I lost my children largely to the fact that I have been treated for ADHD for the past 8 years.In California, the law forbids any parent losing custody because of a disability or handicap. The California supreme court ruled unanimously to that effect in In re Marriage of Carney (1979).
The custody evaluator in my case, Dr. Edward J Connor of Connor and Associates, claimed that he had a hard time understanding me because of my ADHD. He claimed that my writings were confusing and difficult to follow. Dr. Connor claimed that my ADHD was to blame for the communication problems with my ex-wife. Dr. Ed Connor even suggested that people with OCD are better suited to care for young children that people with ADHD.
I don't think that ADHD is a significant handicap, but this evaluator is way out of line whether it is or not. If it is not a significant handicap, then he should ignore it. If it is a significant handicap, then the evaluator should be looking for ways to accommodate that handicap, and not using it as an excuse to take his kids away.
It is not the public policy of California to take kids away from disabled parents. If it were, then disabled citizens would be second-class citizens.
This is one of those exceptions to the Best Interest Of The Child (BIOTCH) doctrine. All other things being equal, it would seem preferable for a kid to reared by a healthy able-bodied parent than say, a blind parent. The BIOTCH would be for a parent who can see. But we do not have a policy of taking kids from blind parents.
If they can't take kids away from blind parents, then they certainly shouldn't take kids away from ADHD parents. Having ADHD is barely even noticeable. The fact that the evaluator would complain about something so trivial and irrelevant just shows the bias and incompetence of the evaluator (assuming Dan's blog is accurate).