S.P.I.E.S.
written by Rolf Dinsmore
S.P.I.E.S. stands for Social, Physical, Intellectual, Educational, and Spiritual. These are the five general areas which the Pennsylvania courts have used to decide contested custody cases.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have defined their policy concerning contested custody cases.
The General Assembly declares that “it is the public policy of this Commonwealth, when in the best interests of the child, to assure a reasonable and continuing contact of the child with both parents after a separation or dissolution of the marriage and the sharing of the rights and responsibilities of child rearing by both parents and continuing contact of the child or children with grandparents when one parent is deceased, divorced, or separated.”
- 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5301 Declaration of Policy
It is quite clear then, that the legislature intends to maintain contact between parents and children during and after a divorce. How is it that so many parents lose contact, and the rights and responsibilities of child rearing? To answer this question, we must examine the phrase "when in the best interests of the child."
The best interest of the child is NOT a psychological term, but a legal one. That means that the court must consider the interests of the child in terms of what will be best for him or her in the short and long term. Studies have shown overwhelmingly that in a divorce, the children are always the losers. The court, therefore, must decide which parent will cause the least amount of short term and permanent harm to the child.
It is difficult, if not impossible for the court to examine the long term effects of divorce, unless a parent meets one of the offenses listed in 23 Pa.C.S.A 5303(b) Consideration of criminal convictions.
It is much easier for a judge to examine the relative short term merits of each parent’s case, and rule based upon actual testimony and evidence, rather than making a general rule that maximum contact with both parents is in the child’s best interest.
In any custody dispute, the court’s overriding concern is always to determine what will serve the best interests of child; this question may never be subordinated to other considerations, such as fundamental rights and fair play. Dorsey v. Freeman, 652 A.2d 352, 438 Pa.Super. 236 (1994)
Then it all boils down to this:
Which parent will be better able to meet the child’s short term needs?
In Alfred v. Braxton, 659 A.2d 1040, 442 Pa.Super 381 (1995), the court ruled that, "Determination in matters of custody and visitation of what is in best interest of child is made on case-by-case basis, and must be premised upon consideration of all factors which legitimately have effect upon child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being."
How the court goes about deciding the issues is clearly explained in Sawko v. Sawko, 625 A.2d 692, 425 Pa.Super. 450 (1993), "Best interest of child for custody purposes when two parents are involved is evaluated on scale initially weighed equally as to each parent; when scale is tipped in favor of one of the parents, other must come forward with evidence to reverse balance."
So here we have it:
Each parent has the responsibility to present evidence which will show the effect on the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.
The parent with the convincing evidence will tip the scale on his/her side, unless the other parent can present more convincing evidence.
We have defined in the best interest of the child in the two above statements. It is the responsibility of each parent to present their case using the above statements. If both parents are ‘fit’ to raise the children, then the award of custody should go to the parent who presents the best case for the children being with them.
In the beginning of this paper, the S.P.I.E.S. concept was discussed.
The moral issues can be separated into the social and educational categories. Let us now examine each issue briefly:
SOCIAL:
This defines the moral and emotional environment where the child will be raised. Examine closely the child’s friends, relatives, and neighborhood.
PHYSICAL:
This defines both the personal level of physical stimulation offered by each parent, and the physical environment of each household. Examine closely the physical needs of the child, and how each household can meet those needs. Does the house have a yard? How close is the nearest playground? What about team sports such as softball and baseball? Which parent is most likely to be a good physical example to the child?
INTELLECTUAL:
This defines both the outside schooling for the child, and each household’s ability to further stimulate the child’s intellectual development. Examine the different school districts, and special program availability. Closely examine each child’s intellectual needs and how they will be met in each household. Does either parent have a higher level of education? Is there a computer available for the child? Does the child have a quiet area for studying?
EDUCATIONAL:
This defines not only the formal schooling for the child, but also each parent’s unique abilities to educate the child. Examine each parent’s own education, especially their attitude concerning education. Does one parent live closer to the library? Are there museums or nature parks nearby? Which parent had better experiences in school, and is therefore more likely to have a good attitude about school? Which parent knows the school and the teachers, and will be able to help the child with his/her homework?
SPIRITUAL:
This defines the child’s understanding and practice of religious tenets and dogma. Examine which parent will provide a stronger grounding in the basic tenets which lead to a better society. Which parent is more likely to "turn the other cheek?" Which parent will guarantee church or temple attendance?
Each parent has a responsibility to understand their own strengths and weaknesses. The strengths should be strongly presented in court, and the weaknesses worked on out of court so that they may in time become strengths. If a weakness is brought up in court, a parent should be able to testify about the steps that are being taken to correct the weakness.
