He said/she said. We hear this phrase a lot in child custody cases. It captures the idea that disputing former partners give conflicting accounts of reality. (For same-sex couples: he said/he said, or she said/she said.)
Those charged with finding the facts do not assume one person’s account is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Hence the phrase, “he said/she said.” No one quarrels with this truism.
But when it comes to “the child’s voice” in a custody dispute, some lean toward a different position. They believe children’s reports about their parents’ behavior are for the most part reliable and should strongly influence custody decisions.
I’ve written about how it can harm children to place too much emphasis on their stated preferences during a custody dispute. It sets them up to be manipulated by parents who care more about winning their case than protecting their children’s relationship with the other parent.
Not only can it burden children to expect them to act as their parent’s adversary. What children say they want is not always what they truly want, and, at any rate, can be a poor guide to their best interests.
It should be obvious we cannot rely unquestioningly on children’s reports. This was brought home by Carolyn Hax, the syndicated advice columnist. On a school vacation, her sons enjoyed a fun-packed week of enriching activities: Imax theater, museum, trampoline park. To wind things down the day before returning to school, the family stayed indoors and watched movies.
Guess what the columnist’s son wrote for his assignment about how he spent his vacation. “We watched TV.” Hax concluded, “Kids, like the adults they’re watching so closely, sometimes tell the truth, and sometimes tell only part of it to create a certain effect.” Common sense.
Imagine the impact if the child’s report about watching TV for an entire vacation was delivered, not to a teacher, but to a judge hearing evidence on a parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs. In a custody case where children testify in open court, or speak with the judge in chambers, let’s hope the judge understands the limits of children’s reports.
P. S. The fact that children’s reports cannot be taken in full at face value does not mean what they say has no value. Some readers may, deliberately or not, misrepresent my position as encouraging authorities to discount children’s true reports of abuse. Far from it. In addition to concerns about the drawbacks of involving children directly in custody trials I have written extensively about how children can contribute valuable information in custody disputes.
For a more in-depth treatment of the Payoffs and Pitfalls of Listening to Children, read my paper by that title. Or watch a speech I gave on the Benefits and Hazards of Involving Children in Custody Decisions, on DVD, or video download.