Recent research, conducted with the help of AI, showed “elements of stereotypical bias” in Family Court custody and parenting judgments.
In a study conducted by UNSW Sydney data scientists and legal experts, 2,500 custody and parenting judgments across 4,330 documents, handed down in Australian family courts between 2001 and 2021, were examined using AI, and looked at the way that male and female parties were spoken about in relation to their capacity to care for their children.
This study utilised a research technique called structural topic modelling, where words were grouped into a cluster of themes.
“When parents separate in Australia, their futures – and their children – often rely on the words chosen by judges in the Family Court. But those words aren’t always neutral along gender lines,” the researchers said.
Associate Professor Mehera San Roque from the UNSW school of law, society and criminology said: “We used AI to uncover the biases we knew existed in the legal system but remained ‘hidden’.”
Exposing parental role stereotypes
Its research revealed that judgments reflected gender stereotypes – mothers were viewed as caregivers and fathers were assessed on their ability to financially provide. Findings showed that “fathers were also praised for even a limited involvement in childcare, whereas mothers’ efforts were expected”.
“The caregiving aspect is secondary; however, it is heavily commended when they do the bare minimum,” the research said.
San Roque said: “We found elements of stereotypical bias, with certain parties being talked about in different ways. For example, we see a conflation between financial capacity and actual capacity, especially when talking about fathers – and that replicates biases identified in earlier feminist work.”
Systemic underrepresentation
Within the study’s 2001 to 2021 period, male judges were found to outnumber female judges at a rate of about two to one.
This imbalance, San Roque said, “reflects the enduring legacy of exclusion of female judges from the profession. Women were barred from practising law in Australia until the early 20th century – and the effects linger with a ‘masculinist’ leaning legal profession.”
“What our study shows is that gender diversity [makes] a difference to how certain topics and ideas are thought of,” she said.
