Part 3: Communication, Preparation and the Best Interests of the Child

By Lynne Marie Kohm © 2026

In Part 1, we considered the personal and relational challenges C. S. Lewis faced as a newly formed stepfamily confronted impending loss, and in Part 2, we examined the legal framework that governs custody when a custodial parent dies. Together, these reveal both the human and legal tensions inherent in such cases. Part 3 turns to Lewis’ response — examining how his actions, decisions, and steady focus on the children’s well-being offer practical guidance for stepparents navigating similarly difficult circumstances.

“Children have indelible memories of such things…”

Any analysis of how a stepparent can make the appropriate effort toward the children’s best interests to retain custody of children of deceased spouse must consider not only the aforementioned legal rules, but all the facts at hand, including the actions and attitudes of the stepparent. So what did Jack do? How and why were his actions so unique? This section will thoroughly examine and consider those actions, as well as those of the custodial parent, Joy, along with the responses those actions collected, and then set out appropriate and relevant action steps for any stepparent to follow in not only a similar scenario, but in all situations.

Jack and Joy’s Actions

Two key elements of the actions of Jack and Joy were communication, and preparation.  These two choices allowed the custodial parent and her spouse to essentially set the agenda for how the children will feel safe, secure, and stabilized with continuity in their residential home.

Communication is key to any relationship, but it is absolutely necessary in a stepparent household,[1] though it may hold more “ticklish” -ness, as Jack put it, than an average family situation.[2] Precisely because of the uniqueness of the varied relationships between parents and children, the style, language, and tone of the communications between the parties of a blended family must be ever constantly evaluating how each communication will be received by the children.[3] The parents must conduct sensitive and factual communication and correspondence that is always respectful, and in the best interest of the child. Instead of focusing on conflict between parents, effective and productive communication that focuses on the best interests of the children will facilitate optimal and happy experiences. Lewis gives an example of that when he wrote to Bill, “Of course I cannot judge between your account and Joy’s account of your married life; nor is it perhaps the chief point. What you and I have to think of is the happiness of the boys.”[4]

The optimal approach to help communication stay focused on what is best for the children is maintained by listening to the children, and responding to them with understanding.[5] “The boys remember you as a man who fired rifles thro’ ceilings to relieve his temper, broke up chairs, wept in public, and broke a bottle over Douglas’s head. David knew, and resented, the fact that you were living with your present wife while still married to his mother.”[6] Jack must have intently listened to the boys and their experiences to so concisely restate their memories in this way. Yet even in delivering such ugly reminiscences of the children, Jack leavened those memories with concern for Bill’s reception of these events. “Children have indelible memories of such things and they are (let us admit) self-righteous.”[7] In attempting to reflect the children’s perspectives accurately but also sensitively, Jack couched his informational communication in a way that viewed Bill in the best light.

The tone of communications must be strategically sensitive, calm, kind, and loving.[8]  Shouting, anger, anxiety, should all be banished from use by the adults. “[A] quieter and positive tone of voice enhances mutual affection instead of hurting your loved ones’ feelings.”[9] Jack’s letters reveal a tone of respect and kindness to all the parties, from his efforts to understand Bill’s desires, to his directly addressing those matters of deep conflict. “If you realized the cruelty of what you are proposing to do, I am sure you would not do it.”[10] Again, Jack intentionally worked to insure his communications placed Bill and his intentions in the best light, particularly regarding the troublesome evidence presented by the children.

