Intersectional racial and gender bias in family court

Abstract

Abstract Custody cases characterized by conflict may involve allegations of abuse or parental alienation, necessitating a thorough examination of the situation for the child’s wellbeing. This case series describes stereotypes and biases faced by three racialized fathers, resulting in problems in the processes and outcomes of the family court system. Occurring at the intersection of race, culture, religion, and gender, social myths about these fathers of South Asian and MENA (Middle Eastern, North African, Arab) descent led to inequities in parental rights and harm to their children. Biases experienced by fathers included racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, which manifested as presumptions that such fathers espoused outdated gender roles, exerted excessive authority in the home, and were unwilling to adapt to mainstream culture—which can bias the decision-making of custody evaluators, child advocates, lawyers, and judges. This paper presents the relevant facts of each case, critical errors made by the court—such as ignoring the voices of the fathers, delayed verdict delivery, inadequate assessment of abuse, and failure to prioritize the children's welfare. This article discusses stigma, abuse, interracial dynamic, and the mental health toll of this process on fathers, despite having respected professions and financial resources. Also addressed is the challenge of differentiating parental alienation from estrangement due to child abuse when children reject a parent. It is hoped that by recognizing and addressing these biases outcomes in parental disputes can be greatly improved.

Keywords

• South Asian
• MENA
• Abuse
• Family court
• Racism
• Islamophobia