Clark: "BIC is the reason the judges do not consider they have to do anything else."
No, it isn't. Judges exercise broad discretion because... well, because they CAN. The only way to limit their overbroad power is to spell it out on lawbooks, not to take away existing guidelines. Taking away consideration of a child's interests (not that it will ever happen) only gives them even more unlimited discretion.
Clark: "BIC is the only language in the law that allows them to do as they please without any other consideration."
No other considerations?? Have you ever READ your state guidelines? There are SEVERAL other considerations listed, which is why I laugh when Jim uses the term "BIC doctrine", as if this is an official title.
If, by some freak coincidence, five judges have a bad reaction to methamphetemines and declare it unlawful for a parent to ask a court to consider their child's needs, we would be left with about a dozen considerations (here in FL). Maybe then Jim would call it the "primary caretaker" doctrine, which is really what it is. I think that's what I'll call it, because the CP doctrine is the REAL problem.
All you would have left after the children's needs are snuffed out would be the "primary caretaker" doctrine (The CP doctrine). Our only hope of overcoming the CP doctrine is to enforce the best interests of the child principle. The best interests of the child is to have two regularly involved parents, and this is what Jim opposes. Me, I oppose the CP doctrine, the assumption that a child needs, loves and deserves only ONE parent.