An archival study of decision-making in child custody disputes

Abstract

Investigation files and court records of 282 disputed child‐custody cases (San Diego, 1982) were coded and analyzed to determine predictors of judicial decision. Log‐linear analysis of physical custody decisions as a function of factors contained in the files suggested that three categories of factors (mother, father, and child) were linked causally to a counselor's recommendation, which was linked subsequently to the judge's decision. Judicial decisions could be predicted accurately by a model that took very few factors into account. Only two factors directly affected the judge; counselor's recommendation and child preference. The major factor that influenced decisions was counselor recommendation (60% of the cases); cases that lacked this recommendation were predicted by an inferential measure of the child's preference (15% of the cases).

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

“…Two areas of law, child custody and sentencing, show broad and pervasive disparities favoring women (or disfavoring men). Researchers have long recognized a deeply held trend in custody decisions---women mostly usually obtain custody of children upon divorce (Kunin et al, 1992). "Throughout most of the…[Twentieth] Century the mother was presumed to be the preferred custodian of the children" (Maccoby & Mnookin 1992, p. 7).…”

“…The research in this area does not truly single out the role judges play in producing the large disparity in outcomes. One archival study also shows that although women fare well in initial custody hearings, the preference for mothers is smaller in later proceedings (Kunin et al 1992). This result suggests that as judges attend more closely to cases, they rely less on cultural stereotypes.…”

Child Custody Mediation in Cases of Domestic Violence

“…The importance of the mediator's recommendation is revealed by an archival study of decision making in child custody disputes in San Diego (Kunin, Ebbesen, & Konecni, 1992). That study carefully examined information available to family court judges from investigative files and court records to determine predictors of judicial custody decisions.…”

A Psicologia Forense em Portugal – novos rumos na consolidação da relação com o sistema de justiça

“…Pensar que os juízes são decisores puramente racionais e que apenas decidem depois de analisarem cuidadosamente todos os dados apurados durante o processo, é, no fundo, acreditar na "mitologia da tomada de decisão legal" (Kunin, Ebbesen, & Konecni, 1992), pois a mente humana não reproduz a realidade com a qual contacta, produz interpretações sobre a mesma, com base nas suas experiências pessoais e culturais, no sistema de crenças e valores de cada magistrado, da política, da religião, entre outros factores. Concordamos, por isso, com Drobak e North (2008) quando defendem que a tomada de decisão judicial não ocorre no "vazio", derivando, antes, da conjugação de diversos factores (e.g., normas judiciais, leis constitucionais, ética, deontologia, política, educação, sociedade, características pessoais do juiz).…”