Just because you have a string of qualifications under your
name, it doesn’t mean you are going to be a great parent. So goes the latest
pronouncement from Chancery, in the guise of Mrs Justice Parker, who made it
during a custody hearing involving a mother who has a learning disability
. The
child wouldn’t necessarily be better off being brought up by someone more
intellectually able, she said. According
to her Honour, “many clever people make absolutely rotten parents,” and that
courts should not necessarily have negative attitudes to those less
intellectually blessed.
Well, of course. Genius doesn’t guarantee great parenting
technique, as anyone who has ever read a biography of Charles Dickens will acknowledge.
From the negligent Uncle Quentin in the Famous Five, who was forever (rather
handily for plot reasons) locked away in his study, to any number of misery
memoirs from the children of famous brain boxes, it does not follow that the
higher the IQ, the better the upbringing. Indeed, one could also class the stereotypical
parenting practice enjoyed by the professional classes as highly suspect, what
with its hours of bought-in child care, enforced journeys around museums, the
ever-present threat of an afterschool tutor and hopelessly high expectations in
the collective fields of musical aptitude, mathematical ability and enjoyment
of Renaissance art. Indeed, only the other day my youngest son (9), told me in
no uncertain terms that “the National Gallery is the most boring place in the
world. Second only to the Prado,” a weary summary of privilege, frustration and
parental expectation (mine) in one fell swoop.
And yet, intuitively, one also might be tempted to think
that in the thwarted circumstances of a custody battle, the best parent is
probably going to be the one with lots of books in the house, where the
television is usually tuned to BBC4, or Newsnight, and where there might be violins
propped up in the drawing room. Or, put more precisely, the sort of house that
you might quite like to live in yourself. I have never presided over a custody
arrangement, nor would I wish to. But in making the judgment of Solomon I
suspect that many well-thinking lawyers favour parents who, to put it simply,
live the sort of life and look after their children in the same sort of way
that they do. It is human nature to approve of people who live life like you.
As anyone who has ever heard anyone say at a dinner party “oh we sent our child
to (insert name of private school) only because everyone else does,” knows. This
is not new. In a 2006 survey by Bristol
University, it was found that social workers too tended to have negative
attitudes to less intellectually capable parents, sometimes even breaking up
loving families for no other reason than they feared the parents weren’t bright
enough.
Perhaps what this insight provided by this sad case all
boils down to is that the legal profession itself needs to cast its net a
little wider. No, not in terms of intellectual apititude, but in terms of
background, so that one has a group of judges from different backgrounds who
won’t simply favour the parents from what one might call a ‘broadsheet’
household. The sense of wealthy privilege
which comes streaming out of the Inns of Court is legendary. Maybe if more
judges came from a ‘normal’ background, then parents wouldn’t have to fear
competing in some sort of intellectual high jump in order to prove they can
look after their offspring perfectly well.
And I would guess that even if that happens, not many judges
can be as counter intuitive as the wise Mrs Justice Parker, who stated that
“many people who are intellectually impaired…are warm and caring and provide
children with a wonderful upbringing.” Plenty of children outshine their
parents intellectually. What’s needed is love, and for that you don’t need any
qualifications.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments.