When making a legal decision, morality must always take precedence. As a result, it is critical that the judge in this case considers all relevant legal policies in order to render a just decision. Because the child’s custody is in question in this case, moral considerations should take precedence. The current conflict isn’t entirely legal; rather, it’s ethical. In order to determine the child’s custody, the judge must make a decision based on the parent’s morals. He also has to deal with an ethical dilemma regarding the child’s primary custody. Although the law requires that the mother has the primary custody of the child. Although the law requires that the mother has the primary custody of the child, the best interest of the child must ensue. At the same time, the freedom of the mother has to be considered. Therefore, there is the need to execute the decision that has been ruled by the judge (Ruggiero 23).
The child in question needs to be in stable living conditions, which will benefit his social and emotional development. Also, the health of the child is paramount and, therefore, it is important to ensure that the child stays in safe environments. The health of the child might be compromised if the mother continues to smoke around her son. The reason is that a second-hand smoke has been proven to have detrimental effects on the life of an individual. In this case, the mother might not have the best interest of the child at heart. As such the moral considerations that have been discussed support the decision of the judge in banning the woman from smoking around her son and, therefore, the decision made is justified.
Ruggiero, Vincent R. Thinking critically about ethical issues. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher