JUDICIAL BIAS – A Fine Balance

Judicial bias refers to a situation where a judge's personal opinions, beliefs, or prejudices influence their decision-making in a case, rather than relying solely on the law, the facts presented, and fair legal principles. In an ideal legal system, judges are expected to be impartial, making decisions based on the law and the facts of the case at hand, without favoritism or prejudice. When a judge allows their personal biases to influence their decisions, it undermines the fairness and integrity of the legal process.

Judicial bias can manifest in several ways:

1. Personal Bias: A judge may have personal beliefs or experiences that affect how they view a case. For example, a judge might show favoritism towards a particular gender, race, or social class in their rulings. In family law cases, this could mean favoring one parent over another due to gender-based assumptions about caregiving, even if the law doesn’t support such a preference.

2. Prejudgment: If a judge has already formed an opinion about a case or a party involved before hearing all the evidence, this can lead to biased decision-making. For example, if a judge is publicly critical of one side (like mothers, fathers, or certain groups of people) in similar cases, it could create an impression that their mind is already made up, influencing their impartiality.

3. Conflict of Interest: A judge might have a personal or financial interest in the outcome of a case, which can affect their neutrality. For instance, if a judge knows one of the attorneys personally or has a vested interest in a company or entity involved in the case, they may be more inclined to rule in a way that benefits that party.

4. Cultural or Social Bias: Judges may unintentionally bring their own cultural or social background into the courtroom, affecting how they view the parties involved in a case. For instance, they may give less weight to the testimony of a person from a lower socioeconomic background or show favoritism toward a particular lifestyle or belief system.

5. Inconsistent Rulings: If a judge applies different standards of judgment depending on the parties involved or the type of case (e.g., consistently ruling in favor of one gender or party in family law cases), that could be considered judicial bias.

Why Judicial Bias is Problematic

• Unfair Outcomes: Judicial bias undermines the idea of a fair trial. If a judge's decision is influenced by personal views or prejudices, the result may not be just or equitable.

• Loss of Public Trust: A judicial system that allows bias to affect its outcomes can erode the public’s confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the law. If people believe that judges are not impartial, they may not respect the rulings or seek alternative means of resolving their disputes.

• Appeals and Reversals: Biased decisions can lead to appeals, which are costly and time-consuming. Higher courts may overturn decisions based on judicial bias, leading to delays and additional burdens on the legal system.

How Judicial Bias is Addressed

• Recusal: In cases where a judge has a conflict of interest or there is a concern about bias, they may recuse themselves (step aside) from the case to maintain fairness.

• Appellate Review: Higher courts review lower court decisions to ensure that bias or errors in judgment did not influence the ruling.

• Training and Ethical Guidelines: Judges are often required to undergo training on ethics, fairness, and bias. Many courts also have rules that prohibit judges from engaging in behavior that could lead to the appearance of bias.

Can Bias Be Avoided?

While it's impossible to completely eliminate personal influences, judges are held to high ethical standards and must avoid any conduct that would compromise their objectivity. Legal systems often have mechanisms like appeals, judicial review boards, and complaints processes in place to help address instances of bias.

In the context of family law, where emotions can run high (especially in divorce and custody disputes), there can be particular concerns about bias. For instance, if a judge has a bias towards mothers in custody cases, this could lead to unfair outcomes for fathers (or vice versa). Addressing this bias is crucial to ensuring that all parties receive equal treatment under the law.

Have you ever seen examples of judicial bias play out in real-world cases or media portrayals? How do you think courts could work to address this issue?

People also ask:

What is a biased judge?

bias. n. the predisposition of a judge, arbitrator, prospective juror, or anyone making a judicial decision, against or in favor of one of the parties or a class of persons. This can be shown by remarks, decisions contrary to fact, reason or law, or other unfair conduct.

Bias legal definition of bias - Legal Dictionary - The F

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bias

Search for: What is a biased judge?

When a judge has a conflict of interest?

