Nonjudicial Influence on Family Violence Court Cases

Abstract

Family courts have rarely considered how their decisions are perpetuating domestic violence and child abuse in the many cases where custody disputes are before them. Rather than judges playing King Solomon themselves, they frequently leave the decision making to mental health professionals and lawyers whose credentials rarely include an understanding of what is needed to recognize, stop current abuse and prevent future violence. This article employs a literature review to examine the consequences of this decision making. Research shows that both male and female judges are skeptical of mothers’ claims of abuse and that their opinions contain negative stereotypes of women on which theories of parental alienation are based. More frighteningly, when guardians-ad-Litem or Custody Evaluators were entrusted with these decisions, research shows an intensification of the courts’ skepticism toward mothers’—but not fathers’—claims of abuse. Traditional family court procedures continue the serious risk of harm to women and children by minimizing domestic violence and child abuse, often using unproven and unscientific alienation theories as an excuse not to protect them. The article concludes with a discussion of the role specialty courts that employ therapeutic jurisprudence can play in improving this process for children.