You cannot ask the Court to enact a new law to regulate the inter se rights of parents to the custody of the child, or for 'fair, just and equitable distribution of the child's affection'. Nor can you frame a law to prevent a child from reflecting the emotions nurtuted in him by the custodial parent. The law, as it stands is more than sufficient and I doubt you'd be able to produce cogent evidence to prove otherwise. Even if you could, which I doubt, what then? A specially empowered Court appointed Committee to make sure a child gets parent-neutral psychological conditioning?
That you have enaged an 'amicus curiae' makes me wonder if the Ld. Counsel represented herself as being one? For, she cannot. There is nothing like so-and-so is an amicus with such-and-such Court; an amicus is appointed for a particular case and/or a particular purpose and it is not something like a title/office/special class of advocates that someone may bandy around as, "I am an amicus with Court".
Now bring on the lashing, but since you posted it here, I might as well give my frank view.