Recuse. To disqualify or remove oneself as a judge over a particular proceeding because of one's conflict of interest. Recusal, or the judge's act of disqualifying himself or herself from presiding over a proceeding, is based on the Maxim that judges are charged with a duty of impartiality in administering justice.

Recuse legal definition of recuse

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/recuse

Search for: When a judge has a conflict of interest?

What is actual bias?

Bias may be actual, imputed or apparent. Actual bias is established where it is actually established that a decision-maker was prejudiced in favour of or against a party. However, in practice, the making of such an allegation is rare as it is very hard to prove.

Natural justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice

Search for: What is actual bias?

What are the circumstances under which a judicial officer may be required to disqualify himself from proceedings?

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer.

Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

Search for: What are the circumstances under which a judicial officer may be required to disqualify himself from proceedings?

Originally posted on Researching Reform:

The subject of judicial bias has always fascinated Researching Reform and in the family justice system, where discretion is not just an afterthought but a much-used tool, bias can be magnified and in turn can affect judgement.

Weaponized Family Court System,

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice "
– U.S. vs. Jannottie, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982).

← Should Judges Be Required To Pass Rigorous Tests? Poll #26

Obstruction Of Father/Son Relationship

COLLUSION OF DOJ WITH THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IN VIOLATION OF SEPERATION OF POWER

• Letter to Congress on the Denial of the Right to Impartial Judicial Review of Misprison of a Felony
• 2008-Opposition to the Appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General of DOJ
• 2008-Criminal Compalint for violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 4, 241, 242, 1513 etc.
• VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF POWER BY THE COLLUSION OF THE VIRGINIA COURTS AND BOB McDONNELL
• OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE
• FATHER'S/SON RIGHTS
• THE REASON FOR THE SUIT AND NOTICE OF FEDERAL TORT CLAIM
• CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, VIOLATED 18 U.S.C. SECS. 1001 & 1204
• Court of Appeals Confirms Duty to Protect Father's Rights Under Treaty
• PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION OF ABUSE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
• RICO/Bivens and Federal Tort Complaint Against Judge J. G. Roberts et al.
• July 2005--Recent act by Judge J. G. Roberts and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
• August 2005 CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS
• Exception to Judicial Immunity
• MISC. MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ACTION AGAINST JOHN G. ROBERTS
• 2005 Letter to Congress on Collusion of DOJ with Judicial Branch
• NEGLIGENCE OF NCMEC

Exposing The Methods An Alienating Parent Uses To Brainwash Their Child.

Isolation is the KEY to Manipulation.

Isolation. The act of isolating, or the state of being isolated, insulation, separation; loneliness.

Manipulation. A method of changing an individual’s attitudes or allegiances through the use of drugs, torture or psychological techniques, any form of indoctrination, alluding to the literal erasing of what is in or on one’s mind.

Brain Washing used to be associated exclusively with the act or practice of manipulating. The state of being manipulated. Shrewd or devious management, especially for one’s own advantage. Indirect control, as of an advisor; power to affect the opinions.

If you isolate the target You can say what you want about them. If you isolate the victim and only allow contact with allies you have complete control. This is an "Alienation Tactic".

Parental Rights to End at the School Door?

In a recent article of the Fairfax (VA) Times [1], a school board candidate wrote,

“some members of the School Board argued the school’s duty in loco parentis – to stand in the parent’s place – essentially means that parents’ rights over their children end at the school door. No parent in Fairfax County would agree.”

You probably wouldn’t agree, either. Unfortunately, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already has. In its 2005 case Fields v. Palmdale [2], the court held that the parents’ fundamental right 

“does not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”

In Palmdale, the issue was a graphic sex-ed curriculum. In Fairfax, it was interrogating students without notifying parents. But whatever the issue,

“once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished. (Fields v. Palmdale)

This should not be the case. Please act now to reverse this assault by big government courts against parental rights.

Then, pass this on! Every parent of a public school student needs to know the extent to which the courts have robbed them of their rights. Add the message to your Facebook page, or use the button to add it to any social network.

