXHIBIT B

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 2 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 2 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1920
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 1 October 30, 2009

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., )

Plaintiffs, ) ) No. 09-CV-2292 VRW ) ) ) ) Defendants. )

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California, et al.,

Washington, D.C. Friday, October 30, 2009 Deposition of LOREN DEAN MARKS, called for examination by counsel for Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter, the witness being duly sworn by CHERYL A. LORD, a Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, taken at the offices of COOPER & KIRK PLLC, 1523 New Hampshire Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., at 9:31 a.m., and the proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by CHERYL A. LORD, RPR, CRR.

Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 3 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 3 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1921
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 146
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 148
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

headings in various studies, it's -- it's rarely explicitly mentioned. Q. Is Johnson's study one that you would characterize as gold standard social science? A. I think it's a fine study, yes. Q. Can you turn to page 12, please. A. M-hm. Q. Page 12, the first bullet point numbered 1, I'll read it and you can read along: 10 family types are defined as follows in order of decreasing frequency. 1, mother, father. The respondent reported the presence in the household of a mother and a father, open paren, biological or adoptive, close paren. The respondent did not report in the presence -- the presence in the household of any of the other 7 relations, that is, the respondent did not report living with a stepmother, a stepfather, an other relative, a nonrelative, or a spouse. Do you take that to mean that -- to mean as I do that Johnson defined a mother or a father as a biological or an adoptive mother or father? A. Yes.

criminality and incarceration. In paragraph -- where is it? -- oh, I'm -- yes, paragraph 16, you state that: In another examination of criminality and delinquency, Rickel and Langer found that children who were residing with their biological fathers were the least involved in delinquent behavior, while children with stepfathers fared worse. Single-parented children fell in between. And for that proposition, you cite Rickel and Langer's 1985 study, and you see also to David Popenoe's book. Are you sure as you sit here right now that you used the term that Rickel and Langer -excuse me -- used the term biological fathers as you used the term biological fathers in your report? A. No, not positive. Q. Do you know if Rickel and Langer used the term biological fathers at all? A. One of hundreds of studies, Mr. McGill. Q. So is the answer, you don't know if Rickel and Langer used biological fathers?

Page 147
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 149
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q. Do you read that as I do that Johnson does not distinguish between biological and adoptive parents? A. He doesn't there. Q. Do you believe that Wilcox -- Wilcox's statement turning back to page 25 -- you need not turn to it because it's quoted in paragraph 15 of your report. Do you believe that Wilcox's statement that teens living with both biological parents are significantly less likely to use illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco -- do you believe that's accurately supported by the Johnson study? A. Taking a close look at these -- at these definitions as been presented, I would withdraw that. Q. Would you also withdraw your emphasis on both biological parents? A. Certainly so. Q. Would you delete the word biological? A. I would. Q. I want to move now to your discussion of

A. I don't recall. Q. Have you read the Rickel and Langer study? A. I've read just portions of it, as I mentioned earlier. Q. Can you tell me what methodology Rickel and Langer used to reach their conclusions? A. No. Q. Can you tell me when Rickel and Langer gathered the data for their study? A. No. It was published in '85, how -- how far before that, I don't know. Q. If I told you the data was gathered in the late 1960s, would you assume that was correct? A. I couldn't refute it. MR. McGILL: Mark this as exhibit 6, please. (Marks Exhibit No. 6 was marked for identification.) BY MR. McGILL: Q. I want to direct you first to page 601

38 (Pages 146 to 149) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 4 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 4 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1922
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 166
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 168
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

focuses specifically on those families is nascent and new. There's hundreds of studies as I mentioned early on, each of which may have their own little twist or wrinkle. In social science, we call it an operational definition. Those -- those differ from study to study. And if I were to tease out every one of those definitions in a 12-page report, we wouldn't -- we would never get to the report. There are some -some admittedly broad-brush strokes and assumptions that are made. As a writer I had to make some of those. And leave it at that. Q. And one of the assumptions you made was that where a study labeled a family intact or as having biological parents, you assumed, did you not, that the parents had a genetic connection to the child? A. I did -Q. So you -A. -- because --

least use an idea or 2. Lansford -- I think Brown at some -- some level has given some similar ideas, but again, we're talking about hundreds of studies, Mr. McGill, to pull one out and specifically looking at an adoption -- Lansford may have, 2001. Q. Based on your work as a social scientist and your experience in the social sciences for -- as a professor for 8 years, in the absence of a study that compared biological parents to nonbiological parents, is it possible to draw an inference that biological parents are superior at generating beneficial child outcomes than nonbiological parents? A. And we're talking about intact forms -Q. Intact. A. -- with everything except biology and place. MR. THOMPSON: Just so the record is clear, is marriage in place in in this question? BY MR. McGILL: Q. My question was, in the absence of any

Page 167
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 169
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q. Please continue. A. -- because the researchers in -- in, you know, Susan Brown's case and Johnson, they elected to include adoptive families in with their definition of intact. Q. If you were designing a study that sought to demonstrate the importance of biological parenting as opposed to nonbiological parenting, how would you do it? A. I think the way I would probably go about it would be to do a comparison between the intact family as we've discussed to do it with a marriage-based adoptive family and also probably to include a third party of step- -- stepfamily, but I would be very careful to control for income given some of the assumptions that I made earlier about adoptive families having more economic resources. Q. Of any of the studies that you have reviewed in connection with your work as an expert, are you aware of any study that does as you just suggested right there? A. There -- I think there are studies that at

study that compares biological parents to nonbiological parents, is it possible to draw an inference that biological parents are superior to nonbiological parents? A. In terms of the research that exists, I think we've established that -- that question is tough to address, which is I assume why you asked for an inference. I think it's a risky -- risky inference. That's -- that's why we have empirical research. Q. Is there any study that you've discussed in your report or cited in your list of references that tends to demonstrate that biological parents are superior to nonbiological parents at creating beneficial child outcomes? A. With -- with the marriage-based adoptive families as the wild card that sometimes are not included, sometimes as we have seen Johnson '96 are included under the intact heading, there are studies that -- that indicate once again that there is a potent outcome difference when you combine biology

43 (Pages 166 to 169) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 5 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 5 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1923
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 170
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 172
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

and marriage. We -- we talked earlier about teasing that out. Causation, no. Correlation, yes. Q. What -- what study are you referring to when you said, powerful evidence of biological parenting combined with marriage? A. There I'm talking about Child Trends 2002, Kristin Moore, et al., McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994, Amato, 2005. Neither of those -- well, I'll just stop there. Q. Can you please turn to paragraph 34 of your report, which is marked as exhibit 2. This is where you discuss the Moore Child Trends report. Correct? A. Correct. Q. And that report states: It is not simply the presence of 2 parents as some have assumed but the presence of 2 biological parents that seems to support children's development. Is this one of the studies that you say is

cite dealt with adolescent development or things of that nature as opposed to others. Q. The -- this is not a study of original research, is it? A. Child Trends is a nonpartisan group that looks at issues that are -- they're viewed to have profound policy implications. They -- they sometimes do conduct primary research. I believe that this particular report is a brief -- or they're relying heavily on studies, especially gold standard studies of others. Q. And -MR. McGILL: Will you mark that as exhibit number 8, please. (Marks Exhibit No. 8 was marked for identification.) BY MR. McGILL: Q. I would direct you to the last paragraph in the right-hand column, which is the portion that you quoted. It states: Children growing up with

Page 171
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 173
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

powerful evidence of the importance of biological parenting? A. I don't know that I used the word powerful. I've repeatedly stated that it's not just biology, but biology in connection with marriage, that combination. Q. And Moore and her Child Trends report is one of the studies you cite for that proposition? A. One, yes. Q. And have you read the Kristin Moore Child Trends research brief? A. Kristin, yes. Q. Do you understand it? A. As I said earlier, there's always things that kind of go over your head, but, yes, I believe I do, reasonable. Q. What's the central thesis of her -A. Again, in terms of memory, I struggle, Mr. McGill. There are about 5 Child Trends reports that year. I believe the one that I specifically

stepparents also have lower levels of well-being than children growing up with biological parents. It drops a footnote at that point. Thus it is not simply the presence of 2 parents as some have assumed but the presence of 2 biological parents that seem to support the children's development. In your experience as a social scientist, what authority do you believe Moore, et al., cited for that proposition? A. Let me look at the beginning again. 2 parents versus the presence of biological parents. It's a point among others that both Amato and McLanahan and Sandefur have considered. Q. Do you think that Moore and her colleagues were relying on the source that they cited in footnote 5? A. To -- to make the statement that we just read? Q. Yes. A. I think it's likely that they were relying

