Dr. Warren Farrell, drawing on his research for Father and Child Reunion and his work as an expert witness in custody cases, has written about three biases he sees judges bring to post-divorce parenting decisions.
1. The stability bias
Judges often reason that keeping a child in one home, with one primary parent, provides stability. Farrell’s research suggests the opposite: children generally do best, academically, socially, and emotionally, with roughly equal time with both parents — especially when the parents live near each other and don’t bad-mouth one another. He argues “geographical stability” with one parent isn’t the same as real psychological stability, which comes from staying connected to both.
2. The mother bias
Most judges believe children do best with both parents, but default to the mother when a single primary home is chosen. Farrell’s research found children raised primarily by either parent can do equally well — the deciding factor isn’t gender, it’s involvement.
3. The “conflict means joint custody won’t work” bias
Farrell argues this assumption can backfire: high conflict makes it more important, not less, for a child to see both parents regularly, since a child who rarely sees one parent is more likely to feel abandoned by them. He also notes this standard can create a perverse incentive for a parent seeking sole custody to escalate conflict rather than resolve it.
Farrell’s broader point is that most judges genuinely want what’s best for children — and that naming these biases explicitly tends to shift rulings toward valuing both parents’ involvement.