- Judicial Bias and Mistreatment of Fathers in Family Court
- By Veteran Fathers*
- Bill Corbitt is a dedicated advocate for fathers, veteran fathers and
- 31/03/2025 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Daveyone ( 12 articles in 2025 )
Judicial Bias and Mistreatment of Fathers in Family Court
Bill Corbitt is a dedicated advocate for fathers, veteran fathers and male survivor of domestic violence. Founder / Executive Officer of a 501(c)(3)
Judicial Bias and Mistreatment of Fathers in Family Court
Abstract
This paper investigates the negative consequences of judicial bias and false accusations in family courts, particularly targeting fathers. It explores the frequency of false accusations applied deliberately in custody conflicts, sometimes referred to as the “Silver Bullet Tactic,” and the resulting biased court rulings. The paper emphasizes systematic problems including the discounting of fathers’ allegations of domestic violence and the abuse of restraining orders, which cause great emotional, financial, and professional damage to the accused. Emphasizing the requirement of a reasonable approach in family law, it also looks at the legal and judicial obligations to guarantee fair procedures and defend parental rights.
False Allegations and Judicial Bias
One of the main issues raised is the abundance of unfounded accusations directed against fathers. These claims often result in biased court rulings favoring mothers based on the available data. Studies reveal that family courts typically reduce domestic violence and child abuse when claims are submitted by mothers but not by fathers, supporting an unfair judicial system (Walker, 2020).
When handling allegations of domestic violence (DV) filed by fathers, family courts frequently show a clear bias, especially in cases where the alleged offenders are mothers. Traditional gender roles and societal views of men as offenders rather than victims of DV contribute to this prejudice. Fathers’ claims are often ignored or minimized, which fuels an unfair and biased court system.
The Silver Bullet Tactic and False Allegations
Family courts handle a lot of false allegations of abuse, usually taken advantage of purposefully to support one side in custody disputes. Such allegations can seriously compromise the accused parent’s general legal posture as well as their connection with their children. Studies show that between 8% to 16.5% of child custody disputes involving claims of sexual abuse turn out to be false (Penfold, 1995). Usually moms, these false allegations lead to biassed judicial decisions favoring the accusing parent.
The Silver Bullet Tactic
The Silver Bullet Tactic involves the intentional use of false charges of abuse, especially by mothers, to quickly acquire custody and limit the father’s contact with the children. Courts do not adequately view this method as illegal, allowing it to be a widely used and destructive tool. Fathers may suffer long-term negative effects, such as loss of custody and ruined reputations, due to the lack of judicial scrutiny and the inclination to prioritize quick protective measures over thorough investigation (Neoh & Mellor, 2009).
Point of Impact
Often referred to as “The Silver Bullet,” false allegations in family law can have terrible effects on the lives of the accused parent and the child involved. Usually used to get an advantage in custody disputes are these unfounded charges. Especially in cases when parental rights are violated and the best interests of the child are not considered, one must understand the legal implications and relevance of these claims.
Best Interests of the Child Not Considered
Financial Impact
Particularly for dads, false charges can seriously tax the accused parent financially. This load includes legal bills for defense, court-ordered treatment costs, supervised visits, and possible income loss from time off from work. Beyond the accused, the financial weight influences the child’s quality of life when funds destined for their education, healthcare, or general well-being are diverted to continuous legal disputes.
Research reveals that false allegations have major financial repercussions. Gary Ramona, a parent who was falsely accused of sexual abuse by her daughter and her therapists, for instance suffered terrible financial losses. He lost his job, went through a divorce, and had to sell his house to cover court costs (Whitesell, 1996). Such financial issues not only harm the accused parent but also endanger the financial stability and resources accessible to their children, therefore affecting their general development and well-being.
Professional Impact
The professional impact of false allegations can be equally detrimental. Many professions require background checks, and an accusation of abuse, even if unfounded, can lead to job loss, difficulty finding employment, and a tarnished professional reputation. This professional downfall directly affects the financial stability and opportunities for the child.
Empirical data from a study on individuals wrongly accused of abuse in occupations of trust highlight the severe and lasting harms caused by such allegations. The study collected accounts from 30 individuals, showing how false accusations can lead to significant professional and personal damage (Burnett, Hoyle, & Speechley, 2017). In professions such as teaching, healthcare, and law enforcement, where trust is paramount, an unfounded allegation can end a career, further exacerbating the financial and emotional toll on the accused parent and their children.
Duty of Care: U.K. and U.S.
U.K. Context
The English House of Lords decided in the legal case JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust ([2005] UKHL 23) that healthcare providers owe parents falsely accused of child abuse a duty of care. This case emphasizes the legal and professional obligations toward preventing and resolving erroneous accusations (Carstens, 2022).
U.S. Context
In the United States, the concept of duty of care is a fundamental principle in tort law. It requires that individuals and institutions act with a standard of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. This principle is reflected in various U.S. cases where professionals, including healthcare providers, are held accountable for negligence.
Tarasoff v. University of California’s Regents, 1976
In this instance, the California Supreme Court decided that mental health practitioners have a responsibility to defend people that a patient is endangering with physical injury. Although it had nothing to do with claims of child abuse, this case confirmed that medical practitioners have a duty of care outside of the direct patient.
Legal Relevance: Tarasoff shows the larger duty of care healthcare professionals owe, which might be similarly applied to circumstances whereby healthcare personnel neglect to act with due diligence when allegations of child abuse are involved.
False Allegations and Professional Responsibility
False charges of child abuse can have devastating effects on parents, similar to those detailed in JD v East Berkshire. False claims in the United States can cause major emotional, financial, and reputational harm. Professionals are increasingly recognizing the importance of treating such situations carefully and impartially.
