NAVIGATING THE LABYRINTH:
LEGAL DYNAMICS OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND BIAS IN FAMILY COURT.
The Dissolution Advocates NW | LLC
Family Courts serve as pillars of justice in navigating the complexities of familial disputes, aiming to prioritize the well-being of children and promote fairness in legal proceedings. However, beneath the pretense of impartiality lies a troubling reality: the insidious influence of systemic sexism and the abuse of judicial discretion.
Systemic sexism and the abuse of discretion perpetuate systemic injustices, resulting in unequal treatment and outcomes for mothers and their children. Despite the legal standard of prioritizing the best interests of the child, mothers often face biased custody determinations that favor fathers, and lose custody and contact with their children predominantly when suffering from abuse-induced PTSD.
In cases involving allegations of child abuse or neglect, judicial discretion may inadvertently place children at risk by failing to prioritize their safety and protection. Decisions made based on subjective interpretations of evidence or perceptions of credibility can have dire consequences for children's safety. Too much discretion may contribute to lengthy legal battles, prolonging the resolution of disputes and causing undue stress and uncertainty for children. Extended court proceedings can disrupt routines, relationships, and emotional well-being.
Judicial discretion essentially grants family court judges unchecked authority, enabling them to rule their domain as they see fit, often with minimal oversight from higher courts. It provides them with the autonomy to govern their jurisdiction in any way they deem appropriate, with limited opportunities for appellate review. Research into the frequency of appellate courts overturning trial court decisions based on best interest determinations yields a notably short list. Granting judges such extensive discretion poses significant risks, particularly if there is an assumption that they are applying a legal standard in their decisions.
Custody determinations based on judicial discretion permits justice to be administered solely according to the preferences and biases of individual judges. Whether a child is removed from their mother and placed with the abusive father depends on which courtroom hears the case and the personal convictions and gender bias of the presiding judge, effectively creating parenting plans by luck.
But what happens when judges don’t follow the law and abuse their judicial discretion? Basically, nothing happens. Even when an appeal is successful, the trial judge enjoys absolute immunity, and that’s not discretionary. Appellate judges are statistically more inclined than trial judges to make accurate factual determinations because appellate judges rely solely on transcripts and prioritize identifying inconsistencies in the content. In contrast, trial judges may veer away from the truth due to the influence of biases on their assessments of the credibility of parties and witnesses based on appearance and demeanor.
Is bias discretionary?
Despite many legislative efforts to substitute words like “may” with “shall’, introducing or removing a rebuttable presumption, and mandating or abolishing the necessity for explicit judicial findings, mothers continue to lose custody of the children they’ve given birth to, most with no further recourse as judicial discretion is nearly impossible to reverse on appeal.
NO AMOUNT OF JUDICIAL EDUCATION CAN REFORM A SYSTEM THAT IS DESIGNED TO OPERATE VIA ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.