Mothers Who Allege Abuse More Likely To Lose Custody of Their Children

11 Monday May 2020

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, Family Law, Judges, judicial bias, Researching Reform

The first ever national study has confirmed that mothers who make complaints of child abuse against a father in court are more likely to lose contact rights with their children.

The research also found that this risk doubled when a father made a counter-claim of parental alienation, leading the researchers to conclude that “alienation trumps abuse”.

The data revealed the following:

When fathers alleged mothers were engaged in alienation, regardless of any abuse claims, they took contact rights away from her 44% of the time;
When the genders were reversed, and fathers started out with custody of the children, courts removed children from fathers and placed them with mothers only 28% of the time;
Even when the father’s abuse was proven in court, mothers who had alleged that abuse still lost custody in 13 % of the cases;
By contrast, fathers lost custody only 4% of the time when a mother’s abuse was proved in court;
Overall, fathers were much more likely than mothers to win contact disputes when claiming alienation.

The US study was produced by Professor Joan Meier, a nationally recognised expert in the US on domestic violence, and Sean Dickson, and is the second piece of research they have published on this topic.

A pilot version of the study was published in 2017 and found that family courts only believed a mother’s claim of a child’s sexual abuse 1 out of 51 times (approximately 2%) when the accused father alleged parental alienation.

The investigation went on to discover that in cases where alienation is not mentioned, family courts only believed mothers’ claims about child sexual abuse 15% of the time.

The final study, published in January 2020, and funded by the US Justice Department, revealed that alienation’s impact was gender-specific, and that fathers alleging mothers were abusive were not similarly undermined when mothers cross-claimed alienation.

However in non-abuse cases, the data held that alienation had a more gender-neutral impact.

The research incorporated published court opinions available online between 2005 and 2014, and used those judgments to create a data set of 4,388 custody (child contact) cases.

The team classified the cases into different types of abuse allegations by either parent:

Domestic violence against the mother,
Child sexual abuse, and;
Child physical abuse.

The study also included allegations that one parent was trying to alienate the child from the other parent.

As in their pilot study, Meier and her research team found that only 1 out of every 51 cases in which a mother reported child sexual abuse by the father was believed, when the father claimed parental alienation.

Another recent study in Canada made strikingly similar findings.

Many thanks to Kelly Williamson, who tweeted the new research.

child-1439468_1920

Family Law Judge Investigated Over Condescending Bevahiour in Court

25 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by Natasha in Judges, judicial bias, Researching Reform

≈ 7 Comments

Judge Judith Hughes has been investigated for condescending behaviour during a family law hearing in which she allowed her bad temper to get the better of her by banging her head on a desk after a litigant in person appeared before her in court.

Lord Chancellor David Gauke and Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett acting on behalf of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) found that Hughes’ behaviour was “sarcastic and condescending”, and “failed to demonstrate the standards expected of a judicial office holder”.

Very little information about the context of the complaint is offered by the JCIO though it seems as if the complaint may have been made by the litigant in person, who is likely to have been a parent. Litigants in person are typically members of the public who cannot afford to pay for legal fees, and find they have to represent themselves in court through no fault of their own.

Hughes was issued with ‘formal advice’, and will continue to sit as a family court judge.

This is not the first time Hughes’ temper has been documented. The Telegraph reports an incident from 2017 when the judge also allowed herself to get angry about matters that came before her.

We are encouraged to see parents making use of complaints bodies who appear to be fair and balanced. Perhaps more complaints where warranted might help to put an end to judicial bullying of parents and children in the family court.

Are Family Law Judges Fit For Purpose?

12 Friday Jun 2015

Posted by Natasha in Judges, judicial bias

≈ 20 Comments

One of Researching Reform’s interests is judicial bias – the extent to which judges allow their personal sentiments to dictate the way they handle their cases – so the recent furore over Justice Pauffley’s remarks about hitting children and cultural norms fascinated us.

Judicial bias is a very real, and present problem. All of us are prone to bias, and research suggests that even judges are not immune, regardless of how bright or how well educated.

Last year, one of our favourite judges, Baroness Hale, observed that judges lead sheltered lives and that this could in turn jeopardise their ability to adjudicate impartially, and with the necessary kind of life experience.

Justice Pauffley’s remarks, in which she told the court that foreign families who hit their children should be made allowances for due to cultural norms, seem odd given that hitting a child is still not illegal, and applies to all families, both foreign and not, residing here. But bias is a varied and often unpredictable phenomenon and doesn’t always guarantee a linear pattern of thought. Justice Pauffley’s comments have always been direct and searingly honest – she has openly criticised the flaws inside the justice system and takes a no nonsense approach to poor professional practice. Her comment in this most recent case though, suggests a deep-seated attitude towards hitting children.

These sorts of difficulties are echoed in the slow nature in which family law judges have taken to trying to grasp the Voice of the Child. Many judges, despite having children of their own, seem completely at sea with children and unable to engage with them when it matters most – to help amplify their wishes and feelings, so they can be seen as well as heard. That children are still so misunderstood, or not understood at all in most cases, is testimony to the fact that our judicial system remains wanting.

It’s time for the Bar to select individuals who are experienced, plugged in and in touch with the world around them. And just as importantly, to find those who are passionate about children and helping to ensure the best possible outcomes for them. Better training too is needed for our current family law judges, so that they can learn to keep any biases in check and carry out their work in a professional and competent manner.

Justice Pauffley