Tender Years Doctrine Analysis

During the last century, the “Tender Years Doctrine” was the norm to decide child custody. Commonwealth law determined that a child under fourteen years of age are classified in the “tender years doctrine” and cannot make his/her own decision to leave his/her parent, parents of guardian, Commonwealth v Colon, 431 Mass. 188. However, the tender years doctrine violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Still, a lot of lay people have misconception that mothers are always awarded custody of the children. There is no preference given to parent based solely on gender; therefore, Michael has a good chance to custody of his two children, based on the best interest of the children, which is Michael has provided all the day-to-day needs of the children during the weekday.

In Hassenstab, the father petitioned for the custody of his daughter, alleging that his ex-wife is a lesbian and openly dating other woman. Further, the father argued that the mother committed suicide before marriage suffered psychological difficulties and consuming alcohol, failure to provide a stable home environment for the child; therefore, she was morally and mentally an unfit mother. The court those allegations were not warranted, but the child’s desire where to live, it’s the child’s best interest. Here, the Court questioned the child and …show more content…
Both testified that their parents would serve as supplemental care givers to Zach when they were at work or unable to fulfill their parental obligations. Tim admitted that the only problem he had with Beth retaining permanent custody of Zach was his belief that she engaged in homosexual activity. The trial court awarded the father custody of the child and the mother appealed. The appellate court cited Albright, reversed the case and enumerated the criteria of the “best interest” of a