Sole Custody Research Articles

Who gets custody now? Dramatic changes in children's living arrangements after divorce.

This article reexamines the living arrangements of children following their parents' divorce, using Wisconsin Court Records, updating an analysis that showed relatively small but significant increases in shared custody in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These changes have accelerated markedly in the intervening years: between 1988 and 2008, the proportion of mothers granted sole physical custody fell substantially, the proportion of parents sharing custody increased dramatically, and father-sole custody remained relatively stable. We explore changes in the correlates of alternative custody outcomes, showing that some results from the earlier analysis still hold (for example, cases with higher total family income are more likely to have shared custody), but other differences have lessened (shared-custody cases have become less distinctive as they have become more common). Despite the considerable changes in marriage and divorce patterns over this period, we do not find strong evidence that the changes in custody are related to changes in the characteristics of families experiencing a divorce; rather, changes in custody may be the result of changes in social norms and the process by which custody is determined.

Unpacking Court Divorce Decrees, Children’s Outcomes, and Three Unconfounded Determinants: An Evidence-Based Look

This article examines evidence on 3 determinants of the outcomes of children of divorce that are shaped but neither confound or are confounded by court decrees for custody and parenting time: father contact or involvement, high interparental conflict, and domestic violence. This evidence is brought to bear in an analysis that contrasts predictions based on the rationales for sole maternal versus joint custody and explores implications for judicial decision making. It is found that the best-interests-of-the-child standard better serves children in contested cases when this evidence is taken into account. A call is made for rebuttable presumptions for joint custody and commensurate parenting time except when parent-perpetrated violence or other patterns of abusive behavior are substantiated. Steps for judicial reform are proposed.

From the Rule of One to Shared Parenting: Custody Presumptions in Law and Policy

Child custody presumptions have formed part of Anglo‐American law for centuries. Both the paternal preference rule at common law and the tender years doctrine that supplanted it in the nineteenth century signaled the law's conviction that custody was indivisible: after a marital breakup, children could be entrusted to only one parent, with the other an infrequent visitor. This “rule of one” began to weaken in the last third of the twentieth century, as the movement toward gender equality called attention to the importance of both parents in the care and nurturance of children and loosened the link between gender and parenting role. Left without a presumption to direct their custody deliberations, courts turned—often by legislative fiat—to the more inclusive but less definitive best interests standard. Although sole custody decrees were still the norm, some courts began to see in joint custody an opportunity for a child to continue a strong and meaningful relationship with both parents. Courts, legislatures, and commentators are changing the vocabulary of child custody to reflect the evolving reality of twenty‐first century family life. Parental responsibilities after separation or divorce are increasingly referred to as “decision‐making” instead of “legal custody” and as “parenting time” in lieu of “physical custody.” Calls for a 50/50 joint parenting time/physical custody presumption have sparked controversy. In some states, legislation already aims to ensure frequent and continuing parent–child contact with no specific temporal sharing formula. But putting any of these presumptions into effect in light of the statutory “best interests” concerns make the court's task—absent parental agreement—extremely complex. The interplay of domestic violence and “friendly parent” provisions with joint custody presumptions pose another array of complicating factors. Context is critical in assessing these statutory choices, on which no consensus currently exists. The task now is to avoid using the hard edge of legal presumptions to undermine the lived experience of children, while at the same time circumventing the perils of unpredictable case‐by‐case determinations unguided by presumptions or preferences. The most promising efforts chart a third course: nudging separating and divorcing parents into a framework that encourages them to implement shared parenting. Shifting the parental focus from litigating custody to jointly crafting a parenting plan also may serve to alleviate the worst aspects of the trauma children often experience when their parents break up. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Until recently, child custody presumptions adhered to a “rule of one”: courts generally insisted that only one parent could properly be awarded child custody. Child custody law is moving toward a norm of shared parenting, with frequent and continuing contact provided for each parent. Legal terminology is also shifting to encourage collaborative parenting. “Decision‐making” is replacing “legal custody,” and “physical custody” is giving way to “parenting time.” A legal presumption of joint custody may mean no more than a generalized shared parenting arrangement, but applying the emerging statutes and case law to award joint custody can involve a quite complex determination process. Shifting the parental focus from litigating custody to implementing a shared parenting plan may avoid the pitfalls of litigating under the “best interests” standard either with or without a legal presumption.