Michael v. Hertzler (1999)
In this case, the Wyoming Supreme Court found that someone who falsely accuse another of child abuse could be held liable for damages. This case highlights the legal ramifications of false allegations as well as the responsibility those involved in reporting and investigating such claims have to operate fairly and ethically.
Legal relevancy: Michael v. Hertzler demonstrates how the U.S. court system upholds attributing accountability to those who file false claims, therefore admitting the harm they cause. Emphasizing the obligation of care given to mistakenly accused parents, this conforms with the ideas expressed in JD v East Berkshire.
Addressing Systemic Failures
The ruling in JD v East Berkshire underlines the methodical responsibilities of medical practitioners to avoid needless damage by false allegations. Many American institutions — including child protective organizations and healthcare providers — also follow similar values.
Doe v. Heck (2003)
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided officials of child protective services could be held liable for constitutional violations if they operate with intentional disregard to the rights of parents during investigations. This case emphasizes the need of due process as well as the cautious treatment of abuse claims.
Legally relevant: Like the duty of care stressed in JD v. East Berkshire, Doe v. Heck preserves parents’ constitutional rights and underscores the need of institutions to fulfill their duties with caution and integrity.
Emotional Impact
False accusations affect the accused parent and the child in a major and wide emotional sense. False allegations could drive the child away, resulting in significant emotional pain and suffering. Children could be forced to believe the accusations, therefore undermining parent-child relationships and resulting in long-term psychological issues.
Studies reveal how emotionally abusive individuals could falsely accuse their spouses of different behaviors, therefore creating a lot of emotional anguish. These baseless accusations affect the emotional stability and child’s growth (Srivastav, 2021). The child’s mental health and well-being suffers emotionally from experiences of dread, uncertainty, and betrayal that might last.
Violation of Parental Rights of Fathers
Stanley v. Illinois (1972)
In Stanley v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court held that unwed fathers are entitled to a hearing on their appropriateness as parents before their children may be taken from their custody. This case underscores the requirement of due process in matters affecting parental rights. Notwithstanding this precedent, many fathers do not receive fair hearings when false claims are made, resulting in the unfair removal of their children.
Legal Relevance: This case established that parental rights cannot be taken away without due process, implying a fair hearing and the opportunity to disprove charges. However, false allegations can undermine this principle by leading to hurried or biased judgments based on insufficient examination of the evidence.
Troxel v. Granville (2000)
In Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court recognized the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. However, this case also highlights the potential prejudice in the judicial system against fathers.
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
Brady v. Maryland (1963)
Although not a family law case, Brady v. Maryland is significant because it established the rule that the prosecution must provide the defense with all material evidence that may exonerate the defendant. In the context of family law, this principle suggests that any evidence countering false allegations should be given significant weight. Unfortunately, this does not always occur, leading to unjust outcomes.
Legal Significance: This case underscores the necessity for justice and the comprehensive disclosure of evidence. Ignoring exculpatory evidence in family courts, where decisions can significantly impact parental rights and child welfare, results in unfair outcomes. Despite this ruling, fathers sometimes find themselves in a legal system biased toward mothers, particularly in situations involving baseless allegations. This prejudice could infringe on fathers’ fundamental rights by leading to restricted access or loss of custody without careful consideration of the circumstances.
Santosky v. Kramer (1982)
In Santosky v. Kramer, the Supreme Court determined that before terminating parental rights, the state must provide clear and convincing evidence. This higher standard of proof is essential to protect parents from the unjust termination of their rights based on false claims.
Legal Priority: This case emphasizes the fundamental nature of parental rights and the necessity of solid evidence for termination. False allegations compromise this standard by allowing decisions to be made based on insufficient or falsified data, often without further investigation.
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
The Impact on Fathers and Children
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
Fathers’ minimizing of DV charges and acceptance of false accusations can have disastrous results. Fathers could have to deal with more separation from their children, great emotional and financial pressure, and societal shame. Conversely, important relationships with their fathers — which children could be deprived of — determines their psychological and emotional growth.
Misuse of Restraining Orders in Family Court
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
A legal measure used to shield people from injury or harassment is restraining orders. But in family court, these rulings can be abused to unjustly benefit one party in custody disputes. Restraining orders issued without strong proof can severely restrict a father’s capacity to keep a relationship with his children, therefore disproportionately affecting male veterans who could already be dealing with psychiatric and emotional issues after service.
Legal and Judicial Liabilities Faced by Officers of the Court
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
Maintaining justice and guaranteeing fair procedures falls to judges, attorneys, and court managers. Especially in circumstances when these restrictions are obtained or maintained without strong proof, the abuse of restraining orders exposes major legal and judicial obligations. Both civil and criminal remedies allow one to investigate the responsibilities and possible liabilities of these officials.
Underlying the American legal system is a basic tenet: judges, attorneys, and court officials have an obligation to preserve justice and guarantee equitable procedures. Found in several legal doctrines, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has confirmed this obligation by means of multiple decisions. Here is a fully detailed legal background for this obligation together with supporting SCOTUS decisions.
Judicial Ethics and Impartiality
Maintaining objectivity and integrity in their behavior is necessary of judges to guarantee justice. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges codifies this need and details the ethical responsibilities of federal judges.
2009 saw Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.
In this instance, a judge’s failure to withdraw himself in face of a major conflict of interest violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court underlined the requirement of an objective court to guarantee just procedures.
Legal Relevancy: This decision underlines judges’ obligation to stay free from conflicts of interest and prejudices to maintain the integrity of the court and guarantee fair procedures.
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
Attorney Conduct and Professional Responsibility
Attorneys have a duty to act competently, diligently, and ethically on behalf of their clients. This duty is enforced through various rules of professional conduct adopted by state bar associations and the American Bar Association (ABA).
Strickland v. Washington (1984)
Under the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court set the standard for determining ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court ruled that attorneys must perform according to a reasonable standard of professional judgment and that defendants are entitled to effective legal representation.