While having the boys in his home and raising them was not easy, Jack “was less forthcoming about these difficulties.”[11] In one letter to Bill he wrote “They’re a nice pair and easy to get on with – if only they got on better with one another.”[12] In the midst of every circumstance Jack seemed to make a point of diligently serving and protecting the children. He and Joy, afforded the boys educational opportunities and financial support, and Jack continued these benefits after Joy’s death.[13] Douglas Gresham recalled later in an interview that “Jack tried his very hardest for David all the time. He tried to help in every way he could – he was kind and gentle and wonderful to him.”[14]

Perhaps the most helpful and productive element of all communication pertaining to stepparents is the elimination of all disparaging talk.[15] While it is generally standard practice for a custody agreement to contain language against disparagement, largely to avoid psychological harm to the children (and to avoid charges of parental alienation), the reality is that circumstances are often otherwise.[16] Such behavior can come back to haunt a parent (or stepparent) who does so.[17] Lewis seemed to work to create common ground with the absent parent. “If through clumsiness, in the effort to put things strongly, I sound like one who writes with animosity, believe me this is not so. I think there has never been any ill-feeling between you and me, and I very much hope there never will be.”[18] This is the “ticklish job” to which Lewis refers.[19] Jack even communicated an understanding that Bill might suspect him of disparaging their dad to the boys. “I assure you that they have never heard a word against you from me. No propaganda at all has ever gone on.”[20]

While communication is the first key to the actions of stepparents, preparation is the second. Preparation here refers to having the permission, by legal appointment, of the custodial spouse to care for the children in his or her absence.[21] That may also include legally securing the children’s status in another country.[22] These means of preparation should present at least a paper trail of discoverable evidence should a judicial challenge ensue.[23] Pursuing citizenship was a critical aspect of this preparation for securing the Gresham boys’ best interests.

A critical key for the family was contained in Joy’s will. The Last Will and Testament of Joy Davidman contained two key clauses that helped to protect Jack’s claims to care for the boys: she named him both the executor of her estate, and the guardian of the boys.

“I appoint the said Clive Staples Lewis and Arthur Own Barfield… [hereinafter called “my trustees”] as the executors and trustees of this, my will.

I appoint the said Clive Staples Lewis to be the guardian of my two sons, David Lindsey Gresham and Douglas Howard Gresham, should I die before they come of age.”[24]

When the custodial parent leaves a will naming a guardian other than the surviving parent, those wishes may or may not guide a court’s decision, as they may conflict with the presumption for the natural parent as discussed previously, or there are specific reasons related to the best interests of the child.[25] An important question concerns whether the custodial parent’s testamentary intent is in contravention of the other natural parent’s rights, does it still have any control. If it is found that the intent does control or have force, why does it have such force? Testamentary intent may make a difference because the decision is about the best interests of the children.[26] That doctrine generally leaves a great deal of discretion to a judge in any case regarding children’s custody.[27] Judges consider several statutory factors to determine what is in the best interests of the child, including, e.g., stability, finances, abuse, neglect, educational opportunities.[28] Overall, the doctrine requires a court to balance a parent’s rights and a parent’s ability to care for their child.[29] Remarriage raises an element of de facto parenthood[30] which can complicate or aid a determination of what is best for the children residing in that new household.[31]

The fact that the boys had been living with Jack and their mother for her three-year marriage prior to her death, added weight to the claims Jack could provide for their stability and continuity at such a heartbreaking time in their lives. Interestingly, the additional fact that Jack had lived through losing his own mother only serves to buttress the depth of his understanding of their trauma experience.[32] That depth of understanding is on display in his letter to Bill. “Now, bitterly against their will, coming on top of the most appalling tragedy that can happen to childhood (I went through it and know), tearing them from all that has already become familiar and shattering all sense of security that remains to them, it would be disastrous.”[33]

The fact that the boys had become naturalized citizens in the U.K. was another piece of preparation, and added to the stability they had in their new home in the U.K., one they enjoyed and benefitted from with their stepfather.  “Joy has, legally, a case. Her (documented) desire for naturalization (which there may still be time to carry out), and the boys’ horror of going back, will be strong points.”[34] Indeed, there was time to carry that out, and during her three year remission, the boys were naturalized in the U.K.[35]  Their citizenship underscored their stability, living with their step father there in the U.K. as their home rather than in the U.S. with their natural father. All of this evidence favored Jack as the stepparent guardian. This evidence had a paper trail, was discoverable, and could be made available in a guardianship challenge.

