I was a San Diego Superior Court Judge for eight years. Three of those years were spent as a Family Court Judge. I can confirm based on my personal experience that judges are relying on bad research when ruling on custody and visitation issues. Specifically, I refer to the now debunked junk science commonly referred to as “Parental Alienation Theory”.
As a judge I attended a 5-day Family Law conference presented by the Judicial Council. This conference was recommended training for all statewide judges that were about to embark on a new assignment of being a family court judge. During that training a fellow jurist asked the moderator (a Sacramento County Judge) what he knew about Parental Alienation Syndrome (P.A.S.). A correct answer would have been to say that P.A.S. is nothing more than junk science. Instead he said something akin to no matter what you call it, a judge always has to look into whether a witness is credible or has motive to fabricate such things as domestic violence or child sexual abuse. By failing to categorically refute P.A.S. the judge had given credence to its underlying theory of suspicion.
I returned from that conference and had fellow judges confirm to me that I should be suspicious of any abuse claims that were coming to light only after a divorce case is filed. They suggested to me that I should look for whether the claim of abuse is simply a matter of revenge on the part of the ex wife.
It is true that timing of a claim is one factor to be considered when assessing credibility. However, due to the dynamics of abuse, especially as it concerns a family court case, the traditional evidentiary assessments are counter-intuitive. Many well -meaning judges will make mistakes if they rely solely on theories postulated by the P.A.S. groups.
For example, a child who has been sexually abused may wait to disclose the abuse until after his or her parents are divorcing. The courts will view the timing suspiciously because it is first raised during the divorce. However, this type of analysis fails to account for the child’s fear of disclosure during the marriage. Often times these disclosures by a child won’t occur until the child feels safe enough to disclose. Typically this safe feeling does not happen until after the parents are no longer living in the same home AND the child can be assured that there will be no reconciliation.
Also, contrary to popular myths, there is almost always no physical abuse of sexual abuse. So when the protective parent refuses to cooperate with unsupervised visits with the other parent, the judge (or Minor’s Counsel) then accuses that parent of being unreasonable. Oftentimes this results in the abuser being awarded custody and the protective parent is ordered to have only supervised visits. I know this to be the case because in my first year in Family Court I made this mistake myself on the Joyce Murphy case.
Whatever name the courts do or not call it, it is time to stop viewing these types of claims with a doubting eye due to the timing. The public is better served when ALL judges receive better training on the dynamics of abuse as well as child development issues. The time is now for the California court system to lead the nation in calling for increased education amongst the judiciary on child sexual abuse issues.
DeAnn M. Salcido
San Diego Superior Court Judge (Ret.)
Founder of Judicial Action Watch Society
Dlady810@gmail.com