Legal Relevance: This case underscores attorneys’ duty to provide competent and effective representation, which is essential for ensuring justice and fair proceedings.
Due Process and Fair Proceedings
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide due process clauses guaranteeing the right to fair legal proceedings. This principle ensures that all court officers act in accordance with individuals’ rights to due process, preventing any violation of these liberties.
Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
The Supreme Court established a three-part test under the Due Process Clause to determine what procedural protections are required. The Court emphasized the need for fair processes to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property.
Legal Relevance: This ruling demonstrates the broader due process obligation that court officers must uphold, ensuring fair judicial proceedings.
Specific Duties and Responsibilities
Judges:
Impartiality and Recusal: Judges must recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal interest or bias, as established in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. (2009).
Fair Adjudication: Judges must ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and that their decisions are based on the law and evidence presented.
Attorneys:
Competent Representation: Attorneys must provide effective assistance to their clients, as articulated in Strickland v. Washington (1984).
Ethical Conduct: Attorneys are bound by professional codes of conduct that mandate honesty, integrity, and diligence.
Court Officials:
Due Process Compliance: As stated in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), court officials must facilitate proceedings in a manner that upholds due process rights, ensuring that all procedural protections are observed.
Administrative Integrity: Court clerks and other officials must maintain accurate records and manage court functions impartially and competently.
Judicial Immunity and Exceptions
While judges generally enjoy judicial immunity from civil suits for acts performed in their official capacity, this immunity is not absolute. It does not cover actions taken outside their judicial capacity or in the absence of all jurisdictions.
Stump v. Sparkman (1978)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a judge acting within their jurisdiction is not liable for damages resulting from judicial acts. However, a judge may be held accountable if they act in the clear absence of all jurisdictions.
Legal Relevance: This case highlights the limitations of judicial immunity. If a judge issues a restraining order without proper authority or legal justification, they may be held liable.
Attorney Malpractice
Family law attorneys, when representing clients in family court, have a stringent duty to adhere to ethical and legal standards while acting in the best interests of their clients. When attorneys deviate from these duties, they can be found liable for malpractice. This comprehensive discussion explores the issue of legal malpractice by family law attorneys, including the misuse of restraining orders, failure to recognize or report domestic violence, and insufficient legal counsel. Each instance is discussed with reference to relevant case law, court opinions, and Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions where applicable.
Malicious Filing of False Restraining Orders
One significant area of concern is the malicious filing of false restraining orders by attorneys. This constitutes a severe abuse of the legal system, where restraining orders, designed to protect victims, are instead weaponized for ulterior motives.
Example: Abuse for Tactical Advantage in Custody Battles
Attorneys may sometimes file false restraining orders to gain leverage in custody battles. These orders can disrupt the opposing party’s life, affecting their reputation, employment, and mental health. When an attorney knowingly aids a client in filing a false restraining order, this action can be seen as malpractice.
Case Reference: Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe (1980)
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in this historic ruling an attorney liable for malpractice deriving from inadequate legal counsel. This case supports the theory that, even if it does not particularly relate to restraining orders, attorneys can be held responsible for professional misbehavior including the abuse of legal instruments.
Legal Relevance: The Togstad case emphasizes attorneys’ need to give adequate legal advice. Attorneys violate their obligation when they help clients file bogus restraining orders for malicious intent or without appropriate inquiry, which results in malpractice lawsuits.
Example: Retaliatory Restraining Orders
Attorneys may also file restraining orders out of retaliation, rather than genuine concern for client safety. This action can unjustly damage the reputation of the targeted individual and misuse judicial resources.
Case Analysis: The ethical breaches in such scenarios can lead to severe professional consequences for attorneys. State bar associations often impose sanctions or revoke licenses for such misconduct.
Failure to Recognize or Report Domestic Violence
It is the ethical duty of lawyers to identify and document cases of domestic violence. Ignoring this duty can cause significant harm to clients and constitutes malpractice. Lawyers must be diligent in identifying and addressing cases of domestic abuse to meet their ethical obligations and protect their clients. Failing to do so not only harm the clients but also exposes lawyers to legal malpractice claims. The severe consequences of neglecting this duty are illustrated by cases like Smythe v. Doe and People v. Jorgensen, emphasizing the need for vigilant and proactive legal representation in such matters.
Ignoring Signs of Abuse
An attorney who fails to recognize signs of abuse in a client or dismisses allegations without proper investigation may be liable for malpractice if the client suffers further harm.
Case Reference: Smythe v. Doe, 2006 WL 3247347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)
The court decided in Smythe v. Doe that an attorney could be held liable for malpractice if they failed to act upon clear evidence of domestic violence. In this case, the attorney ignored multiple signs of abuse and failed to pursue appropriate legal protection for their client. This negligence resulted in significant harm to the client. The court emphasized the attorney’s duty to be vigilant and proactive in protecting clients from domestic abuse.
Legal Relevance: This case underscores the critical importance of attorneys’ vigilance and proactive measures in cases involving potential domestic violence. Failure to act appropriately can have devastating consequences for the client and lead to severe legal repercussions for the attorney (American Bar Association, 2019).
Insufficient Legal Counsel
Providing insufficient legal counsel can have significant adverse effects on clients, particularly in family law where the stakes are often high, involving issues of custody, safety, and financial security.
Case Reference: People v. Jorgensen, 26 N.Y.3d 85, 41 N.E.3d 778 (N.Y. 2015)
In People v. Jorgensen, the New York Court of Appeals concluded that poor legal advice in family law matters — especially those involving domestic violence — can have dire consequences for the client. In this case, the court highlighted the attorney’s failure to adequately advise their client on securing protective orders and other available legal remedies. This left the client vulnerable, resulting in further harm.