44 (Pages 170 to 173) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 6 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 6 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1924
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 182
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 184
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Well, I've listed here that that was drawn from Popenoe. Q. Is your reference to intact families accurate? A. May -- may include adopted as well, but memory doesn't -- doesn't serve me there. Q. Onward we go. Paragraph 37. A. M-hm. Q. Here you quote at some length from Lorraine Blackmon's review: For African American children, parental marriage produces important benefits. And then it ends by saying: Marriage itself appears to be contributing strongly to better outcomes for black children. And then you drop a footnote, footnote 59. And you state there that: The researchers are again referring to marriage between the biological father and the mother. Are you sure that's the case? A. Well, as we've seen in a few of these

although in several of the studies that we've pulled out, they mention that they include in -- different social scientists want to be -- and, you know, more or less inclusive or claiming the definition of who they include in the study. We've seen in several of these cases that they decide to include adoptive families, which are a small, small minority in the general population, a small minority. I don't know the exact figures. But when you're dealing as these researchers are with broad national-based samples, they are as I mentioned earlier, sometimes painting with a broad brush. If some of these studies we're talking about, they use the term biological or intact and they throw in some -- some adopted studies, we would call that noise at some level, that there's a little bit of -- there's a little bit of muddying of concepts, but unless we -- unless we know that conceptually, they're including so many adoptive families, I find that very hard to believe to overthrow the general conclusion of a study based on

Page 183
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 185
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

studies, they include -- some of them include intact, adoptive families under -- under biological. That certainly is possible if not probable in some of these studies cited by Blackmon, since it's a review where they cite -- they claimed to cite 120 or so. In this case, I would anticipate that they would probably have at least some studies. They included a handful of adopted marriage-based families in there. Q. Do you wish to revise your statement that the phrase parental marriage refers to marriage between the biological father and mother? A. I think that what I would do there is say typically, conceptually, although some of the studies, Johnson, et al., and others do include in their definition adoptive families under that heading. Q. So we couldn't conclude from Blackmon's conclusion here that the benefits of marriage to -for black children are in any way limited to biological parents? A. I think that that's an overstatement,

thousands and thousands of people. It's -Q. Well, but -A. Well, it's -- it's conceptually an inconvenience to -- to have a nonclear-cut definition, but the points that are being made, if -if adoptive families comprise 1 or 2 or 3 percent of the subgroup of what they're calling intact biological families, we're talking about a study that's still 97 percent pure. It doesn't overthrow -- it makes my definition, which is necessarily messy upfront, less convenient, less clean, but it -- you don't throw out the baby with the bath water because they decided to include a few adoptive families under the intact heading. That's ridiculous. Further if -- if they decided to put the intact families or the marriage-based adoptive families in for whatever reason in with stepparent families, and it only accounted for a very small minority of the studies in that total population, it's -- it's again impure conceptually, but it

47 (Pages 182 to 185) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 7 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 7 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1925
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 186
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 188
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

doesn't ruin the whole study. It doesn't ruin the conclusions. You're always by definition dealing with noise in social science. The best of these studies are claiming to explain sometimes 30, 35 percent, 40 percent of the variance. They're offering incomplete explanations. They're doing the very best they can with -- with real life, which is pretty messy, Mr. McGill. And adoptive families as I said before, I -- I -- from a scholarly vantage, I don't have anything particularly for or against them. If -- if some of the researchers decide to put them in with intact, that's -- that's fine. And with stepfamilies, that's fine. But I would prefer -- I believe that they deserve a discrete category themselves. My belief doesn't apply to a hundred different researchers who approach this -- this tough problem. It's a tough problem to -- to tease out, that they're going to approach it in different ways. I would only reframe the statement that I make there

Q. And so you would admit, then, that your footnote 59 where you say that parental marriage was referring to the marriage between a biological mother and a father -- were you not in that footnote trying to draw exactly that inference, that it's the biological marriage that produces importance benefits to the exclusion of other nonbiological marriages? A. That's a reference to the way biological was conceptualized in a number of the studies that were being drawn on. And as I've said, I would want -- you know, in -- in hindsight, your point being a good one, I would be more refined in emphasizing that researchers conceptualize that a little bit differently. MR. THOMPSON: Can we take a 5-minute break? If you're in the middle of something -THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10 minutes. MR. McGILL: Do you want to wait till the tape is up? MR. THOMPSON: Sure.