Every child has the right to be raised and represented by parents who love them, and not by disconnected government bureaucrats. Help us to preserve that right today!

When truth is buried underground it grows.

When truth is buried underground it grows, it chokes, it gathers such an explosive force than on the day it bursts out, it blows up everything with it.

Emile Zola Quotes

Lying In Family Court by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. 

When I became a family law attorney/mediator after a dozen years as a therapist, one of the biggest surprises was the extent of lying in Family Court: lies about income, assets and even complete fabrications of child abuse and domestic violence. Why would people lie so much, I wondered? How did they get away with it? The following is my psycho-social analysis of what I believe has become an epidemic: 

Men lie: It was a sad phone call from a relatively new client. He informed me his father had just died. He had quit his job and was moving back east to wrap up his father's affairs. He asked me to tell his wife's attorney that he would not be able to pay child support for their three young children for a long time. (There was no support order yet.)

The next day, his wife's attorney called me back and described how upset his wife was to learn of her father-in-law's death. So upset, that she had called his father -- and had a nice chat!

Women lie: A mother involved in a custody battle told the court in dramatic detail about physical abuse at the hands of her husband. She even submitted reports of visits to doctors and emergency rooms for her bruises.

However, a court-ordered psychological evaluation determined the allegations were false. The court agreed and awarded custody to the father. A few weeks later the mother picked up the children from school and disappeared for a year. She was caught, sent to jail for parental kidnapping, and the children returned to the father

Societal Increase in Lying

Surveys show that lying has increased over the past decade. In 1999 alone: the President was tried in Congress for perjury; a popular journalist in Boston was publicly fired for fabricating heart-rending stories; and a scientist was exposed for falsifying research on a high-profile safety issue.

Incompetent and unscrupulous Family Court Experts enjoy immunity from malpractice claims

An article in the July-August edition of Private Eye magazine highlights a controversial loophole which could allow incompetent and unscrupulous Family Court experts to practice whilst enjoying immunity from malpractice claims.

Professor Jane Ireland’s 2012 report detailing serious concerns about the quality of expert evidence from Family Court psychiatrists and psychologists – it found that over 20% of psychologists  in  family cases  were  unqualified  and  65%  of  expert  reports  were  either  of  ‘poor’  or  ‘very  poor’  quality – is also mentioned in the Private Eye piece.

Loophole Allows Unqualified Psychologists To Practice

Redacted version of the Private Eye piece below:

“A gaping hole in the regulation of psychologists could put the public at risk from unscrupulous, inept or unaccountable ‘experts’.

Providing  psychologists  don’t  use  one  of  nine  so-called  ‘protected  titles’  –  for  example,  educational,  clinical,  or  forensic  – any  can  offer  their  services  without  the  need  to  be  registered  and  regulated  by  the  U.K.’s  watchdog,  the  Health  and  Care Professions  Council  (HCPC).  Even  if  serious  concerns  or  complaints  are  raised  about  them,  they  remain  immune  from investigation  because  they’re  not  registered.

Nowhere  is  the  danger  of  the  regulatory  body’s  impotence  more  starkly  illustrated  than  in  the  courts,  where  it  seems  that unregistered,  unqualified  and  potentially  unfit  psychologists  can  operate  as  ‘experts’  in  even  the  most  serious  cases  of murder,  rape  or  child  sexual  exploitation.  No-one  illustrates  this  absurd  Catch-22  better  than  ‘consultant  psychologist’ [edited],  who  has  acted  as  an  expert  in  several  high-profile  cases,  including  the  [edited]  child  grooming  case,  where a  gang  raped  and  trafficked  underage  girls.

[Edited],  a  trained  educational  psychologist  who  used  to  work  in  local  government,  has  been  the  subject  of  at  least  four complaints,  including  manipulating  data  and  acting  beyond  his  qualifications  and  expertise.  Three  have  not  been  investigated because  he  has  never  been  registered  with  the  HCPC.  Because  of  the  fourth,  his  application  for  registration  in  2012  was refused,  when  he  was  judged  to  be  ‘not  of  good  character’.

