The Flawed "Best Interest Standard"

My Visitation Schedule

This is a breakdown of my daughter’s monthly waking hours:

• 200 at pre-school (48%)
• 192 with mom (46%)
• 28 with me (7%)

Even the highly restrictive “every other weekend” default plans of the 1980s and 90s generally allowed fathers at least 100 hours monthly with their child. So I got 1/4 of that. This shows how little Idaho supports fathers. I’ve heard people (usually corrupt lawyers, like Alexandria Lewis) victim blame by saying, “you must have done something wrong” because they refuse to admit the reality that Idaho doesn’t actually support fathers, as this would break down the view of Idaho they have in their minds, as being some kind of ideal and moral place, which is absolutely is not. Speaking with attorneys, results in North Idaho are worse for fathers than anywhere else, including Spokane, including, Boise.

If Idaho really thinks highly of fathers, why would they only allow me this little amount of time with my daughter, when I wanted to see my daughter as much as possible? Why would they have my daughter spend 94% of her waking hours only around women? I had to fight the courts and my ex-wife for years to even get this result. I easily spent at least $40,000 in attorneys fees alone. For 2 full years, the court wouldn’t allow me a single overnight with my daughter, without giving any explanation why. They just let my ex-wife withhold visitation.

It’s obvious that Idaho, through Judge Pittman and Judge Stow, hates fathers and children. If that weren’t the case, Judge Stow would’ve ordered a different parenting plan. Nobody should have to fight to their child just because the other parent is a bitter psycho, it should be automatic. Judge Stow admitted there’s no issue of abuse, neglect, or addiction that would explain his highly restrictive parenting plan.

Judge Stow simply doesn’t think fathers really matter. He sees fathers as something of an optional visiting uncle, someone who needs to prove to the courts why they’re needed and why they should be allowed to see their children. Someone to buy presents and give an occasional hello. Judge Stow doesn’t actually think children should be influenced by their fathers in any meaningful way.

Mind you, my wife is unemployed and refuses to allow me to see my daughter more, or to visit her school. And she keeps repeating this hollow phrase, “I don’t think this is in her best interest.” My ex-wife is a psychopath who has extreme hatred of men and fathers, and she’s out of her mind. Any sane court would’ve put a stop to this woman.

Best Interest of The Child

Lawyers repeatedly reminded me of how important the “best interest standard” was to the case. Nobody, however, could ever explain what this standard actually means in any objective sense. I’ve since learned, this is because the standard means whatever the judge wants it to mean, and since the standard can mean whatever a judge wants, it’s effectively an empty phrase. I believe they use this phrase to give themselves legitimacy, to pretend that trials actually serve a purpose, and to tell themselves that they’re looking out for children (when they of course know this is completely not the case).

The law is ignored by these North Idaho judges, and “judicial discretion” is simply a euphemism for “I’ll set a parenting plan based on my personal biases and prejudices.” Judges will say whatever they want, and append it with, “…because this is in the best interests of the child.” You can’t tack that phrase on to whatever you say and expect people to believe you.

I’ll look at what Idaho law actually says about child custody. According to the statute, the court is required to consider all relevant factors. However, judges don’t have to explain themselves or give equal weight to the factors. I believe judges will appeal to “character and circumstances”, as this can mean absolutely anything and everything, so that a judge can order whatever they want and say, “due to character and circumstances” as if that’s a good enough explanation.

Best Interest Factors—Idaho Code § 32-717

(a) The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to custody.

In my case, Judge Pittman and Judge Stow only considered what my ex-wife wanted. My wishes as a father were dismissed entirely. I was never allowed to submit a parenting plan, and at no point did the court give any weight to my desire to maintain a meaningful relationship with my daughter.

(b) The wishes of the child as to their custodian.

My daughter has made it clear that she wants to spend time with me at my home. But Judge Stow didn’t care. Instead, I was denied any visitation at my home, and I was barred from having holidays or vacations with her. It’s as if her voice—and mine—were irrelevant.

