Out of the Mouths of Babes: Law Student Nicole Lapsatis’ Law Review Article Beats Family Court Pros Hands Down.
If she lands a family law job, can her integrity and intelligence last long enough to cure what ills?
From St. John’s University School of Law, Law Review Managing Editor Nicole Lapsatis provides the most cogent, thoughtful, articulate analysis of the unworkable “best interests of the child” standard we’ve seen in years. Could it be that students, fresh-minded from the discipline of real legal research and untainted by the cesspool of family law practice and politics have so easily found the answer to a problem that family law attorneys, judges, psychologists, social workers, and bureaucrats have been “shocked, shocked” to find so elusive for decades? We think so. From Ms. Lapsatis’ conclusion:
The role of custody courts must be more than weeding through an ill-defined “best interests” rule that does not necessarily protect a child’s well-being. The courts, acting on behalf of the state, have a vital interest in ensuring that a child’s relationship and bond with his or her parent is not aimlessly broken. This involves more than an arbitrary and systematically biased application of random, judicially created “best interests” factors.
If you’re a top notch law firm looking for an unusually sophisticated and clearly sharp associate, Ms. Lapsatis may still be available.
Meanwhile, her analysis, though specific to New York, is well worth reading and implementing in your family law case, court, and practice, whether you’re a parent or professional. We hope you do–it would be unfortunate to miss this opportunity to update your best practices; the DDICE RICO plaintiffs’ lawyers might find a reason to ask you why you didn’t.
Courtesy of Ms. Lapsatis, we give you: clear thinking.