Sitting around today discussing a case with a potential new client when she mentioned that her husband had retained an attorney who 'specialized in fathers' rights." At the Law Offices of William L Geary Co, LPA, we represent fathers, and mothers, and grandparents, and others, in custody matters. Becaus of that we have experience advocating differing aspects or positions in cases at different times. This experience, in the words of some, would include dealing with "Fathers' rights" in Columbus Ohio and elsewhere. But there is a problem here.....
The problem with approaching a case from the aspect of either "fathers' rights" or "mother's rights", or in fact anything other than the "children's rights" creates a situation where one is losing sight of the actual real issue and, in fact, the one and most important issue-- "the best interest of the children."
When we think of a case in terms of "the best interest of the children," doesn't that really put the case in the proper perspective and the most important perpespective? If we must talk about things in terms of "rights," doesn't the phrase "best interest of the children" actually imply "children's rights?" We believe that it does!
Regardless of which party one represents in a case, the best "view" or perspective of the case can be had from "the children's point of view." We must ask ourselves, "What do the children need?" "To what have the children been accustomed?" "What relationship have the children had with each of their parents?" By starting from that view point one obtains a perspective which will insure that the arguments made on behalf of a client are solid, and are based upon the real goal of best intersts. Because of that, we DO start there. Everyone should.