(c) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with their parents and siblings.

My relationship with my daughter is strong. We get along wonderfully, and I’ve always been an active, loving presence in her life. But Judge Stow didn’t care about that either. This factor, which is supposed to be central to custody decisions, was completely ignored.

(d) The child’s adjustment to their home, school, and community.

Before the divorce, I saw my daughter every single day. My ex-wife, however, upended our daughter’s life entirely—new home, new school, new friends. Judge Stow’s response? “Your daughter sees your wife daily, and we aren’t going to interrupt that.” Never mind that I had been a constant, stable presence in her life before the separation. The court’s focus was solely on maintaining the new status quo my ex had created.

(e) The character and circumstances of all individuals involved.

This is where the court’s “discretion” is the most arbitrary. My ex-wife has a history of child abuse, lives on government aid, and has a pattern of alienating children from their0 fathers—this is my ex wifes 4th high conflict custody case. She’s even been involved in highly antisocial and destructive criminal behavior. None of this seemed to matter to Judge Stow. Meanwhile, I’m an engineer with a stable career and a history of providing for my family. Yet, Judge Stow chose to rely on my ex’s lies and manipulation, ignoring any semblance of due process. The corruption in the system was glaring.

(f) The need to promote continuity and stability in the life of the child.

This factor was completely disregarded. My ex-wife had radically altered our daughter’s life post-separation, but the court didn’t care. Instead, Judge Stow rubber-stamped her decisions, effectively saying, “The mother decides the status quo, and we’ll enforce it.” The stability I had provided for years was erased with a stroke of a pen.

(g) Domestic violence, whether or not in the presence of the child.

My ex-wife’s teenage son has a history of violent behavior, including assaulting his mother while she was pregnant, and continuing to assault her in front of my daughter. Multiple police reports were filed. Did Judge Pittman care? Not at all. Did Judge Stow consider it? Absolutely not. This factor, which is supposed to protect children from harm, was ignored entirely. It’s as if the judges want my daughter to continue to witness violence at home.

The Real Factor: Judicial Bias

Here’s what the judge actually considered. My ex-wife had me thrown out of our home by filing a fraudlent protection order, and changing the locks on my house immediately after. During this same time period, she tricked me into moving, previously saying we would all relocate together. This was all simply fraud in order to establish a new status quo during the divorce proceedings. I’ve found out this isn’t her first rodeo-she’s done this in 4 custody cases, in order to have dads removed from their kids. When I pointed out these manipulative tactics to Judge Stow, he didn’t care. Instead, he labeled me an “absentee parent” and issued a permanent custody order that severely limited my time with my daughter. This is exactly what my ex-wife wanted, and it’s what she’s done in 4 cases now. These judges know this, but still give her the kids.

Under this order, I am not allowed to have my daughter at my home in Washington State, ever. All visits must take place in Kootenai County, Idaho. I am never allowed holidays or vacations with her, and there is no path for this to change in the future. Judge Stow’s ruling was not just unfair, but was a clear violation of the law and my due process rights.

At the end of the trial, Judge Stow made a brief passing comment that my ex “doesn’t value fathers.” All of the nasty behavior I testified to, and this is all he said. Judge Stow then went on and on about me being an absentee parent. He totally ignored that my wife created this situation and then denied vistation. It’s like he didn’t care, and was going to make the same order no matter what. Judge Stow’s acknowledgment had zero impact on the final order, which was overwhelmingly lopsided in my ex-wife’s favor. Why did he even bother with that comment if it held zero weight? The system totally failed my daughter and I, and basically told a child abuser, she can do whatever she wants and the court won’t care. What do you think she’ll do in the future?

Conclusion

The judicial system of bias and prejudice is making the world a worse place. The courts are beyond the point of reform and should be dismantled and replaced with something else entirely. Until that’s done, judges will continue to ruin lives.