Category work in courtroom talk about domestic violence: Gender as an interactional accomplishment in child custody disputes

This article examines how domestic violence and its effects on post-separation family life are dealt with within child custody disputes. Drawing on membership categorization analysis, audio-recorded courtroom testimonies from abused mothers seeking sole custody have been analysed. It was found that gendered categories like ‘male perpetrator’ and ‘female victim’ were central components in the mothers’ accounts of their legal claims, serving to support their claims of fearing the fathers of their children. However, the analyses also reveal that the opposing party attempted to contest and undermine such accounts during cross-examinations by substituting the very same categorizations. Such re-categorizations, for example from ‘female victim’ to ‘mad woman’, take the responsibility for the mother’s alleged fear away from the father. In exploring the relevance of gendered categories in mothers’ accounts, the article provides empirical examples of the subtle and complex ways through which gender discourses are manifested in child custody disputes in order to support or contest legal claims.

Family Life, Parental Separation, and Child Custody in Canada: a Focus on Quebec

The United States and Canada have been experiencing major changes in family formation and dissolution over the past decades. Within this context, the French-Canadian Province of Quebec has consistently been at the forefront—in 2011, for example, 37.8 per cent of Quebec couples were cohabitants and 63 per cent of births were from nonmarried parents. Is this difference strictly due to Quebec's distinct social and cultural characteristics or can the Quebec experience be seen as a predictor of things to come for the rest of Canada and the United States? This article discusses the causes of these new behaviors in Quebec, presents changes in the Canadian legal system to facilitate less adversarial procedures, and reports the results of a Quebec longitudinal study exploring the relationship between child adjustment and custody arrangements. The quality of the psychological and relational environment in which the child lives is shown to be more important than the type of family structure and custody arrangement. Keypoints for the Family Court Community Family structure changes in Quebec and Canada Divorce less adversarial dispute resolution options Contribution of child custody arrangement to postseparation child well-being Moderating factors of child well-being in separated divorced families Emotional well-being, parenting practices, and household income of mothers with joint versus sole custody

Custodia compartida: atribución vivienda familiar = Shared custody: the acquisition the family living

Abstrac: When there is a marital or partnership conflict and children are involved, the main problem is to resolve the children’s custody followed by the settlement of financial matter. Our Judical Ordinance allows that opposing parties reach an agreement openly always looking for the minor’s best interest. The later which is the most important issue beyond anything else.The acquisition of child custody usually bestowed by the mother, produces an automatic orbitration utilized for the family living. However, our society is quickly changing as is the family structure. Before sole custody is declared according to our. Ordenance, the 2005 Civil Code introduced shared custody. This essay wants to be a sample of the present lack of regulation in our legislation to regulate one of the main economic effects that causes joint custody as for example the conferral of the use of the family home, and the need for regulation especially in a context of economic crisis like the current one, in which joint custody and family living between parents force the extinct family unit to mantain excessive expenditures which are required for a parent during the period they do not have custody as the need of a house. In addition to other members of the family who reside with the minor, a common family living quarter, also which the problem of space to resolve internal family problems which can jeabordize the family’s good relationship.

Eugene O'Neill's Exorcism

Eugene O'Neill's <i>Exorcism</i>

A Meta-analysis of Parental Satisfaction, Adjustment, and Conflict in Joint Custody and Sole Custody Following Divorce

The literature on parental satisfaction, adjustment, and relitigation in joint custody (JC) versus sole custody (SC) following divorce is reviewed. Findings are summarized for custody differences in parental demographics; time spent with father; the father–child relationship; parental satisfaction with custody; parental adjustment, including self-esteem and parenting stress or burden; conflict between ex-spouses; and relitigation. JC was associated with equivalent or better outcomes than SC in the father–child relationship, parenting stress, parental conflict and relitigation, and overall adjustment. Satisfaction with custody is greatest for both mothers and fathers when they have SC, less in JC, and least for noncustodial parents. Future researchers need larger, more representative samples followed over time.

