⚠️ NOTICE: I’ve noticed that some of my original, well-researched comments have been repackaged as Substack articles without credit or permission. Therefore, please note that:
🔒 My comments, including this one, are copyright protected under U.S. law - even when written under my pen name. Do not copy, repost, or republish any part without my explicit written permission.
✅ The U.S. Copyright Office confirms that original online posts and comments are protected if they meet the originality requirement, including works written anonymously or under a pseudonym.
----------------------------
Now for my comment ....
The "best interest of the child doctrine" is nothing more than a smokescreen but it's still important to set the historical record straight:
The notion that the “best interests of the child” doctrine in U.S. family courts originated from or is linked to or somehow informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), is historically incorrect and misleading.
1. U.S. courts were applying “best interests” well over a century before the UNCRC was created. The term appeared in American adoption law as early as the 1850s, where courts started using it to determine child placements. It became standard in child custody law by the early 1900s
2. By the 1970s, the “best interests” standard was uniformly adopted across all 50 U.S. states in determining custody and visitation.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court then affirmed it independently in key rulings:
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), emphasized due process in parental rights termination, using “best interests” as a framing principle
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), reaffirmed the use of this standard in third-party visitation disputes
4. Article 3 of the UNCRC, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989, does state the following: “In all actions concerning children… the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
5. However, the U.S. has never ratified the UNCRC, so it's never legally binding in U.S. courts.
Conclusion:
The “best interests of the child” doctrine in the U.S. predates the UNCRC by over 100 years, was developed independently, and is rooted in American case law and state statutes - not UN influence. The U.S. has never ratified the UNCRC, so it's never legally binding in U.S. courts.
------------------
Now as for the 50/50 shared custody - the widespread push for 50/50 custody - often portrayed as “fair” or in the "child's best interest" - is anything but fair much less in the child's best interest. Equal time-sharing is UNNATURAL and does not prioritize children’s rights or physical and mental wellbeing.
Let’s be clear about one thing: 50/50 is NOT about children's rights. There is no such thing as "the best interest of the child" when the child has NO voice and is kept completely out of the decision-making process.
50/50 custody is about parental ENTITLEMENTS and more precisely it's about a battle and tug-of-war between parents, with the abusive / controlling / manipulative parent, more often than not, being handed the control and power by the judges in the form of equal or SWITCHED sole custody to continue the post-separation abuse on his victims. 50-50 custody essentially undermines the role of mothers as primary caregivers and allows absentee, neglectful fathers (with minimal previous involvement in children's lives) a ready loophole to have their child support obligations reduced - all the family lawyers know this - they just like to cunningly hide this fact from the victims of this judicial deception and abuse.
Here's the take home nessage: As long as we keep framing the discussion solely around "parental rights," it's always going to be a him-versus-her, lucrative, revolving door battle - which is exactly where the Family Court enterprise wants to keep the cases because they make MORE money through prolonged conflict than meaningful expedited mediation. Meanwhile, what the Family Court is actually violating every single minute of every single court day is Children's Rights more than "parental rights," and they are doing so under the convenient catch-all phrase and pretext of the "best interest of the child".
Concluding thoughts:
Mothers' and children's rights need to be codified in US Law. As of 2025, they are still not. Judges would then be forced to follow the LAW, and not make up their own arbitary rules as they go.
If the rights of children and mothers don't get codified, then it is best to abolish Family Court, as it will only continue to serve as a mistress of the patriarchal system, where the already nonexistent rights of mothers and children will continue to be violated.
All facts considered, even from a strictly functional point of view, Family Courts are completely redundant. All matters they currently handle can easily be resolved either through private mediation (in no-conflict divorces) or through civil courts (in contested divorces), with the added benefit of constitutionally mandated due process rights and access to a jury trial - rights that were NEVER part of Family Court since its inception, and which will NEVER be part of Family Court as long as the Family Court judges have their way. They will never agree to being demoted from unchallengeable, self-appointed 'gods' to what they actually are: public servants, paid by the taxpayers.
My concern over 50/50 for family court litigant. The push for 50/50 is coming from people whos parenting skills. Abuse, sexual abusers coursive controllers and parents found unfit. Legal loopholes and legislation to weaponize the court system. As these groups are trying to get 50/50 passed along with custodial interference laws and pass everything to crimal court. It took me an entire year to get into family court. The relationship between the other parent and child deterated. The minute the divorce filed and a child resist contact the fun and games begin. Addicted parents are given free passes and abuse is ignored. The father from the inside investigator CT atrical Micheal the Arc angel wasn't his first trip to the rodeo. Years prior he was charged with risk of injury to a minor according to an article. The criminal judge mentioned his family court custody cases. In my opinion judges even at the criminal court level are ignoring red flags. The custodial interference game can begin even before you hit the door step of the family court house for proceeding. These children don't come out split in half. They need consistency and stability. These " high conflict" case are a battle ground.and a tug of war with the children. I don't believe 50/50 legislation and the three strikes costodial interference are being used as another weapon for abusive parents in family court system. Children don't do well in 50/50 with high conflict. This is a another legal trick.
Should we go back to the tender-years doctrine? How many men are capable fathers? Why do so many men fall short as fathers?
⚠️ NOTICE: I’ve noticed that some of my original, well-researched comments have been repackaged as Substack articles without credit or permission. Therefore, please note that:
🔒 My comments, including this one, are copyright protected under U.S. law - even when written under my pen name. Do not copy, repost, or republish any part without my explicit written permission.
