Any U.S. divorce court that awards custody based primarily on a parent’s gender rather than the child’s best interests should face serious scrutiny. Child-custody decisions carry consequences far beyond the courtroom, and judges must ensure that children’s safety, welfare and stability remain the central considerations.
The debate has gained renewed attention amid the case of Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three young children in 2022. Her case has generated intense public discussion about parental responsibility, mental health, criminal accountability and the protection of children.
The case has also fueled strong reactions over whether courts and society adequately identify potential risks to children before tragedy occurs. However, custody decisions must be based on evidence and the circumstances of each individual family rather than assumptions about whether mothers or fathers are inherently better parents.
Historically, U.S. courts often favored mothers under the so-called “tender years” doctrine, which presumed that young children were better off with their mothers. Over time, many states moved away from that presumption toward gender-neutral custody standards centered on the child’s best interests.
That history makes it especially important for judges to examine each case individually. Neither motherhood nor fatherhood should automatically determine who receives custody. Courts should consider evidence of each parent’s ability to provide a safe and stable environment, including credible concerns involving abuse, neglect or other risks.
At the same time, the Clancy case demonstrates why discussions surrounding mental health and criminal responsibility require care. Clancy’s defense has argued that she suffered from serious postpartum mental health problems, while prosecutors have pursued criminal charges over the deaths of her children. The legal proceedings must ultimately determine responsibility based on evidence and applicable law.
Calls to remove voting rights from people who express controversial views about Clancy, however, go beyond legitimate political disagreement. In the United States, voting is a fundamental constitutional right, and punishing citizens for their opinions would raise serious legal and democratic concerns.
Likewise, disagreement over someone’s views should not become a basis for determining whom that person should date or marry.
The broader lesson from the Clancy case is that child-custody decisions should place children’s safety and best interests above gender assumptions. At the same time, public debate over difficult criminal cases should remain grounded in evidence, due process and respect for fundamental rights.