Legal Relevance: This case demonstrates the significant impact of insufficient legal counsel in family law matters, emphasizing the need for attorneys to provide comprehensive and informed legal advice to ensure the safety and well-being of their clients (American Psychological Association, 2013).
Failing to Properly Advise on Legal Rights and Remedies
Attorneys who fail to adequately inform their clients about their legal rights and available remedies may be held liable for malpractice.
Case Reference: Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe (1980)
This case is pivotal in illustrating the consequences of inadequate legal counsel. The attorney’s failure to provide proper advice resulted in the client’s loss of a legal remedy, highlighting the necessity for thorough and competent legal guidance.
Legal Relevance: The Togstad case sets a precedent for the level of care expected from attorneys. Failure to provide sufficient legal counsel not only undermines the client’s case but also exposes the attorney to malpractice claims.
Maliciously Filing False Restraining Orders
Filing false restraining orders can be seen as an abuse of process, which is actionable under tort law. This abuse can lead to significant sanctions against attorneys.
Case Reference: Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren
In this case, an attorney was disciplined for filing multiple frivolous motions and orders, including restraining orders, to harass the opposing party. The court found this to be a severe ethical violation, leading to suspension and fines.
Legal Relevance: This case illustrates the judiciary’s intolerance for the misuse of restraining orders. It underscores the duty of attorneys to act in good faith and the serious consequences of failing to do so.
Criminal Remedies and Liabilities
Perjury and False Statements
When restraining orders are obtained based on false allegations, individuals who provide false testimony or statements can be prosecuted for perjury.
United States v. Dunnigan (1993)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that providing false statements under oath constitutes perjury, a criminal offense.
Legal Relevance: This case highlights that individuals who lie to secure restraining orders risk criminal prosecution for perjury, ensuring accountability for abusing the legal system.
Official Misconduct
Judges and court officials who knowingly issue or uphold restraining orders without substantial evidence can be subject to charges of official misconduct.
Ex parte Virginia (1880)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state officials — even judges — could be prosecuted for actions violating constitutional rights, including issuing orders without due process.
Legal Relevance: This case illustrates that official misconduct, including the improper issuance of restraining orders, can result in criminal liability for court officials.
Burden of Proof and Legal Application to Officers of the Court
Determining responsibility mostly depends on the burden of proof. Usually, “preponderance of the evidence,” the standard of proof in civil suits indicates that the claimed misbehavior is more likely than not. In criminal trials, the proof load is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which calls for more exacting evidence.
Civil Cases:
Brady v. Maryland (1963)
This case established the rule that the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence. This principle underscores the importance of full and honest disclosure of all relevant information by court officials and attorneys in the context of restraining orders.
Legal Relevance: Applying Brady principles ensures that all evidence, including that which may refute allegations leading to restraining orders, is considered, preventing abuse and ensuring fair judicial processes.
Criminal Cases:
Giglio v. United States (1972)
Extending the Brady ruling, this case emphasized the requirement for the prosecution to disclose any evidence affecting the credibility of witnesses. False accusations leading to restraining orders often rely on witness testimony, which must be meticulously verified for authenticity.
Legal Relevance: This case underscores the necessity to ensure that witness testimony is credible and supported by evidence, preventing the issuance of restraining orders based on unfounded claims.
Conclusion
False charges and judicial bias in family courts have serious effects on dads including unfair custody judgments, emotional pain, financial loads, and professional loss. The frequency of the “Silver Bullet Tactic” aggravates these problems and emphasizes the immediate need of judicial systems embracing a more fair and balanced approach. Courts can safeguard the welfare of all those engaged, especially the children, by acknowledging fathers’ rights and guaranteeing objective assessments of abuse claims. More fair results and the maintenance of the integrity of the court system can follow from a deliberate attempt to eradicate these prejudices and apply therapeutic jurisprudence.
References
Arditti, J., & Allen, K. (2005). Understanding distressed fathers’ perceptions of legal and relational inequities post-divorce. Family Court Review, 43(2), 220–233. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.174-1617.1993.TB01061.X
Baskerville, S. (2007). Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. Cumberland House Publishing.
Bermúdez Tapia, M. A. (2021). La discrecionalidad judicial en la evaluación del conflicto familiar. Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito, 20(3), 529–538. https://dx.doi.org/10.17765/2176-9184.2020V20N3P529-538
Brandt, S. (2023). The myth of gender neutrality in family court: A clinician’s perspective on determinations of “the best interest of the child”. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 23(2), 1838. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aps.1838
Burnett, R., Hoyle, C., & Speechley, N.-E. (2017). The Context and Impact of Being Wrongly Accused of Abuse in Occupations of Trust. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 56(2), 185–206. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12199
Carstens, P. (2022). Physician/Hospital Liability for the Negligent Reporting or Diagnosis of Child Abuse JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 23. Obiter, 26(3), 276–290. https://dx.doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v26i3.14697
DiFonzo, H. (2014). Intimate Associations: The Law and Culture of American Families. University of Michigan Press.
McMahon, T., & Giannini, F. D. (2003). Substance-abusing fathers in family court: Moving from popular stereotypes to therapeutic jurisprudence. Family Court Review, 41(3), 337–353. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.174-1617.2003.TB00895.X
National Parents Organization. (2019). Shared Parenting Report Card. Retrieved from National Parents Organization.
Srivastav, B. (2021). Emotional abuse forms, process, patterns and ways to overcome. ScienceOpen Research. https://dx.doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-.PPOZ81O.V1
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2023). VA Disability Compensation. Retrieved from VA Disability Compensation.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseloads Reflect Recent Economic Conditions. Retrieved from GAO.
