Canadian Researcher: 'We must abandon the claim that the (family) court has been acting in children's best interests'

From Glenn Sacks' blog, here. Excerpt:

'How many times have you heard or read the phrase "the best interests of the child?" If you read much about family law and family courts, the probable answer is "more times than I can count." Indeed, establish a Google Alert for the phrase and you'll get links to several articles, court cases, op-eds, etc. a day, every day of the week. In Canada the "best interests of the child" has been raised by the Supreme Court to a level of importance that trumps even constitutional considerations.

So, with the phrase in such common usage and so vital to custody decisions, you might think that it (a) means something and (b) those using it know what it means.

But to an astonishing degree, you'd be wrong on both counts. In fact, the phrase is more intuitive, a shoot-from-the-hip type of locution. It's like a Rohrschach inkblot test; the interpretation given to it by the user reveals more about the user than about the phrase itself. That's the point attorney Chris Gottlieb was making in the New York Times recently when she referred to determinations of the "best interests of the child" as being made "subjectively, inconsistently and often erroneously."'