Verified by 
Most people, even those who are thoroughly secular, know the story of the Judgment of Solomon:
Two women who share a house and have recently given birth within days of one another come to King Solomon to adjudicate a dispute. One of their babies died in the night. The first woman claims the dead infant belonged to the second woman, who then switched the babies. The second woman denies this charge, claiming that the living child is her own.
King Solomon asks for a sword, resolving to settle the matter by cutting the baby in half so each can possess half the child. The second woman agrees to this judgment; the first woman says that she will give the baby up rather than see her child killed. Solomon realizes that the first woman must be the mother.
Analyzing the story
King Solomon accurately predicts that a "true" mother, a good mother, would rather give her child away than see him harmed. If taken literally, the response of the second woman is indeed horrifying, indicating psychopathy rather than weak attachment.
But like much of the Bible, it might not be meant to be read literally, and we can certainly read it as an allegory applicable to custody battles in our own day. In this case, the two mothers represent parents fighting for custody, and King Solomon represents the judge who will decide the issue. However, judges do not all possess the wisdom of Solomon, nor do simple factors, such as one wise man’s decision, decide the outcome. In this thought experiment, let’s make the children older, at least 5 years old.
The typical custody battle today
The Judgment of Solomon in this allegorical form is all too common. A couple decides to end their relationship. One parent wants full custody and is willing to fight for it to the bitter end, dragging the children through an extended court battle that “tears them apart” by involving them in the parents’ struggle.
Allegiance to both parents, a refusal to choose, becomes nearly impossible for children in these circumstances. The court case, for which their opinions might well be sought (depending on age), as well as the knowledge of the irresolvable animosity between parents, is traumatic, even in those cases in which the children clearly have a preference because one parent is abusive. Litigation and an uncertain future also generate enormous stress.
One parent, usually a person who has psychological “issues”—let’s say is dealing with depression, an eating disorder, or a substance use problem—decides that it would be better to relinquish the children rather than put them through the trauma of a court case. But here’s the rub: The court does not say to that parent, “Your attitude shows you are the true and better parent. I am giving you the children.” The court gives the children to the “second woman.” The “first woman” signs away her rights.
She often lives to regret this decision.
The lesson from King Solomon's judgment
Solomon was right—a parent who would see her child cut in two is not a “real” parent, not a person who can provide the love and nurture, the safety and refueling, children need. Either this parent is so invested in the power struggle with the other parent that the children’s feelings don’t matter, or the parent lacks the ability to take another’s perspective—or both—and so fails to realize the effects that a court battle will have on the children.
The damage that might result from a court case is apparent. But the cumulative damage of being under the control of a parent willing to sacrifice their children to win a battle, or of a parent unable to take others’ perspectives, is likely to be much more harmful in the long run. It is highly unlikely that a parent who fails to see what a custody battle might do to their children will be able to parent well in other situations.
There are not all that many King Solomons in our courts or anywhere else for that matter. But those therapists, law guardians, lawyers, and others involved in custody cases might bring a bit of his wisdom to the table by asking parents ready to relinquish their rights for the good of their children to think about what it would mean to give sole custody to a parent with so little social and emotional intelligence as the non-compromising parent exhibits. Is it likely that having won her case, the “second woman” will suddenly develop the qualities needed for effective parenting? Is she likely to be a good enough mother? Or will she sacrifice her child again and again in myriad ways, less obvious than that offered by King Solomon’s solution, but terribly harmful nonetheless?
Stress makes clear thinking difficult, and few things are more stressful than fighting for the welfare of one’s children. Parents who have multiple sources of stress are likely not thinking clearly, and not thinking with respect to long-term consequences. The first woman really did not have a choice because once the child was cut in half, the story was over. But the effects of a custody decision go on and on.
The moral of Solomon’s judgment for today might well be that a parent willing to sacrifice a child in order to win a power struggle is unlikely to be an adequate parent. Those of us with a bit of the responsibility and hopefully a bit of the wisdom of King Solomon would do well to point that out.
References
Fonagy, Peter et al. Affect Regulation, Mentalization, and the Development of the Self. Other Press, 2005,