These intentional actions of the stepparent, along with the custodial parent, made all the difference. Bill never challenged Jack’s guardianship or custody of the children. Yes, it likely helped to be an Oxford Don who had once graced the cover of Time magazine,[36] but by implementing good communication which focused on what was best for the boys, and correspondence that treated Bill with respect and understanding, Lewis projected a stepparent focused totally on the best interest of his charges. For Jack Lewis, the stepparent, it was never about him. He sacrificed as any good parent would for the boys.[37] In his biography of C.S. Lewis, Douglas Gresham calls Jack “the finest man and best Christian I have ever known.”[38] The result was not only the best for the children,[39] but it was also as positive an experience as possible even for Bill, the non-custodial parent. Bill “came to visit the boys at The Kilns shortly after Joy’s death in 1960, at Lewis’ urging.”[40] After that visit he wrote a pretty comprehensive letter to his brother, Hank, parts of which are included here below.

Jack Lewis wrote me on the 15^th but just sent the letter ordinary mail and I didn’t receive it until I was about on my way. I went anyhow and had a very encouraging visit with him and the boys. Lewis is a charming and fascinating man as everyone knows who has ever read any of Chad Walsh’s books about him. The boys were just the same boys only grown up a lot. Davy is overpoweringly intellectual and quite a supercilious egg head which I hope he will outgrow. He is just the sort of kid Joy raised him to be. Doug is the same outgoing, winning extrovert, with a million friends. Both boys felt the loss of their mother keenly of course. Davy reacted to burying himself in his room and tending to his [agvana?] and studying Hebrew, his great passion. Doug showed his attentions in furious lawn mowing with the power mower, inspection of the barbed wire fencing around the place (against the raids of Teddy boys and general activity). He just got a small tape recorder and we had a lot of fun with that. I brought back a tape of Lewis reading passages from That Hideous Strength and Perelandra on one side and on the other his reading from the prologue of The Canterbury Tales. I always wanted to learn how to pronounce Chaucer and here is the nearest we can come to it – right out of the horse’s mouth, for Jack is one of the greats of Middle English scholarship. He teaches now at Cambridge – they created a chair of Medieval Literature for him. Home on weekends.

 The household is run by a jolly and warmhearted housekeep Mrs. Miller, Wilkins, the maid, and Paxford, the gardener, who cooks for the men folks of the household over weekends when Mrs. Miller is at home. She lives just down the streets, taking care of Miller who works at one of the factories in Oxford.

Oxford is just about what you would expect. We were taken through Magdalen College one Sunday afternoon by Jack and I got some good pictures of him and Doug walking long Addison’s walk, known to the undergraduates as the Adder. Also got some pics of the lads and their girls punting on the Cherwell (“The Char”).  

The second week I went down to London and Doug who stayed in London came with me — Davy didn’t want to do any sightseeing — really did the rounds beginning with Mme. Toussard’s. On our last day we took a long bus excursion down through Surry (where the boys used to go to school) to a famous country house now a tourist attraction. When I left England I felt I had really seen the elephant and heard the owl.[41]

This is not the correspondence of a natural parent who is fighting to maintain his custodial parental rights. Rather, from his own hand and in his own voice Bill seems satisfied, and even pleased with, his visit to the boys in Oxford, and their wellbeing in Lewis’ care. Bill left for the United States alone. The boys went back to Oxford and continued living at the Kilns. No custody litigation ever ensued. In a most unpretentious way, C. S. Lewis became a model stepparent. 

Conclusion

Because the surviving natural parent by law resumes custody of the children by virtue of the fundamental constitutionally protected right of parents to direct the upbringing of their own children when the custodial parent dies,[42] a stepparent must tread wisely to protect the best interests of the children. This article has used original research to discuss this conundrum in the context of the custody of David and Douglas Gresham, the children of William Gresham and Joy Davidman Lewis, in a review and analysis of the handling of the matter by Joy, the custodial parent, and her husband, C. S. Lewis, the stepparent, in light of the care of the Gresham boys in her approaching death. 

