3 ms·

> if someone bothered to do it I didn't notice that bit, so good find. I was bummed to see that most studies don't actually try to ascertain who usually wins w

by kodah 5y ago

> if someone bothered to do it I didn't notice that bit, so good find. I was bummed to see that most studies don't actually try to ascertain who usually wins when both parents want custody and there are no extenuating circumstances. That seems like an obvious metric to track the health of custody laws. This is the only government data I found: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/P60-255.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I was bummed to see that most studies don't actually try to ascertain who usually wins when both parents want custody and there are no extenuating circumstances The problem is that if there is a custody dispute, then probably at least one, and usually both, sides will be pleading circumstances which pull one way or the other. And any court is likely to issue fact findings that lean the same direction as the custody order. So, if you are going to find what bias exists in the court system you can't look at just custody orders and legally determined facts, you've got to separately readjudicate the fact disputes with an unbiased process. Which is...problematic.
- kodah 5y ago
  I agree that re-adjudicating cases would be costly and would not be perceived as fair even if it were righting a wrong. That said, instead of changing individual decisions you can punish the state for outcomes whether they be intended or unintended. Disparate impact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact) is one such tool the courts are already familiar with. There's more nuance to that which can't be ignored - a person can sue an entity for disparate impact but disparate impact is also calculated regularly with respect to lending. The same could be done for custody.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I agree that re-adjudicating cases would be costly and would not be perceived as fair even if it were righting a wrong. No, I mean the study would have to readjudicate the cases (not change the legal outcome, but redivining the actual facts from the trial record) to identify differing treatment in different factual circumstances between states.
    - kodah 5y ago
      What do you propose doing then?

by kodah 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I was bummed to see that most studies don't actually try to ascertain who usually wins when both parents want custody and there are no extenuating circumstances The problem is that if there is a custody dispute, then probably at least one, and usually both, sides will be pleading circumstances which pull one way or the other. And any court is likely to issue fact findings that lean the same direction as the custody order. So, if you are going to find what bias exists in the court system you can't look at just custody orders and legally determined facts, you've got to separately readjudicate the fact disputes with an unbiased process. Which is...problematic.

kodah 5y ago
I agree that re-adjudicating cases would be costly and would not be perceived as fair even if it were righting a wrong. That said, instead of changing individual decisions you can punish the state for outcomes whether they be intended or unintended. Disparate impact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact) is one such tool the courts are already familiar with. There's more nuance to that which can't be ignored - a person can sue an entity for disparate impact but disparate impact is also calculated regularly with respect to lending. The same could be done for custody.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I agree that re-adjudicating cases would be costly and would not be perceived as fair even if it were righting a wrong. No, I mean the study would have to readjudicate the cases (not change the legal outcome, but redivining the actual facts from the trial record) to identify differing treatment in different factual circumstances between states.
  - kodah 5y ago
    What do you propose doing then?