“Remember that most people will pretend to operate in your interest while operating in their own.”
—Ray Dalio
Dalio wasn’t talking about family courts when he wrote this, but he might as well have been. This quote has a striking and unsettling relevance to a place we would least expect to find such self-serving motives: the family courtroom. Too often it’s the system’s own interests, docket management, optics, reputation, and avoidance of appeal, that drive outcomes. And that is a problem.
When the System Puts Itself First
Family court judges and domestic relations commissioners have an incredibly difficult job. They see an endless parade of misery, conflict, bad decisions, and outright lies. That grind leads to burnout, corner cutting, and “safe” rulings that protect the court more than the families they are appointed to serve. Judges/domestic relations commissioners don’t usually announce, “I’m phoning this one in,” but it still shows in rulings that look less like an individualized assessment of the child’s needs and more like a paint-by-numbers order.
That’s not justice. That’s half-hearted triage disguised as impartiality.
The problem, then, isn’t always the personal failing of a few bad judges/domestic relations commissioners. Instead, it is a systemic issue where the pressure of the institution, its need for efficiency, its desire to avoid controversy, and its reliance on precedent starts to take precedence. This is when the pretense begins. The court pretends to seek the truth, but it’s often playing the odds of what a reasonable decision is likely to be.
The “Default Parent” Bias: A False Zero-Sum Game
Utah law says custody decisions are supposed to start from a neutral place: both parents are presumed fit unless proven otherwise. Yet courts often default to the mother as the “primary caregiver,” and father asking for equal custody still gets side-eyed, as if his real motive must be reducing child support.
This “default parent” bias turns child custody into a zero-sum game, a battle of “who is better?” instead of “how can both fit parents remain in their child’s life?”
Divorcing a spouse does not, or should not, mean divorcing your children. Yet, judges/domestic relations commissioners who are short on time and long on ingrained assumptions may dismiss joint and equal custody as an unviable option without honestly analyzing the issue.
When the court operates this way, it is operating in its own interest by taking the easiest path not in the child’s.
A good mother, by societal standards, may be a loving person, but a lazy court will assume this means she is the best or only choice, ignoring a fully capable and loving father who has been a primary caregiver for years. A fit parent is someone who can co-parent effectively.
It is lazy judging to slap the “good mother = best parent” label on a case than to do the hard work of weighing statutory factors and the actual evidence.
Settlement for the Court’s Convenience
Courts love settlement. They’ll tell you it’s because settlement gives parties control and reduces conflict. Sometimes that’s true. But let’s not kid ourselves: judges/domestic relations commissioners push settlement because trials clog dockets and create appealable records.
The result? Parents are often pressured into bad deals that shortchange husband and wife, parents, and children alike, all so the court can clear another case off the calendar. A settlement that preserves the court’s time at the expense of the litigants and their children isn’t justice or equity—it’s self-interest running amok.
While settlements can be a good thing when they are fair and voluntary, a judge/domestic relations commissioner prioritizing a clean docket over a thorough, honest hearing is a plain abuse of power.
The Double Standards in Courtroom Behavior
Family court is thick with unspoken rules that tilt outcomes. Examples:
- A father showing emotion: unstable, possibly dangerous. A mother showing emotion: caring and credible.
- A father seeking equal custody: must be gaming child support. A mother seeking custody: motivated by pure devotion and need.
These aren’t legal standards. They’re cultural biases dressed up as considered analysis. When a court indulges these double standards, it is making a choice to operate based on prejudice rather than the facts before it. It’s choosing convenience over critical thought.
What Needs to Change
Honesty. Judges/domestic relations commissioners should admit to themselves when they’re leaning on habit instead of analysis. Lawyers should call it out when the “child’s best interest” is being used as cover for expedient, unexplained, and hasty rulings. Parents must insist that equal custody is not a “radical” request but a statutory option that must be fully and fairly considered and carefully analyzed.
Accountability
Utah Code, Title 81, Chapter 9, Part 2 lays out factors that must be addressed in custody and parent-time rulings. When a judge/domestic relations commissioner skips them (or worse, falsely claims to have considered them all) in favor of “this is how we usually do it,” that’s not discretion—it’s abdication.
It’s a shared responsibility: the court must remain focused, impartial, and transparent, and the litigants must help them be so.
Perspective
A judge/domestic relations commissioner who can’t put aside the system’s convenience and put the child first should step off the bench. Family law isn’t for the faint of heart, but it also isn’t for those who’ve gone numb.
The job of a judge and of a domestic relations commissioner is hard, and no one disputes that. But if and when a judge can no longer place the interests of impartiality, justice, equity, and the true best interest of the child before the court’s own self-interest, then it’s time to hang’em up, Your Honor.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277