Michigan’s Child Custody Act mandates that courts must make custody decisions in the child’s best interests. The Act goes on to describe the analysis the court must apply to determine the child’s best interests.
I was recently reminded that staying focused on the child’s best interests (rather than that of the parents) can be emotionally challenging, to say the least. The headline of the brief article I read declared “Judge Settles Dispute Over Whether a Child Can Call a Stepparent ‘Mom.’ ” As I read the article, I realized it was not even a step-mother in question, it was a future step-mother – the father’s fiancé. Personally, I bristled at the idea of a child being told to call a fiancé “Mom” when he already has a mother!
The biological mother objected to the eight year old referring to the father’s fiancé as “Mom,” and frankly, my gut reaction was to think “I don’t blame her” although as an attorney, I question whether bringing this issue to court could possibly serve the child’s best interests. As the story unfolded, the father had primary physical custody of the child, who was obviously spending a great deal of time with the future step-mother. Although not expressly stated in the article, it is certainly possible that the father and fiancé were already living together with the little boy.
The judge ultimately ruled that the birth parents – and not the step-parent – have final decision-making authority as joint legal custodians of their son. However, as to calling the future step-mother “Mom” the judge said it was up to the child. The judge reasoned “ ‘At this challenging point in his growth and development, he certainly does not need his parents, or a stepparent, or the court, hoisting further unnecessary burdens upon his fragile shoulders by micromanaging his words and thoughts, or commanding him how to address his stepparent in order to please his mother or father.’ ”
Obviously, the judge had the child’s “best interests” at heart in explaining the decision to let the eight year old decide what to call his future step-mother. But, let’s think about this for a moment. How do we know that this little boy isn’t calling the future step-mother “Mom” because he feels pressured to do so by either verbal or non-verbal signals from the father or the fiancé herself? Of course, we do not know the answer to that, and neither does the judge. All we do know is that the child is just that – a child. As I blogged last year (August 22, 2015), let children be children.
Did the judge’s ruling allow this little boy to be a child and take weight from his shoulders placed there by an insecure mother? Or, did the judge place a burden on the child’s shoulders to decide for himself which parent (or step-parent) to please? It is impossible to know from the article, which itself was very brief. More importantly, it may have been impossible for the judge to know, and that, therefore, the judge made the best call available under the circumstances.
It is important for judges and attorneys to remain mindful that, despite legislating a means for determining a child’s best interests, so much is left to the court’s discretion – be it well-intentioned and exercised, or not. There will always be a significant element of subjectivity in deciding what is best for a child. I also believe that in many cases, there is no right or wrong answer. In fact, these are often the cases that end up before a judge rather than settling.
Judges and lawyers cannot fix an emotionally broken family. Reasonable minds can differ on how to resolve disputes between parents in child-rearing. I frequently remind myself that I cannot change the facts; I can only work with the facts presented to me by the client and his/her case.
As to the court’s ruling in this case, what do you think?