Thread: Discuss the aspects and questions judges should consider when deciding
which parent a child should live with.
Should a judge ask the child what he or she desires? Would it matter? Should
children automatically be given to their mothers? Discuss the difference between sole
custody and joint custody. What are the pros and cons of each court decision?
Reply Prompt: Review and respond to 2 of your peer’s responses and provide
arguments for agreeing or disagreeing with their views.
1. Diaz- When deciding which parent should get custody of a child, there are many
things a judge should consider. In the past, custody has typically been awarded to
the mother under the tender years doctrine or the primary caretaker rule, which
usually fell to the mother (Costanzo & Krauss, 2018). However, more recently, the
law has shifted away from a gender-based approach and now considers custody
more on a case-by-case basis of each child as automatically awarding custody to the
mother may not be in the best interest of the child (Baker et al, 2016). Baker et al.
(2016) explain that the courts now often base their decision on the best interest of the
child standard (BICS). This standard requires that the court consider all relevant
factors which include the wishes of the child as to their custodian (Baker et al, 2016).
In the research conducted by Baker et al. (2016) the child’s desires have been found
to be highly determinative in practice and “ranks second in terms of frequency of
representation” across the United States (p. 1014). In fact, in California, judges
consider the wishes of the child as the most important factor in deciding custody in
parental disputed cases (Baker et al, 2016). However, it is argued that children’s
preferences can be poor reflections of their best interests making it pertinent that the
judge also considers other factors (Baker et al., 2016).
Considering the above, the judge will either decide that sole custody is in the
best interest of the child or may award both parents joint custody based on the facts
of the case. Steinbach and Augustijn (2021) describe sole custody as the child or
children living primarily with one parent after the dissolution of the parental
relationship. Joint custody is described as an arrangement in which the child or
children live with each parent equally or at least one third of the time with each parent
after separation (Steinbach & Augustijn, 2021). Although joint custody is on the rise
because of its benefits, research suggests that its success is highly based on the
quality of the child's relationships with both parents and the flexibility or inflexibility of
the parenting arrangement (Steinbach & Augustijn, 2021). Realistically, parent
relationships with each other are not always ideal after divorce. Putting a child in a
joint custody relationship in this type of environment can result in the child being
exposed to the “bitter and chronic tension” of parental conflict (Steinbach & Augustijn,
2021, p. 249). On the other hand, sole custody can be beneficial in circumstances
where one parent is deemed unfit to provide a safe environment for the child or
where the mental and physical health of the parent can be of harm to the child
(Steinbach & Augustijn, 2021).
References:
Baker, A. J. L., Asayan, M., & LaCheen-Baker, A. (2016). Best interest of the child
and parental alienation: A survey of state statutes. Journal of Forensic Sciences,
61(4), 1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13100
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2018). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological
Science Applied to Law, 3rd ed. Worth Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 9781319060312.
Nielsen, L. (2018). Joint Versus sole physical custody: Children’s outcomes
independent of parent–child relationships, income, and conflict in 60 studies. Journal
of Divorce & Remarriage, 59(4), 247-
281, https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2018.1454204
Steinbach, A., & Augustijn, L. (2021). Children’s well-being in sole and joint physical
custody families. Journal of Family
Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000875
2. Smith- Stahl (2014) states that the judge’s aspect should refer to the Uniform
Marriage and Divorce Act of 1976 (UMDA) in making their decision. The UMDA
proposed five criteria to be used for determining custody: (1) the parents’ wishes; (2)
the child’s wishes; (3) the relationships between the child and their siblings, their
parents, other persons who significantly affect the child’s best interest; (4) the child’s
adjustment to home, school, and community; and (5) the physical and mental health
of everyone involved with the child. But these guidelines do not tell the judge how to
weigh and balance the different criteria in reaching a decision
Vortuba et al. (2014) state that although the “tender years doctrine” has been
abandoned, the courts still award custody to the mother in most cases. The “Tender
Years Doctrine” is a precursor of the “best interest of the children standard” (BICS)
and was the prevailing standard for deciding child custody. Under this doctrine,
children, especially female were to be placed with the mother unless there were
extenuating circumstances. This doctrine was articulated in the 1889 case of People
v. Hickey. Although the principle now appears outdated and sexist, it seemed
perfectly natural and self-evident when it was written.