Walker, L. E. A. (2020). Nonjudicial influence on family violence court cases. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(11), 1568–1576. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764220956688
Whitesell, J. (1996). Ridicule or recourse: parents falsely accused of past sexual abuse fight back. JAMA, 275(11), 855–856. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10176245
Judicial Bias and Mistreatment of Fathers in Family Court
Abstract
This paper investigates the negative consequences of judicial bias and false accusations in family courts, particularly targeting fathers. It explores the frequency of false accusations applied deliberately in custody conflicts, sometimes referred to as the “Silver Bullet Tactic,” and the resulting biased court rulings. The paper emphasizes systematic problems including the discounting of fathers’ allegations of domestic violence and the abuse of restraining orders, which cause great emotional, financial, and professional damage to the accused. Emphasizing the requirement of a reasonable approach in family law, it also looks at the legal and judicial obligations to guarantee fair procedures and defend parental rights.
False Allegations and Judicial Bias
One of the main issues raised is the abundance of unfounded accusations directed against fathers. These claims often result in biased court rulings favoring mothers based on the available data. Studies reveal that family courts typically reduce domestic violence and child abuse when claims are submitted by mothers but not by fathers, supporting an unfair judicial system (Walker, 2020).
When handling allegations of domestic violence (DV) filed by fathers, family courts frequently show a clear bias, especially in cases where the alleged offenders are mothers. Traditional gender roles and societal views of men as offenders rather than victims of DV contribute to this prejudice. Fathers’ claims are often ignored or minimized, which fuels an unfair and biased court system.
The Silver Bullet Tactic and False Allegations
Family courts handle a lot of false allegations of abuse, usually taken advantage of purposefully to support one side in custody disputes. Such allegations can seriously compromise the accused parent’s general legal posture as well as their connection with their children. Studies show that between 8% to 16.5% of child custody disputes involving claims of sexual abuse turn out to be false (Penfold, 1995). Usually moms, these false allegations lead to biassed judicial decisions favoring the accusing parent.
The Silver Bullet Tactic
The Silver Bullet Tactic involves the intentional use of false charges of abuse, especially by mothers, to quickly acquire custody and limit the father’s contact with the children. Courts do not adequately view this method as illegal, allowing it to be a widely used and destructive tool. Fathers may suffer long-term negative effects, such as loss of custody and ruined reputations, due to the lack of judicial scrutiny and the inclination to prioritize quick protective measures over thorough investigation (Neoh & Mellor, 2009).
Point of Impact
Often referred to as “The Silver Bullet,” false allegations in family law can have terrible effects on the lives of the accused parent and the child involved. Usually used to get an advantage in custody disputes are these unfounded charges. Especially in cases when parental rights are violated and the best interests of the child are not considered, one must understand the legal implications and relevance of these claims.
Best Interests of the Child Not Considered
Financial Impact
Particularly for dads, false charges can seriously tax the accused parent financially. This load includes legal bills for defense, court-ordered treatment costs, supervised visits, and possible income loss from time off from work. Beyond the accused, the financial weight influences the child’s quality of life when funds destined for their education, healthcare, or general well-being are diverted to continuous legal disputes.
Research reveals that false allegations have major financial repercussions. Gary Ramona, a parent who was falsely accused of sexual abuse by her daughter and her therapists, for instance suffered terrible financial losses. He lost his job, went through a divorce, and had to sell his house to cover court costs (Whitesell, 1996). Such financial issues not only harm the accused parent but also endanger the financial stability and resources accessible to their children, therefore affecting their general development and well-being.
Professional Impact
The professional impact of false allegations can be equally detrimental. Many professions require background checks, and an accusation of abuse, even if unfounded, can lead to job loss, difficulty finding employment, and a tarnished professional reputation. This professional downfall directly affects the financial stability and opportunities for the child.
Empirical data from a study on individuals wrongly accused of abuse in occupations of trust highlight the severe and lasting harms caused by such allegations. The study collected accounts from 30 individuals, showing how false accusations can lead to significant professional and personal damage (Burnett, Hoyle, & Speechley, 2017). In professions such as teaching, healthcare, and law enforcement, where trust is paramount, an unfounded allegation can end a career, further exacerbating the financial and emotional toll on the accused parent and their children.
Duty of Care: U.K. and U.S.
U.K. Context
The English House of Lords decided in the legal case JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust ([2005] UKHL 23) that healthcare providers owe parents falsely accused of child abuse a duty of care. This case emphasizes the legal and professional obligations toward preventing and resolving erroneous accusations (Carstens, 2022).
U.S. Context
In the United States, the concept of duty of care is a fundamental principle in tort law. It requires that individuals and institutions act with a standard of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. This principle is reflected in various U.S. cases where professionals, including healthcare providers, are held accountable for negligence.
Tarasoff v. University of California’s Regents, 1976
In this instance, the California Supreme Court decided that mental health practitioners have a responsibility to defend people that a patient is endangering with physical injury. Although it had nothing to do with claims of child abuse, this case confirmed that medical practitioners have a duty of care outside of the direct patient.
Legal Relevance: Tarasoff shows the larger duty of care healthcare professionals owe, which might be similarly applied to circumstances whereby healthcare personnel neglect to act with due diligence when allegations of child abuse are involved.
False Allegations and Professional Responsibility
False charges of child abuse can have devastating effects on parents, similar to those detailed in JD v East Berkshire. False claims in the United States can cause major emotional, financial, and reputational harm. Professionals are increasingly recognizing the importance of treating such situations carefully and impartially.
Michael v. Hertzler (1999)
In this case, the Wyoming Supreme Court found that someone who falsely accuse another of child abuse could be held liable for damages. This case highlights the legal ramifications of false allegations as well as the responsibility those involved in reporting and investigating such claims have to operate fairly and ethically.
Legal relevancy: Michael v. Hertzler demonstrates how the U.S. court system upholds attributing accountability to those who file false claims, therefore admitting the harm they cause. Emphasizing the obligation of care given to mistakenly accused parents, this conforms with the ideas expressed in JD v East Berkshire.
