It is time to redefine the best interests of the child: not only maintenance, housing and formal custody, but psychological stability and ties with both parents. And who defines them? The law alone, or also psychiatrists and childhood specialists?
At a time when some say that certain laws "do not do justice to the custodial mother", society is entitled to ask a deeper question: how do we protect the child's real psychological balance after divorce? And who protects his natural right to grow up in a balanced relationship with his father and his mother, as the international conventions on the rights of the child provide?
For the best interests of the child, as defined in international law, are not reduced to maintenance, housing or formal custody. They also include psychological stability, emotional security, the preservation of family ties and the right to a natural, balanced relationship with both parents.
"Divorce the wife, and divorce the children with her"
In our society one often hears: "Divorce the wife and divorce the children with her". The sometimes painful reality is that after divorce the father can gradually become a mere "visitor" in his children's lives, despite his emotional presence and his wish to take part in their upbringing. His role shrinks to paying maintenance and a few hours of weekly visits, far from his children's daily lives.
Today, on top of sole custody, there are demands to keep the marital home, to be granted full legal guardianship and to keep custody even after remarriage. Should the father then be gradually stripped of all his educational, human and emotional roles, and left with nothing but material duties? Is that really "the best interests of the child"? What psychological balance for a child who gradually loses all natural, daily contact with one of his parents? Where is the effective deterrent when visiting rights are not honoured or the child is not handed over? And how can one speak of "best interests" when some procedures drag on for years, during which the child grows up amid rupture and conflict?
Who defines these interests?
Is the traditional legal approach enough? Or must psychiatrists, child psychologists, sociologists and family experts be involved?
Reality and recent international experience have shown that the era of sole custody and of the "award / withdraw custody" logic no longer matches the psychological and emotional needs of today's child. It is time to move to a fairer, more balanced conception:
- shared parental responsibility;
- shared custody;
- joint legal guardianship;
- balanced participation in the children's upbringing after divorce;
- mandatory involvement of child psychiatrists and child psychologists in every procedure concerning children and the family;
- the creation of a specialised emergency court to rule quickly on cases involving children, because their psychological and emotional time cannot bear years of waiting.
It is time to redefine "the best interests of the child" outside the logic of men's interests or women's interests, keeping a single logic: the interests of the child, of the family and of the psychological and social balance of society as a whole. A child is neither a court file, nor a means of pressure, nor a victim of adults' wars. For a child does not wait… and a childhood lost in conflict can never be recovered.