THE JUDICIAL BIAS THAT HAS TRADITIONALLY AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO MOTHERS IN DIVORCE CASES, APART FROM OVERT INDICATIONS OF HER UNFITNESS, IS BELIEVED TO BE CHANGING TO A MORE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF WHICH PARENT WOULD BE BETTER FOR NURTURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHILDREN INVOLVED. FATHERS ARE THUS VIEWED AS STARTING ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH MOTHERS IN EVALUATING PARENTAL FITNESS. THE CASE STIMULATING THIS CHANGE WAS DECIDED BY THE NEW YORK COUNTY SUPREME COURT, IN 1975, AND WAS AFFIRMED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION IN 1976. IN SALK V. SALK, THE FATHER WON CUSTODY OF HIS TWO CHILDREN, A BOY AGE 12 AND A DAUGHTER AGE 6, BASED ON THE FINDING OF THE COURT THAT HE WAS 'BETTER FIT' FOR PARENTING. HENCE, FATHERS WERE REMOVED FROM THE BURDEN OF PROVING UNFITNESS OF THE MOTHER IN ORDER TO WIN CHILD CUSTODY. THE CLAIM OF FATHERS FOR EQUALITY IN CUSTODY CASES IS BASED ON EXISTING LAW IN MANY STATES THAT SPECIFIES THAT FATHER AND MOTHER IN CUSTODY CASES MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IN DECIDING CUSTODY. THESE STATE LAWS ARE FURTHER REINFORCED BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. IN PRESENTING A FATHER'S CLAIM FOR CUSTODY, IT IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT THAT HE STILL BE LIVING WITH THE CHILDREN AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. SHOULD THE CHILDREN LIVE WITH THE MOTHER ALONE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT ANY OBVIOUS PROBLEMS ARISING, THE JUDGE WILL NOT BE INCLINED TO PRECIPITATE CHANGE. METHODS OF PRESENTING A CASE FOR THE FATHER'S HAVING CUSTODY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: (1) THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHER AS TO THE QUALITY OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD FROM THE CHILD'S BIRTH TO THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, WHILE COMPARING IT TO THE MOTHER'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD; (2) THE TESTIMONY OF FRIENDS, FAMILY, OR NEIGHBORS AS TO THE OBSERVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FATHER AND CHILD; (3) THE USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE FIELDS; AND (4) WHERE THE CHILD HAS A PREFERENCE FOR THE FATHER, IT SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN. IN SOME CASES, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CHALLENGE THE BIAS OF THE JUDGE OR EVEN A COURT-APPOINTED BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE VIEWING THE ISSUE FROM A BIASED POINT OF VIEW. (RCB)