Parental Fitness Assumption - Research Paper Example

? The Parental Fitness Assumption Research Paper Introduction One of the fundamental assumptions of law is the ‘parental rights doctrine’. It states that “in custody disputes between a child’s biological parents and all others (including those who might be considered the ‘psychological parent’), the child’s best interest lies in being raised by a ‘fit’ biological parent” (Cath & Shopper, 2013, 300). Moreover, there is an inherent assumption that biological parents are naturally ‘fit’; hence, it does not have to be established in legal terms or in court. The task of proving the fitness of biological parents is hence carried out by those who challenge it. Therefore, besides a ‘best interests’ judgment, the judge should consider the fitness of those involved. Not like the primary caregiver inquiry, parental fitness, particularly when mental disorder could be involved, the task is usually transferred to those parents who should establish their fitness (Cath & Shopper, 2013). This dilemma is perfectly summed up by West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Starcher, “[i]n my opinion, this case shows that… the stigma of mental illness [is] still a weakness in our court system” (Gopfert, Webster, & Seeman, 2004, 263). This research paper discusses the parental fitness assumption and how it was exercised in several major cases involved child custody. Deciding Child Custody Parental fitness is at the heart of the child custody inquiry, and the notion of ‘fitness’ here is based on the traditional views of heterosexual marriage and self-sacrificing parents as society’s legal groundwork (Nolan & Wardle, 2006). Social workers usually decides about a parent’s fitness and use a specific framework for carrying out parental fitness assessments in cases involving custody, which involves criminal history, substance abuse history, educational history, family history, etc. The description of an ‘unfit’ parent varies by state. A parent could be judged unfit if s/he was not able to properly and adequately care for the child. A mentally ill or alcoholic parent may also be considered unfit (Nolan & Wardle, 2006). The court will usually grant exclusive custody to one parent when the other parent is judged to be unfit, or if both parents are found to be unfit the child will brought to foster care. Proofs of being an unfit parent could be a basis for removing the parental rights to other children although the parent did not maltreat or abandon those children (Casenotes, 2007). The decisive factor is always the child’s best interest. However, in custody cases, favor is granted to adoptive and biological parents. Courts take into consideration issue like the child’s special needs, the involvement of the parent in the child’s development, the parent’s capacity to financially support the child, and the nature of the relationship between the parent and the child (Weisberg, 2008). Trial courts are mandated to evaluate and make correct decisions based on these aspects. There are several major cases that involve parental fitness assumption. In Bailes v. Sours, the biological mother and the stepmother of the child, Michael Sean Sours, fought for custody. The court decided to grant custody to the stepmother on the basis of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, since the child prefers to be with her stepmother and the circumstances, particularly the death of the father, affirm the assumption that the child should stay with his stepmother (Casenotes, 2007). In Troxel v. Granville, the paternal grandparents legally requested rights to visit their granddaughters. The court granted the request, but the mother protested that the decision was unconstitutional (Casenotes, 2007). In Pierce v. Society of Sisters two private schools were granted a restraining order disallowing the implementation of the Oregon Act which obliged the guardians and parents from enrolling their children in public schools. The 14th Amendment protects the right of the guardian or parent to decide where to educate their children (Weisberg, 2008). In Connecticut, judges handling custody cases should ground their judgments in the child’s best interest. Even though a judge will evaluate every case separately, the legal system of Connecticut focuses on the assumption that children are better-off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and socially from both parents’ active presence and involvement (Nolan & Wardle, 2006). In Meyer v. Nebraska the accused was convicted for disobeying the Nebraska law that prohibited the foreign-language teaching to pupils that had not yet finished 8th grade. The 14th Amendment forbids states from formulating laws that limits liberty rights when the law is not sensibly associated with an acceptable state purpose (Cath & Shopper, 2013). And lastly, in the Virginia case of William III and William IV the child’s parents and paternal grandparents fight over visitation rights. The family of the child is whole, with both parents living together. There is no sign of neglect or maltreatment. The parents are deemed ‘fit’, and are able to meet their child’s social, educational, and financial needs. In 1994, the parents informed the grandparents that they were severing their connection or relationship with them (Weisberg, 2008). All of these cases demonstrate that the parental fitness assumption has been largely exercised in important custody cases. However, although the parental fitness assumption is undoubtedly important, it still has negative and positive effects on the family and life of children. One of the negative aspects of the parental fitness assumption is that the child of a non-biological parent who is awarded a share of parental obligations is at risk in several ways (Gopfert et al., 2004). For instance, the establishment of this legal association between the non-biological parent and the child does not settle government benefit concerns. When a non-biological parent is awarded parenting time and power, there could be no legal obligations to the child in question. There are courts that do not oblige the non-biological parent to provide child support (Weisberg, 2008). On the other hand, the positive aspect of the parental fitness assumption is apparent—it is based on the best interest of the child. Judges make sure that they base their decisions on this consideration. The biological parent, particularly the mother, is granted automatic custody based solely on the fact that mothers are selfless (Cath & Shopper, 2013). However, courts largely prefer the presence and involvement of both biological parents. In essence, parental fitness assumption promotes an intact family. Conclusions In child custody cases, the fitness of a parent is the main determining factor. Preference is given to the biological parents. The cases that were briefly discussed demonstrate how some states exercised the parent fitness assumption. There are numerous factors taken into account when determining the fitness of a parent, and judges make sure that they analyze these factors thoroughly and fairly. References Casenotes (2007). Family Law: Keyed to Courses Using Areen and Regan’s Family Law. New York: Aspen Publishers Online. Cath, S. & Shopper, M. (2013). Stepparenting: Creating and Recreating Families in America Today. New York: Routledge. Gopfert, M., Webster, J., Seeman, M. (2004). Parental Psychiatric Disorder: Distressed Parents and Their Families. UK: Cambridge University Press. Nolan, L. & Wardle, L. (2006). Fundamental Principles of Family Law. New York: Wm. S. Hein Publishing. Weisberg, D.K. (2008). Family Law. New York: Aspen Publishers Online. Read More