Gender, Psychology, and Justice
eBook - ePub

Gender, Psychology, and Justice

The Mental Health of Women and Girls in the Legal System

Corinne C. Datchi, Julie R. Ancis

Share book
  1. 352 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Gender, Psychology, and Justice

The Mental Health of Women and Girls in the Legal System

Corinne C. Datchi, Julie R. Ancis

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

Reveals how gender intersects with race, class, and sexual orientation in ways that impact the legal status and well-being of women and girls in the justice system. Women and girls’ contact with the justice system is often influenced by gender-related assumptions and stereotypes. The justice practices of the past 40 years have been largely based on conceptual principles and assumptions—including personal theories about gender—more than scientific evidence about what works to address the specific needs of women and girls in the justice system. Because of this, women and girls have limited access to equitable justice and are increasingly caught up in outdated and harmful practices, including the net of the criminal justice system. Gender, Psychology, and Justice uses psychological research to examine the experiences of women and girls involved in the justice system. Their experiences, from initial contact with justice and court officials, demonstrate how gender intersects with race, class, and sexual orientation to impact legal status and well-being. The volume also explains the role psychology can play in shaping legal policy, ranging from the areas of corrections to family court and drug court. Gender, Psychology, and Justice provides a critical analysis of girls’ and women’s experiences in the justice system. It reveals the practical implications of training and interventions grounded in psychological research, and suggests new principles for working with women and girls in legal settings.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Gender, Psychology, and Justice an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Gender, Psychology, and Justice by Corinne C. Datchi, Julie R. Ancis in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Psychologie & Forensische Psychologie. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
NYU Press
Year
2017
ISBN
9781479832019

Part I

Women and Girls in Various Justice Settings

1

Women and Family Court

Abuse and Contested Custody

Julie R. Ancis
I expected the judge to listen to all sides of the case. This was my opportunity to have my side heard and understood. Finally, a place where professionals who deal with this kind of thing would hear me out and make decisions in the best interest of my children and family. I couldn’t be more wrong.
—Mother in contested custody case, 2012
Most contested custody cases are eventually settled out of court, but a subset are essentially prolonged battles. These are the approximately 5 percent of custody cases that the courts view as high-conflict cases. Abusive ex-spouses often use family court litigation to continue to control and harass their former partner (Ancis 2012, 2015; Jaffe et al. 2008). Similarly, a Department of Justice study found that high rates of domestic violence exist in families referred for child custody evaluations (Saunders, Faller, and Tolman 2011). It is estimated that 90 percent of contested custody cases involve abusive fathers (Hannah and Goldstein 2010).
Understanding the sociocultural context of women’s experiences in family court, especially those who are subject to abusive ex-partners and -husbands, is essential to comprehending the ways in which gender intersects with other identities to impact women and children’s legal status and well-being. Effective and sensitive approaches in such cases require a level of education and training that most mental health professionals and justice officials do not receive. Consequently, ineffective and sometimes harmful decisions and interventions are implemented, resulting in secondary and tertiary trauma for women and children. While all states have statutes requiring that the child’s best interests be considered in custody and visitation decisions, a lack of understanding and bias with regard to abuse and related dynamics prevent the implementation of practices that are truly in the best interests of children and families. This chapter includes qualitative data from several studies of women who have engaged in divorce and custody proceedings. Quotations are used to illustrate themes and salient issues that arose in in-depth, semistructured, and open-ended interviews with women litigants (see Ancis and Watson 2016; Watson and Ancis 2013).