Page 187
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 189
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

a little bit. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't retract it. It would be ideal to know specifically at the end of the day, to call somebody on these gold standard studies and say, okay, you had 12,000 and 6,000 were intact families, of that 6,000, how many were adopted, so that they could tell you 30, 60, a hundred. And you'd know what kind of noise you were dealing with, but you still wouldn't throw the study out. And I wouldn't throw out my conclusion. I would -- I would refine it, but I wouldn't throw it out. Q. Is there anything in Blackmon's statement that for African American children, parental marriage produces important benefits? Let's focus on that sentence. A. Okay. Q. Is there anything in that sentence that would allow you to infer that a marriage of adoptive parents produces less importance benefits than marriage of biological parents? A. No, I don't think so, from that sense.

THE WITNESS: Let's keep rolling. BY MR. McGILL: Q. In paragraph 41 -- and we're nearing the end of your report -- paragraph 41, you state that: When biological fatherhood and marriage are combined, the research indicates that children tend to fare better, at least in part because married fathers tend to have better relationships with the mothers of their children than fathers in marriage alternatives. And for that proposition, you cite Nock's 1998 book. Do you know if Nock was referring to bio-- referred ever to biological fatherhood? We're in paragraph 41. A. In marriage alternatives. Q. And I'm focused here on the phrase biological fatherhood. A. Biological. I have read Nock's book in its entirety, but it's been a while. Let me look at the statement one more time, Mr. McGill. Married fathers tend to have better

48 (Pages 186 to 189) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 8 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 8 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1926
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 198
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

adjustment than the intact family? MR. THOMPSON: Objection, compound. A. Gay or lesbian -BY MR. McGILL: Q. Let's break -- let's break it up. A. Okay. Go ahead. Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether the -- whether a married lesbian couple, let us say they were married in Massachusetts, is as likely to produce good childhood adjustment, good child adjustment than the intact family? MR. THOMPSON: And I'm going to object on the grounds that his rebuttal report may well address this, but I'm going to let him answer it subject to the caveat that he's thinking about this and will be thinking hard about it over the next week and a half. But go ahead. BY MR. McGILL: Q. If the answer is that you do not yet have an opinion formed, please give that answer, but if you have an opinion, I'd like to hear it. MR. THOMPSON: I'm just saying it's

it would seem right now that it would be likely that the answer to that question would be the intact family would have better child development outcomes. But we've got again, 2 or 3 studies, and I'm going to be patient and see -- let the research speak its piece. Again, as mentioned, I'm formulating. Q. And are you -- in your answer, you are referring to a married lesbian couple? A. That's -- it's a good question, because in terms of marriage, you want to talk about nascent, you know, and brand-new and budding. We're -- we're having to deal, you know, in the research now almost solely to my knowledge in the same-sex parenting literature with cohabiting couple -- or cohabiting lesbian relationships or domestic partnerships. So there's -- in fact, I know of no -- no study that specifically addresses lesbian marriage and child outcomes. Partnerships, yes, cohabiting, yes, but marriage is -- marriage is brand-new. There may be a Massachusetts study coming out that I'm not aware of, but --

Page 199
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 201
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

subject to the caveat that he may revise the opinion or expand on the opinion, but it's the focus of ongoing research. But go ahead. A. Intact lesbian married couple -- well, I mean, lesbian married couple compared with intact marriage, my -- my read on the scholarly research is that as I mentioned, there have only been 1 or 2 -perhaps another study or 2 that I'm unaware of that have directly made that kind of a comparison, but there are several that have compared lesbian mothers to single-parent or single-mother families. BY MR. McGILL: Q. I guess I didn't -- I did not get out of that whether you have an opinion or not. A. The opinion that I have would be inferential based on the gold standard studies that I've referred to that indicate the intact families do substantially better across the critical concerns that I outlined in the research report than single-mother or single-parent families do. By inference, cautious, careful inference,

