Question

From the Painter v. Bannister (1966) case, how did the appellate court treat the expert witness testimony differently than the trial court that actually listened to the expert (Dr. Hawks)?   What is your opinion about the expert witness’s testimony?

Answer 1

Painter v. Bannister (1966) case is a family case. There are three parties to it a child Mark, his widower father Mr. painter and child's maternal grandparents Dwight and Margaret Bannister. It is the custody dispute,

Mark is seven years old his mother and younger sister were killed in an automobile accident on December 6, 1962. The father Mr. painter asked the Bannisters, to take care of Mark. In July 1963 Mr. painter remarried and wanted to take back his child from his grandparents. They refused to give Mark back to the father. Thus the case was filed for the custody of the child by his father against grandparents

The judgment had come in favor of the Bannisters citing many reasons,

Dr. Hawk was head of the Department of Child Development and Mark's psychologist. his testimony. He was the expert witness who is an individual who testifies in a court case The court in giving judgment took the help of the summary which Dr. Hawk had presented.

As an expert witness and child's psychologist, the court decided that Mark's best interest demands that his custody remains with the Bannisters. The summary given by him states when Mark came to stay with Bannisters he was very aggressive, cruel to animals and was not liked by his classmates.

Banisters were well educated and respected family they had enough wealth and were religious people attending the church regularly. In his stay with his grandparents, Mark has shown improvement in his behavior. The primary consideration by the court was given for the welfare of the child, the stability and security is very important for the proper development of the child, which the father could not provide because he was not having steady income, he was more inclined towards Buddhism, the child would not have received proper religious knowledge.

Jeanne's will named her husband guardian of her children and if he fails to take care of the children she had named her mother as their guardian.

Dr. Hawk pointed out that Mark had adjusted well in his grandparents care and treats them as their parents, and if Mark had to return to his father Mr., Painter he has to start from the scratch in establishing his relationship with Mr. Painter. Mark is aware that Mr. Painter is his father but he is unaware of what does it mean.

Dr. Hawk did not take Bannister's age into consideration; he argued that Mark will adjust to the change if one becomes necessary,

In expert witness view Mark was happy, well-adjusted and progressing nicely in his development. The court did not believe it was for Mark's best interest to take him out of this stable atmosphere.

Thus the case judgment was based on expert witness summary and custody was given to grandparents