This is going to be one of the most controversial blogs I’m probably ever going to write as it’s likely to be one that virtually everybody reading will disagree with, but hear me out.
There is no significant gender bias in the family court.
If you’re still here and want to read why I’m saying this then thank you for having an open mind. For those that close the page at this point then I’m fine with that as my services wouldn’t be for them anyway.
I would also like to simplify what I mean by gender at this point as far as it relates to the issues being discussed. In order not to confuse matters I will refer to fathers as men and mothers as women. This isn’t intended to cause offence, and I apologise if anybody feels this is an over simplification – I am fully aware that this doesn’t always apply.
In 2021 we conducted some research within my group which at the time had around 7000 members* which revealed that at the time of asking 82% of court orders in place had resulted in the child/ren’s mother being the resident parent (RP) with the father being the non-resident parent (NRP). Just 8% of fathers were RP, with the remaining 10% being split between Special Guardian / Grandparent / Other (3%) and joint lives with (7%) where both parents were classed as RPs.
Why then would I claim that there is no significant bias in the light of such unbalanced statistics? Read on…
Many of us come to court proceedings with a greater or lesser bias in favour of our own role (that of mother or father). This is exacerbated greatly if we have been ‘through’ or are still involved in a single gender focused group such as a Fathers Group or Mothers Group. Many of these exist over the internet and particularly social media. Some are more militantly anti the other gender / role than others, but almost all refer to a gender bias in family court that disadvantages their own gender / role.
That’s right. If this is the first time you’ve heard this then you may find this particularly surprising and even shocking.
My own journey through family courts began with support from the father’s groups and so naturally I felt just like many fathers do – that the courts are biased in favour of mothers. I was that guy! Yet when I started working as a McKenzie Friend working with clients that were both mothers and fathers I was surprised that mothers felt the court was biased against them too! The truth cannot be that the court is biased against both mothers AND fathers can it?!
The trouble is that just like when it comes to discussing politics online we tend to end up in echo chambers. For those that aren’t familiar with the term it’s when we tend to gravitate more towards those who align with our views the most closely and shun those who don’t. We end up with ‘like minded’ people in our closest circles and the views we hold tend to be the views we then get reinforced through repetition. As this goes on we become more and more entrenched in our view to the point that anybody with a contrasting view is considered not only to be wrong, but can even get to the point that they can be mocked for expressing such, because we’re of the view that it’s so OBVIOUSLY wrong!
Similarly, when we surround ourselves with like-minded people in our fathers and mothers groups the same thing happens – they act as an echo chamber and we lose the perspective of more central, rational views. We get to the point that the court definitely IS biased against our particular gender / role! This ramping up of emotions further raises the stakes in all parents eyes and is a massive contributing factor to parental conflict which leads to significantly poorer outcomes in child law proceedings.
It’s difficult to blame mothers and fathers groups. They can be in some (certainly not all) cases an excellent source of support and guidance for those going through family court proceedings. There are fewer groups for mothers AND fathers, and fewer still that aim to operate without gender bias. I am proud to say that my group (linked above) is one, and I believe it is this (in addition to a frankly amazing moderator team – well done you guys!) which I believe places my group among the best in the UK for family court advice.
It is extremely difficult for the moderator team and myself to remain impartial as we are all mothers and fathers ourselves, and are all products of mothers and fathers groups. We do though try at all times to maintain the line of neutrality. To help maintain this I even attempt to ensure that we have an approximately even number of fathers and mothers within the moderator team.
Some people who join the group sadly are too far ‘gone’ with the rhetoric of the mothers or fathers groups ringing in their ears, and cannot and will not let it go. These people do not stay long in the group, instead retreating to their respective mothers or fathers groups where their views are once more validated according to the group’s respective gender bias.
