I credited the Wash. state appeals court decision below for its decision in the case of In re Marriage of V.I. Balashov. It gave the parents joint responsibility to make decisions, and struck down restrictions on religion.
Nevertheless, I do object to some of the language in the decision. It claims to be deciding in the children's best interests, but it doesn't do that at all. It just uses these buzzwords to justify what is otherwise unjustified. It does not consider any particular interests of the kids, or decide what is best, or anything like that.
The decision does blame the dad for "the father's chronic role-modeling during the marriage". What does this even mean? That the father tried to be a role-model for his kids? That he tried to do what is best for his family? Why is the court considering this a bad thing? Apparently the mom did not feel properly respected, but how is this relevant now that they are divorced?
A lot of divorced men and women feel that their ex-spouses did not properly respect them. Probably most of them. The court should have ignored irrelevant claims like this.