Parental Supremecy

Parental Supremecy

Why Parental Supremecy?

Parents and Judges and Guardian Ad Litems often disagree about what is best for the children. Parents often face a difficult dilemma in custody disputes, particularly with older children, about whether to disclose harmful behaviors by the other parent—such as substance abuse or domestic violence—or to shield the child from such truths to preserve their emotional well-being. Courts, however, may penalize parents for discussing these issues, even when done in good faith, interpreting such actions as "parental alienation" without considering the context or intent. The broad discretionary power granted to courts and Guardian Ad Litems can sometimes lead to decisions that prioritize short-term harmony over long-term family dynamics, often without sufficient accountability for the outcomes. For example, a 2019 study by the American Bar Association found that GAL recommendations in custody disputes were overturned in 25% of appealed cases, highlighting concerns about consistency and oversight.

We believe that the best interest of the children should be the sole focus of the court. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions for their children, emphasizing in Troxel v. Granville (2000) that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children,” and that such decisions by fit parents are presumed to be in the child’s best interest. While Troxel specifically addressed grandparent visitation, its principles underscore the broader importance of deferring to parental judgment absent clear evidence of harm or unfitness. In the context of custody disputes, this suggests that courts should hesitate to override parental decisions unless there is compelling evidence that doing so is necessary to protect the child.

Current Challenges

  • Custody and visitation disputes are often determined based on subjective factors such as whether a parent should discuss with the child the other parent's behavior.
  • Courts often fail to recognize the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.
  • Guardian Ad Litem recommendationss often conflict with recommendations by other professionals such as family counselors and psychologists.
  • Guardian Ad Litems and Courts will often punish one parent for making decisions in the best interest of the child.

Our Proposed Solutions

  • Limit the ability of Guardian Ad Litems to make recommendations that conflict with the recommendations of other professionals.
  • Limit the ability of Judges to grant custody based on subjective factors or vague "best interest" factors.
  • Mandate Judges to grant joint-custody absent neglect or abuse
  • Remove the ability of Judges to punish parents for "villifying" the other parent.
  • Remove the ability of Judges to modify custody as a means to control conflict between parents.