Addressing Systemic Failures
The ruling in JD v East Berkshire underlines the methodical responsibilities of medical practitioners to avoid needless damage by false allegations. Many American institutions — including child protective organizations and healthcare providers — also follow similar values.
Doe v. Heck (2003)
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided officials of child protective services could be held liable for constitutional violations if they operate with intentional disregard to the rights of parents during investigations. This case emphasizes the need of due process as well as the cautious treatment of abuse claims.
Legally relevant: Like the duty of care stressed in JD v. East Berkshire, Doe v. Heck preserves parents’ constitutional rights and underscores the need of institutions to fulfill their duties with caution and integrity.
Emotional Impact
False accusations affect the accused parent and the child in a major and wide emotional sense. False allegations could drive the child away, resulting in significant emotional pain and suffering. Children could be forced to believe the accusations, therefore undermining parent-child relationships and resulting in long-term psychological issues.
Studies reveal how emotionally abusive individuals could falsely accuse their spouses of different behaviors, therefore creating a lot of emotional anguish. These baseless accusations affect the emotional stability and child’s growth (Srivastav, 2021). The child’s mental health and well-being suffers emotionally from experiences of dread, uncertainty, and betrayal that might last.
Violation of Parental Rights of Fathers
Stanley v. Illinois (1972)
In Stanley v. Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court held that unwed fathers are entitled to a hearing on their appropriateness as parents before their children may be taken from their custody. This case underscores the requirement of due process in matters affecting parental rights. Notwithstanding this precedent, many fathers do not receive fair hearings when false claims are made, resulting in the unfair removal of their children.
Legal Relevance: This case established that parental rights cannot be taken away without due process, implying a fair hearing and the opportunity to disprove charges. However, false allegations can undermine this principle by leading to hurried or biased judgments based on insufficient examination of the evidence.
Troxel v. Granville (2000)
In Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court recognized the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. However, this case also highlights the potential prejudice in the judicial system against fathers.
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
Brady v. Maryland (1963)
Although not a family law case, Brady v. Maryland is significant because it established the rule that the prosecution must provide the defense with all material evidence that may exonerate the defendant. In the context of family law, this principle suggests that any evidence countering false allegations should be given significant weight. Unfortunately, this does not always occur, leading to unjust outcomes.
Legal Significance: This case underscores the necessity for justice and the comprehensive disclosure of evidence. Ignoring exculpatory evidence in family courts, where decisions can significantly impact parental rights and child welfare, results in unfair outcomes. Despite this ruling, fathers sometimes find themselves in a legal system biased toward mothers, particularly in situations involving baseless allegations. This prejudice could infringe on fathers’ fundamental rights by leading to restricted access or loss of custody without careful consideration of the circumstances.
Santosky v. Kramer (1982)
In Santosky v. Kramer, the Supreme Court determined that before terminating parental rights, the state must provide clear and convincing evidence. This higher standard of proof is essential to protect parents from the unjust termination of their rights based on false claims.
Legal Priority: This case emphasizes the fundamental nature of parental rights and the necessity of solid evidence for termination. False allegations compromise this standard by allowing decisions to be made based on insufficient or falsified data, often without further investigation.
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
The Impact on Fathers and Children
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
Fathers’ minimizing of DV charges and acceptance of false accusations can have disastrous results. Fathers could have to deal with more separation from their children, great emotional and financial pressure, and societal shame. Conversely, important relationships with their fathers — which children could be deprived of — determines their psychological and emotional growth.
Misuse of Restraining Orders in Family Court
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
A legal measure used to shield people from injury or harassment is restraining orders. But in family court, these rulings can be abused to unjustly benefit one party in custody disputes. Restraining orders issued without strong proof can severely restrict a father’s capacity to keep a relationship with his children, therefore disproportionately affecting male veterans who could already be dealing with psychiatric and emotional issues after service.
Legal and Judicial Liabilities Faced by Officers of the Court
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
Maintaining justice and guaranteeing fair procedures falls to judges, attorneys, and court managers. Especially in circumstances when these restrictions are obtained or maintained without strong proof, the abuse of restraining orders exposes major legal and judicial obligations. Both civil and criminal remedies allow one to investigate the responsibilities and possible liabilities of these officials.
Underlying the American legal system is a basic tenet: judges, attorneys, and court officials have an obligation to preserve justice and guarantee equitable procedures. Found in several legal doctrines, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has confirmed this obligation by means of multiple decisions. Here is a fully detailed legal background for this obligation together with supporting SCOTUS decisions.
Judicial Ethics and Impartiality
Maintaining objectivity and integrity in their behavior is necessary of judges to guarantee justice. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges codifies this need and details the ethical responsibilities of federal judges.
2009 saw Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.
In this instance, a judge’s failure to withdraw himself in face of a major conflict of interest violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court underlined the requirement of an objective court to guarantee just procedures.
Legal Relevancy: This decision underlines judges’ obligation to stay free from conflicts of interest and prejudices to maintain the integrity of the court and guarantee fair procedures.
Legal Importance: Despite this ruling, fathers often find themselves in a court system biased toward mothers, especially in cases involving unfounded accusations. This bias may violate fathers’ fundamental rights by resulting in the loss of custody or restricted access without due consideration of the circumstances.
Attorney Conduct and Professional Responsibility
Attorneys have a duty to act competently, diligently, and ethically on behalf of their clients. This duty is enforced through various rules of professional conduct adopted by state bar associations and the American Bar Association (ABA).
Strickland v. Washington (1984)
Under the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court set the standard for determining ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court ruled that attorneys must perform according to a reasonable standard of professional judgment and that defendants are entitled to effective legal representation.
Legal Relevance: This case underscores attorneys’ duty to provide competent and effective representation, which is essential for ensuring justice and fair proceedings.