Untraditional caring arrangements among parents living apart

Abstract BACKGROUND In spite of quite symmetric parental roles in Norway, shared residence and father sole custody are still rare when parents split up. Several countries have witnessed an increase in shared residence for children recently, and this is also the case in Norway. OBJECTIVE We wish to add to the literature on untraditional caring arrangements among parents living apart by examining the determinants of shared residence and sole father custody in Norway, a country with high gender-equality ambitions. METHODS Based on a survey from 2004 with a unique sample of former couples, we ran multinomial logistic regressions estimating the odds of shared residence rather than mother sole custody, and the odds of father sole custody rather than mother sole custody. RESULTS Shared residence is particularly likely when the father has a reasonable income, the mother is highly educated, the mother is currently married, and the parents have no other children in their households. Father sole custody is most likely when the mother's income is low and the father's high, the child is a boy and at least ten years old, the father is single and there are other children in the mother's household. CONCLUSIONS Despite more equal parental roles in couples in recent decades, most children still live mainly with their mother when parents split up in Norway. However, visiting arrangements with fathers are extensive. More parents will probably opt for shared residence in the years to come. 1. Introduction More active fathering is high on the political agenda in many Western countries, and encouraging contact between fathers and children is an important priority. Attention has mainly been given to married and cohabiting fathers, but with rising divorce rates in recent decades there is also considerable focus on the child-care practices and economic contributions of non-resident fathers (for instance, Seltzer and Bianchi 1988; Stephens 1996; Manning and Smock 1999; Manning, Steward and Smock 2003; Cashmore, Parkinson, and Taylor 2008; Amato, Meyers and Emery 2009). While most children still remain in the physical custody of their mothers when parents break up, several countries have recently witnessed a slight increase in shared residence for children (Smyth and Moloney 2008; Lundstrom 2009; Fehlberg et al. 2011), which is often linked to more equal parenting roles when parents live together (Smyth, Qu and Weston 2004). There is now a growing literature on the determinants and dynamics of shared residence and also on father sole custody (for instance, Cancian and Meyer 1998; Juby, Le Bourdais and Marcil-Gratton 2005). The aim of the present paper is to add to this literature by discussing the characteristics of parents who choose shared residence or father sole custody in Norway, a country known for its high female labour force participation and extensive policies for symmetric parental roles, as well as its high proportion of children born into consensual unions. In spite of more committed fathering in couples (Vaage 2012) and increased paternal involvement with children after parental split-up in recent decades (Sae tre 2004), shared residence is still quite rare in Norway, and the same is true for father sole custody. Shared residence is defined more narrowly in Norway than in many other countries in that it presumes approximately equal division of time with children between the parents and also gives the parents an equal say over the children's daily life. However, shared residence has increased slightly in recent years (Sae tre 2004), and more gender-equal roles in couples may give rise to a further increase in the years to come. In public debate, as well as among politicians, it has even been suggested that shared residence for children should become the norm when parents live apart in order to secure gender equality and fairness between the partners (Haugen 2010; St. …

Divorcio, custodia y bienestar del menor: una revisión de las investigaciones en Psicología

Child custody evaluation in the context of parental divorce constitutes the main area of intervention within Legal Psychology. The numerous factors that contribute to the child well-being –which is Justice’s main reference in those cases– should be individually analyzed, but such an analysis must be solidly based on previous empirical research literature. This work reviews the available empirical data on the differential effects between shared and sole custody. A majority of researchers found that, other factors being equal, shared custody provides more benefits for the child well-being than sole custody, with a direct effect on the child behavior and emotions and also with an indirect effect through the reduction of parental conflict. Notwithstanding, a number of studies have not found any difference between both types of custody. CITE AS:Tejeiro Salguero, R. &amp; Gómez Vallecillo, J. (2011). Divorcio, custodia y bienestar del menor: una revisión de las investigaciones en Psicología. Apuntes de Psicología, 29, 425-434.

Do Joint Parenting Laws Make Any Difference?

