The government needs to get out of the business of entertaining the best interest of the child, and start looking at the simple principle of [what] are the minimum requirements being provided for the child. No I don't want my children to have the worst things, but I do think that the governments role stops at the point of saying yes they are being ADEQUATELY taken care of. If this were the standard in custody cases, most would go away very quickly. It doesn't matter if mom or dad are better. If they both want an active role in the kid's life, then they should get an equal guaranteed share in the kids life.That is exactly right.
Free speech rights are justified in terms of allowing noble speech, such as great literature, advances in knowledge, politically correct advocacy, etc. But we don't require all speech to meet such standards. Free speech means that you are free to say whatever you please, with only certain exceptions such criminally harmful speech.
Likewise parental rights must be the freedom to rear your kids the way you want, without having to meet lofty standards of meeting someone's opinion of the best possible parenting. We have laws requiring adequate care, and no abuse or neglect. As long as you are meeting those minimal requirements, your parenting practices are none of anyone's business.
Imagine if the law said that you have the free speech to say whatever you want as long as some judge had the opinion that it was in the best interest of the state? You would complain that only Communist China would accept that.
But that is what we have in the family court, with the doctrine of the Best Interest Of The Child (BIOTCh).
Almost no one, outside this blog, questions the BIOTCh. Both Republicans and Democrats accept it, as it is self-evident that kids deserve the best. But if some judge or psychologist gets to decide what is best, then parents have no rights and kids are ruled by strangers.
I believe that BIOTCh is the worst ideas in the history of law.