Intimate Partner Violence and Family Court

Women who decide to leave an abuser frequently do so in order to protect their children from the deleterious effects of an abusive environment (Bryan 2006). When leaving an abusive relationship, women often seek justice and protection from the legal system. Specifically, women who are married to abusive partners may seek a divorce and, if they are mothers, custody of their children. Often, however, the tactics of power and control experienced in relationships with abusers may continue to manifest during the dissolution of the relationship and pervade legal proceedings (American Psychological Association [APA] 1996; Neilson 2004; Pagelow 1993; Stahly 1999). The legal system quickly becomes another avenue and arena through which her abuser may perpetrate abuse (Taylor, Stoilkov, and Greco 2008).
Although the legal definition of abuse differs according to jurisdiction, intimate partner violence (IPV) is generally defined as behavioral patterns intended to assert or gain power and control over another (Shipway 2004). Broadly defined, IPV is not limited to physical assault, and may also encompass sexual, emotional, and economic abuse. Emotional abuse is commonly perpetuated by those with particular personality characteristics, which often include a disregard for and a violation of the rights of others, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and a lack of remorse. Women who leave abusive relationships and are subsequently involved in prolonged and contested custody cases frequently describe ex-partners as possessing such qualities and related behaviors, behaviors that are then manifest in divorce and custody proceedings and beyond (Ancis 2012). Custody proceedings are fertile ground for the continuation of abusive maneuvers and tactics.
Moreover, many women perceive such adversarial tactics on the part of abusive and controlling exes as motivated by spite and vindictiveness, or as punishment for their leaving the relationship (Watson and Ancis 2013).
He just really wants to punish me and keep me out of her [daughter’s] life. And he was able to use the court to continue abusing me and to get power over me again. . . . This is about revenge; he wants to punish me to get back at me, and the best way for him to do that is to take what was most important to me away. And not only that, even though he’s done it, he’s still not happy. He still wants control over me. It’s like he hasn’t let go of me. Not that he loves me and wants to be married to me, but he’s very invested in being able to abuse me. (Lea, age 42, White woman)
There exist a number of ways in which abuse dynamics may continue during legal proceedings and beyond. Former husbands/partners may prolong the case through unnecessary emergency hearings, fail to supply appropriate documents, thereby leading to delays and repeated requests, and seek an increase or decrease in child support (depending upon who was the recipient). Women also describe intimidation and/or harassment tactics such as receiving hateful emails from ex-partners (Bryan 2006; Watson and Ancis 2013).
One common tactic abusers use in family court may include seeking full custody even when they were relatively absent or uninvolved as a parent (Araji and Bosek 2010; Bancroft and Silverman 2002; Watson and Ancis 2013). This tactic is often effective, as women are less likely to report abuse to authorities for fear of losing their children (Kaser-Boyd 2004). Many tactics, such as prolonging the case and pursuing full custody, are perceived as attempts to get the mothers to acquiesce and agree to unfavorable terms, especially financial terms. Custodial challenges pursued by abusive partners may be motivated by financial gain so that the economically disadvantaged and abused wife will be required to pay child support (Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts [Gender Bias Study] 1990; Stahly 1999). Abusive former husbands/partners who are granted full custody often attempt to limit mothers’ visitation.

Bias in Family Court

A number of studies have demonstrated that relative to men, women are largely disadvantaged during divorce and custody disputes (Bemiller 2008; Heim et al. 2002; Johnson, Saccuzzo, and Koen 2005; Kernic et al. 2005; Neustein and Lesher 2005; Stahly et al. 2004). Several major studies (e.g., see Araji and Bosek 2010; Dragiewicz 2010; Saunders et al. 2011; Voices of Women Organizing Project [VOW] 2008) have described the particular gender bias and injustice that abuse survivors encounter within divorce and custody disputes. The legal system’s response to domestic violence and abuse has historically been poor (Muraskin 2012), leaving victims without sufficient protection. Family courts have been described as “badly in need of oversight and repair” (VOW 2008, 5) as they have become places in which protective mothers experience secondary trauma.
Studies related to domestic violence and contested custody cases in a number of states (e.g., Alaska [2006], Pennsylvania [2003], Arizona [2003], Massachusetts [2002], and California [2002]; see Araji and Bosek 2010) consistently demonstrate that within family courts, women’s credibility in terms of abuse allegations was frequently questioned; evidence of abuse was disregarded, minimized, or ignored (e.g., attorneys neglected to mention abuse during cases); and women were not allowed to speak, be heard in court, or discuss domestic violence or child abuse. Women also encountered double standards for parenting (e.g., noninvolved fathers were frequently awarded custody while mothers who had been primary caretakers had to painstakingly prove parental fitness); and women were often punished for violating “friendly parent” assumptions (i.e., the premise that each parent should provide the opportunity for the other to have a loving and open relationship with the opposite parent) when reporting abuse during divorce and custody disputes (Dragiewicz 2010). As a result, decisions were made that placed children in danger (e.g., unsupervised visitation with abusive ex-partners was granted).
These findings are consistent with the pervasive biases and erroneous assumptions held by court personnel. These include beliefs that women are prone to make false allegations of abuse in custody disputes and that women tend to be emotionally unstable. Despite scientific evidence that supports their claims, women who assert allegations of child or spousal abuse are often viewed by court personnel as angry, vindictive, and overly emotional (Danforth and Welling 1996).
In fact, research suggests that fathers are more likely than mothers to make false accusations of child abuse in divorce and custody cases (21 percent versus 1.3 percent) (Bala and Schuman 2000); that childhood abuse claims are not more common in divorce and custody disputes than in other cases (Brown et al. 2000); and that childhood sexual abuse allegations in custody disputes are rare (less than 2 percent) (Thoennes and Tjaden 1990).

