This doctrine, which emphasized the importance of the maternal-infant relationship, survived well into the twentieth century. Although there are wide variations in how this concept is interpreted by judges, it generally favors the custody arrangement that best fulfills the needs of the specific children involved and fosters their normative development. This presumption holds that courts and clinicians should be guided by the more realistic notion that all children in separating or divorcing families are harmed to some extent. The goal is to find the solution that appears to harm them the least. Mediation has been suggested as an alternative to the adversarial legal process.
Some parents undergo mediation voluntarily.
In some jurisdictions mediation is mandatory. The role of the evaluator in a child custody dispute is different from that of a therapist in a traditional, clinical setting. It is important for the practitioner to keep these roles separate. Trying to be both the therapist and forensic evaluator for the same children or family is inappropriate and will complicate both the therapy and the evaluation. Competence as a forensic specialist is crucial in custody evaluations.