Stepparents need a clear road map for how they should handle a stepparent custody matter in the death of the custodial parent.[43] C.S. Lewis provides the template, as set forth in this essay, explicitly and succinctly as follows:

Step 1: Communicate. Conduct sensitive and factual communication and correspondence. That communication should always be respectful, non-disparaging, always considering the best interests of the child, and it should be easily discoverable as evidence if needed in a guardianship challenge.

Step 2: Know the Law. Gain a clear understanding of the law. Parents have primary rights; stepparents have no legal rights until awarded by law. Lawyers can be a tremendous help in securing rights.

Step 3: Prepare. Preparation for the eventual death of the custodial parent is absolutely necessary by drafting and executing a will that names the stepparent as the guardian of the surviving children. Naming that stepparent as the executor and trustee of the custodial spouse’s estate is also critically significant.

Step 4: Consider the assets of the children and what they will need for survival, appointing a suitable guardian of their property. Ideally, naming the stepparent as trustee of any trusts established for the children protects the children’s best interests and provides easy access to assets that will help provide for the children’s care.

The death of a parent is devastating for a child, and the death of the custodial parent is traumatizing. Knowing and discerning how the law works in light of the facts can help any stepparent to navigate every stepparent custody conundrum. The best opportunity for blended families means always focusing on the children’s best interests as absolutely primary. C.S. Lewis focused on the Gresham boys at every turn. His actions and decisions reveal that it just may be possible for adults to find what is truly best for the children.

[1] The bulk of literature on step parenting offers a clue to how complicated the relationship, and therefore the communications, can be. See supra note 79.

[2] Lewis letter to Gresham, April 6, 1957, Letters, Vol. III, supra note 13, at 845.

[3] See generally Beaudry, supra note 79.

[4] Lewis letter to Gresham, April 6, 1957, Letters, Vol. III, supra note 13, at 844-45.

[5] See, e.g. Jacqueline Clarke, Do I Have a Voice? An Empirical Analysis of Children’s Voices in Michigan Custody Litigation.” 47 Fam. L.Q. 457 (2013) (examining the importance of the child’s voice).

[6] Lewis letter to Gresham, April 4, 1957, Letters, Vol. III, supra note 13, at 843-44.

[7] Id.

[8] See, e.g. Susan Heitler, Tone of Voice: How do you sound to your family?, Psych. Today, Jun. 30, 2025, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/resolution-not-conflict/202004/tone-of-voice-how-do-you-sound-to-your-family (discussing avoidance of toxic voice tones, and how to build positive constructive communication styles with appropriate tone).

[9] Id.

[10] Lewis letter to Gresham, April 6, 1957, Letters, Vol. III, supra note 13, at 845.

[11] Van Maren, supra note 11.

[12] Id.

[13] Letters Vol. 1, at 1672-74, 1676-77; Gresham, supra note 45. And of course being taken to Inklings’s meetings was a special perk as well, as Douglas mentions in his interview with Van Maren. See Van Maren, supra note 11.

[14] Van Maren, supra note 11 (quoting Douglas Gresham, David’s brother).

“Jack helped my brother through all sorts of difficulties in education and so forth,” Douglas told me. “When my brother decided to become Jewish rather than Christian – he’d already been through Islam and tried Buddhism – Jack went out of his way to get special posts and pans for him so he could cook his own kosher food and get kosher food from the Jewish shop in the middle of the covered market in Oxford.

Jack went out of his way to do everything he possibly could…”

Id. (quoting Douglas discussing the challenges presented to the family by David’s damaged mental and emotional health).

