In the 'best interests' of the child or the best interests of the non-custodial parent?

This is the most important paper you need to read on the 'best interests of the child' and how it has been completely misused and misinterpreted in the #familycourt to support the position of non-custodial parents (often abusive fathers) to gain access to children.

Dr Stephanie Brandt MD, a core SHERA member who currently works as an Adult and Child Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, at Weill-Cornell NY Hospital and New York Psychoanalytic Society writes about how the Best Interests of the Child (BIOC) as originally outlined by Goldstein et al., (1996) has been misinterpreted and misused to prioritise the rights and best interests of the non-custodial parent. I provide a short summary below with accompanying infographics and encourage you all to read this paper if you are a professional working in this area. If you are a victim-survivor going through family court, give the paper to your legal team.

There is no evidence that a child will be harmed from ending a relationship with an abusive parent. There is plenty of evidence, as discussed in the original BIOC framework, that harm will be caused by the courts if they coerce main caregivers (often mothers) and children into forced contact with a non-custodial parent (often an abusive father). What children need is one quality, nurturing relationship where their needs are put first and their main caregiver is free from state sanctioned abuse and coercion. Read the full paper here.

You may be thinking, what about the parents (largely mothers) whose children have been removed from their care by the courts on false pseudoscientific concepts such as ‘parental alienation’ (PA) or other spurious claims? I would argue, as would Brandt and Goldstein et al. (1996), if these mothers were the child’s primary care giver they should not have been removed from these mothers (assuming there was no abuse) to begin with. The courts should endeavour to thoroughly investigate any abuse allegations at the outset of family court proceedings and should not remove children based on pseudoscience such as PA, denounced by the WHO, APA, UNSRVAGW and many others. Where children are removed from their main caregivers erroneously, this is frequently because the courts failed to investigate abuse properly to begin with and the biases of the courts and professionals (discussed within Brandt’s paper), leads to erroneous decisions being made. I believe any children’s cases, where children have been removed from a main caregiver on the basis of pseudoscience such as PA, should be urgently re-opened and re-investigated.

The courts ultimately should seek to ensure the child’s best interests are served by the parent who is able to nurture them, provide a quality relationship and environment for them and ultimately, allow the parent who can put their child’s needs before their own to be wholly and solely responsible for the child.

Citation: Brandt, S. (2023). The myth of gender neutrality in family court: A clinician's perspective on determinations of “the best interest of the child”. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 20(3), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1838

*completely (not completed as noted in the below - apologies for typo *completed)