1. Interests of the child are consistent with interests of parents anyway. People advocating equal parenting and opposed to move-aways and parent exclusion NEED the best interest of the child concept, because it supports OUR side. On the other hand, people who advocate UNequal parenting and a custodial parent's "right" to exclude an NCP falsely rely on BIC, but the best approach is to take their ONLY crutch away from them, not to falsely concede it.
2. The best interests of the child standard is so deeply rooted in popular opinion that it is hopeless to go against it. In fact, positioning our cause against the children will have serious negative impacts on our ability to argue the rightness of our cause. It gives the opposition the easy task of painting you as selfish, loony and even harmful. It is so morally repugnant to 99% of the population that it spells certain failure as soon as you venture down that path.
3. Even if it snows in hell and you get the USSC and the Parliament to declare that they oppose all children's interests forevermore, you would only be further from your goals. Absent concerns for the needs of the child, which parent wins a dispute? A failing of parents' righters is that parents DISAGREE and they falsely believe that this means they get an even split in any court proceeding. They don't. Move-aways would be rampant as children's interests are snuffed out.
4. It is RIGHT to think of the children's needs first and foremost. They are human beings, not possessions, and they have every right to have their needs considered. This is CHILD custody. This is ABOUT them, and what is best for them. Why should a parent not be allowed to express to a court what he or she feels is best for their child?
5. Aside from moral, logical and societal pressures, virtually ALL legal law, caselaw precedent in all 50 states and the US Constitution mandates that the interests of the child be considered. It is the one absolutely immovable force in custody issues. You are clinging to the most unwinnable approach. So not only shouldn't we fight it, but we can't.
Trying to fight against a child losing his or her parents by opposing the child's interests is a great way to lose, as has been repeatedly proven over the years. You have to play the game with the cards that are dealt. You may not like the rule about dribbling in basketball, put if you play games running around with the ball you will always lose.
So now let me pick apart your arguments:
Graham: "To maintain your relationship with the child you need to know that the courts will support you if you are a decent parent."
Absolutely. Supporting parents does NOT require a LACK of support for children.
Graham: "The parent needs that affirmation from the courts that they are important to their child in order to do their job as parents well."
Well if we aren't worried about the interests of the child, why would we care if the parents are doing their job well? It wouldn't matter, would it? If the parent's importance to the child must be seen as an irrelevence by the court, you are defeating yourself.
At least you are conceding here that parents are important to children. If parents are important to children - as most would agree - then it is in the best interests of the children to maintain regular contact with parents. You have presented the best argument in FAVOR of the best interests of the children.
Graham: "No one can guarantee what the courts will decide is in the child’s best interests so this creates a jeopardy that will always harm the parent/child relationship."
"Always"? So seeking what is best for the child will "always" do harm to the child? What kind of logic is that? True it is that we can't GUARANTEE that the courts will correctly decide the child's best interests, but that just means that we need to find ways to make it more likely to be done right. You're saying that if we can't guarantee a right answer, we will "always" have an wrong answer. Do you guarantee they will "always" be right if we never try to be right?
Graham: "The views of the child about contact with a parent are sought under the tests applied to uphold BIC, but these can only be given under duress where there is a dispute between the parents about whether one of them should have any contact with the child."
The views of a child are (theoretically) what they WANT, not what they NEED. To support the interests of a child is to support what they NEED, even though they may not want it, as any parent can tell you. As a parent, you know the difference, but you would prefer to ignore it. If what you REALLY mean is that we should support children's interests, and not put them in the position of parent selection/rejection or in the middle of the conflict, then just say so.
Graham: "Allowing their to be the constantly threatened dispute about whether one parent should have any contact, as basing decisions on the BIC principle does, means that more and more children are forced to give their views under these circumstances."
This would happen with or without BIC, but the only way to stop it is to take a fresh look at what is REALLY in the best interests of a child. If you discard any thought of the child, you will never solve this problem.
Graham: "Finally the interests of the parents (or grandparents) cannot be considered at all by the family courts."
This is not true at all. All interests are considered (except by your plan). While you are trying to reduce the rights of children (AND grandparents) you are not increasing anyone's rights, except those of the court and whatever parent they favor.
Graham: "Treating all parents equally using BIC creates a situation where the interests of decent parents, who have done their best for their child, are given as little consideration (i.e. nil) as those parents who have shown no consideration for the child."
OK, first of all, both BIC and the REBUTTABLE presumption of equal parenting DO take into account parenting ability. With equal parenting, however, it is rebuttably presumed that two parents are equal in value to the child until it is proven otherwise. I have no problem with crack addict jailbirds getting less parenting time, but the inability to parent must be shown in court with clear and convincing evidence, a finding of fact and the burden of proof against INequality.
Second, your assertion that parents get "nil" consideration by the courts is a bunch of crap. The truth is that, despite the lip service, the lawyers tend to assure that it is the PARENTS who get their wishes granted, not the kids.
Graham: "If you champion children’s rights you automatically weaken the parent’s rights"
Actually, they are mutually strengthening.
"and any attempts to reconcile the two will be mired in controversy."
And there is no controversy in attempts to tell parents that they may not discuss their children's interests in family court???
Graham: "I propose the best interests of the child should be a legal priority but not the paramount consideration"
What is the distinction? How is "legal priority" any different from "paramount consideration"? And how does it change anything that you've complained about so far? Is it not mired in controversy because nobody has heard of it?
Graham: "thus allowing parents to have some rights over and above the balance of the best interests of the child test."
Parents have rights. Children have rights.
Graham: "Where you have family law professionals declaring that children should choose their parents, and such large numbers of natural parents being excluded from their child’s lives against the parent’s wishes already I believe you have to look at the very basis for our family laws."
You also have to closely look at the family law professionals, but you are quite right here. Good to agree with you on your last point. We all agree we need to do what is best for the kids (as the best interests principle stands for) but we need to look very closely at what those best interests really are.