The Case of Painter v. Bannister
The case of Painter v. Bannister (1966) is legendary in family law in the sense that the “best interests test” was used to make a final decision on a case that involved a biological father, Harold Painter and maternal grandparents, Dwight and Margaret Bannister. As such, the final decision vested the custody of the child, Mark Wendell Painter upon his grandparents, the Bannisters. This case challenged the moral and legal expectations that a parent has exclusive right to raise his/her won child without any form of deterrent, provided that the physical and mental conditions of the parent are stable.
However, the premises upon which decision was made in the case of Painter v. Bannister were quite unusual: security and stability v. intellectual stimulation. Even though the Supreme Court of Iowa had initially made judgment on custody of Mark in Painter’s way, the decision was revoked after the Bannisters’ appeal was considered by the court. The supporting argument for reversal of the decision was that the Bannisters’ home had and would provide stable lifestyle with solid foundation and secure atmosphere for Mark. It was a dependable, middle-class, conventional, middle-western background lifestyle.
On the contrary, Mr. Painter’s home was synonymous with insecurity and instability because Mr. Painter was more of “romantic and somewhat of a dreamer”. Therefore, the atmosphere at his home would be unstable, arty, unconventional, intellectually stimulating and Bohemian. When looked at from the developmental perspective, it was approved that such conditions would not save the best interest of Mark, thus the revocation of the earlier decision.
In conclusion, the decision in the case of Painter v. Bannister cannot be reconciled with Welfare & Institutions Code §§300 et seq., the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (1971), and Division of the CA Family Code because it was based on non-legal premises. The “best interests test” mostly rests on moral grounds, rather than legal perspective. The above mentioned codes and act are applied from legal perspective. They consider the described legal rights of the individuals and they are applied with legal precision, rather than looking at the moral opinion or best interest.
References
MARK WENDELL PAINTER, a Minor, by HAROLD W. PAINTER, hisFather and Next Friend, Appellee, v. DWIGHT BANNISTER et ux., Appellants, No. 51974 (Supreme Court of Iowa February 8, 1966).