According  to  his  website,  [edited]  also  acts  in  the  family  courts  in  sensitive  child  contact  and  care  cases,  in  what  looks  like a  clear  breach  of  new  guidelines  from  the  Family  Justice  Council  (a  public  body  which  advises  on  family  justice  matters) and  the  industry  body  the  British  Psychological  Society  (BPS).  The  guidelines  state  that  family  courts  expect  all psychologists  acting  as  experts  to  be  HCPC-registered  unless  they  are  academics.

In  fact  his  website  offers  services  in  several  of  the  areas  of  expertise  covered  by  protected  titles  (educational,  forensic, practitioner,  counselling),  again  contrary  to  what  the  BPS  says  in  its  online  directory  of  chartered  psychologists  (in  which [edited]  is  listed).  It  says  that  ‘anyone  offering  services  within  these  [protected  title]  areas  must also  be  registered’  with  the HCPC.

[Edited]  website  logo  even  uses  the  word  ‘educational’  –  but  because  he  simply  chooses  to  call  himself  a  ‘consultant’,  the HCPC  maintains  he  is  not  misusing  a  protected  title  and  thus  it  can’t  act.  It  adds  that  statutory  regulation  and corresponding  regulatory  titles  are  decided  by  the  government,  and  it’s  for  ministers  to  change  them.  The  BPS,  meanwhile, says  it  now  only  ‘advises’  on  standards  and  best  practice,  ‘but  where  we  are  aware  of  gaps  in  regulation,  we  raise  these with  the  regulator’  –  i.e.  the  HCPC!

The  BPS  says  it  can’t  comment  on  individual  members,  but  adds  that  it  has  raised  concerns  that  the  general  title ‘psychologist’  is  not  protected.  It  still  seems  happy  to  promote  [edited],  though.

As  the  HCPC  admits,  [edited]  is  not  the  only  one  dancing  rings  around  registration.  Prof.  Jane  Ireland  –  author  of  a damning  2012  study  which  triggered  the  recent  family  court  reform,  having  found  that  one  in  five  psychologists  in  family cases  was  working  beyond  their  expertise  and  65%  of  expert  reports  were  either  of  ‘poor’  or  ‘very  poor’  quality  –  tells  the Eye:  ‘All  practising  psychologists  who  act  as  expert  witnesses  should  be  regulated  so  that  the  public  are  protected’.

[Edited]  was  refused  registration  because  of  ‘concerns  about  his  character’  after  staff  at  [edited]  Young  offenders Institution  asked  in  2012  for  proof  of  identity  and,  er,  HCPC  registration.  It  triggered  lengthy  and  ‘inappropriate’ correspondence  between  [edited]  and  the  jail.  An  HCPC  regulatory  panel  threw  out  his  appeal  in  2013,  saying  he  was completely  unable  to  accept  that  his  written  outbursts  had  been  unacceptable,  that  he  had  demonstrated  no  insight  into  the potential  consequences  and  that  he  had  shown  no  remorse.  The  panel  said  that  he  had  displayed  a  similar  attitude  in communication  with  the  HCPC  itself,  that  it  could  not  rule  out  a  repetition  of  similar  behaviour  and  that  his  conduct  would ‘damage  public  confidence  in  the  regulatory  process’.

[Edited]  response  to  the  three  complaints  made  by  fellow  psychologists  has  been  to  fire  off  counter-allegations,  the  irony being  that  those  properly  registered  and  regulated  complainants  then  find  themselves  under  HCPC  investigation,  while  he escapes.

