"Although judges themselves decide custody is only a minority of custody...., the decisions they make affect a much larger proportion of the "agreements" made out of court. Contested cases define legal norms; the repercussions of contested cases of child custody go well beyond disagreement, including the balance of uncontested cases: they collectively form the basis of a body of law upon which others are advised." ( Uniform Representation of[...]) Judges hold a greater amount of power over their cases and the final decisions within those cases. But sometimes those decisions can be influenced wrongly by previous evidence and testimonies. Even the laws will affect the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, without implementing child custody laws that benefit the children in non-abuse, neglect cases, also riding the court's systems of gender bias and false proceeding, more children will continue to suffer the consequences of the court systems declarations.
Child custody is an important part of the divorce system and this is exactly why it should be detailed and uninformed with no bias and corruption. Within the child custody court cases, there tend to be greater amounts of gender bias, which invertainly causes the judges' verdict to be altered. For instance, "...in almost 80% of the cases, the parents agreed on which of them should receive physical custody. When custody was not contested, it was awarded in the way both parties initially requested in about 80% of the cases. When it was contested, the decision favored the mother about twice as often as the father" (Who gets custody?). In other words, mothers are more likely to receive sole custody over the father in contested cases. Additionally, it also suggests the judges are biased, in favor of females because generally, they're responsible for the care of the children within a household rather than men who are always working to support the family with a stable income. Similarly, fathers were only granted sole custody if the mother did not want or couldn't cope with the child in their custody" (Child Custody Determination{...})." In other words, fathers are more likely to receive custody when only the mother doesn't want the child or can't take proper care of the child. In addition, judges typically give custody to the mother unless they cannot cope with the child or want the child, which in-turn reveals the gender bias that plagues the court system.
But gender bias isn't the only detrimental activity within the court system, but also the variables, which determine the outcome of the case. For example, "In addition to being more prevalent when the couple has high income, shared custody has a relatively high probability if the mother was previously married and has previous children, when there are two boys both over the age 10 (13%), and when the father is the only party with a lawyer and brought the divorce action (13%). Father sole custody is relatively more likely when the father is the only party with a lawyer and brought the divorce action (33%) when the mother was previously married and has previous children (14%), and when there are two boys, both over age 10 (16%)"(Who gets custody?). In short, the verdict of the cases also depends on the parent's income, previous marriage, as well as, children from said previous marriage along with their age. As a result, mothers are more likely to receive sole custody of the children if she has little to no income and if the children ages are relatively young, still not in their teenage years, and are mainly female, whereas; fathers are more likely to receive custody if the children are in their teenage years and are males. In addition, These type of law systems for families is majorly affected by religious and cultural factors. (Family Laws and [...]) To put it differently, religion and cultural differences influence the court systems laws and hearings especially the deciding factors for the verdict. As has been said, in child custody court systems there tends to be gender bias and other variables that make up the verdict which in turn corrupts the final decision.
When it comes to the structure of the court proceedings for child custody and child representatives is lacking, which in turn creates different state laws following the court procedures. Within the court systems for child custody, there's no set of functioning laws for children with the court to function as parties in a detailed manner. During an abuse neglect case, children are viewed as their own party and have the right to participate through their representatives in all of the stages of the proceedings. In other states, children are viewed as a nonparty, where their rights to participate are strictly limited. Within custody disputes normally children aren't viewed as their own party but have certain rights of a third party"(Uniform Representation of [...]). In simpler terms, children in abuse and neglect cases are acknowledged as a third party; whereas, in non-abuse and neglect cases, children are not viewed as a third party but have some rights as if they were a third party. Children in non-abuse and neglect cases don't have much of a voice in the proceeding even though they are the ones being put into the care of one of their parents; they should be counted as a vital party to the hearing. Even, the best interest attorney is not allowed to rely on personal validation and should also uphold legal standards, such as statutes. They must develop a position that considers the child's conditions but are not bound by any conveyed objectives but neither should they disregard the child's preference. After considering the child's situation and "development level," the best interest attorney should determine "what to advocate" (Uniform Representation of [...] ) ". Furthermore, the best interests attorney voices the children's ideas but is not bound to the children expressed objectives. Even so, children need a voice in the matter rather than having no say within the stages of the proceedings, which can seriously harm the child's lifestyle, later on, it's a crucial time of development in their life.
When it comes down to the set of procedures for child representatives it is awfully vague; it doesn't give any detailed information to carry out investigation nor enough information to properly represent the children. In fact, many states require the aspect of the representatives to report, to the court, the children wish although in some states it's not imposed. On the other hand, some states require the lawyer or the guardian ad litem to function as a witness rather than a representative, which, in turn, raises some ethical issues.