Sadly, months later those same people report back within the groups that the court case did not go well, did not go in their favour, and that the courts / judge / CAFCASS was biased against them. Some go further to accuse the court system of being corrupt. Sometimes this happens earlier in proceedings which can be even worse because the parent adopts the position of ‘the courts are corrupt / anti mother / anti father’ and starts campaigning to call them out on it. This is absolutely not something I would recommend. Change can be good, of course, but to take this stance during proceedings, campaigning against CAFCASS or the courts for example on social media is looked upon very dimly by the courts and can and will be used against you. A simple google search will find many of these types of parents.
One of the mantras of my group is therefore that you will always get a better outcome from proceedings by working with the courts rather than against them. If you want to campaign for change, then more power to you – but please, wait until after your case has concluded.
The reality is that where a parent has reached this point they are so very entrenched in their views about the courts having a particular bias that this often becomes more important than the case itself. This is where having a neutrally aligned McKenzie Friend such as me can be helpful. I frequently help parents to see the wood for the trees, and return the focus to the most important aspect – their children!
Under the welfare principle s1(1) Children Act 1989 the court considers the welfare of the child as the paramount concern when making decisions about contact arrangements. This means that the court considers the children’s needs ahead of what either parent believes them to be. Because some parents have lost focus on the child/ren and instead turn on the other parent, or indeed the court, they end up getting the raw end of the deal when it comes to the outcome of proceedings. This in turn only reinforces what the parent believes to be the bias which is anti their own agenda (be it anti mother or anti father).
“But Neil, the RP / NRP has it easy – you’re talking nonsense!”
Of course you’re entitled to your view, but perhaps it’s worth looking a little more at what the issues are of the RPs and NRPs frequently we are. So far we have considered that fathers are generally NRPs and RPs are generally mothers (as discussed above), and do remember that this isn’t always the case. Both RPs and NRPs report feeling they have a worse deal than the other.
Issues the Resident Parent faces:-
“The NRP is unreliable”
“I am held to ransom over contact”
“The court order only applies to me”
“I have the pressure of being the main carer”
“I’m left picking up the pieces following contact”
“I am resentful of the NRP being the fun parent / Disney Dad / Part Time parent”
“I’m left with the main ‘grind’ of weekdays and school runs”
Issues the Non-Resident Parent faces:-
“I have no control over changes of arrangements”
“I feel controlled and at RP’s whim surrounding when I see the child/ren”
“I’m excluded from everyday decisions”
“I’m never allowed to attend appointments”
“Contact can be stopped without my consent”
“I didn’t choose to be a NRP, I had no choice”
“I have no automatic Parental Responsibility as a father”
Perhaps one or more of those hadn’t occurred to you? Some of the realisations I have had on my journey through family law have been quite the revelation. What’s clear is that to try and use arguments like ‘typical mother’ ‘typical father’ or even ‘typical narcissist’ just doesn’t cut it in family court. It’s because of this we try and avoid this sort of talk on my group and steer people towards using different language. It’s something I believe in very strongly and will be evident in my approach with you as my client. I will always challenge you to rethink your approach if this is the case! The point remains that there are advantages and disadvantages to both roles.
Some may feel there is a bias in the judiciary. Perhaps there is, perhaps not. I’ve experienced hundreds of cases in person and while I will suggest there is a slight bias I believe it’s judges overcompensating for their own innate biases. What I mean by this is that I have found that a small number of male judges tend to favour mothers and a small number of female judges tend to favour fathers. This is why I say there isn’t a significant gender bias. Mainly it’s a perception of bias based on the parents circumstances.
So in summary, while there is a bias on family court, it’s not significantly a gender one in my humble opinion, it’s a bias against parents who have lost their way and have become clouded by their hatred of the other party or indoctrinated by a mantra against the other gender, the courts or CAFCASS instead of focusing on the child. This almost always leads to a significantly poorer outcome.
If you wish to book an appointment to discuss your case then please visit my Calendly page which can be found at https://calendly.com/firstfamilylaw
*actual number who participated with an active case was 257
Comments