[15] See, e.g. the example of a Colorado law firm that makes it a standard practice in their custody agreements to contain a “prohibited conduct” clause that includes how parents speak about each other that the children can observe. Parental Alienation in Divorce: Bad-mouthing or Free Speech? Jun. 20, 2020, Graham Law, https://www.graham.law/blog/badmouth-free-speech-or-parental-alienation/. “This practice is meant to give an extra layer of accountability to parents, especially as they are going through the first months after what is often a personally traumatic break-up and the temptation to badmouth the other is highest.” Id.

[16] Conflicts will happen, and sometimes courts step into the fray in that regard. See the case of Shak v. Shak, 484 Mass. 658, 144 N.E.3d 274 (Mass. 2020) (where a Massachusetts family court examined whether an order against disparaging remarks was not an abridgement of free speech or an undue restraint on the parents).

[17] “And certainly judges, who are guided by determining the best interests of the child, can make clear to the parties that their behavior, including any disparaging language, will be factored into any subsequent custody determinations.” Id. at 664-65.

[18] Lewis letter to Gresham, dated April 6, 1957, Letters, Vol. III, supra note 13, at 844-45.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] See generally Rosalind Edwards, Val Gillies, and J. Ribbens McCarthy, Biological parents and social families: legal discourses and everyday understandings of the position of step-parents, 13 Int’l J. L., Pol’y & Fam. 78 (1999).

[22] Deportation of children upon death or detention of a parent residing in a foreign nation is not unusual. See Keila E. Molina and Lynne Marie Kohm, Are We There Yet? Immigration Reform for the Best Interests of Children, Berkeley La Raza L. J. (2013) (reprinted Regent J. Int’l L. (2013)(discussing these concerns generally). The absence of a natural parent can be due to vocation, deployment, or decease of the custodial spouse. Id.

[23] Written evidence is generally always preferable to testimony in a matter of a decedent’s estate, as well as in a custody trial as such evidence is highly indisputable. See generally Dale A. Nance, The Best Evidence Principle, 73 Iowa L. Rev. 227 (1987).

[24] Last Will and Testament of Joy Davidman, dated Oct. 24, 1956 (on file with the Articles File, Joy Gresham Will, October 3, 1959, AF, csl-MISC, Marion E. Wade Center, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL).

[25] See generally Kohm, supra note 2.

[26] Id. at 4-8 (discussing in depth the connection and conflict between parental rights, express testamentary intent, and the best interests of the child).

[27] See generally Kohm, Tracing, supra note 56, at 338-39 (discussing this discretion as simultaneously good and terrible due to the infinite spectrum of discretion given to a judge in such circumstances in the name of the best interests of the child when it is quite likely that that judge in these circumstances has never met with or communicated with the child). These concerns are magnified in a probate proceeding as most are handled completely with documents rather than through oral personal testimony. See e.g. Taren R. Lord-Halvorson, Why Wait until We Die: Living Probate in a New Light. 37 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 543 (2012) (discussing the process of probate and its shortcomings).

[28] Kohm, supra note 56, at 337. See also “Best Interest of the Child,” N.Y.C Bar, http://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/family-law/childcustody-and-parenting-plans/best-interests-of-the-child/ (last visited Feb. 24, 2026).

[29] Kohm, supra note 56, at 339.

[30] See generally Robin Fretwell Wilson, Undeserved Trust: Reflections on the ALI’s Treatment of De Facto Parents, (University of Maryland Legal Research Paper No. 2005-57, 2005), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=825664##. For more clarity on the definition of de facto parents see supra notes 72-73.

[31] See generally Michelle R. Gros, Since You Brought it Up: Is Legally Separating a Child from a Nonbiological Third Party Who has Essentially become the Child’s Psychological Parent Really in the Best Interest of the Child?, 44 Southern U. L. Rev. 367 (2017) (challenging the parental presumption when the best interests of the child have been protected by a psychological parent).

[32] Lewis’ mother, Flora, died on August 23, 1908, also of cancer. Hooper, supra note 7, at 6.

