Refining consultants' evidence : deciding the best interests of the child

Abstract

One role of family consultants is to provide expert evidence to the court on what is in a child’s best interests when making parenting orders. Yet deciding a child’s best interests is a complex and value-laden determination, on which legislation provides considerable guidance. Rational Choice Theory may be used to disaggregate the best interests question into four stages: outlining the options of the court, determining possible outcomes for a child within these options, determining the likelihood these outcomes will occur and placing value on these outcomes. The last stage in this process involves a subjective value judgement as to what is ‘best’ for a child, which family consultants have no expertise in addressing. The author argues that family consultants should cease the practice of making recommendations to the court on what orders are in a child’s best interests, as such recommendations exceed the boundaries of their knowledge base, misrepresent their knowledge base, engender a likely conflict with the legislation and lead to the possibility of institutionalising expert biases within the court system. Despite this, a considerable amount of evidence should continue to be provided by family consultants. Guidelines are suggested to help ensure the quality of this evidence.18 page(s