The Important Role of Custody Evaluators and Guardians ad Litem

Custody evaluators, also known as guardians ad litem (GALs), or special masters in some states, often play a central role in the divorce and custody disputes. They are responsible for conducting assessments, evaluations, and recommendations related to custody and visitation. Judges routinely rely upon GALs and custody evaluators to make recommendations in the “best interests” of the child(ren) (Bryan 2006). No standard definition of best interest exists. Thus, a uniform operationalization of this construct by researchers as well as practitioners is lacking (Krauss and Sales 2001). Nonetheless, all states, the District of Columbia, American Somoa, Guam, the Northern Moravia Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have statutes requesting that the child’s best interest be considered in custody and placement decisions (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2013).
The parameters of the role of GALs are not always clear, which has led to some frustration and confusion on the part of attorneys and litigants. Similarly, statutes or codes regarding the best interests of the child vary from state to state, permitting custody decision makers wide discretion (Hall, Pulver, and Cooley 1996). Qualifications, education, and training requirements differ from state to state. While most states require some sort of training, this training remains relatively limited, ranging from several hours to a couple of days (Ancis 2015).
Due to bias and a lack of training and education, it is not uncommon for custody evaluators to draw faulty conclusions when conducting evaluations/assessments. Evidence regarding the child’s well-being, including academic and social adjustment, is ignored. In some cases, important information such as that related to the child’s age or attachment to the mother is not considered.
A major issue that emerges in assessments and evaluations involves a lack of understanding or consideration of abuse. In some cases, the father’s abuse is not taken into consideration or mentioned in GAL reports, and joint custody is recommended or custody is given to the abuser (Ancis 2012; Saunders et al. 2011).
Custody evaluators’ negative stereotypes about women and myths about abuse in the context of divorce and custody disputes often contribute to biased and unjust outcomes in family court. Custody evaluators who believe that mothers’ allegations of domestic violence (DV) are false also tend to possess other related beliefs, such as that DV survivors alienate children from the other parent; that DV is not an important factor in making custody decisions; and that DV survivors falsely allege child abuse (Saunders et al. 2011). Beliefs in patriarchal norms (i.e., women have reached equality with men) and social dominance (i.e., social hierarchies are good) are related to beliefs that alleged DV victims make false allegations and alienate their children, and that fathers do not falsely allege abuse (Saunders et al. 2011).
Moreover, custody evaluators who believe that DV allegations by mothers are false also tend to believe that children are hurt when survivors are reluctant to coparent (Saunders et al. 2011). Women who attempt to limit or block their exes’ repeated harassing behavior may be seen as discouraging communication for the sake of the child. Thus, the whole context of abuse is discounted and the protective parent is blamed.
Evaluator hypotheses about the causes and consequences of DV relate to custody beliefs. Custody evaluators who consider a husband’s coercive-controlling behavior are more likely to view DV as the cause of a mother’s psychological symptoms. They are also more likely to believe that DV is important in custody decisions, that mothers do not make false allegations, and that victims do not alienate the children (Saunders et al. 2011).
The limitations of GALs’ training have been criticized (Ducote 2002), as competent assessments of children and families typically require years of study in areas such as family dynamics, child development, testing, interviewing, diagnostics, and case conceptualization. Moreover, an understanding of cultural diversity and the way issues of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation intersect with family dynamics is crucial to sound assessment (Ancis 2004; Ancis and Jongsma 2007). In addition, issues of child abuse, personality disorders, physical disability, and substance abuse have a potentially profound impact on family systems. The limited training and experience in these areas may lead to suspect decision making (Bryan 2006; Greenberg and Shuman 2007).
Women who have been subject to lengthy custody disputes with custody evaluators describe how GALs’ conclusions do not fit with their assessments or do not take into account relevant research (Ancis and Watson 2016).
I mean it’s like . . . she would state something in her report that favored me entirely, and the end result was like, um, oh but we’re gonna give it to her father. It’s like what?! (Rita, age 43, White mother who lost custody of her children)

Psychological Theories and Assumptions That Have Informed Justice Officials and Mental Health Practitioners

Many theories and assumptions about women in general, abused women, domestic violence (DV), and the needs of children have informed the responses of the justice system and mental health professionals. Unfortunately, some of these assumptions and theories are unfounded, unsubstantiated, and harmful (Neustein and Lesher 2005).
Most importantly, women’s responses to abuse and violence are often misunderstood and misinterpreted. The tendency to minimize abuse within the court system, despite the above findings, serves to facilitate and encourage power and control tactics perpetuated by former partners. The particular personality characteristics of abusive former spouses and partners and the impact of abuse on women often lead the aggressor to be perceived as calm, cool, level-headed, logical, and believable, and the victim to be perceived as unbelievable, unstable, and overly emotional. Traumatic symptoms experienced and manifested in response to abuse may be viewed by court personnel (e.g., judges, attorneys, psychologists, GALs) as evidence that women are unstable and ineffectual parents, thereby resulting in custody being awarded to abusive spouses, some of whom are skilled at portraying themselves as virtuous and, ironically, as victims (Stahly 1999). Similarly, discrediting tactics tend to feed into preexisting gender biases that judges may possess (Harrison 2008; Winner 1996).
In fact, research has suggested that psychological profiles of abused women tend to demonstrate elevated scores on the Depression, Psychopathic Deviate, Paranoia, and Schizophrenia subs...

Table of contents