Making An Uninformed Child Custody Decision Can Be Child Abuse

Stop, look, and listen before you decide. Custody rulings are among the hardest decisions anyone can be asked to make, and getting them wrong can leave damage that never fully heals. I know of a county that hands custody cases to its least experienced judges, and this is the same county running three separate diversion courts: one for people struggling with addiction, one for mental illness, and one for domestic violence. The mismatch bothers me.

My own suggestion has been simple. Any judge who is going to hear custody cases should sit through about forty hours of face-to-face training delivered by a mix of agencies and private professionals who actually work with these situations. Having been trained and having trained others across different fields, I'm convinced that only in-person sessions, with room for feedback flowing both ways, let you confirm that a person has genuinely absorbed what they need and can carry the weight of the job. Here is the discouraging part: the people who need this most are often the first to talk their way out of it. "I don't really need this." "I already know all that." Those are usually the exact people the training was designed for.

Treat the responsibility casually and a child can end up in harm's way. A careless decision can also ignore what current research on custody has established. Children are the most precious resource we have, and choices made about them in childhood or adolescence often become the problems that surface decades later: addiction, mental health struggles, behavior that gets relabeled as crime once a person is an adult, and parenting that repeats the same failures.

Picture a store of gold you were setting aside for the future. Would you leave it piled by an open window? Would you handle it so loosely that it vanished and left you buried in debt? We wouldn't dream of it. Yet with children we often shrug and assume ours are fine, so we stop thinking about them. That assumption is exactly how a resource gets wasted.

Can a judge reliably spot the ways a custody arrangement might hurt a child? Consider abuse. Offenders rarely volunteer it. Family members frequently don't see it, or refuse to. I have watched this up close, where the responsible adults had to draw hard boundaries to protect a child while other relatives insisted there was nothing wrong at all. A custody ruling made without that awareness can become part of the problem rather than the solution.

Have I seen a judge decide a case the wrong way and watched children suffer for it? Yes. Reading a family for buried risk, including conditions that quietly make abuse more likely, can be slow, tedious work that calls for real knowledge. That is precisely the gap training is meant to close.

How much does the average judge actually understand about child development? Attachment, prenatal factors, the formation of identity, a child's need for love without conditions, discipline that is both steady and fair. What about role models, or the chance to build social skills? And the simple point that if a child can't get something from one parent, there may be another relative who can provide it.

So yes, I believe an uninformed judge creates room for harm. A judge who treats these rulings lightly does too. Raising a child is heavy work, and part of doing it well is surrounding the child with more than one source of unconditional love, encouragement, and good examples, because no single person supplies all of it.

A child is never a carbon copy of either parent. The child might be left-handed while the parent is right-handed. The child might have one sexual orientation and the parent another. The child might be gifted in an area the parent has no feel for at all. (I wrote about this before in "Flowers Versus Weeds. How Were You Raised? What Are You Raising?") Funnel a child toward a single primary parent and you probably cap what that child can become. It's a bleak result, and self-esteem tends to pay the bill.

A child who feels secure can manage living in more than one home. The arrangement should stay consistent, and whoever is in charge, a parent or another trusted family member, needs to handle it well. There's that old line, "Children should be seen and not heard." Is that any way to raise a person? It can't be, not if you want to leave them room to grow.

Once you have had a child, raising that child is a serious obligation, and no one should be allowed to slip out of it. It takes a father to make a child, and half of who that child becomes traces back to him as much as to the mother. How much of that does a judge weigh? And what if the judge happens to be someone who ducks responsibility for his or her own children? I wonder how that shapes the rulings they hand down.

There are two ways to approach these decisions. One is the "I already know everything I need to" approach. The other is careful, deliberate judgment. Would it help if the law itself gave judges real guidance from the outset? Probably, because so many judges simply default to what is usual and customary, repeating the standard arrangement on autopilot. How much harm can that routine cause, and does the standard order ever do much to strengthen a child's ties and open up growth on both parents' sides?

Related