Radical thought about "best interest of child" standard

[Great Georgia Dad]

This is a radical thought, and probably already hacked over in this and other forums.

I am concerned about the "best interest of the child" standard which most states, including my own, have written into "family" statutes.

Actually, the standard is not a bad one, as we all theoretically want our childrens' best interest followed. The problem is how the states have chosen to administer this standard.

Specifically, states have elected to have the "best interest of the child" standard administered by judges. Does this seem a bit odd? That is to say, does it seem a bit odd that the standard is being overseen by people who are not required (and usually do not) have any special education, training, certification, or licensing in the field of family or child psychology?

I know that some states require individuals to have education, certification, and licensing in order to practice family counseling and therapy or psychology. In many cases, they do not even have the authority to make actual decisions concerning the welfare of children. In cases where they do pocess such authority, they are required to have the proper training and approval.

Why are judges any different, then?

Judges are suppose to apply the law in their decisions. And laws are generally quite objective in their content.

However, family law in particular is often extremely vague and allows -- even promotes -- extremely subjective decisions. DECISIONS THAT ESSENTIALLY REQUIRE THE JUDGE TO PRACTICE FAMILY AND CHILD PSYCHOLOGY.

There is a reason that couselors, therapists, and so others in the field are held to high standards: their advice and decisions have an enormous impact on the individuals whom they treat. As we witness every day in this and other forums, the decisions judges make in family matter have an even greater impact. And yet there are no requirements for them to have any family or child psychological training whatsoever. (To add insult to injury, many times the judges do not even see or interview the children who's "best interests" they are overseeing.)

Applying the strict guidelines of the law is one thing. Expecting a judge who has no training in family psychology to make sound decisions with such an objective standard is something completely different.

Either we need more objective family laws, with tighter guidelines for judges to actually be bound by, or we need true "family courts", where the judges making the decisions are well educated in such matters.

Sound too radical? Obviously, since the fault would lie in the legislation and not the court itelf, maybe a lawsuit against the states would kickstart some changes somewhere.

Thoughts?

[Kitty C.]

Well, here's my $.02.

Seems to me that very damn few judges are making unilateral decisions in family court these days.  If divorcing couples are ironing out an agreement between themselves (whith NO outside help), they judge just agrees.  On the frequent occasion they don't agree, they go into mediation, have custody and psych. evals. done, and this is where the 'experts' come in. They make the recommendation based upon the BIC, and they judge makes a decision based on THEIR recommendation.

This is no different than a criminal trial.  Forensic specialists are an example of 'expert witnesses', and the jurors (who have no more education of criminal science than a family law judge does of child psychology) base their decision on recommendations made by expert witnesses.

[nosonew]

My 2 cents:

When we had a custody eval, although she showed in testing some major flaws, as well as in other areas, the evaluator seemed only interested in one are, "Best Interest of the Child" in which he felt that the child should ONLY live with the parent he feels is his "Main Parent", and excuse me, but asking a kid who is 6, and has lived with mom since birth, not allowed to see dad for years, then sees dad only when convinced by court or her attorney to allow it, what kid isn't going to say "Mom is my main parent?" Hello? So that was his suggestion, was for the child to remain with the parent he saw as his "main parent". Smart. Not.

[MYSONSDAD]

Interesting thoughts..You have brought up some very good points. When I first meet with my attorney, I brought in a picture of my son and showed everyone in the office. I wanted to put a face with the name, let them know this is a person, not an object.

I feel if the courts were at all concerned for 'the best interest of the child', they should make everything 50/50, including financial support.

An evaluator will come in and talk with you for an hour and make their decision. They do not see beyond the lies, even with documentation. And yet the courts look at them as experts. The true experts are the kids. If they could speak on their own behalf, they would want both parents.

If things were 50/50, there would be no need for evaluators. I think the divorce rate would plummit. It would also give kids more of a chance to speak on what they want. Too many kids are just nothing more than a paycheck.

Sorry this sounds so bitter, I am having a very bad week

'children learn what they live'

[joni]

We were in a similar situation.  The child is emotionally abandoned by her mother yet the referee and the judge say, she's doing "OK" at her mom's house and it would be too traumatic to change her.

What about long-term trauma of living in an environment that's just "OK" when she could have AMAZING at her father's home?  I never feel that the non-custodial parent's opportunities for the child are ever considered.  Maybe the NCP is a more stable, well rounded, fulfilling environment?

But that's not consider because even in family court, possession is deemed to be 9/10's of the law.  You got your possession (aka your child), squat on that child and that's good enough for custody.  That's the child's best interest?

[nosonew]

Joni, we also had over 100 proven contempts against her, which he literally threw in the trash in front of us, stating "that is in the past and she said she was sorry", good lord, where did he get his degree? So, things continued until child got of age to request to live with us. Just frustrating, he wouldn't have had the problems in school had he lived with us from age 6-7 on instead of having to wait until 14.  Now it is very hard to catch up on learning study skills (hard to teach once every other week with visitation, if we got it), and morals, honesty, integrity, etc.  She has none, never will.  Thats what he got to grow up with every day, now we have to change his whole way of thinking.  However, he is doing okay for now.  Hang in there!