In an article published by Law Times, Canadian attorney Brian Ludmer shared his perspective on how courts handle the involvement of children in custody battles. In the article, Ludmer explains that while it’s important for judges to understand and take into account how children feel about their situation, certain courtroom tactics and methods can ultimately do more harm than good, especially when lawyers are appointed to represent children.
According to Ludmer, this arrangement has significant flaws and “creates the risk of triangulating the child further into an inter-parental dispute,” making them feel like they’re choosing sides. He also raises concerns about whether children’s preferences are truly arrived at independently or whether they are shaped by pressure coming from one parent, highlighting issues like suggestibility and willful manipulation, especially about the reliability of their statements.
Instead of focusing on what a child wants, Brian Ludmer argues that the guiding principle of this process should be asking the question, ‘What does this child actually need to be safe and emotionally healthy?’ In the article, he outlines several better ways to hear input from children—ones that are far less likely to cause long-term harm or create a situation that facilitates unfair influence. Chief among these is employing the use of neutral mental health professionals who are trained in family dynamics to evaluate the situation.
The full text of the article can be found here.
With decades of experience in high-conflict child custody cases, attorney Brian Ludmer has spent his career advocating for better practices in family law and endorsing systems that protect children while still giving them a voice in the legal process.