I am with Paul in my confusion, and will add only a further question. If we accept the principle that the best interests of the child prevails, does that mean that judges and not parents will always have the decisive say? (As a parent, for example, I think I am always acting in the best interest of my children, even when -- indeed, especially when -- they don't know it!)
Might be worth thinking about this story, about the judge "ordering" (not really accurate) a mother to cut her daughter's hair: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557954/Judge-orders-Price-woman-to-cut-off-daughters-ponytail-in-court.html Richard Dougherty On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Paul Horwitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > This has been a very interesting discussion. I confess that at this point, > I am quite confused about the meaning of "best interests of the child." I > understand it is a complex, context-driven, and multivalent test. But it > would certainly help to understand the foundational values and defaults > here and what interests are considered admissible or inadmissible. In some > sense, the thinner the exposition of the test becomes, the more I wonder > what thick assumptions underlie it. Take, for instance, the claim that " > [m]any would argue that it is in the "best interest of the child" to > welcome him into a supportive, religious community with shared values and > age-old historic traditions," and the response that "[t]he question is what > is in the interest of this child today." It's my own fault, I'm sure, but > I'm having trouble figuring out exactly where this leaves us. Is it that it > may be in the interest of the child today to welcome him into a supportive > religious community but that it is not dispositive, or that the fact that > the community is well-established and has shared values is not dispositive > of the child's best interests? Is it that the possibility of a supportive > religious community should never be relevant as between two possible > custody dispositions? Is it an empirical question to be decided in each > case? If it is potentially relevant but we acknowledge that some religious > communities may risk harm to the child, what counts as harm? Only serious > physical/emotional harm, or any suboptimal outcome, and by what definition > of optimization? I'm not asking to be made an expert in family law > overnight, but I can't help but feel that "the best interests of the child" > is the beginning rather than the end of the discussion, and I would welcome > some--indeed, any--clarification. > > Best wishes, > > Paul Horwitz > University of Alabama School of Law >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
