A Case on Custody, Morality, and the Limits of Judicial Perception
An analytical essay based on a real custody case.
by Evangelos Trimmis
A father petitions for sole custody of his two minor daughters.
At the time, he is serving a prison sentence.
His claim: the mother, Etleva K., is unfit to raise her children; his own mother would assume care.
Formally, the petition is admissible.
Substantively, the question arises:
What is he really seeking?
He does not intend to parent.
He intends to possess a legal instrument that might improve his position within the penal system.
I. The Form of Law and the Reality of Human Conduct
Law examines acts, not motives.
A petition meeting the formal requirements must be processed.
Yet every legal system relies on an implicit assumption:
That a claim is made for its lawful purpose.
When that alignment breaks, all that remains is the shell of legality.
II. The Mother: Lived Responsibility
The mother lives with her children.
She carries their daily life, their needs, their proximity.
She has no legal strategy — she has reality.
Against her stand rumours, moral judgments, and family tensions.
None of it is legally relevant — all of it socially influential.
The court sees two parents.
In truth, it faces two realities:
the asserted and the lived.
III. The Moment Intention Reveals Itself
During the hearing, perception shifts.
The father cannot recall his daughters’ birthdays.
He does not know when he last saw them.
He speaks of responsibility — without any trace of relationship.
Then a neutral, almost technical question arises:
“Would a custody decision have any effect on your conditions of imprisonment?”
The opposing counsel objects.
I withdraw the question — for by then, the answer has already settled into the room.
And at that moment it becomes clear:
This is not a petition for custody.
It is a petition for advantage.
IV. When Intention Becomes Proof
A petition may be legally correct and substantively hollow.
Not because it lacks elements — but because it lacks direction.
The court recognises that this is not about the children,
not about parental responsibility,
not about care.
It is about strategically using them.
Here, the limits of legal form yield to the responsibility of judicial perception.
V. The Decision
The petition is denied.
The reasoning remains formal: lack of emotional bond, lack of credibility, unclear motivation.
Yet something deeper occurs:
Aristotle’s epieikeia — equity as the correction of the law where its generality fails.
Justice is not the repetition of a rule.
It is the restoration of meaning.
Bibliography
- Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, Book V – on epieikeia.
- Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, II–II, Q. 43 – on right intention.
- ECtHR, Article 8 – case law on family life.
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
- Albanian Family Code – provisions on parental authority.
- Comparative Family Law Studies – European models of parental responsibility.
- Author’s professional experience as legal representative of Etleva K. in this case.