Q. You cite in your report on a few occasions David Popenoe's book, here, Life Without Father. Are you familiar with this book? A. I am. Q. Have you read it in its entirety? A. I have. Q. Are you familiar with Popenoe's argument that gender-differentiated parenting is essential for good child outcomes? A. I am. Q. Do you agree with that argument? A. The research that I have read shows -shows mixed support I would say at best for that thesis of Dr. Popenoe's. There is some research that supports it. There's some that would refute it, including literature that I've read by Dr. Lamb. Q. So you did not rely on the theory most famously espoused by Dr. Popenoe that gender-differentiated parenting is essential for good child outcomes? You did not rely on that theory in

51 (Pages 198 to 201) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 9 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 9 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1927
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 202
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 204
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

arriving at your conclusions? A. No. I use -- I don't know that any of the 6 critical concerns that I outline are gender-laden-oriented. I use biological intact parenting not of my choice necessarily, because it's -- it's the phrase as we've seen that -- that Child Trends -that McLanahan and Sandefur use in assessing the scholarship. It's not Popenoe influence. Q. Would it -- is it influenced by a theory of the importance of gender-differentiated parenting at all, whether -- as espoused by Popenoe or someone else? A. I don't -- let me think for a moment. One more time if you don't mind restating the question. Q. Do your conclusions in this case rely upon the theory of gender-differentiated parenting and specifically the importance of gender-differentiated parenting to reaching good child outcomes at all,

and there are parenting activities that women can do that men are very unlikely to do. And I'm not talking about biologically, you know, obvious parenting activities, such as breast feeding, but his theory that men play with their children differently and in a way that women do not, and women care for their children differently in a way that men do not. Is that general theory of parenting taken at its broadest level of generality -- is that at all a basis for the conclusions you reach in your report? A. That's -- that's not a theory that -- that I espouse. In terms of research, I think I mentioned earlier in the day that that's highly contested ground. It's highly contested ground, and frankly, it's not a battle that I would fight either way. I don't know that you'd say I'm agnostic on the issue, but I've seen good scholarship from both sides and I'm not ready to buy either theory. Q. But importantly for this proceeding, it is not a basis for the conclusions in your report? A. It's not a basis for it, no.

Page 203
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 205
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

whether as espoused by Popenoe or someone else? A. Gender -- gender is usually defined as cultural as opposed to sex, which would be more biologically driven. In terms of gender-differentiated parenting, I don't think I make any specific arguments that argue a whole lot about the cultural construct of gender. I'm dealing with sex, meaning intact, you know -Q. Right. A. -- biological father and biological mother. I don't -- I don't think that the report deals with gender differentiation specifically. Frankly I felt the critical concerns that I listed were more important, more salient. Q. So I want to just make sure I understand it. Your -- you are -- you do not share the view relied upon by -- or espoused by Popenoe that there are parenting activities that men can do that women cannot do and -- or are very unlikely to do,

Q. Okay. So the basis for your conclusion that the intact family -- I just want to read it -A. You bet. 12? MR. THOMPSON: 44, the conclusions. BY MR. McGILL: Q. 44. Your basis for the conclusion that the intact family is the ideal context for these child outcomes, the basis for your conclusion that the intact family is the ideal context for these child outcomes is based on as I understand it 2 factors. One is the marital structure, and second is the biological link between parents and children. A. That's correct. Q. Are there other -MR. THOMPSON: Do you have anything to add to that? THE WITNESS: No. I'll continue to listen for a moment. MR. THOMPSON: Well, no, if you have more, because you don't know what he's going to say. So if

52 (Pages 202 to 205) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 10 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 10 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1928
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 274
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 276
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Do I impose it on others? I believe in cleaning up my own backyard. Q. And for clarity sake, the -- the dogma that you referred to just in your last response, that's known as the law of chastity. Correct? A. That is correct. Q. Did your religious convictions impact your opinion that the ideal family structure is marriage between man and a woman and a child biologically related to each in any way? A. My exposure to -- to that -- that dogma I'm sure is one of many factors that -- that ran around in my head. But again I was called as an expert witness in the same sense that I wouldn't come in here and make my argument based on what's stated in the family proclamation to the world. I took that same approach in my scholarly -- my scholarly work. I think I've addressed again and again that I acknowledge potential for bias and that that makes challenge fair play. However, please remember

