Gender Politics and Child Custody- the Puzzling Persistence of the Best Interest Standard

NELLCO

NELLCO Legal Scholarship Repository

Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory WorkingPapersColumbia Law School8-1-2011

Gender Politics and Child Custody: The Puzzling Persistence of the Best Interest Standard

Elizabeth S. Scott

Columbia Law School

, escott@law.columbia.edu

Robert E. Emery

University of Virginia - Dept. of Psychology

, ree@virginia.edu

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Columbia Law School at NELLCO Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of NELLCO Legal Scholarship Repository. Formore information, please contacttracy.thompson@nellco.org.

Recommended Citation

Scott, Elizabeth S. and Emery, Robert E., "Gender Politics and Child Custody: The Puzzling Persistence of the Best Interest Standard"(2011).

Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers.

Paper 9200.http://lsr.nellco.org/columbia_pllt/9200

1

Gender Politics and Child Custody:The Puzzling Persistence of the Best Interest Standard

Elizabeth S. Scott

*

& Robert E. Emery

**

The best interest of the child standard has been widely criticized by scholars for itsvagueness and indeterminacy, and yet for forty years it has been the prevailing rule for resolvingcustody disputes. This article confirms the deficiencies of the standard, focusing particularly ona problem that has received little attention: Best interests poses daunting verifiability problemsbecause a) much family information is private, b) parties often are unable to prove thequalitative factors that that lawmakers have endorsed as proxies for best interest, and c) theincommensurability of these factors precludes courts from assigning them appropriate weights. Despite the substantial risk of erroneous or arbitrary custody decisions, the best interest standard remains firmly entrenched, with the apparent approval of policymakers and courts. Weexplain this puzzle as the product of two interrelated factors. First, a protracted gender war hasembroiled advocates for mothers or fathers for decades, thereby creating a political economydeadlock. The main front in the gender war has been the legislative battle over joint custody, but it has also played out in the efforts of mothers’ groups to make domestic violence a key factor incustody disputes and the responsive effort by fathers’ advocates to elevate claims of parentalalienation. These efforts have brought apparent determinacy to important categories of cases,and thus have contributed to the entrenchment of the best interest standard. Second, courts and legislatures have failed to recognize the intractable problems inherent in resolving these contestsbecause they mistakenly believe that psychologists and other mental health professionals havethe expertise to obtain accurate family information and then to evaluate and compare thecompeting evidentiary claims. Courts routinely ask these professionals to guide them in makingcustody decisions- an unusual role for experts in legal proceedings. But mental health expertsdo not have the skill or knowledge to perform these functions; acting without the constraintsgenerally applied to experts, they routinely go beyond the limits of science and of their ownexpertise in advising courts about custody. Their participation thus masks the deficiencies of thebest interest standard and contributes to its perpetuation. Exposing the illusion that psychological experts can overcome the problems inherent in best interest determinations is animportant step toward real reform and better custody decisionmaking. Desirable reforms includeadoption of the ALI approximation standard, restrictions on the admissibility of psychologicalevidence, and encouragement of private ordering for resolving most custody disputes.

I.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2

*

Harold R. Medina Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law.

**

Professor of Psychology; Director, Center for the Study of Children and the Law, University of Virginia. Forhelpful comments, we thank Kate Bartlett, Emily Buss, Peg Brinig, Maxine Eichner, Bert Huang, Clare Huntington,Jeannie Suk, Lois Weithorn and especially Robert Scott. For excellent research assistance, we thank Sara Weinberg,Sadie Holtzmann and Kristine Van Hamersveld.

2 II.

THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD AND THE PROBLEM OF VERIFIABILITY ......... 7A.

A Brief History of Modern Custody Doctrine .................................................................... 7

B.

Custody Decisionmaking and the Limits of the Judicial Capacity ..................................... 9

1. Traditional Arguments for and Against the Best Interest Standard .................................... 9

2. An Overlooked Consideration: The Problem of Verifiability .......................................... 10

a. Family Privacy and Verifiability. .................................................................................. 11

b. The Challenge of Qualitative Proxies ........................................................................... 12

c. The Incommensurability Problem ................................................................................. 13

3. The Search For Better Proxies For Better Interest ............................................................ 13

III.

THE GENDER WAR OVER CHILD CUSTODY REGULATION ............................... 15A.

Legislative Struggles and the Political Economy Deadlock ............................................. 16

1. The Father’s Movement and the Battle over Joint Custody ............................................. 16

2. The Politics of Motherhood .............................................................................................. 20

3. Legislative Response to Gender Politics........................................................................... 22

B.

Defining Best Interests- Domestic Violence and Parent Alienation ................................. 23

1. The Domestic Violence Presumption ............................................................................... 25

2. Parental Alienation as a Response. ................................................................................... 31

IV. THE ILLUSION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERTISE IN RESOLVING CUSTODYDISPUTES .................................................................................................................................... 35A.

How Important Are Mental Health Experts in Resolving Custody Disputes? ................. 36

B.

Analyzing the Custody Evaluation Process- The General Critique .................................. 38

C.

Assessing Family Violence and Parental Alienation ........................................................ 41

1. Family Violence. ............................................................................................................... 41

2. Parent Alienation “Syndrome.” ........................................................................................ 43

D.

Bad Science and the Absence of Evidentiary Standards .................................................. 45V. REFORMING THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD ............................................................ 47A.

The Case for Approximation ............................................................................................ 48

B.

Improving Accuracy in Custody Proceedings .................................................................. 51

C.

Avoiding Adjudication- Collaborative Divorce and Mediation ....................................... 53CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 56

I.

INTRODUCTION