Best Interests of the Child Doctrine 155evidence showing that divorced fathers can provide nurturance for their children and
can handle the responsibilities of child rearing, those who desire custody "must still
prove mothers grossly negligent or abusive" (p. 399). If a judge believes that mothers
are better caregivers for children, then it can be fairly simple to favor a particular
parent by highlighting the negative behaviors of the other parent (Dolgin, 1996).
In the case of Joe and Sarah, if the judge preferred that mothers retain custody, then
the judge could focus on Joe's prior sexual offense as evidence that he would be an
unfit care giver.Forensic Psychology and Policy Implications
Based on the arguments against the best interests of the child standard, there should
be some type of uniformity in the guidelines (A. S. Hall et al., 1996). Kelley (1997)
suggested that a consensus be created detailing what critical guidelines should be
included. Banach (1998) indicated that creating more specificity for all professionals
involved may decrease the bias associated with decision making. She also suggested
that an operational definition be included in state statutes to create some uniformity.
In addition, professionals should not rely solely on their own judgment but evaluate
their decisions with other professionals to avoid biases.
Skolnick (1998) provided some suggestions to create more uniform criteria. She
stated that a child's psychological well-being should be one consideration. This
would include examining emotional ties the child has with the parents and the
child's need for stability. Also, rules should be provided that prevent a judge from
considering lifestyle choices or parental conduct that does not directly damage the
relationship with the child. In Joe and Sarah's situation, this could be a difficult
task to accomplish because they both engaged in behaviors that were potentially
harmful to their children.
Goldstein et al. (1996) offered the notion of changing the Best Interests of
the Child term to the Least Detrimental Alternative because it is more realistic
and less subject to a magical idea of finding the best interest. They also suggested
that child placement decisions should remain as free as possible from state inter-
vention and be as permanent as possible because continuity is critical for chil-
dren. The state should interfere only if it can provide the least detrimental alter-
native.
Creating new guidelines for this standard should include cooperation between
legal and mental health professionals. Wall and Amadio (1994) indicated that child
custody decisions must consider the entire family and the needs of each member
to provide the most beneficial and continuous relationships between parents and
children. They stated that if legal and mental health professionals could cooperate,
this task would be easier to accomplish and the best interests of the family would
be ascertained.