Using a unique data set on divorcing couples, we analyze the effects of a change in legal entitlement on the outcomes for divorcing couples. In particular, we analyze the 1997 change to custody provisions in the State of Oregon. Prior to 1997, Oregon assigned custody, based on the discretion of the court, in the best interests of the child. This was changed to a “presumption” of joint parenting, which manifests in the courts encouraging and imposing joint (or shared) custody in cases that otherwise would have had sole custody arrangements. We find that the law had several implications for divorce behavior: different custody outcomes (less sole custody to mothers, more sole custody to fathers), more mediation, longer times until the final divorce, and more acrimonious divorces (more abuse actions filed). We find no evidence that spouses attempted to bargain around the change of legal entitlement.

A Dominating Imaginary Friend, Cruelty to Animals, Social Withdrawal, and Growth Deficiency in a 7-Year-Old Girl With Parents With Schizophrenia

Tessa is a 7-year-old girl with odd behaviors, worsening over the preceding year. She spends a significant amount of time alone in her room, talking to "Richard." Her father observed that Tessa is "in her own world." In school, she often glares at the teacher and refuses to work. She is alone at recess without any real friends. Her father reports that she eats little and only after he tastes the food. She is increasingly cruel to both real and toy animals. She tied a string around her cat's neck and swung it around, saying she wanted to punish it. She was heard to say to her stuffed cat, "Die, b ... .; die." Richard told her to do this and other "bad" things. Tessa has not had chronic health problems or developmental concerns. During the first 18 months of life, her height was between the 5th and 10th percentiles; it declined to below the 3rd percentile over the past 2 years. Weight has been consistently between the 3rd and 5th percentiles. Tessa's parents both have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. There are at least 7 first- and second-degree relatives with the same diagnosis. Both parents cared for Tessa for 4 years with a lot of support. Then, her father left the home, but he was in contact with her while managing his own illness. When the mother's illness and compliance worsened, Tessa was removed for neglect at 5 (1/2) years old. Two foster homes preceded Dad's award of sole custody 13 months ago. Mother's weekly visitations are quite upsetting to Tessa. Tessa is a verbal, solemn, small, well-dressed girl with no physical abnormalities. She talks with advanced vocabulary and syntax, with normal prosody and good conversational skills. She says Richard is a bad boy who gets her into trouble at school. She equivocates when asked if he is real or imagined or if others can see him. She says that she misses her mother.

Between a rock and a hard place: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

Individuals are frequently forced to make decisions from among undesirable choice-sets. Raise taxes or cut social services? Lay off workers or go bankrupt? Go deep in debt or forgo a college education? The research presented here suggests that in such situations, decision-makers are often evaluated negatively regardless of the choice they make. In Experiment 1, participants read about a judge deciding which of two seemingly unfit parents to award sole custody in a real-life divorce case. In Experiment 2, participants were led to believe that their partner in the experiment was forced to pick one of two unpleasant tasks for the participant to perform. In both cases, the decision and decision-maker were evaluated negatively regardless of the alternative chosen–and regardless of the fact that they were the only options in the choice-set. Discussion focuses on the source, scope, and consequences of this phenomenon.

Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family ‐ Edited by Rosanna Hertz

Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family. Rosanna Hertz. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2006. 264 pp. ISBN 0-19-517990-0. $26.00.1 The shape of the American family is changing and, in her excellent book Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family, Rosanna Hertz explores one of the new structures emerging in the evolution of the families. To study the dynamic of single women choosing to embark on motherhood alone, Hertz conducted in-depth interviews of 65 single mothers. These are not the single mothers sometimes portrayed in the media as welfare recipients or unprepared teenagers; as Hertz describes her sample, they are generally middle-class women who grew up expecting they would be able to balance marriage, motherhood, and a career. Yet, as Hertz explains, Something conspired to disrupt the trajectory of love to marriage to (p. 3). In analyzing the histories of these women, Hertz identifies four distinct pathways to motherhood: women who bought anonymous sperm from fertility banks; women who used known sperm donors; women who adopted children from all over the world; and women who by using inconsistent contraception. In each case, the women were faced with hard choices, and most postponed the decision to have a child alone at least once. Hertz describes the phase before single motherhood as a liminal state, a time in which these unmarried women imagined their lives as single mothers, visualizing the process before taking action. Hertz introduces us to a world of families where men are essentially optional. Those women who chanced pregnancy and those who chose known donors often absolved the fathers of all responsibilities as breadwinners and authority figures. In such cases, many women negotiated fiercely for contractual protection giving them sole custody and responsibility for their children. If the fathers or donors wished to be involved with their children, their success as good dads was understood as maintaining some social involvement with their child but making no other claims. Women who used anonymous sperm donors or adopted children faced a different set of challenges. Because the identity of the biological parents or donors is often protected, the single mothers do not have to worry that anyone will show up to demand their parental rights, but they do have to find a way to create some image or identity for the children to associate with their fathers and, by extension, themselves. …

