In this week's New York Times there was an incredibly controversial & difficult editorial concerning child custody rights & the military. As someone who does domestic mediation, what surprises me the most is my initial gut reaction to the problem. Summarizing the issue, a military specialist returned from Iraq ready to resume custody of her child but in spite of a prior written custody agreement between the two parents, the child's father [not her husband] fought the mother in court to retain custody by asserting that living with "some stranger" would be too upsetting for the child. A judge ordered that the father be given primary custody while the mother was awarded generous visitation & sleepovers. There is a lot to consider in this case:
- First & foremost, what is in the best interest of the child*
- Setting aside tradition, who in this case would be the better custodial parent
- Is the mother finished with all of her military commitments or does she have to return to her unit [this was not clearly addressed]
- Can we expect to continue to recruit people in the armed forces if as a consequence, they stand to lose custody of their children
- Too frequently in custody battles, children are used as pawns because either a. the relationship with the parents remains emotionally unresolved even if it has ended, b.it is unclear whether one parent's desire to be primary custodial parent is motivated by the best interest of the child or to reduce the amount of child support that s/he will have to pay [I am aware that this sounds cynical but it is quite common particularly in the case of fathers]
In The Best Interest Of The Child
When I mediate custody disputes, my guiding question is always "what is in the best interest of the child?" I explain this to the parents on "day one" when I am retained & describe this as my personal bias. The parents, I explain, are adults who have made choices about their relationship with each other so I see it as my job to look out for the child's well being. In this case I have to say that while it is difficult to determine without knowing much more about both parents, it does indeed seem that at least for now, the father seems most capable of providing a stable environment for their child. Young children essentially need a loving, stabile environment that has structure & consistency. It is unclear from this short editorial if the mother is now able to provide that kind of environment. Be that as it may, military/social engineering simply cannot rest on the back of any one child. However, I do not want to see service men or women penalized for protecting their country & losing custody of one's child is probably one of the toughest penalties of all. Clearly this is an issue that has to be addressed on a case- by-case basis because while children need consistency, they are also incredibly resilient. It's a very tough call. What do you think?
*Note: in child custody disputes courts are also supposed to be guided by what's in the best interest of the child.