Substantive Parenting Arrangements : The Tragedy of the Snipe Hunt

The snipe is a shore or marsh bird that is difficult for even trained hunters to catch. Inexperienced hunters (or campers) are teased with the impossible (or imaginary, in the case of campers) task of going on a snipe hunt. The snipe hunt has therefore become a metaphor for an impossible task, usually undertaken by the unwary and unequipped in the fog or dark. Developing the “best” child custody standards has become rather like a snipe hunt, for policy makers use (or misuse) studies that are often not up to the task in order to serve adult interests that are necessarily at odds. When things are not resolved, they resort to other strategies (such as unfounded accusations of domestic violence or of the “parental alienation syndrome”) that are the legal equivalents of banging rocks together, completely ineffective except for hurting the child. In the United States, children’s voices are mediated primarily through their parents. Most of the time this is the best solution, but in cases of conflict between the parents, or any time when parents’ and children’s interests conflict, a variety of processes ostensibly safeguard the child. While over the last thirty years there has been a focus on various sorts of ADR, a critical question in determining “best interests” involves the standard that should focus the decisionmakers’ attention. In particular, should individual decisionmaking protect the most vulnerable parents and their children, who may well have their cases decided by a judge, or should rules be more determinate to facilitate non-conflicted resolution of the vast majority of cases? What is the appropriate role of social science research in making this substantive choice or reaching the best conclusion from the child’s perspective?