Opinion ID: 853156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This Child's Best Interests

Text: The psychiatrist who most recently evaluated this struggle between two battle-hardened parents observed that because all the alternatives here are less than ideal, we might need to substitute the hope for the `least detrimental alternative' as proxy for `the best interests of the child.' (Appellant's App. at 167.) He went on to describe this as a case where one can easily get buried in detail and minutia that might overwhelm any decision making process. ( Id. ) We agree, noting that it is particularly difficult for a reviewing court to second-guess a situation that centers on the personalities of two parents battling for control of a child. Courts certainly should not reward parents who refuse to cooperate in the court's efforts to reunify a child with another parent. Nonetheless, the trial judge may well have believed: [C]hildren will normally prosper and mature ... under a standard of consistency better than they will otherwise, even though at any given point in time the noncustodial parent may appear capable of offering better surroundings, either emotional or physical. In the larger sense, the stability in surroundings, schooling, relationships, authority figures, daily routine, economic circumstances, etc. constitute a substantial determinant in assessing the statutorily enumerated factors relevant to a determination of the best interests of the child. Kuiper v. Anderson, 634 N.E.2d at 558. G.L. has no family in Rockford except a father whom she fervently wishes to avoid. Every aspect of her life would be disrupted should her father obtain custody. Her mother may have caused the estrangement, but the trial court's necessary focus was on what is best for G.L. under the totality of circumstances. Like the Court of Appeals, we might have arrived at a different conclusion, such as awarding custody to a neutral third party to allow G.L. to remain in her hometown environment while developing a more positive attitude toward her father. The trial court was better situated, however, to determine whether an appropriate third party was available and, if so, to weigh that alternative. We cannot say from the record that the trial court clearly erred in deciding to leave G.L. with her mother while continuing to exert the court's authority to re-establish G.L.'s relationship with her father.