11/23/2022
Welcome to Best Interests. Our website is under construction- please bookmark it for its launch soon!: bestinterests.kids
We are a resource for parents who understand that their kids' best interests must come first in custody matters - before either parent's rights. The Texas Family Code outlines that the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration in all matters of possession and conservatorship (Sec. 153.002). Sadly, many in the legal sphere - from attorneys to guardians ad litem to judges - have lost their gaze on that guiding principal.
Spite, greed, and jealousy all have realistic avenues to govern a custody decision, instead of the child's best interest. Bad actors, disguised as arms of the Court, as well as good actors who become complicit, can get caught up in the weaving of a false narrative about what is in the best interests of a child, funded by lucrative hourly rates and other distracting motives from that primary guiding principal, and the reason they are there: the best interests of the child.
"Parental rights" are being thrust onto center stage, often with parents who were not primary caretakers in the marriage/ prior child-rearing situation, insisting that they have a "right" to assume a brand new, larger, and different role now that the marriage et al has dissolved.
"Parental alienation" was a term coined by a discredited man in the 1980's in effort to offer a counterclaim for parents who were accused of mistreatment or abuse of a child. "Parental Alienation Syndrome" then evolved from this man's theory that children who fear or disfavor one parent do so only because they were coached to fear, disfavor, or dislike that parent. Though every reputable scientific, psychological, and medical association has addressed the debunked theory, and all of those entities have reaffirmed repeatedly that there is no such disorder, diagnosis, nor disease of that name, the counterclaim stuck.
Since the 1980's, millions of children have endured not being believed in their claims of mistreatment and abuse since "alienation" became the en vogue scapegoat for disfavored parents who sought to undo the damage to their parent-child relationships with an easy claim that their children were being "abused" via "alienation" by the favored parent.
For example, consider the following case. A child was primary cared for my his mother for 12 years, before the father began to pull away from the home and marriage, and mistreating the mother. The 12-year-old child developed feelings of resentment toward his father. The father-child relationship soured further after the father filed for divorce. Using "alienation" as a clutch, the father then claimed that the disfavoring / cold shoulder that the father was experiencing was a calculated effort by the favored parent, the mother, to "alienate" the child from the father. The father then demanded that a guardian ad litem be hired to assess the suspected alienation and to make a custody recommendation for the 12-year-old and his siblings. The guardian ad litem was hand-chosen by the father's attorney, and was paid by the father's parents. The GAL took complete control of all matters of possession, dictating visitation terms that superceded the agreed Temporary Orders on possession that were already signed. The guardian ad litem went on to interview only collaterals offered by the father, and none offered by the mother. The GAL pulled the 12-year-old out of school to subject him to 3-hour "counseling" sessions in which she denigrated the mother and attempted to destroy the child's trust in his mother. When these tactics didn't work she ordered, as an arm of the Court, that the child go into a 30-day "intervention" in which he should have no contact with the favored parent nor his siblings- including a one-year-old baby with whom he was very close. The trauma endured by the now 13-year-old and his siblings was so extraordinary, from the heart-wrenching transfer day through the abuses that the child endured in total isolation, chronicled by his daily iPad journals which ultimately earned his voice to be heard in Court, that he was forever changed and permanently copes with PTSD from those abuses. Despite the obvious failure of the intervention, the GAL went on to "recommend" that the father get sole custody of the children, with supervised visitation for the mother- who was the primary caretaker of all four prior to the father filing for divorce. The GAL would go on to lie under oath, and it was revealed in Court that she destroyed therapy notes and videotaped sessions- all violations of her professional code of conduct as a mental health provider. That 13-year-old would go on to talk to the judge in the divorce case, and would tell his truth. His testimony to the judge was so powerful that the judge ignored the GAL's recommendation and awarded primary custody to the mother. The teen tried in good faith to engage in the Expanded Standard Possession Order that stemmed from the 5-day bench trial, but ultimately more and more traumatic conflicts pushed him to his limit emotionally, physically, and spiritually. In an emergency effort to salvage the child's well-being, the mother made several filings with the Court which finally halted the father's insistence on the possession schedule. The teen would not visit the father after that, and hasn't for 3 years. Most of the other children have experienced similar traumas, conflicts, and are now refusing to visit.
The process of attempting to force children into a possession schedule that was toxic for them, should be a cautionary tale for all who read this. If a child is demonstrating distress, then no visit should be forced. Ever.
This consultancy was created from the depths of a broken hearted parent who was forced to witness her child go through hell because around a dozen individuals were too cowardly to do what was in his best interests. They were too motivated by outside factors unrelated to the children at all- like big paychecks, hopes of not having to pay child support, vengeance, pride, and other motivators in between - to follow the one simple principle they were all charged with following: the law, which explicitly demands that the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration in possession and conservatorship matters.
One brave teen and one brave judge sat in chambers on a cold January Wednesday night for 3 hours talking about what life was like for that teen, and what is important in this world. One beacon of light in an expanse of dimmed characters who forgot why they were there. One bright light was all it took to get to the right answer for four kids. Just one north star. One person with integrity, reminding everyone there of the reason for "family court".
Family Court is meant to serve our children. It is charged with the onus of seeking their best interests. Let's hold this system to higher standards - to its own standards. Don't back down when kids' best interests aren't being served. Reach out for help.