Thus,  in  the  [edited]  grooming  case,  [edited],  a  registered  chartered  psychologist,  was  so  alarmed  to  find  an unregistered  educational  psychologist,  whom  she  considered  neither  qualified  to  reach  his  conclusions  about  an  adult  sex attacker  nor  completely  open  about  those  conclusions,  that  she  complained  to  both  the  HCPC  and  the  BPS.  She  was  told neither  could  do  anything.  Instead  she  herself  was  investigated  when  [edited]  fired  off  a  counterblast.  ‘It  was  very  irritating, but  of  course  there  was  no  merit  in  his  complaints  and  they  were  all  swiftly  dismissed,’  she  told  the  Eye.  [Edited]  boasts on  his  website  about  the  [edited]  case:  ‘Of  the  seven  men  convicted,  five  were  given  life  sentences.  The  man  I  assessed was  given  a  sentence  substantially  below  that  of  his  co-defendants,  and  without  a  tariff’.

Another  victim  of  [edited]’s  revenge  salvos  was  [edited],  an  academic  and  leading  clinical  and  forensic psychologist.  After  taking  advice,  he  complained  to  the  then  regulator,  the  BPS,  that  [edited] had  manipulated  IQ  test scores  in  the  trial  of  a  man  accused  in  2008  of  converting  replica  weapons  into  firearms  used  in  a  series  of  murders.  It made  the  man  appear  less  intelligent,  and  therefore  less  culpable.  [The academic]  told  the  Court  at  the  time  he  had  ‘never encountered  such  extraordinary  conduct  before’.  In  the  event  it  seems  [edited]  evidence  held  little  or  no  sway:  the defendant  was  convicted  and  sentenced  to  life.

When  [edited]  duly  counter-complained,  however,  the  BPS  decided  to  investigate  [edited] complaint  first.  It  swiftly  exonerated [the academic];  but  it  never  got  round  to  investigating  [edited] because,  in  the  meantime,  fitness  to  practise  and  regulatory issues  had  been  passed  to  the  HCPC.  [The academic] told  the  Eye:  ‘Guidelines  indicate  that  the  need  to  protect  clients from  unsafe  practice  from  psychological  experts  and  professional  witnesses  is  paramount.  But  there  is  absolutely  no protection  if  a  psychologist  is  not  registered’.

In  a  third  case  involving  [edited],  while  he  again  escaped  investigation  of  complaints  about  his  expertise  and  findings,  it took  almost  two  years  before  his  unfounded  counter-allegations  against  a  registered  psychologist  were  dismissed  –  this  time with  an  HCPC  apology.

No-one  can  say  whether  the  complaints  about  [edited]  would  have  been  upheld.  The  scandal  is  that  because  he  can  so easily  act  outside  the  regulatory  system,  no-one  even  bothers  to  consider  them.”

What changes would you like to see in the regulation of Family Court experts? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

Family Court Judge Stanford Blake Presented with Chief Justice Award for Judicial Excellence

Court News - 2016

Judge Stanford Blake, Eleventh Circuit, Presented with Chief Justice Award for Judicial Excellence

The Chief Justice Awards for Judicial Excellence, established in 2015, recognize one county court judge and one circuit court judge who demonstrate exceptional commitment to the judicial branch and who personify judicial excellence, embodying qualities such as strength of character, integrity, fairness, open-mindedness, knowledge of the law, sound judgment, professional ethics, intellectual courage, compassion, and decisiveness.  These prestigious awards are presented by the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court at the annual education programs for each level of the trial court.  At this year’s Annual Education Program of the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, Chief Justice Labarga presented the 2016 Chief Justice Award for Judicial Excellence to Judge Stanford Blake, Eleventh Circuit.  (Broward County Court Judge Robert W. Lee received the Award for Judicial Excellence at the Annual Education Program of the Conference of County Court Judges of Florida in July.)

A Fight for Respect, the Struggles, and the Hopes of Disabled Parents

Children's Rights and Family Law Reform from David Inguanzo

A Topic Worthy of Awareness

Support for

Special Needs

Excerpt: 

As a parent of a daughter for whom all this will depart the realm of the theoretical, I confess that the best part of this isn't the information that's available, although that's nice. For me, it's a great comfort just to hear someone else, particularly government agencies, say "Yeah, this is a big deal. Let's look at this and see what can be done." 

That's not a small thing, not at all.
by Rob Rummel-Hudson