Part 1: “A Ticklish Job” — The Story Behind the Custody Crisis

By Lynne Marie Kohm © 2026

Upon the death of a custodial parent, the surviving natural parent legally assumes custody of the children by virtue of a fundamental constitutionally protected right of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children.[1] A “fit surviving parent will generally regain custody of his or her child in the event of the death of the custodial natural parent.”[2] When a child’s parents are divorced, “the prevailing rule is that the divorce decree abates upon the death of one of the parties, and the custody of the children automatically passes to the surviving parent.”[3]

So what is a stepparent to do in such cases to protect the best interests of surviving children left in his or her custody? How does a stepparent help his or her spouse protect the children when the natural parent is facing death? Unless legally adopted, the stepparent is not the child’s parent.[4] “For custody purposes… step-parents are considered ‘non-parents’ and so would be at a significant legal disadvantage in most states in any later custody fight, … even if the step-parent had played a very significant role on the child’s care.”[5] Rather, the stepparent is simply married to the natural parent, and possesses no parental rights by virtue of the marriage.[6] Therefore, by law the surviving natural parent regains custody of any children, but… what about what is best for those children?

This is the conundrum the legendary C. S. Lewis inadvertently faced with the impending death of his wife, Joy Davidman.[7] He wrote to his friend, Dorothy Sayers, “What I am mainly acquiring is two nice step sons.”[8] He had never been a dad before and now his wife and her two sons, age 8 and 10, were living in his home,[9] and she was dying.[10] Joy’s impending death threw Lewis into the deep end of the pool regarding parenthood as suddenly he would be a single father.

“While the relationship between Lewis and Joy Davidman has been a matter of endless fascination to Lewis fans and academics alike, many have ignored the fact that the marriage made Lewis a stepfather. But the Davidman’s boys (ages 11 and 12 at the time of the marriage) became Lewis’ stepsons, and these relationships shaped the last decade of his life.”[11]

Using original research, this article series examines and discusses this enigma in the context of the custody of David and Douglas Gresham, the children of William Gresham and Joy Davidman Lewis, in a review and analysis of the handling of the matter by Joy, the custodial parent, and her second husband, C. S. Lewis, for the care of the Gresham boys in light of her approaching death.[12] The principles utilized in that specific context provide a road map, even a legal memorandum, for how to handle a stepparent custody matter in nearly any context.

Setting forth the evidence in Part 1, namely some original correspondence between the parties, Part 2 then offers the issue presented, provides the facts, and clearly lays out the relevant law. Part 3, uses original research set out in Part 1, much of it in the parties’ own hand and voice, to lead the reader in an examination of the law in light of the facts with an analysis that will illuminate every stepparent custody conundrum.

Even in his darkest hours of losing his wife to the dreadfulness of cancer, C. S. Lewis is a teacher, mentor, and guide to those who will follow. To give blended families the best opportunity for success requires all the parents, particularly the stepparents, to focus primarily on the children’s best interests. While always keeping the best interests of the Gresham boys in the forefront, the actions and decisions of C.S. Lewis (of course along with Joy Davidman) reveal that it just may be possible for adults to find what is truly best for the children in the midst of the tragic trauma of parental loss.

“This is a ticklish job.” 

Thanks to Walter Hooper, the literary biographer of C. S. Lewis’ estate, posterity has the benefit of the letters written by C. S. Lewis from 1905-1963.[13]  Examining just four (4) relevant letters from Lewis to William Gresham, the natural father of David and Douglas Gresham, and one letter from William Gresham to his brother-in-law Howard, Joy’s brother and the children’s uncle, will help unravel and reveal the legal issues surrounding the custody of the Gresham boys.

To William Gresham (W):

The Kilns

Headington Quarry Oxford

Dec. 30/56

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your kind letter. Joy is in plaster now (the blasted growth had nearly eaten thro’ her thigh-bone, so she is really a facture case at present), much better than she was 10 days ago.

The boys are of course with me and I’m learning a lot! They’re a nice pair and easy to get on with – if only they got on better with one another: but of course they are v. different types and have no tastes or interests in common. According to school reports both have brains (David more) and are both disinclined to work hard. (Who isn’t?)

All the best

Yours,

Jack

I’d write more and better only the Christmas period with all domestic help away for its holidays, the boys to look after, Warnie ill upstairs, and a daily visit to poor Joy, and dog & cat & geese & hens, and eternal merciless letter-writing, have left me tired – almost like front-line tiredness.[14]

*****

To William Gresham (W):

The Kilns

Kiln Lane

Headington Quarry

Oxford

6/4/57

Dear Bill,

I have your letter of April 2^nd, and you, I think, will have received one from me before you get this. Of course I cannot judge between your account and Joy’s account of your married life; nor is it perhaps the chief point. What you and I have to think of is the happiness of the boys. I don’t remember that Joy ever denied your intention to support them; she doubted, and doubts, your power to do so. That you have done all you can is important to any one who is making a judgement on your character (which of course I am not); but if what you can is so little, the practical results will be the same for the boys, won’t they?