✅ The U.S. Copyright Office confirms that original online posts and comments are protected if they meet the originality requirement, including works written anonymously or under a pseudonym.
----------------------------
Now for my comment ....
The "best interest of the child doctrine" is nothing more than a smokescreen but it's still important to set the historical record straight:
The notion that the “best interests of the child” doctrine in U.S. family courts originated from or is linked to or somehow informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), is historically incorrect and misleading.
1. U.S. courts were applying “best interests” well over a century before the UNCRC was created. The term appeared in American adoption law as early as the 1850s, where courts started using it to determine child placements. It became standard in child custody law by the early 1900s
2. By the 1970s, the “best interests” standard was uniformly adopted across all 50 U.S. states in determining custody and visitation.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court then affirmed it independently in key rulings:
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), emphasized due process in parental rights termination, using “best interests” as a framing principle
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), reaffirmed the use of this standard in third-party visitation disputes
4. Article 3 of the UNCRC, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989, does state the following: “In all actions concerning children… the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
5. However, the U.S. has never ratified the UNCRC, so it's never legally binding in U.S. courts.
Conclusion:
The “best interests of the child” doctrine in the U.S. predates the UNCRC by over 100 years, was developed independently, and is rooted in American case law and state statutes - not UN influence. The U.S. has never ratified the UNCRC, so it's never legally binding in U.S. courts.
------------------
Now as for the 50/50 shared custody - the widespread push for 50/50 custody - often portrayed as “fair” or in the "child's best interest" - is anything but fair much less in the child's best interest. Equal time-sharing is UNNATURAL and does not prioritize children’s rights or physical and mental wellbeing.
Let’s be clear about one thing: 50/50 is NOT about children's rights. There is no such thing as "the best interest of the child" when the child has NO voice and is kept completely out of the decision-making process.
50/50 custody is about parental ENTITLEMENTS and more precisely it's about a battle and tug-of-war between parents, with the abusive / controlling / manipulative parent, more often than not, being handed the control and power by the judges in the form of equal or SWITCHED sole custody to continue the post-separation abuse on his victims. 50-50 custody essentially undermines the role of mothers as primary caregivers and allows absentee, neglectful fathers (with minimal previous involvement in children's lives) a ready loophole to have their child support obligations reduced - all the family lawyers know this - they just like to cunningly hide this fact from the victims of this judicial deception and abuse.
Here's the take home nessage: As long as we keep framing the discussion solely around "parental rights," it's always going to be a him-versus-her, lucrative, revolving door battle - which is exactly where the Family Court enterprise wants to keep the cases because they make MORE money through prolonged conflict than meaningful expedited mediation. Meanwhile, what the Family Court is actually violating every single minute of every single court day is Children's Rights more than "parental rights," and they are doing so under the convenient catch-all phrase and pretext of the "best interest of the child".
Concluding thoughts:
Mothers' and children's rights need to be codified in US Law. As of 2025, they are still not. Judges would then be forced to follow the LAW, and not make up their own arbitary rules as they go.
If the rights of children and mothers don't get codified, then it is best to abolish Family Court, as it will only continue to serve as a mistress of the patriarchal system, where the already nonexistent rights of mothers and children will continue to be violated.
All facts considered, even from a strictly functional point of view, Family Courts are completely redundant. All matters they currently handle can easily be resolved either through private mediation (in no-conflict divorces) or through civil courts (in contested divorces), with the added benefit of constitutionally mandated due process rights and access to a jury trial - rights that were NEVER part of Family Court since its inception, and which will NEVER be part of Family Court as long as the Family Court judges have their way. They will never agree to being demoted from unchallengeable, self-appointed 'gods' to what they actually are: public servants, paid by the taxpayers.
For further reading:
Is 50/50 time really in the 'best interest of the child'? --> https://open.substack.com/pub/womenscoalition/p/tennessee-rejects-law-codifying-5050?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=58kykk
And here's an article that discusses the dangers of 'contact at all cost' and other false doctrines that are deeply entrenched in the Family Court ---> The Best Interests of the Abuser https://open.substack.com/pub/grantrwyeth/p/the-best-interests-of-the-abuser?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=58kykk
My concern over 50/50 for family court litigant. The push for 50/50 is coming from people whos parenting skills. Abuse, sexual abusers coursive controllers and parents found unfit. Legal loopholes and legislation to weaponize the court system. As these groups are trying to get 50/50 passed along with custodial interference laws and pass everything to crimal court. It took me an entire year to get into family court. The relationship between the other parent and child deterated. The minute the divorce filed and a child resist contact the fun and games begin. Addicted parents are given free passes and abuse is ignored. The father from the inside investigator CT atrical Micheal the Arc angel wasn't his first trip to the rodeo. Years prior he was charged with risk of injury to a minor according to an article. The criminal judge mentioned his family court custody cases. In my opinion judges even at the criminal court level are ignoring red flags. The custodial interference game can begin even before you hit the door step of the family court house for proceeding. These children don't come out split in half. They need consistency and stability. These " high conflict" case are a battle ground.and a tug of war with the children. I don't believe 50/50 legislation and the three strikes costodial interference are being used as another weapon for abusive parents in family court system. Children don't do well in 50/50 with high conflict. This is a another legal trick.