Is there any mileage in this idea:-
To write, either jointly, or as individuals, to someone in authority and ask their opinion or for the government's opinion?
I don't doubt we have all done something along these lines before - I have written to a UK government department, although not specifically asking about "The best interests of the child" principle.
We could tackle this a few different ways, but I imagine the way that might illicit the most positive response would be to ask a very non-threatening or non-provocative question.
How about:-
"Can the government ever envisage circumstances where a parent's interests in having contact with their child could be considered by the courts independently of the child's best interests?
If we think we are likely to get the standard response I've heard in the UK - "No, the government believes children's interests must always come before parent's interests" then it might be necessary to revise our question.
Perhaps:-
"Can the government accept that there are any circumstances where allowing parental contact with their child might fall outside of a strict application of the best interests of the child test, but should nonetheless take place for reasons of decency"?
An example could be given where a parent was dying of cancer, and whose last wish was to see their child. The courts applying BIC strictly might decide that contact wasn't in the child's best interests. However, for reasons of compassion towards another human being, there might be enough justification to satisfy a court that contact should take place, if the courts had the freedom to make such a decision.
Or this question coukd be asked perhaps:-
"Can the government envisage basing family law on both the best interests of the child and the best interests of the parents jointly"?
Where the courts felt there was conflict between the two, the courts could decide in favour of the child's best interests on most occasions, but in favour of the parent's interests on other occasions (where the parent had a good record for example). In this way parenting could be bolstered in a way that makes it less likely for a hostile ex. to believe they can make it so difficult for their former partner to have contact that they give up or whatever else might happen (like the child themselves gives up on contact with that parent).
Maybe we could ask a range of questions reflecting the differing positions of the contributors to this forum.
Thus Frank might say:-
"Does the government agree that a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting is what is best for children"? (- surely a question they must be being asked all the time).
Jim might ask:-
"Does the government accept the BIC test is too vague to be constitutional, and therefore parents are denied fundamental rights to parent their children and to a fair trial through due process of law"?
He might go on to say that he would accept the BIC test remaining in place as the basis for family law if 50%;50% equal parenting was enacted.
Clark could assert that the harm standard should be the one used to decide whether contact should be permitted to take place, and ask if they would agree to that idea?
Finally we could ask the government to choose between the participants, saying which one they favour and, if possible, why?
Any suggestions for a suitable succinct question would be appreciated and who indeed it should be addressed to in either the US or somewhere else (the Queen perhaps).
All the best now,Graham
P.S. - this is a semi-serious idea, by the way, for anyone who wants to try.