There is no question of your resigning yourself to ‘never seeing them again.’ Why should there not be a real, unconfused, reconciliation between you and them when they are grown up? But by forcing them back at a moment when their hearts are breaking you will not facilitate this but render it permanently impossible. The boys remember you as a man who fired rifles thro’ ceilings to relieve his temper, broke up chairs, wept in public, and broke a bottle over Douglas’s head. David knew, and resented, the fact that you were living with your present wife while still married to his mother. Children have indelible memories of such things and they are (let us admit) self-righteous.

Whose happiness wd. [sic] you foster by forcing them back to you now? Not your own. The most patient man on earth wdn’t [sic] be happy with two resentful boys who regard themselves as prisoners in his house. Not your wife! You bring her two extra mouths to feed, both mouths belonging to boys who do not like her. And certainly not the boys!

Wait, Bill, wait. Not now. A bone that breaks in a second takes long to heal. The relation between you and your sons has been broken. Give it time to mend. Forcible surgery (without anaesthetics [sic]) such as you are proposing is not the way.

Yours

Jack[15]

*****

TO WILLIAM GRESHAM (W):

The Kilns

Kiln Lane,

Headington Quarry,

Oxford.

6^th April 1957.

Dear Bill,

Joy is far too ill to write and has asked me to answer yours of the 2^nd. This is a ticklish job. If through clumsiness, in the effort to put things strongly, I sound like one who writes with animosity, believe me this is not so. I think there has never been any ill-feeling between you and me, and I very much hope there never will be.

Your letter reached Joy after a day of agony. The effect was devastating. She felt that the only earthly hope she now has had been taken away. You have tortured one who was already on the rack; heaped extra weights on one who is being pressed to death. There is nothing she dreads so much as a return of the boys to your charge. You perhaps do not understand that certain scenes (when you were not yourself) came early enough in their lives to make you a figure of terror to them. Their return to the U.S. A. when their education is finished is of course quite a different matter. Now, bitterly against their will, coming on top of the most appalling tragedy that can happen to childhood (I went through it and know), tearing them from all that has already become familiar and shattering all sense of security that remains to them, it would be disastrous. If you realized the cruelty of what you are proposing to do, I am sure you would not do it.

If you do not relent, I shall of course be obliged to place every legal obstacle in your way. Joy has, legally, a case. Her (documented) desire for naturalization (which there may still be time to carry out), and the boys’ horror of going back, will be strong points. What is certain is that a good deal of your money and mine will go into the lawyers’ hands. You have a chance to soothe, instead of aggravating, the miseries of a woman you once loved. You have a chance of recovering at some future date, instead of alienating for ever, the love and respect of your children. For God’s sake take it and yield to the deep wishes of everyone concerned except yourself.

You may suspect that a letter you will get from David was ‘inspired’ by Joy or me. In reality, it was expurgated, i.e. the letter he meant to send was much stronger, and Joy made him tone it down. Douglas burst into tears on hearing your plans. I assure you that they have never heard a word against you from me. No propaganda at all has ever gone on.

Yours,

Jack[16]

*****

TO WILLIAM GRESHAM (W):

The Kilns

Kiln Lane,

Headington Quarry,

Oxford.

15^th July 1960.

Dear Bill,

Joy died on the 13^th July. This need involve no change in your plans, but I thought you should arrive knowing it.

Yours,

Jack[17]

Closing

In these letters, written amid suffering and uncertainty, C. S. Lewis reveals both the weight of stepparent responsibility and the seriousness with which he approached the care of the Gresham boys. His words reflect a steady commitment to their well-being, even as circumstances pressed in from every side. Yet however compelling this human story may be, it unfolds within a legal framework that does not naturally favor the stepparent; in Part 2, we will turn to those governing principles and the challenges they present.

[1] Jay Frederick Wilks, Right of Surviving Divorced Parent to Custody of Children, 19 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 123, 124 (1962). This legal rule is basic law, barring any findings of abuse, neglect, or abandonment that may have been previously rendered in regard to the surviving parent’s conduct toward the children. See also infra Part 1.

[2] Lynne Marie Kohm, Can a dead hand from the grave protect the kids from darling daddy or Mommie Dearest? 31 Quinnipiac Probate L. J. 1, 4 (Nov. 2017) (with “fit” generally meaning that a parent has retained all parental rights to direct the upbringing of their children and not been found guilty of abuse, abandonment or neglect). See infra discussion Part 2.

[3] Wilks, supra note 1, at 124.

[4] Brian H. Bix, Family Law: The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law 65 (Oxford U. Press 2013).

There is a legal process of step-parent adoption, by which step-parents can become the legal parents of their spouses’ [sic] children. However, such adoptions will usually not be granted unless the children’s other legal parents (generally the other biological parent of the child) either consents, or the consent is considered unnecessary because that other parent has had little contact with the children and adoption by the step-parent is found to be in the children’s best interests.

Id. at 65.

[5] Id. Bix notes that some state statutes have exceptions to this rule, such as Illinois’s statute750 ILCS 5/607(b)(1.5) which expressly extends to Illinois step parents standing to seek visitation or custody, offering a statutory remedy for step-parents. Bix, supra note 4, at 65.

[6] Marriage generally offers no parental rights to step parents. “Under most state laws, step-parents have limited rights and obligations regarding such children, and most of these rights and obligations end when the marriage to the legal parent ends.” Bix, supra note 4, at 65-66. However, the Supreme Court ruling granting same-sex couples the right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) apparently afforded parental rights to non-parent same-sex partners by virtue of the same-sex marriage. This became particularly apparent in the case of Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. 563 (2017) where the High Court held that a non-gestational mother in a same-sex marriage had the constitutional right to have her name placed on her child’s birth certificate as a right within the “constellation of benefits” that the state “has linked to marriage.” In Pavan, the Court deemed that the spirit of Obergefell extended beyond marriage into the rights and duties of parentage, effectively affording a same-sex step parent parental rights. Further, some case law in various states has afforded parental rights to same-sex parents by virtue of the marriage to the natural parent. See e.g. Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 637 S.E.2d 330 (2006) (making a similar ruling in state court nine years earlier that partners in a same-sex relationship gain parental rights to their partner’s children). Those parental rights have not to my knowledge been extended to heterosexual step parents, appearing to present another conundrum of step-parenting, a constitutional problem of equal protection deserving further research and examination. That effort is beyond the scope of this article.

[7] Joy was diagnosed with cancer in October 1956. Warren Lewis, only brother to C. S. Lewis, wrote in his diary that Joy had been given a “sentence of death.” Brian Sibley, Shadowlands: The true story of C. S. Lewis and Joy Davidman 129-31 (1985). C.S. Lewis was a British author, literary scholar, Oxford Don, Cambridge Professor, and Christian apologist of the 20th century, known for such works as Mere Christianity, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Screwtape Letters and others. See Alister McGrath, C.S. Lewis – A Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet (Tyndale House 2013).

[8] Lewis letter to Dorothy L. Sayers, dated 12/24/56, in Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis, The Companion and Guide 82 (1996).

[9] Id. at 85.  Lewis did, however, have children in his home before, as during WWII he had taken in children from London for protection from bombing raids. Joel S. Woodruff, The Generous Heart and Life of C. S. Lewis, Knowing & Doing, Summer 2013, https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/KD-2013-Summer-The-Generous-Heart-and-Life-of-CS-Lewis-5275.pdf. The empathy Lewis demonstrated for the Gresham boys was possibly primed by his taking in these evacuees.

[10] All of them thought she was going home to die. “When they sent Joy home from hospital last April, they sent her home to die.” Lewis Letter to Sister Penelope, dated Nov. 6, 1957, in Hooper, supra note 8, at 85. She lived three years, dying on July 13, 1960. Id. at 99.

[11] Jonathan Van Maren, C.S. Lewis and His Stepsons, FirstThings.com, Sep. 3, 2020.

[12] Immense gratitude is hereby extended again to those at the Marion E. Wade Center, in Wheaton, IL on Nov. 24-26, 2025 for their priceless assistance in this research. Of particular use were the following materials: Joy Davidman Papers, 1926-1964, Collection Identifier A-109, Folders 2,4,5,6,7,813a, 13b, 14, 18, Wade Center; Gresham correspondence, Collection Identifier A-51a, Folder 3, Wade Center; Gresham Papers, Collection Identifier 1-86 to A-91, Folders 33, 55, 61, 308, 309, 359, 360, Wade Center.

[13] Those letters are included in three volumes: C.S. Lewis Collected Letters, Vol. 1 1905-1931 (2004)[hereinafter Letters. Vol. 1]; C.S. Lewis Collected Letters, Vol. 2 1931-1949 (2004)[hereinafter Letters, Vol. 2]; C.S. Lewis Collected Letters, Vol. 3 1950-1963 (2007)[hereinafter Letters, Vol. 3]. It is thought that many more letters existed but were lost.

Warnie was devastated by his brother’s death. Shortly thereafter, he decided to move out of the Kilns, the home he had shared with his brother since 1930, and into a smaller residence. Prone to debilitating bouts of alcoholism, Warnie, Walter Hooper records, once “kept a bonfire of papers burning for 3 days.’ Shortly after Lewis’ death, Hooper went out to the Kilns to check on Warnie, and was able to rescue the 4 letters from Arthur before they, “Warren assured me, would have gone into the fire.” Hooper surmises that it is entirely possible that if they existed, all other letters from Arthur to C.S. Lewis were incinerated in the three day burn.

Joseph A. Kohm, Jr. , The Unknown Garden of Another’s Heart, the Surprising Friendship Between C. S Lewis and Arthur Greeves 4-5 (Whip & Stock (2002). Only 4 letters from Lewis’ lifelong childhood friend Arthur Greeves remained of Lewis’ correspondence. Id. It is very likely more letters were lost in the same event.

[14] Letters, Vol. III, supra note 13, at 820-21.

[15] Letters, Vol. III, supra note 13, at 843-44.

[16] Letters, Vol. III, supra note 13, at 844-45.

[17] Id. at 1170.