A true Sociopath is not diagnosed unless a person is at least 18 years of age (The new name for his disorder is Anti-social personalty through some researchers separate antisocial personality from Psychopath/Sociopath personality)):
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe04.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorderFurthermore to be diagnosed the person had to had suffer from "Conduct Disorder" before he or she turned 18. Conduct Disorder is as follows:
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/conduct_disorderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorderTo get either diagnosis you need at least THREE of the problems listed in each definition above. The problem is, from all reports, this is the ONLY act under the above definition and if that is the case he is NOT a Sociopath/Psychopath/Anti-social Personality OR Suffer from "Conduct Disorder". The evidence appears NOT to exist (Through any Psychological exam will bring such action out, but from the reports I have read I see nothing).
Lets be honest, given then he just visited his Mother, somehow he viewed both men as preventing him from staying with his mother (Assuming no abuse, none have been reported but it is possible). The Child then looked for a solution to that problem and executed it. The Child probably did NOT even think of going to Jail, he just wanted gone the two people who was preventing him from staying with his Mother. That is both thinking the "problem" through and thus evidence of being mature, and also evidence of a lack of maturity for he probably thought if both men were gone he be returned to his Mother. Typical Eight (8) year old thinking and the reason the Common Law Rule as to Competency was "Did the person have the competency of a 14 year old?". If the answer was NO, no criminal intent, no conviction, if yes, criminal intent and conviction.
AS to the Mother, there are several reasons why she did NOT get Custody. First, the Father had the child when the custody dispute broke out. The reason Women get custody in most cases, is they had the child when the couple bring up, and when it comes to the court, the court finds both parents equal and preserves the status quo (i.e. in most cases the Mother retains custody of the Child, but in cases like this one, the Father retains Custody).
Second, the Mother has to move out of the County to take on a job, in such cases the Courts will order the Mother to give Father Custody for it was her act that took the child out of the County not his and why should the Father be punished for the act of the Mother moving out of the County (Through I have had cases where such an Order was entered but the child failed to thrive without the child's Mother and we had to go to court to give Mother Custody do to the baby's drop in weight, nothing the Father did, the child just did NOT like being away from the baby's mother, thus the Father ended up losing custody, but it was the result of the Mother Willing to give the Father the Child while she took on a new out of County Job, and then the Child's Doctor reporting the failure to Thrive and the only solution was to return the child to the Mother over the Father's objections). This being an eight year old child, failing to thrive is NOT an issue, but Father may have had Custody for Mother took a job to far away.
Third, The Father has a better overall house then the mother. Now if this can be resolved by Child Support NOT an issue, but sometime it can not be. Mother may have other priorities (I have seen this) and other times the Father has little income but a real nice home that the mother can NOT come close to matching (The lack of Income means no way for Child support to solve the problem, often this involved a Father whose House is own outright or is owned with another person who is NOT the mother of his child).
Given the picture of the house (Which was more then adequate for the Child but nothing outstanding) I do NOT think the reason was that the Father had the Better house, I suspect the Mother had to move away to take on a better job, which forced the court to give Father Custody for it was the Mother who had moved NOT the Father. The Child may have objected to this, but nothing the Mother could do about it (Except quiting her job).
As to the Mother quiting her job, that may NOT have been a real option. The Money may have been to good, and worse if she had an opportunity for a MUCH higher paying job and took it and then asked the court for permission to move with the child, and the Court then DECLINED to give her permission (Because the Father said no), the Mother would be in a bind. If she refuses to take the job and keep the child, her child support would have been reduced, do to her higher earning capacity reflected in the job she turned down. Child support is set by your earning CAPACITY not what you are earning. Now in most cases earning capacity and actual earnings are the same thing, but if she quit a job to keep the child (Or refused a job offer with very high wages to keep the Child), the job she quit (or refused to take) would be set as her earning capacity even if she is working at a much lower number now. With a higher earning capacity Father's support payment would have been reduced to reflect her higher earning capacity. Thus she would have been double hit, reduced child support AND no change in pay (Unless she took the job, then she would have to quit the job and take a pay cut, furthermore given this is NOT any fault of her employer she may NOT even be able to get unemployment). Given that choice giving up the child makes economic sense, something the child MAY not have understood but if this is the case (And I have NO knowledge one way or another) would explain why the Father had the Child.