Q. So that belief predates your work as a social scientist? A. Yes. MR. McGILL: We'll take a 1- , 2-minute break and find out if there are any last questions. MR. THOMPSON: Sound good. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record. The time is now 6:09 PM. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now 6:13 PM. You may proceed. BY MR. McGILL: Q. Dr. Marks, earlier in the deposition today, we addressed paragraph 15 of your report, which is marked as exhibit 2. A. Okay. Q. Can you go back to that. A. I'll try -- I'll try and get there quickly. Okay. Q. And addressing the last sentence: Wilcox and colleagues state that teens living with both biological parents are significantly less likely to

Page 275
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 277
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

my earlier statement that I also have taken upon me the burden of challenge. This is -- you know, scholarship is about strengths and challenges, not just dogmatically presenting one. Q. When is the first time you held the belief that the ideal family structure is marriage between a man and a woman and a child biologically related to each? MR. THOMPSON: Objection, relevance. A. Mr. McGill, I don't know. I don't know how to answer that question. BY MR. McGILL: Q. Is it -- is it fair to say that you held that view, you held that belief before your engagement as an expert in this case? A. Yes. Q. Is it fair to say you held that belief before you received your Ph.D. degree? A. Yes. Q. Did you hold that belief before you graduated from college? A. Yes.

illicit drugs alcohol and tobacco. And you said that on reflection, having reviewed with me the Johnson study, you would delete the word biological. A. Said, delete. I probably would have contextualized it differently, added to it to make it accurate for the 1996 study and more precisely consistent with 1996. Q. So you might have said, teens living with both biological and adoptive families? A. Including adoptive, yeah. Q. And my question, which is my very last question, is, are there any other changes you would make to this report that you would -- or any words you would like to delete before trial? A. No. I would want to be more precise on the definitions than I was in a couple of cases. It's the danger of large studies. I would want to be more precise, but I stand behind the report as is. Q. Do you stand behind the -- do you recall -- excuse me -- do you recall when we went --

70 (Pages 274 to 277) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Case: 10-16696 11/01/2010 Doc #Page: 81-2 11 Filed of 11 09/25/13 ID: 7530588 Pg 11 ofDktEntry: 11 Pg ID 243-3 1929
Loren Dean Marks Washington, DC Page 278
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

October 30, 2009

Page 280
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

when we discussed the Rinkel and Langer report? A. Yes. That was a natural -- or natural father versus biological. Correct? Q. It was -- you used biological -A. And they used natural. Q. -- but Rinkel and Langer studied natural fathers, stepfathers, no father? MR. THOMPSON: Surrogates. A. And surrogates. BY MR. McGILL: Q. Which included stepfather. A. It included adopted under the natural -or it was -- anyway, go ahead. Q. So my question is, would you change that? Would you change that use of biological there? A. Yes, I would be precise -- more precise. Q. Do you recall when we went through the Blackmon paper? A. Yes.

MR. McGILL: Thank you. As Melanie wrote to me, "you are done." THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes the deposition of Dr. Loren Marks. The time is now 6:18 PM. The total number of videotapes used were 7. Thank you. (Whereupon, at 6:18 p.m., the taking of the instant deposition ceased.)

_____________________________ Signature of the Witness

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of _________________, 20________.

_____________________________ Notary Public

My Commission Expires:________________

Page 279
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Page 281
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q. And his use of parental marriage, that term? A. (Nodding head.) Q. Would you change footnote 59 where you say that Blackmon was, quote, referring to marriage between the biological father and mother? A. I would make it more precise. And as a blanket statement, I'd say I would list upfront what I said orally, but not in writing, that some of these studies may included adoptive fathers -- or adoptive with intact, cover it -- that would cover it. Q. Is there any use of biological in this report that you are absolutely certain refers only to children who are genetically related to their parents? A. I would go back and put a statement upfront that says exactly what I just said, it would include -- some of these studies include a very small noise amount of adoptive families. I certainly wouldn't throw the studies out as indicated earlier, but I'd be more precise on -on that.

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) I, CHERYL A. LORD, the reporter before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me in machine shorthand and thereafter transcribed by computer-aided transcription; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action. CHERYL A. LORD Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia My Commission expires April 30, 2011

71 (Pages 278 to 281) Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful