ORANGE COUNTY VOICES : Joint Custody Not Best Arrangement for Infant in Moschetta Case

To split care taking by biological parents, Robert Moschetta and (surrogate mother) Elvira Jordan, between their two households each day, five days a week, for their artificially conceived 16-month-old child, Marissa Moschetta, is not in the best interests of the infant. That arrangement is very likely to damage this new human being’s chances for a healthy development in the future.

Court-ordered joint custody of children was declared by the California state Legislature about five years ago to be the most desirable resolution for contested custody and visitation disputes brought by parents to the court for resolution in the absence of their ability to resolve the issue.

About a year and a half ago the Legislature replaced this presumption with one that provides that no specific favors for either parent, or for joint custody, should be presumed and that each case should be decided on its own merit.

Many studies on the outcome for children of divorced parents who have been forced to endure court-ordered joint custody show that their lives and mental health are seriously disrupted by such court orders.

Excessive visitation emerging from the concept of protecting rights of both parents to participate meaningfully in the rearing of the children has also been disruptive to these children as compared to those who have only occasional visitation from the parent without legal custody.

Many people, including well-educated parents, lawyers and judges, assume that a child less than age 3 would be less disturbed by shuttling back and forth between parents and houses (court-ordered joint custody) than an older child. This is not so.

Infants and young children need a stable home base. If a primary psychological attachment has been made to one of the parents, and that parent has exercised good judgment and appropriate protection and care of the child along with love and affection, that parent usually has become in the child’s mind the most significant primary psychological parent.

That parent should be given the primary authority to make day-to-day decisions in the child’s life, including decisions regarding visitation by the other parent.

Thus, contested custody and visitation cases are always complex. Either parent can become for the child the primary psychological parent. Each case must be considered carefully, and especially so if it involves the care and upbringing of an infant. The halo placed above the head of the infant does not protect the baby from abusive practices, including those prescribed by the court.

In the Moschetta case, the ongoing welfare and psychological status of 16-month-old Marissa should be carefully monitored by a court-appointed expert thoroughly familiar with both normal and psychopathological development in infants. That expert should have had sufficient training and experience to advise the court on this infant’s ongoing welfare and any indication shown by the infant of psychological trauma in its behavior and development.

The court should give precedence to such data, remembering that Baby Moschetta was doing well prior to the visitation and joint-custody arrangement stipulated by the court.

The major entry of another caretaker within a whole new environment and with completely different assumptions regarding infant care is too much for a 16-month-old baby who has previously formed a strong attachment to the primary caretaker and the home setting in which care takes place.

Parental rights and legal technicalities should not overshadow the best interests of children in deciding these issues.