A child’s statements to a parent is given little weight as standalone evidence in court because these statements usually fail basic reliability and evidentiary tests. Most obviously, such statements are classic hearsay — out-of-court assertions offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted — and therefore are inadmissible unless they fall within a recognized exception.

In the eyes of the court, emotional maturity is often the single most significant indicator of a parent's ability to provide a stable home environment. Family law judges understand that separation brings intense pain, betrayal, and anger but they look for parents who can compartmentalize those feelings.

For a non-parent, like a grandparent, to assert standing in a custody action against the parents of a child, the non-parent must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the parents are unfit or have acted in a manner inconsistent with their protected status.

For grandparents to have been awarded custody in the first place, the court must have determined that the parent was either unfit or had acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected parental rights. This finding would have rebutted the presumption that the parent has a superior right to custody.