The newspapers were quick today to report
two court decisions yesterday where the best interests of children
formed the core of the judgments. Both served to demonstrate what a
difficult quest it can be for a Judge in determining best interests
when sometimes there can be a very fine line between the available
options.
In
the first case the Supreme Court acted
to reverse earlier decisions made in the Court of Appeal and High
Court thus enabling a 3 year old child to remain in the care of his
grandmother who had looked after him very much since birth, rather
than move to live with his natural father. In
the second,
the Court of Appeal has refused leave to appeal to a mother who has
been ordered to hand over her 11 year old son to the care of his
father against, it was argued, the child’s wishes. The boy is
reported as being vehemently opposed to seeing his father, but his
guardian for the purpose of the court proceedings and a child
psychiatrist agree that he is suffering emotional harm by being
estranged from his father as a result of his mother’s attitude.
One has to wonder,
when you see criticism levelled at the courts about decisions of
this kind, why they are always expected to get it right when
parents, who are also entrusted with the best care of their
children, don’t.
Judith's Divorce
Blog
THEIR BEST INTERESTS or SHOULD COURTS BE INFALLIBLE WHEN PARENTS AREN'T?
- Let’s talk: Comment (0) | Blog
- Email to a Friend
- Print this Page
Syndication:
From the Community…
Be the first to comment on this post.
leave your comment
You must sign in to post a comment