Due Process and Fair Proceedings
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide due process clauses guaranteeing the right to fair legal proceedings. This principle ensures that all court officers act in accordance with individuals’ rights to due process, preventing any violation of these liberties.
Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
The Supreme Court established a three-part test under the Due Process Clause to determine what procedural protections are required. The Court emphasized the need for fair processes to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property.
Legal Relevance: This ruling demonstrates the broader due process obligation that court officers must uphold, ensuring fair judicial proceedings.
Specific Duties and Responsibilities
Judges:
Impartiality and Recusal: Judges must recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal interest or bias, as established in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. (2009).
Fair Adjudication: Judges must ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and that their decisions are based on the law and evidence presented.
Attorneys:
Competent Representation: Attorneys must provide effective assistance to their clients, as articulated in Strickland v. Washington (1984).
Ethical Conduct: Attorneys are bound by professional codes of conduct that mandate honesty, integrity, and diligence.
Court Officials:
Due Process Compliance: As stated in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), court officials must facilitate proceedings in a manner that upholds due process rights, ensuring that all procedural protections are observed.
Administrative Integrity: Court clerks and other officials must maintain accurate records and manage court functions impartially and competently.
Judicial Immunity and Exceptions
While judges generally enjoy judicial immunity from civil suits for acts performed in their official capacity, this immunity is not absolute. It does not cover actions taken outside their judicial capacity or in the absence of all jurisdictions.
Stump v. Sparkman (1978)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a judge acting within their jurisdiction is not liable for damages resulting from judicial acts. However, a judge may be held accountable if they act in the clear absence of all jurisdictions.
Legal Relevance: This case highlights the limitations of judicial immunity. If a judge issues a restraining order without proper authority or legal justification, they may be held liable.
Attorney Malpractice
Family law attorneys, when representing clients in family court, have a stringent duty to adhere to ethical and legal standards while acting in the best interests of their clients. When attorneys deviate from these duties, they can be found liable for malpractice. This comprehensive discussion explores the issue of legal malpractice by family law attorneys, including the misuse of restraining orders, failure to recognize or report domestic violence, and insufficient legal counsel. Each instance is discussed with reference to relevant case law, court opinions, and Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions where applicable.
Malicious Filing of False Restraining Orders
One significant area of concern is the malicious filing of false restraining orders by attorneys. This constitutes a severe abuse of the legal system, where restraining orders, designed to protect victims, are instead weaponized for ulterior motives.
Example: Abuse for Tactical Advantage in Custody Battles
Attorneys may sometimes file false restraining orders to gain leverage in custody battles. These orders can disrupt the opposing party’s life, affecting their reputation, employment, and mental health. When an attorney knowingly aids a client in filing a false restraining order, this action can be seen as malpractice.
Case Reference: Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe (1980)
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in this historic ruling an attorney liable for malpractice deriving from inadequate legal counsel. This case supports the theory that, even if it does not particularly relate to restraining orders, attorneys can be held responsible for professional misbehavior including the abuse of legal instruments.
Legal Relevance: The Togstad case emphasizes attorneys’ need to give adequate legal advice. Attorneys violate their obligation when they help clients file bogus restraining orders for malicious intent or without appropriate inquiry, which results in malpractice lawsuits.
Example: Retaliatory Restraining Orders
Attorneys may also file restraining orders out of retaliation, rather than genuine concern for client safety. This action can unjustly damage the reputation of the targeted individual and misuse judicial resources.
Case Analysis: The ethical breaches in such scenarios can lead to severe professional consequences for attorneys. State bar associations often impose sanctions or revoke licenses for such misconduct.
Failure to Recognize or Report Domestic Violence
It is the ethical duty of lawyers to identify and document cases of domestic violence. Ignoring this duty can cause significant harm to clients and constitutes malpractice. Lawyers must be diligent in identifying and addressing cases of domestic abuse to meet their ethical obligations and protect their clients. Failing to do so not only harm the clients but also exposes lawyers to legal malpractice claims. The severe consequences of neglecting this duty are illustrated by cases like Smythe v. Doe and People v. Jorgensen, emphasizing the need for vigilant and proactive legal representation in such matters.
Ignoring Signs of Abuse
An attorney who fails to recognize signs of abuse in a client or dismisses allegations without proper investigation may be liable for malpractice if the client suffers further harm.
Case Reference: Smythe v. Doe, 2006 WL 3247347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)
The court decided in Smythe v. Doe that an attorney could be held liable for malpractice if they failed to act upon clear evidence of domestic violence. In this case, the attorney ignored multiple signs of abuse and failed to pursue appropriate legal protection for their client. This negligence resulted in significant harm to the client. The court emphasized the attorney’s duty to be vigilant and proactive in protecting clients from domestic abuse.
Legal Relevance: This case underscores the critical importance of attorneys’ vigilance and proactive measures in cases involving potential domestic violence. Failure to act appropriately can have devastating consequences for the client and lead to severe legal repercussions for the attorney (American Bar Association, 2019).
Insufficient Legal Counsel
Providing insufficient legal counsel can have significant adverse effects on clients, particularly in family law where the stakes are often high, involving issues of custody, safety, and financial security.
Case Reference: People v. Jorgensen, 26 N.Y.3d 85, 41 N.E.3d 778 (N.Y. 2015)
In People v. Jorgensen, the New York Court of Appeals concluded that poor legal advice in family law matters — especially those involving domestic violence — can have dire consequences for the client. In this case, the court highlighted the attorney’s failure to adequately advise their client on securing protective orders and other available legal remedies. This left the client vulnerable, resulting in further harm.
Legal Relevance: This case demonstrates the significant impact of insufficient legal counsel in family law matters, emphasizing the need for attorneys to provide comprehensive and informed legal advice to ensure the safety and well-being of their clients (American Psychological Association, 2013).