Sole legal custody means that one parent is solely responsible for making all the
decisions about the child’s life. An example is a parent with sole legal custody makes
decisions such as schools, church, and medical treatment, if needed, will make
treatment decisions. The custodial parent, who the child lives with, can make
decisions without consulting the other parent. According to Stahl (2014), joint legal
custody is shared. The primary advantage is that it ensures both parents remain
closely involved in raising the child or children, which may be psychologically
beneficial to both the parents and the child.
In a series of well-conducted studies on mediation, Robert Emery and his colleagues
conducted a series of well-conducted studies on mediation and assigned divorced
couples to either mediation or litigation (Emery, Laumann-Billings, Waldron, Sbarra,
& Dillon, 2001). Researchers found mediation led to quicker custody agreements,
and both parties were more satisfied with the custody settlement. In addition,
comparing mediation to litigation led to more contact and a more positive relationship
between the parents. However, some research suggests mothers are more satisfied
than fathers with litigation rather than mediation. Consequently, mothers may believe
that they could have reached a “better” custody arrangement through litigation. Yet,
even though the outcomes between litigation and mediation are largely the same,
fathers are more satisfied in mediation because they feel like they had more of a
voice in the decision-making process.
Word Count: 436
References
Emery, R. E., Laumann-Billings, L., Waldron, M. C., Sbarra, D. A., & Dillon, P.
(2001). Child custody mediation and litigation: Custody, contact, and parenting 12
years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
69, 323–332. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.323
Stahl, P. M. (2014). Conducting child custody and parenting evaluations. In I. B.
Weiner & R. K. Otto (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (4th ed., pp. 137–169).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Vortuba, A., Braver, S. Ellman, I., & Fabricius, W. (2014). Moral intuitions about fault,
parenting, and child custody after divorce. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 20,
251–262.
1
Running head: FAITH-BASED PRISON PROGRAMS
Name of the student:
Professor:
Class:
Date:
2
FAITH-BASED PRISON PROGRAMS
Reply 1 Perez
Faith-based groups offer a wide variety of abetment, from emergency shelters to job training
and drug addiction treatment (Gideon & Sung, 2011).
Teens are biologically programmed to engage in risks, which leads them to take part in
unhealthy challenges such as drug and substance abuse and poor self-care such as unhealthy
eating habits. This is waiting challenge was formed so that it could promote emotional and
mental development for teens. Teen Challenge also brings out challenges for the teens, such
as academic engagements, to ensure that they are kept busy to prevent them from engaging in
risky behaviors. Teen Challenge is a faith-based prevention and therapy program established
in 1958 by David Wilkerson (Solomon et al., 2004).
I agree that there are currently no laws that protect ex-convicts from the stigma associated
with incarceration. So there might be a few disadvantages that are related to fit-best groups. It
is safe to say that focusing on the side problems will ignore the important work that the
organization does. The Bible stresses the importance of helping others and an example is
Matthew 22:40 “love your neighbor as you love yourself” (The Holy Bible)
References
Gideon, L., & Sung, H. (2011). Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation, re-entry, and
reintegration. SAGE.
Solomon, A. L., Waul, M., Van Ness, A., & Travis, J. (2004). Outside the walls: A National
Snapshot of community-based prison re-entry programs. Urban Institute | Social and
Economic Policy Research.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/57856/410911-Outside-the-Walls.PDF
American Bible Society. The Holy Bible.
3
FAITH-BASED PRISON PROGRAMS
Reply 2 Tillet
I agree that it is important for the faith-based groups to have information on the offender's
beliefs so that they can be able to go through them and come up with the various programs to
include the offenders (camp et al., 2006). The organizations engage different people by
providing abetment to all people who require help regardless of faith. Faith-based programs
have proven to affect offenders' rehabilitation positively and have also helped reduce
recidivism greatly (Dodson et al., 2011). The faith-based programs prepare the offenders
before being released and ensure that once offenders are released, comedy has a place that
they can go to connect with other individuals and give them a sense of belonging. We should
help the offenders since the Bible clearly states, according to Matthew 25:36, “Those who
help those in prison will go to heaven” (The Holy Bible). This is in line with the fact that
human life is worth and should be kept to the end.
References
Camp, S. D., Klein-Saffran, J., Kwon, O., Daggett, D. M., & Joseph, V. (2006). An
exploration into participation in a faith-based prison program. Criminology & Public Policy,
5(3), 529-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00387.x
Dodson, K. D., Cabage, L. N., & Klenowski, P. M. (2011). An evidence-based assessment of
faith-based programs: Do faith-based programs “work” to reduce recidivism? Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 50(6), 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.582932
American Bible Society. The Holy Bible.
