Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Defining 'Best Interest'

By Stephen A. Newman
August 27, 2003

The 'best interest of the child' standard reverberates through countless judicial opinions involving children. Despite steady criticism of its indeterminacy and vagueness, it persists and even expands its legal domain.

The test serves a necessary function in the common divorce case, in which two parents have equal status in their claims to child custody. Courts have to have some standard, and doing what's best for the child seems reasonable. Of course, the words lack all content, and courts have developed more specific criteria to infuse the standard with meaning and a modest degree of predictability. Thus, courts favor the parent who is the primary caretaker and nurturer, who provides stability, sympathy and affection, and who is likely to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent. Courts assume, with strong support from the psychological literature, that a child needs contact with both parents. The custody choice is sometimes clear, sometimes too close to call with any confidence. However close, the divorce necessitates a choice, and the courts routinely provide liberal visitation for the parent not chosen for custody.

When the best-interest test branches out to other contexts, it can cause trouble. Legislators who resort to it, for example, to tell courts to award a grandparent visitation in 'the best interests of the child' pass along substantial problems of interpretation ' and of basic intelligibility ' to the family court bench. N.Y. Dom. Rel. L. '72.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.