Child custody disputes between parents (whether in a divorce case or between unmarried parents) are among the most bitterly fought cases, as parents fight over the right to be integral parts of their children’s lives. Many husbands and fathers in such cases often face insurmountable prejudice caused by mothers who make unsupported allegations of spousal and/or child abuse.
While protecting vulnerable individuals is a key responsibility of the courts, the unintended consequence of “erring on the side of caution” (a fatuous phrase to use in the law, if ever there was one) is that fathers accused of abuse—without objectively verifiable proof, or at least a preponderance of the evidence to support them—are often treated as guilty until proven innocent. This not only hampers fathers’ ability to secure fair treatment but also emboldens false claims that go unpunished, resulting in a justice system that is knowingly and unrepentantly unjust, and in the name of “the best interest of the child” of all things. This failure of the system demands critical examination and immediate correction.
The “better safe than sorry” approach
Family courts often adopt a “better safe than sorry” philosophy when dealing with allegations of abuse. While this approach is ostensibly aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence, it frequently results in a presumption of guilt for the accused father. Judges, fearful of the repercussions in both professional and public circles should they dismiss a genuine claim of abuse, often impose restraining/protective orders and infringe parental rights (such as granting sole temporary sole custody of children to the accuser) based not on the substance of the evidence but on merely the seriousness of the allegations.
If an accuser cannot even meet the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, the court has no business imposing severe restrictions on a merely accused parent (and no, this is not an invitation to game the preponderance of evidence standard by cherry-picking the evidence to support a desired outcome that the totality of the evidence does not support). Granting relief that is unsupported by at least a preponderance of the evidence is the very definition of prejudice.
Although courts stress that these measures are “temporary” and do not reflect final rulings, the reality is that these initial decisions often inexorably shape the trajectory of the case. The accused father is left scrambling to disprove allegations (i.e., prove a negative), while the accuser enjoys the benefits of judicial sympathy and initial strategic advantage. The damage to the father’s reputation, standing in the community, emotional well-being, and relationship with his children often becomes irreversible. Rewarding false accusations in this way (whether intentionally or inadvertently) is an inexcusable ethical failing on the part of the courts.
Courts that fail to hold false accusers accountable
Courts in child custody disputes rarely impose sanctions on parents who make unsupported accusations during divorce or custody proceedings. This creates a low-risk, high-reward scenario for accusers. By simply alleging abuse, a mother can gain a permanent upper hand by obtaining “temporary” orders that grant her custody of the children, award child support and spousal support, exclude the father from decision-making pertaining to the children, and prejudice the court’s perception of the case. The father must then divert his energy and resources toward disproving those allegations. This can drain his financial resources, prolong litigation, and overshadow legitimate issues such as the child’s welfare and co-parenting arrangements.
The role of gender bias in family courts
Underlying this dynamic is a chronic gender bias that persists in many family court systems. While the bias against fathers is not as pernicious as it was a generation ago, fathers are still far too often viewed as more likely to commit domestic violence, less nurturing, and less essential to a child’s development. This stereotype leads many judges and commissioners to view accusations against fathers through a lens of skepticism and over-cautiousness. The resulting imbalance favors mothers from the outset; allegations of spousal and/or child abuse often give lying mothers an unbeatable advantage over the fathers.
While it is undeniable that domestic violence is a serious and pervasive problem, it is equally true that false accusations undermine the credibility of genuine victims and dilute the court’s ability to protect those truly in need.
A need for reform? No, for courage and consistency.
Claiming to “err on the side of caution” and taking a “better safe than sorry” approach is not a legally sound option. It is vice masquerading as virtue. Ensuring fairness and accountability in child custody disputes requires that courts exercise the will and the courage to do right in difficult situations.
- Reject claims that lack a preponderance of evidence
One who fails or refuses to uphold this most fundamental standard is unfit to be a judge or commissioner. “This job is hard” is no excuse for doing the job—a job you sought, no less—improperly. - Presume innocence and parental fitness (and honor the principle in practice)
It goes without saying that without presuming a father innocent and fit until proven otherwise is the only way a just and equitable ruling can eventually be reached. - Do not sanction only false accusations. Sanction claims lacking sufficient evidence too.
False accusations can take two forms: those that are knowingly made and those that are carelessly made. Parents who make demonstrably false allegations should suffer meaningful consequences that deter future false allegations both by that parent and by litigants in other child custody disputes. In those rare instances when a parent is proven to have knowingly and intentionally lied about abuse, that parent should be criminally sanctioned. Moreover, courts should award attorney fees to the accused when allegations of abuse made against them are found to lack a preponderance of evidence. If punishing false claims of abuse discourages real victims from coming forward, that cannot be a judge’s or commissioner’s concern. Besides, a presumption that one claiming to fear sanctions more than actual domestic violence is either not an actual victim or is at least unable to meet the preponderance of evidence standard of proof is a rationally and morally sound judicial policy.
Conclusion
False accusations of abuse in child custody disputes are running amok in Utah. Subjecting false accusations to an unwritten “err on the side of caution” standard is a profound injustice that undermines the integrity of the legal system, harms children, and unfairly disadvantages falsely accused parents (mostly, but not exclusively, fathers). There is no excuse for abandoning the preponderance of evidence by invoking “if saves just one life . . .”-style cop outs. Protecting genuine victims does not require or warrant over-cautious, rights-trampling orders issued in response to unsupported claims—especially when so many unsupported claims are made for malicious and self-serving purposes. Subserving truth, fairness, and the best interests of children requires no less.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277