A Dominating Imaginary Friend, Cruelty to Animals, Social Withdrawal, and Growth Deficiency in a 7-year-old Girl with Parents with Schizophrenia

Shapiro, Henry L. M.D.1; Prince, Jefferson B. M.D.2; Ireland, Rachel M.D.3; Stein, Martin T. M.D.4 Author Information

The Consequences of Child Support Policy for Family Financial Well-Being

The study examined the impact of child support policy on the financial well-being of one family experiencing divorce in Minnesota. Data were collected from a court record of a 1999 marital dissolution with joint legal and physical custody and a child support order that deviated from state guidelines. The analysis compared the needs-adjusted income the parties had while in the marriage with the needs-adjusted incomes provided by the actual child support order, and with hypothetical amounts consistent with the child support guidelines, and with the situation of sole physical custody. Financial well-being was measured using three types of ratios estimating income in relation to financial needs. Incomes were divided by (a) Federal Poverty Income Guidelines for 1999; (b) Economic Policy Institute's basic budget for Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota for 1999; and (c) USDA Parental Expenditures on Children for 1999. Results indicated that regardless of the needs standard used, the best financial outcomes were for the father's household. The deviations from the child support guidelines did not seem justified based on the financial calculations, and were not in the best interests of the children. Implications for educators were discussed.

Indentured Labour and Khoikhoi ‘Equality’ before the Law in Cape Colonial Society, South Africa: The Case of Jan Paerl, c. 1796

In July 1796, Johannes Albertyn, a well-respected burgher of Stellenbosch, requested permission from Ryno van der Riet, landdrost of Stellenbosch, the chief administrative and legal officer of the district, to indenture four Khoikhoi children. He claimed that their mother, Catryn Paerl, had died recently and that before her demise, she had requested him in the presence of witnesses to raise her children and deny their biological father Jan Paerl any future role in their lives. Faced with the prospect of losing custody of his four children and having exhausted all possible avenues in seeking legal redress, including a visit to landdrost Van der Riet, the seemingly incomparable Jan Paerl hit the road and walked several kilometres from Stellenbosch to Cape Town. His destination: the Castle, in particular the office of the fiscal, otherwise known as the public prosecutor. In Cape Town, he urged the fiscal to intervene in the dispute and deny Albertyn the right to indenture his children. As their father, Paerl insisted that he, and not Albertyn, be granted sole custody of his offspring. By Paerl's demanding legal intervention at the highest level, the following encounter between Paerl, Albertyn and the Cape authorities exemplifies not only a classic struggle between master and servant, but highlights simultaneously the significance of ‘equality’ before the law in Cape society, at a time when burghers increasingly feared the possibility of gelykstelling at the end of the eighteenth century.

Bargaining in the Shadow of Joint Parenting

This paper uses a unique data set on divorcing couples to analyze the effects of a change in legal entitlement within the family. In particular, we analyze the 1997 change to custody provisions in the state of Oregon. Previous to 1997, Oregon assigned custody based on the discretion of the court, in the best interests of the child. This was changed to a presumption of joint parenting, which manifests in the courts encouraging and imposing joint (or shared) custody in cases that otherwise would have had sole custody arrangements. By presumption is meant the court's starting point, and that arguments must be made to alter the court's position. We chose the state of Oregon for reasons of data availability and because there was an actual change in law. However, joint parenting laws are not restricted to one state. In fact, Iowa and Maine have also changed their law and there is legislative activity regarding joint parenting in most states. More than forty states (and the District of Columbia) have class action suits over equal treatment in custody awards. Our emphasis in this paper is empirical, and we show quite clearly that changes to the legal presumption of custody were not neutral. The move to legal joint parenting led to changes in the allocation of children, not changes in side payments. We also show that the simple change in threat point led to many different responses in behavior. Our results are consistent with the general bargaining literature in terms of who benefits from a change in bargaining position, but the results show how complicated the manifestation can be. Thus, we empirically explore how this legal change led to changes in filing behavior, timing of divorce, custody arrangements, acrimony, accusations of wrongdoing, post-divorce court motions, and dollar transfers.

Custody's Last Stand?

IN 1998, when their two children were 3 and 4 years old, the Crowleys obtained a divorce. The divorce decree provided Mrs. Crowley with custody of the children, including control of their education, and further provided both parents with joint and rights of access to educational and other records maintained by third parties. For educational records, the decree specified that both parents should direct the school to send them duplicate notices of report cards, test results, and events open to attendance by parents. During the 2001-02 school year, the children--the boy now 8 and the girl, 7--attended Hiawatha Elementary School, which is in the suburbs of Chicago. Mr. Crowley had long been critical of Hiawatha's principal and the district's superintendent and had expressed his criticism at public meetings. He had also complained directly to these administrators about their failure to take effective action against other children's bullying of his son and to send him the notices, records, and other documents received by custodial parents. He even provided the principal and the children's teachers with 100 self-addressed envelopes to facilitate his receipt of all such correspondence. (1) According to Crowley, the school treated him unfairly because of his criticism and complaints, allegedly causing him emotional harm. For example, after one or more students beat up his son on the playground, Crowley went to observe recess, but school personnel kept him off the playground. He volunteered to be a playground monitor, but the principal denied the request. On another occasion, when his son had told him that he was feeling ill, Crowley called the school to ask whether his son was in attendance, and the secretary refused to tell him. Moreover, the principal forbade him from attending a book fair held on Hiawatha School Day. As a result, on 21 March 2002, Crowley filed a federal civil rights suit against the principal and the district, seeking money damages. He claimed that the school officials violated the following constitutional rights: 1) 14th Amendment due process in terms of his parental liberty; 2) 14th Amendment equal protection in terms of discriminating against noncustodial parents generally and him individually; and 3) First Amendment freedom of expression in terms of their retaliation against his criticism. He added two supplemental state claims, one based on Illinois' school-records act and the other based on the state's common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. On 20 September 2002, the federal district court dismissed his suit for failure to state a viable Crowley appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On 11 March 2005, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision. (2) In short, Crowley was KO'd on his main claim but will have the opportunity to go to decision on his secondary claims. More specifically, for Crowley's primary claim, which was his avowed constitutional right to participate in his children's education, the appeals court affirmed the lower court's dismissal. First, the court distinguished the trio of famous Supreme Court decisions concerning the constitutional rights of parents with respect to the education of their children. Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 1972 decision that established the so-called Amish exception, was based on First Amendment free exercise, not 14th Amendment due process. The other two decisions--Meyer v. Nebraska, (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) --were based on 14th Amendment liberty, but they concerned a significantly greater governmental intrusion (denying the option of private education) and the rights of parents acting together, rather than the rights retained by a divorced parent whose ex-spouse has sole custody of the children and has not joined in the noncustodial parent's claim. Next, the Seventh Circuit cited policy interests that support deference to public school officials. …

Shared Parental Responsibility

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, our aim is to provide a selective overview and analysis of divorce research in the past five year period (2000-2005), during which important new data on children, families, and divorce have appeared. Much of this data challenges current socio-legal policy and “practice wisdom,” and includes: (1) the emergent perspective of adult children of divorce reflecting upon their experiences and preferences growing up as children of divorce; (2) studies comparing child and family outcomes in joint and sole custody families; and (3) new data on the distribution of child care tasks and responsibilities in families. These data support an approach to postdivorce parenting based on reducing the harms attendant to divorce for children and parents, parental equality, and family autonomy as most in keeping with children's needs and the principle of “the best interests of the child, from the perspective of the child,” which, it is argued, provides a more child-focused standard for child custody determination than current approaches. Second, building on this research foundation, we propose a new model of post-divorce parenting: a “shared parental responsibility” framework, in which parental responsibilities precede custodial rights, and children's “best interests” are addressed by means of identifying both their needs and parental and societal responsibilities corresponding to these needs.