When “Best Interest of the Child” Becomes a Blank Check

In child welfare cases, it is meant to ensure decisions are made to protect children—not institutions, not convenience, and not assumptions.

But in practice, this phrase is often used as a catch-all justification to bypass evidence, silence parents, and avoid accountability.

A Standard With No Clear Limits

Unlike criminal law, “best interest” has no fixed definition.

• It is subjective.
• It is flexible.
• And that flexibility can be dangerous.
• When courts rely on broad interpretations without requiring specific findings, almost any decision can be justified—after the fact.

How Evidence Gets Ignored

frequently present:

• Proof of compliance
• Documentation of stability
• Medical and educational records
• Evidence contradicting allegations

Yet decisions are still made against them, justified not by facts, but by a generalized claim that the outcome is in the child’s “best interest.”

When evidence conflicts with the narrative, the narrative often wins.

When “Best Interest” Replaces Due Process

Due process requires proof.

“Best interest” is often used instead of it.

Rather than demonstrating present harm or risk, agencies rely on:

• Speculation about future behavior
• Past history unrelated to current parenting
• Subjective impressions of a parent

This shifts the burden entirely onto the parent to disprove a standard that was never clearly defined.

The Impact on Families

When “best interest” is treated as unquestionable:

• Visitation can be reduced without incident
• Placements can continue despite concerns
• Parents can be excluded from decisions
• Children can lose meaningful relationships

All without a clear explanation that can be challenged.

Why This Matters

A standard meant to protect children should not function as a blank check.

Children benefit from:

• Truth
• Stability rooted in facts
• Decisions made with transparency

And parents deserve decisions that are reviewable, explainable, and grounded in evidence.

What “Best Interest” Should Mean

It should require:

• Specific findings
• Current evidence
• Consideration of family preservation
• Accountability when decisions cause harm

Without those guardrails, “best interest” stops being protection—and becomes power without limits.

And that is not justice.

Author: Alexis Landrum