交叉指控家庭暴力-父母异化监护案件中的性别偏见:各州能否立法解决?

Nina Jaffe-Geffner
{"title":"交叉指控家庭暴力-父母异化监护案件中的性别偏见:各州能否立法解决?","authors":"Nina Jaffe-Geffner","doi":"10.52214/cjgl.v42i1.9373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n“Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), developed by Dr. Richard Gardner in 1985, posits that a frequent dynamic in child custody disputes involves vengeful mothers falsely convincing their children that they have been sexually abused by their fathers. Although PAS is widely discredited and courts have ruled it inadmissible, new formulations of the theory, such as Parental Alienation (PA), continue to play a dominant role in custody proceedings. Proponents of PA assign the label to a broad range of custody cases in which children favor one parent and reject the other. However, despite the seemingly more gender-neutral framing of PA, empirical research shows that courts use PA to discredit mothers’ allegations of domestic violence and abuse and justify custody switches away from the mother. This Note analyzes the gender bias in family courts’ handling of custody cases involving cross-allegations of domestic violence and PA, and then proposes four legislative provisions aimed at reducing the effects of such bias in custody proceedings. \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":84468,"journal":{"name":"Columbia journal of gender and law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender Bias in Cross-Allegation Domestic Violence-Parental Alienation Custody Cases: Can States Legislate the Fix?\",\"authors\":\"Nina Jaffe-Geffner\",\"doi\":\"10.52214/cjgl.v42i1.9373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n“Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), developed by Dr. Richard Gardner in 1985, posits that a frequent dynamic in child custody disputes involves vengeful mothers falsely convincing their children that they have been sexually abused by their fathers. Although PAS is widely discredited and courts have ruled it inadmissible, new formulations of the theory, such as Parental Alienation (PA), continue to play a dominant role in custody proceedings. Proponents of PA assign the label to a broad range of custody cases in which children favor one parent and reject the other. However, despite the seemingly more gender-neutral framing of PA, empirical research shows that courts use PA to discredit mothers’ allegations of domestic violence and abuse and justify custody switches away from the mother. This Note analyzes the gender bias in family courts’ handling of custody cases involving cross-allegations of domestic violence and PA, and then proposes four legislative provisions aimed at reducing the effects of such bias in custody proceedings. \\n \\n \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":84468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Columbia journal of gender and law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Columbia journal of gender and law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjgl.v42i1.9373\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia journal of gender and law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjgl.v42i1.9373","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

理查德·加德纳博士于1985年提出的“父母疏离综合症”(PAS)认为,在儿童监护权纠纷中,经常出现的动态是,复仇心强的母亲错误地让孩子相信,他们曾被父亲性侵。尽管“父母疏离”理论已被广泛质疑,法院也已裁定其不可采信,但该理论的新形式,如“父母疏离”(PA),仍在监护权诉讼中发挥着主导作用。PA的支持者将这一标签分配给了范围广泛的监护权案件,在这些案件中,孩子喜欢父母中的一方,拒绝另一方。然而,尽管PA的框架看起来更加性别中立,但实证研究表明,法院使用PA来质疑母亲对家庭暴力和虐待的指控,并为母亲的监护权转移辩护。本文分析了家事法庭在处理涉及家庭暴力和PA交叉指控的监护案件时的性别偏见,并提出了四项旨在减少这种偏见在监护诉讼中的影响的立法规定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gender Bias in Cross-Allegation Domestic Violence-Parental Alienation Custody Cases: Can States Legislate the Fix?
“Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), developed by Dr. Richard Gardner in 1985, posits that a frequent dynamic in child custody disputes involves vengeful mothers falsely convincing their children that they have been sexually abused by their fathers. Although PAS is widely discredited and courts have ruled it inadmissible, new formulations of the theory, such as Parental Alienation (PA), continue to play a dominant role in custody proceedings. Proponents of PA assign the label to a broad range of custody cases in which children favor one parent and reject the other. However, despite the seemingly more gender-neutral framing of PA, empirical research shows that courts use PA to discredit mothers’ allegations of domestic violence and abuse and justify custody switches away from the mother. This Note analyzes the gender bias in family courts’ handling of custody cases involving cross-allegations of domestic violence and PA, and then proposes four legislative provisions aimed at reducing the effects of such bias in custody proceedings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Day 2 Panel 3: Self-Care as Self-Preservation: Understanding Vicarious Trauma & Enhancing Support for Providers Justice For Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence Conference Report Day 2 Panel 2: Promoting Equity From the Bench: Judicial Selection, Oversight, and Training Day 1 Lunchtime Speaker: Stephanie McGraw CEO W.A.R.M - We All Really Matter Day 1 Panel 2: How Bias Manifests in New York State's Family Law System
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1