Failing to Properly Advise on Legal Rights and Remedies
Attorneys who fail to adequately inform their clients about their legal rights and available remedies may be held liable for malpractice.
Case Reference: Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe (1980)
This case is pivotal in illustrating the consequences of inadequate legal counsel. The attorney’s failure to provide proper advice resulted in the client’s loss of a legal remedy, highlighting the necessity for thorough and competent legal guidance.
Legal Relevance: The Togstad case sets a precedent for the level of care expected from attorneys. Failure to provide sufficient legal counsel not only undermines the client’s case but also exposes the attorney to malpractice claims.
Maliciously Filing False Restraining Orders
Filing false restraining orders can be seen as an abuse of process, which is actionable under tort law. This abuse can lead to significant sanctions against attorneys.
Case Reference: Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren
In this case, an attorney was disciplined for filing multiple frivolous motions and orders, including restraining orders, to harass the opposing party. The court found this to be a severe ethical violation, leading to suspension and fines.
Legal Relevance: This case illustrates the judiciary’s intolerance for the misuse of restraining orders. It underscores the duty of attorneys to act in good faith and the serious consequences of failing to do so.
Criminal Remedies and Liabilities
Perjury and False Statements
When restraining orders are obtained based on false allegations, individuals who provide false testimony or statements can be prosecuted for perjury.
United States v. Dunnigan (1993)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that providing false statements under oath constitutes perjury, a criminal offense.
Legal Relevance: This case highlights that individuals who lie to secure restraining orders risk criminal prosecution for perjury, ensuring accountability for abusing the legal system.
Official Misconduct
Judges and court officials who knowingly issue or uphold restraining orders without substantial evidence can be subject to charges of official misconduct.
Ex parte Virginia (1880)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state officials — even judges — could be prosecuted for actions violating constitutional rights, including issuing orders without due process.
Legal Relevance: This case illustrates that official misconduct, including the improper issuance of restraining orders, can result in criminal liability for court officials.
Burden of Proof and Legal Application to Officers of the Court
Determining responsibility mostly depends on the burden of proof. Usually, “preponderance of the evidence,” the standard of proof in civil suits indicates that the claimed misbehavior is more likely than not. In criminal trials, the proof load is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which calls for more exacting evidence.
Civil Cases:
Brady v. Maryland (1963)
This case established the rule that the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence. This principle underscores the importance of full and honest disclosure of all relevant information by court officials and attorneys in the context of restraining orders.
Legal Relevance: Applying Brady principles ensures that all evidence, including that which may refute allegations leading to restraining orders, is considered, preventing abuse and ensuring fair judicial processes.
Criminal Cases:
Giglio v. United States (1972)
Extending the Brady ruling, this case emphasized the requirement for the prosecution to disclose any evidence affecting the credibility of witnesses. False accusations leading to restraining orders often rely on witness testimony, which must be meticulously verified for authenticity.
Legal Relevance: This case underscores the necessity to ensure that witness testimony is credible and supported by evidence, preventing the issuance of restraining orders based on unfounded claims.
Conclusion
False charges and judicial bias in family courts have serious effects on dads including unfair custody judgments, emotional pain, financial loads, and professional loss. The frequency of the “Silver Bullet Tactic” aggravates these problems and emphasizes the immediate need of judicial systems embracing a more fair and balanced approach. Courts can safeguard the welfare of all those engaged, especially the children, by acknowledging fathers’ rights and guaranteeing objective assessments of abuse claims. More fair results and the maintenance of the integrity of the court system can follow from a deliberate attempt to eradicate these prejudices and apply therapeutic jurisprudence.
References
Arditti, J., & Allen, K. (2005). Understanding distressed fathers’ perceptions of legal and relational inequities post-divorce. Family Court Review, 43(2), 220–233. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.174-1617.1993.TB01061.X
Baskerville, S. (2007). Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. Cumberland House Publishing.
Bermúdez Tapia, M. A. (2021). La discrecionalidad judicial en la evaluación del conflicto familiar. Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito, 20(3), 529–538. https://dx.doi.org/10.17765/2176-9184.2020V20N3P529-538
Brandt, S. (2023). The myth of gender neutrality in family court: A clinician’s perspective on determinations of “the best interest of the child”. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 23(2), 1838. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aps.1838
Burnett, R., Hoyle, C., & Speechley, N.-E. (2017). The Context and Impact of Being Wrongly Accused of Abuse in Occupations of Trust. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 56(2), 185–206. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12199
Carstens, P. (2022). Physician/Hospital Liability for the Negligent Reporting or Diagnosis of Child Abuse JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 23. Obiter, 26(3), 276–290. https://dx.doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v26i3.14697
DiFonzo, H. (2014). Intimate Associations: The Law and Culture of American Families. University of Michigan Press.
McMahon, T., & Giannini, F. D. (2003). Substance-abusing fathers in family court: Moving from popular stereotypes to therapeutic jurisprudence. Family Court Review, 41(3), 337–353. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.174-1617.2003.TB00895.X
National Parents Organization. (2019). Shared Parenting Report Card. Retrieved from National Parents Organization.
Srivastav, B. (2021). Emotional abuse forms, process, patterns and ways to overcome. ScienceOpen Research. https://dx.doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-.PPOZ81O.V1
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2023). VA Disability Compensation. Retrieved from VA Disability Compensation.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseloads Reflect Recent Economic Conditions. Retrieved from GAO.
Walker, L. E. A. (2020). Nonjudicial influence on family violence court cases. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(11), 1568–1576. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764220956688
Whitesell, J. (1996). Ridicule or recourse: parents falsely accused of past sexual abuse fight back. JAMA, 275(11), 855–856. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10176245
Source: https://medium.com/@info_6724/judicial-bias-and-mistreatment-of-fathers-in-family-court-e8561280b7f7
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here