he outset when phrasing issues of child welfare. For example, psychologists and psychiatrists have divergent views on what is even 'good' for the child during the various stages of divorce - Are long, drawn-out trials the best route as it may ensure that the end result is the placement of the child with the best possible carer or do they only succeed in exacerbating an already bad situation? Is the act of divorce or remaining a couple better for the welfare of the child? Should the primary parent be able to make full decisions on when and how the child can see the non-custodial parent or should it be up to court - or up to child?
             Goldstein, Freud and Solnit put forward that contact with the non-custodial parent can be damaging unless the two spouses remain on good terms and they suggest that contact with the non-custodial parent should be a matter for control by the custodial parent because the child, confused with the surrounding physical and emotional upheaval, would need to settle into a reorganised family with one person in authority who they can rely upon for non-debatable answers. Critics of this position include Richards who is of the belief that access to the child is too important to be left to the whims of a custodial parent.
             The institutional means by which children are raised and taught the value systems of their particular society vary over a range of social groups as well as within individual social groups. It has been said that , in such a situation, Psychology makes comparative statements about the results and success rates of the varying styles all the while recognising that this comparison takes place against differing sets of environmental conditions. Thus, with the complexity of modern society in mind, can it truly be said that any one style of child-rearing is the 'best' method?
             The statement that child law is not in fact child-centred can find evidential support in a number of areas. As a general concept...