What I'm saying is if you require absolute knowledge, then you can't accomplish anything. The burden of proof in a legal case is never "beyond all doubt." There are varying levels of proof required, and in a civl context it's just "preponderance of the evidence." My point is if I'm on a jury, I can decide what's best for children according to the proper burden of proof.Sure we can, and do. Jurors decide when asked then worry if they were right, later. But they all know even if it's just deep down, they don't really KNOW. And I'm talking specifically in the stated arena of, "what's best for the kids."