Why the "Best Interests of the Child" Isn't
These opponents argue that joint custody replaces the "best interests of the child" standard with the rights of parents. But, in order to buy into this argument, you must have two previously held convictions:
One would think that intelligent people would consider the idea that children don't need two parents is absurd. Yet, it took the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare (authorized in 1992) years to determine that a married two-parent intact family is the best environment to raise a child. The Commission had a difficult time agreeing on this conclusion, in spite of the fact that most of the country's leading social researchers testified before the Commission and presented mountains of empirical research showing the negative social, psychological, emotional, and economic impact on children who are raised in single-mother-headed households.
- that it is not in a child's best interests to have two parents,
- that the United States Constitution is not as important as new social engineering theories.
But even this is not as amazing as the idea that the U.S. Constitution is not as important as gender-feminist ideology or lawyers' profits. The U.S. Supreme Court and high federal courts have ruled, over and over again, that the right to rear one's own children free from interference from the state is a liberty interest right -- a right even more precious than property rights. Further, "the rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by the 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments." [Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).] Reciprocally, children have the same rights to their parents as parents do to their children.
Thomas Jefferson said, when referring to the judiciary, that "we should not put our trust in men, but tether them with the Constitution to prevent them from getting into mischief." But we didn't heed these words of wisdom, and not only is mischief afoot, it is running rampant. For the last 30 years, the "best interests of the child" doctrine has been used to effectively obviate one parent's (usually the father's) constitutional right to the care custody and nurture of their children, without a finding of unfitness or imminent danger to the children. Likewise, children's constitutional rights to that parent have also been obviated. This is not a slippery slope, it is a catastrophe of epidemic and critical proportions.
Thus far, women have been the beneficiaries of the "best interests of the child" doctrine_or at least they think they have been. After all, judges have overwhelmingly favored giving custody of the children to their mothers on this basis. Along with custody, mothers receive financial rewards, through welfare and/or child support. They also are given the power of control over whether or not love will ever be allowed to be exchanged between fathers and their children. For this reason, women have generally supported this standard. For similar reasons, women's groups have also fought to keep a sole-custody preference in the law -- to keep joint custody from becoming the standard -- for they have recognized and wished to maintain this pro-woman bias.
Women, beware. By letting the state take children away from their dads and give them to you "in the best interests of the child", you are being succored into being suckers. The next step is for the state to take the children away from you, their mothers, on the same pretext.
"The best interests of the child" is a sucker play by the state for ultimately taking the children away from both their parents. For how can a parent who has let the state take the children away from the other parent on this pretext argue against the state using it to take the children away from them?
Picture the smiling government welfare worker saying, "We think that little Bobby and Susie would be better off living in our nice group home. Say 'bye bye' to your mommie, children." It is not inconceivable, especially when the government continually espouses its "superior" knowledge on what, when, and where children should be taught. Single-mothers who believe in home-schooling should be especially wary. But what of the divorce lawyers' "expertise" in this area? The American Bar Association reported that divorce is a $96 billion per year business. This kind of money would be difficult for decent people to turn down, let alone reptilian life-forms that benefit from the misery and destruction that comes from the adversarial battleground of divorce and custody battles. Divorce lawyers have no desire, let alone incentive, to end the sole-custody wars.
For this reason, women need to be on the front line in the fight for joint custody as the presumption in divorce cases, and sole custody to be the outcome only where the Supreme-Court-set standard for permanent removal of parental rights obtains. The Supreme Court has determined that the state cannot terminate parental rights on a no-fault basis; rather, the state must demonstrate, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is a substantial and imminent threat to the children.
Unless their parental rights have been terminated via a legitimate, Supreme-Court- sanctioned process, it is the parents, not the state, who have the right to determine what is in the best interests of their children.
If fathers and mothers do not stand together on this issue, the state's "divide and conquer" strategy will eliminate them both--first the fathers, then the mothers--from the lives of their children. This is why women, too, need to be the defenders of men's right to be fathers to their children, or, very possibly, men will not be there to defend women's right to be mothers to their children. Remember... good, decent, loving fathers never thought it could happen to them, either.
Also, lots of people have been asking for the name of the LCSW in the VA S. Ct. case so they can go through the records and notify everyone who has had any dealings with her.
According to the opinion of the Supreme Court (published public record) her name is Patsye D. McKenzie. She is the principal participant and sole shareholder in Family Marital Guidance Clinic, now F.M.G.C., P.C. a professional corporation.
I assume she is in Chesapeake, Virginia since the case at bar was referred (ordered) to her by the J&DR Court for the City of Chesapeake, Virginia.
Copies of the opinion can be obtained through: Virginia Supreme Court 100 N. 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 786-5644
The case is Tomlin v. McKenzie, VA S.Ct. No. 951427, 4/19/96
The pleadings should be available there, too. We are working on obtaining copies of the pleadings and will upload them (and the opinion) on the net as soon as we can. Send money! The court reams us for 50 cents per page for photocopies! There are bound to be hundreds of pages.
We want to send copies far and wide... especially to groups that are active in promoting criminal penalties for false allegations. If you believe in this effort... support it, we'll do the grunt work. Fire off a check for $10, $20, (or especially more) to help offset the expense. We will get it out, but need your help!
Send contributions to: American Fathers Coalition, 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Ste. 148, Washington, D.C. 20006