Right now CNN is televising a trial that illustrates what's wrong with American family law: the murder trial of Marc Benayer, an elderly man with dementia. (This is not a problem with firearms, as anchor Jami Floyd contends.)

All across this country, millions of families are carrying the heavy burden of very elderly relatives with dementia. The law provides no relief. In fact, it compounds the problem.

In the past (and I mean as far back as Adam and Eve), the origin of family law, people generally either lived to a healthy old age or died young before their minds failed. Age used to bring wisdom. People respected their elders because of their life-experience. Rare indeed was the elderly relative "in his dotage" or "in his second childhood." Society treated such elderly people as children: the extended family lived with their elders, and family decisions were made by the "head of the household," that is, the person who "brought home the bacon." In other words, in the past the law was not concerned with the irresponsible, erratic behavior of the elderly with dementia. It wasn't a problem. (I'm purposely using the term "dementia," because most doctors claim Alzheimer's can't be diagnosed until a post-mortem examination of the brain is made. In addition, there are many forms of dementia, not only Alzheimer's.)

In general, American law requires a family member to prove that an elderly parent or relative is either "a danger to himself or to others" before the family is granted custody. An elderly person can live in filth and squalor inside his own home, can fail to pay his bills or taxes, can eat nothing but candy and cat food, can refuse to see a doctor, and can then die in his home--leaving a child or nephew to find the bloated corpse, to pay the overdue bills, to clean out the house, and to pay for the burial of the corpse. If the child tries to intervene before it's too late, he or she must take the elderly person to court, at great expense, and then prove that their loved one is not only engaging in irresponsible, self-destructive behavior but is also suicidal or homicidal--like Mr. Benayer. The law prohibits a judge from taking away an elderly person's rights under any circumstances but those.

The problem is: there is no way to prove such a person is suicidal or homicidal. Even a person with dementia will lie when asked if he wants to kill himself or someone else. Would Mr. Benayer have done that? Even after the fact he claims he didn't kill or hurt anyone.

Another type of behavior that the law condones is elderly drivers. The elderly aren't even required to take a test proving they have decent reflexes. As a result, many auto accidents result--the elderly are almost as bad drivers as teenagers.

A related problem is that of care for schizophrenics. Because of a series of Supreme Court decisions, a schizophrenic can only be hospitalized involuntarily for a short period of time, during which he can be administered medication forcibly. Once the medication works, he must be permitted to leave the hospital and does not have to continue to take medication. As I understand it, that was the case for Naveed Haq, the Jewish Center terrorist.

In fact, no one can be forcibly treated for alcoholism or drug abuse, no matter how extreme the problem or how many people are endangered by the risky behavior. What you do inside the four walls of your home--even do to other people--is legally your business and no one else's. Men can torture their wives and children. Mothers can torture their children. Parents can neglect their children.

I realize that the government taking away of a person's rights is a very serious matter. The government should be a citizen's servant, not its master. And I know that laws of custody are easily subject to abuse. But the cost in money and heartache of family members with mental problems is enormous.

The American system of family law and family courts not only doesn't help, it makes it all worse.

(I could add that a woman's home is not her castle, but I'll leave that for another post.)