What’s in the best interest of a child?
Our law say’s we should look at what’s in the best interest of a child when parent’s seperate as the main focus. Then the law is handed over to the judicial system to implement the law. Who are these judges who decide and implement what is in the best interest of the child? Well, they are people that have passed a law degree, served as full-time lawyers for a sufficient length of time and get basically voted in because of thier good behaviours when they were barristers which they earn’t as a promotion from a lawyer. Do we all know how to get a promotion? Sure, we do. We keep the best interest of the system we work in as number 1. The difference between the law system and a system that makes a business profit is showing initiative or thinking outside the square.
In a business, risk is something a person will take to show their greatness. It has a chance of failure and reward which if it works has worthwhile reward. In fact, in contempory business, one could find big rewards. You don’t find this in Government departments as the judicairy system is. It is supposed to be seperate but is it? Initiative and thinking outside the square is often frowned upon. It has it’s own politics going on within over who is king pin and who are the wipper-snappers rocking the boat. There is no profit, no real cause to aim for. It is a day-in-day-out mundane J.O.B. (Journey of Boredom)
Now, who are the parents that these full-time lawyers who become full-time barristers and then full-time judges decide the fate of?
Well they are the mums that spend nine months in and out of emotional chaos during pregnancy and a certain amount of pain (excrutiating) giving birth. They are the dads that have to put up with the mums 24-7 while pregnant, the confused fathers that do the most bizzare things when the baby is due and it is time to go to hospital and beside the mum when giving birth and accepting every abuse under the sun for getting her pregnant in the first place.
And then they look at this baby which is real. (no doll) Oh, the happiness, the tears, the understanding that this little baby is so defenceless and the decision to do whatever it takes to give that child unconditional love. (which is only everything)
So these parents as one unit decide if they haven’t already how they will be one family unit. They decide just like the animals, who will stay home and who will fetch the food, pay the bills, provide the finances for the home, clothing etc, etc.
And then sometimes (often these days) the family unit falls apart for one reason or another.
These judges, barristers and lawyers seem to think that the best interest of the child is to keep the family unit surviving as one is the answer. They seem to think that whoever decided to stay home and nurture the child, should continue to nurture the child. They seem to think tht the parent that went out and gathered the finances should continue the finances.
What they don’t consider is that these parents become a part of another family. These children don’t have one family unit anymore for they have two. Unfortunately, the courts and the government are stopping the financial gathering parent from having another family by forcing them to provide for the other family and leaving them with nothing to give to their next family.
Even more they don’t consider the unconditional love each parent has for the child. It is as if they decide which new family will get the child. If mum’s new family gets the child then the child gets a new dad. If the dad’s new family gets the child then the child has a new mother.
Why can’t the courts see that the child already has one mum and one dad. And that the biological mums and dads are the very best thing that is available for this child. Don’t they know that unconditional love starts from conception and from the moment that child is born?
Don’t they remember what it was like to look at that new born baby.