" (Uniform Representation of [...] )". As stated, many states have representatives that report the children's wishes to the court; whereas, other states require the lawyer to function as a witness. Furthermore, it only serves to show the disarray of the supposed functioning purpose of the children representatives. In addition, even though child representation has severely gained attention, it has not produced an agreement about the purpose or procedures for child representatives. In fact, the procedural rules for children representatives "dramatically vary state to state" (Uniform Representation of [...] ) ". In short, the procedures for child representatives significantly vary state to state. Since there are no set procedures for child representatives to follow, it creates room for different interpretation by the states, in turn, creates more procedures for those specific states sparking more disarray. Therefore, without the set procedures for representatives to follow, the courts for child custody will end up being more destructive than beneficial.
Admittedly, child participation may compromise adult authority and parental control allowing the child to decide for themselves, which in turn, can harm the best possible outcome for the child. For instance, "Some opponents also doubt that the treaty, especially Article 12, would truly benefit children...the emphasis on children as autonomous beings, for example, may compromise the pursuit of the best interests of a child; weaken the authority of adults better suited to care for a child's welfare, and therefore ultimately harm the child" (Uniform Representation of [...])". In short, if the children are given more rights to participation, it will be more detrimental than beneficial to themselves. Additionally, if the treaty is enacted, parental rights, as argued, would be harmed considerably; it would also affect family privacy. However, under the Supreme Court, parents have a right to control the upbringing of their child. In fact, they normally fail to even acknowledge the child's point of view or even not acknowledging their participation within the court. For example, "while this right is not unlimited, the extent to which the government may step in to intervene in the parental-child relationships is heavily restricted. Further demonstrating the extent to which parental right act as an obstacle to Article 12. Such cases generally fail to acknowledges the child's own views or input in the process, and in fact, courts tend to ignore a child's rights or find that parental rights supersede them when conflict arises[...]" (Uniform Representation of [...])". In simpler terms, parents already have parental control. Article 12 tries to give children the right of a voice and participation. Since the court is relocating the child to stay with another parent for a prolonged period of time, a child should at least have a voice within the proceedings. To summarize, with Article 12, it's said to may be more destructive than beneficial for the children if they have any more right to participation, but it's argued that children should have more of a voice, especially in non-abuse and neglect cases where they're typically disregarded.
Not only is the procedure for representatives vague but also the procedures for the child custody courts themselves are vague too. Specifically, child participation lacks detail. It is never clarified whether children should have more rights to participation within the hearings, but it's believed in some uniform acts court systems should emphasize child participation. For example, under the UNLV lawyers should "empower" children by guiding them to develop a decision" (Uniform Representation of [...])". In other words, in some uniform acts, the children best interests are strongly emphasized; lawyers should empower children by guiding them to a decision, in which allows the best interest attorney to consider the best outcome for the child taking in the child's circumstances. If the child had no voice within the hearing that the attorney could have advocated anything for the child even though the attorney wasn't stating the child's preferences. In addition, "The Rights of the Child" by the United Nations convention recognizes the participation right for children, either by a representative or directly themselves"( Uniform Representation of [...])". In short, children have the right to participate within the trial through themselves or by a representative.
Federal laws tend to be very unclear and vague never giving enough detail allowing for variations of laws for every state. In addition, this causes disarray within proceedings. State laws continue to be "extremely varied, unclear and lacking uniformity within and among jurisdictions For a lawyer who is acting as a representative or any child representative at that, the procedures are confusing and very vague" ( Uniform Representation of [...])". Furthermore, laws continue to be unclear; it also contains vague information regarding the roles of children representatives. Additionally, states already have different laws for child representatives, and it will only worsen if federal laws continue to be vague and unclear. However, since the laws are vague and speak in principles, it allows variation in the enactment, even encourages implementation rather than strict enforcement. This in turn allows it to "focus on education, facilitation, and cooperation"(Uniform Representation of [...] )". In addition, given the voluntary implementation rather than enforcement, it allows it to focus on education and cooperation of the parties. Specifically, instead of putting the parents against each other it allows education cooperation between the two allowing for more possibility of joint custody rather than sole custody. To sum up, vagueness allows for variation and implementation for every state, which can allow for cooperation but also cause confusion with proceedings.
Without implementing beneficial laws pertaining to child custody court systems for children, and without riding the courts of corruption and gender bias, children will continue to suffer because of our negligence and the judge's altered verdict. In addition, uniformity will bring a concise and detailed set of laws for the courts to follow, which allows for a precise truthful proceeding to come to a non-altered ruling. Similarly, representatives procedures need a more detailed set of laws to go about representation, as well as, voicing the child's situation and point of view. Each representative of the child (best interest attorney, lawyer, guardian litem..etc) needs to have a set of procedures and how to properly go about their own job to represent a child. Otherwise, states will create variation in each others roles, blurring their respected jobs into one. Equally, child participation allows for the jury and judge to receive all objectives and standings so the best possible outcome for the child can be reached and enacted. Overall, children and parents alike will benefit from improved laws adding uniformity.