This month, Reasonable Doubt is examining and debunking pervasive legal myths. I have decided to choose my most hated favourite: “When my child turns 12 he (she) can choose which parent he (she) wants to live with.”

This is 100 percent false. Not only is it false, it is a selfish, damaging lie we adults tell ourselves when we’re in a heated battle with our ex and know (against all reason, mind you) that our child is going to choose us and vindicate us. This lie goes a little something like this, “When our 12-year-old child chooses me to be primary parent, how awesome will that be? It will show the world what a piece of scum my ex truly is and that I was right the whole time!”

Sorry to break it to you, but you should never burden your 12-year-old with choosing sides, nor should you support or encourage a 12-year-old’s manipulation of his or her parents.

Yes, it feels good when your son or daughter comes home and tells you you’re the only parent for them. It feels even better when they put up a big stink about going to your ex’s new home. Yes, you love that they hate your ex’s new partner.

Now stop for a second. Have you ever considered that your sweet child is buttering you up? Trying to play you off your ex and get what he or she wants? Or even worse, trying to make you feel better? (This last one is the worst because no child should be responsible for making their parent feel better about their lives; it's up to the parent to make the child feel safe, loved, and free to love both parents equally).

So, let me be the millionth person first person to tell you: your 12-year-old is still a child. Yes, it's true, if they commit a crime when they turn 12, they can now be charged. No, that does not mean they have the psychological or emotional maturity to make decisions about which parent they should reside with.

Five, eight, ten, twelve, or fifteen: your young person is still a child and that means the only consideration that will determine parenting arrangements is the best interests of the children.

What are the best interests of the children? Well, they’re set out in section 37 of the Family Law Act. Considerations of health and emotional well-being of the child are paramount. Next on the list are the child’s views. Yes, their views are an important consideration (unless it would be inappropriate to consider them, like with much younger children), but it is only one of 10 considerations.

To really hammer home the point I am trying to make, I want to refer to two different cases.

The first is a 1998 B.C. Court of Appeal decision by O’Connell v. McIndoe. This was a case of parental alienation on the father’s part. The father had poisoned the mind of his 13-year-old son against his mother. As an effort to correct that, the trial court ordered that the son was to reside only with the mother. The appeal was brought by the father. While in his mother’s care, the 13-year-old child had run away many times. It got to the point where the police were involved and bringing the child home after he would run away.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial court. The judges on the bench did not say that it is the choice of this 13-year-old where he shall live, but rather recognized that the psychological poisoning of his son’s mind was so bad that it could not be reversed. To require the child to live with his mother, ultimately proved to put the child in danger as he kept running away from home. While the Court of Appeal allowed the child to reside with his father, they were very clear that the mother was right in law and fact, but because of the situation with the child, they had to reverse the lower court’s decision.

The other case I want to refer to is Rashtian v. Baraghoush, a 2013 decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. In this case, the mother had been consistently chosen as the primary caregiver. When the oldest boy turned 12, he began to run away and try to live with his father.

The judge refused to accept affidavit evidence of the 12-year-old boy, but did agree to interview him in his chambers. The judge is careful to point out that while the Family Law Act requires the court to hear the views of a child (unless it would be inappropriate), this does not mean that it is up to the child where he or she gets to live. Ultimately, the court ordered that the 12-year-old boy could primarily reside with his father. The reason being again that to impose another order would jeopardize the safety of the child.

Don’t be the parent that screws up your child enough that he or she starts running away from the other parent. So, stop secretly wishing that your child will “choose” you over your ex; this “choice” comes at the expense of a lot of heartache and danger for your child.