[33] Letter from Lewis to Gresham, April 6, 1957, Letters, Vol, III, supra note 12, at 844-45.

[34] Id. at 844-45. At the date of this letter merely application for citizenship had been made, all of which was approved prior to Joy’s death. See Joy Davidman Papers, supra note 20.

[35] See discussion supra notes 43-44.

[36] Lewis served as an Oxford Don from 1925-1954, and as a Professor at Cambridge from 1954-1963. Alister McGrath, C.S. Lewis, A Life 111 (Tyndale House Pub. 2013) (noting Lewis’ election as an Oxford Don); See Letters Vol III, supra note 13, at 1419 (detailing Lewis’ resignation from Oxford and his appointment at Cambridge).  His Time magazine cover appearance was on Sep. 8, 1947. Hooper, supra note 8, at 47.

[37] In several letters around Christmas of 1956, for example, Jack wrote of his household duties. “I have a sick (v. sick) wife to visit daily in hospital. At home I had to look after a sick brother, 2 schoolboy stepsons, one dog, one cate, four gees, umpteen hens, two stoves, three pipes in danger of freezing: so I was pretty busy and pretty tired.” Letters Vol. III, at 820 in letter to Sarah Neylan, Dec. 30, 1956.  These sentiments were repeated in letters to Bill Gresham of Dec. 30, `956, and to Vera Gebbert, Dec. 31, 1956. Letters, Vol. III, at 820-21.

[38] Douglas Gresham, Jack’s Life: The Life Story of C. S. Lewis (Broadman & Holman, 2005). “This is merely the simple recounting of the story of what I believe to be the extraordinary life of an extraordinary man.” Id., at the Introduction. Incidentally, C.S. Lewis willed his papers and books to his brother Warnie, Major Warren Hamilton Lewis. See also C. S. Lewis Last Will and Testament, dated Nov. 2, 1961, at https://www.discovery.org/a/884/, in Kathryn Lindskoog, C. S. Lewis’ Last Will and Testament, The Lewis Legacy-Issue 78, Autumn 1998, Sep. 1, 1998, The C.S. Lewis Foundation for Truth in Publishing, E-mail text provided by Mike W. Perry, Seattle, Washington. Being childless himself, upon his death in 1973 Warnie willed the Lewis family papers to the Wade Center at Wheaton College, where much of this research for this essay was found. C.S. Lewis: A Profile in Faith 122, Joel S. Woodruff & Thomas A. Tarrants, III, Eds. C.S.Lewis Inst.org (2013), http://cslewisinstitute.org/pdf. 

[39] C.S. Lewis’ Last Will and Testament revealed his love and care for the boys by leaving them his complete residuary estate after Warnie’s life estate was complete with his death. Setting up his full estate in trust, he directed, as not only any step parent would, but as any parent would, leaving the boys his entire estate as follows:

8. SUBJECT as above my Trustees shall stand possessed of my residuary estate upon the following trusts, that is to say:

(1) Upon trust to pay the income to my said brother during his life

(2) After the death of my said brother Upon trust for each of them my stepsons David Lindsay Gresham and Douglas Howard Gresham who shall attain the age of 21 years in equal shares absolutely or if either stepson shall fail to attain the age of 21 Upon Trust as to the whole for the survivor at 21 absolutely

121. S. Lewis Last Will and Testament, supra note 121.

[40] Van Maren, supra note 11. Van Maren’s interview with Douglas Gresham contains a lengthy discussion of the poor mental health and behavior of David Gresham, and on this particular visit with their natural father it was noted that “David had no interest in spending time with his father.” Id.

[41] Letter from William Gresham to Howard, supra note 50.

[42] See supra discussion at Part 1. While this article uses U.S. legal principles, the U.K.’s rules are similar, and any litigation would likely have been brought by Gresham in the U.S.

[43] For a complete discussion of the lawyering guidance and techniques useful in these circumstances see Kohm, Part II: Lawyering Solutions, supra note 2, at 9-13.