Have you ever wondered what's really going through a judge's mind when they evaluate your case?

I recently read a Canadian custody judgment that provides fascinating insights into how judges think. The mother in the case sent it to me, and I was struck by how much it revealed about the judge’s bias. The words he used when he was making his conclusions tell a powerful story about the subtle (and not-so-subtle) double standards that protective parents face in family court.

Let's pull back the curtain on what judges are looking for (and missing) by examining this judge’s own words.

First, let's look at what judges say they consider. This judgment states:

This sounds reasonable and child-focused. But how do these principles play out in practice?

The judgment describes the judge’s wide discretion when it comes to deciding on credibility:

This is a telling admission by the judge: judges pick and choose what to believe, and what they focus on or leave out depends on their own biases.

Let's look at how this played out here:

The father in this case was described as problematic in ways that might sound familiar to anyone with a coercively controlling ex:

The mother also faced critiques from the judge:

This reveals the double standards often at work when judges evaluate parents:

• For the father: Words with positive connotations like "focus" and "determination" softened the criticism of his argumentative behavior.

• For the mother: Clearly negative terms like "hostile," "exaggerated," and "not plausible" were used to describe her attempts to persuade the court.

This disparity is particularly concerning given that the judge in question lacked any background or training in family violence or intimate partner violence.

Key insight: Without specialized knowledge, judges often misinterpret trauma responses as credibility issues.

The judge just didn't have the essential knowledge to understand the dynamics at play, the effects of trauma, or the plausibility of the mother's descriptions.

Notice how the father's problematic communication was framed almost as an excess of positive qualities. He was “unwavering” in his focus and just way too determined. This framing creates sympathy and understanding. The mother’s actions, however, didn’t get the same kind of charitable interpretation. You’ll see a similar kind of framing in the next section.

Protective parents often slam head-first into this damaging accusation. The judgment states:

Helping someone organize information, especially their own previous testimony (this witness was drawing from an affidavit she’d submitted to the court over a year earlier and that she’d asked the mother to give her when she was preparing her testimony) is perfectly reasonable. Yet courts often view this as coaching a witness.

The judge said the same about another witness:

Again, just like the previous witness, the doctor had asked the mother to make his job easier by giving him an outline of events that he was supposed to testify about. But this normal behavior becomes suspect when it’s viewed through the court's lens.

Judges have specific ideas (as we all do) about what constitutes good parenting. In this case, the judge recognized that the abusive father's approach was problematic:

He also agreed with the mother’s parenting style:

A judge's assessment of good parenting is very much colored by their own biases, based on their own upbringing, their cultural background, and, most importantly, their own parenting style. This is why outcomes in family court can seem so unpredictable. One judge might value strict discipline and structure, viewing a parent who sets firm boundaries as responsible. Another one might prioritize emotional nurturing and flexibility, seeing the same parent as rigid or controlling. In cases involving post-separation abuse, these biases become even more problematic.

Protective parents must often take measures like sticking inflexibly to court judgments, setting strong boundaries about letting their ex onto their property, or documenting apparent minutiae. These can appear "controlling" on the surface, but they’re actually necessary safety precautions. As a protective parent facing court scrutiny, it's crucial to frame your parenting choices in ways that might overcome the judge’s possible bias.

Notice how the court describes communication problems:

Yet the judgment also notes:

This reveals a common pattern—the court acknowledges who starts the conflict but still blames both parties equally. It’s important to use techniques like Yellow Rock and/or BIFF when you’re communicating with your ex, or the court will see you as part of the problem.

The judge casts the shadow of “parental alienation” on the mother, even while he acknowledges how the father has damaged his relationship with their child:

Fortunately, this judge ultimately saw past his own assumptions to recognize the child's authentic voice.

What's striking here: The alienation narrative emerged despite neither parent having the resources to fuel it. Both parents represented themselves, with no high-priced "parental alienation experts" involved.

This reveals a troubling truth: assumptions about protective mothers practicing "parental alienation" are so deeply embedded in our court systems that they surface automatically, even when no paid expert is actively promoting them.

There’s also a lot missing from the judgment. There's very little recognition of:

🔍 How trauma affects protective parents' behavior
🔍 The impossible bind of being both protective and "cooperative"
🔍 The difference between organization and manipulation
🔍 The profound impacts of coercive control

The judge awarded full custody to the mother, giving her full decision-making authority and the discretion to decide on the father’s parenting time, saying that:

Throughout this judgment, the judge identified numerous examples of the father’s coercive control and its harmful impacts on the child and the mother. Yet, in the end, it’s the “litigation” and the “parental conflict” that are responsible for the son’s emotional scarring.

This judgment also perfectly illustrates what I call "Schrödinger's protective mother", where courts simultaneously hold two contradictory views of the same parent:

Contradiction 1: The mother is accused of "coaching" her son and inappropriately involving him in conflict.

Contradiction 2: The same judgment acknowledges that her son "shares a close bond with his mother," "feels safe with his mother," can "freely express his thoughts" with her, and that "his mother attempts to protect him from the stress of the parental conflict."

This cognitive dissonance reveals how deeply ingrained biases affect judges’ reasoning, and create impossible double binds for protective parents.

Strategic implications for protective parents

You can’t go to court naively expecting that your judge will see the coercive control your ex is subjecting you to and apply the laws in place to protect your child. No matter what your jurisdiction’s laws say about protecting children, strategic preparation is vital. The challenge is helping judges see past their biases and limitations to truly understand what children need.

This case shows that even in the carnival funhouse of family court, a positive outcome is possible. But this outcome came at the cost of a broken child and an exhausted, angry, and traumatized mother whose career was destroyed. And it took a mountain of evidence and a truly egregious abuser who couldn’t keep his mask on in front of the judge.

You've got to learn to play 3D chess while the system is playing checkers. Understand how these robed arbiters think, and suddenly, you're not just a protective parent being ground down by the machinery. You're a strategic operator in a system that still isn’t designed to understand that your ex's "parenting style" is actually garden-variety psychological torture.

Book your free 30-minute discovery call today

During this personalized session, you'll walk away with:

• Clarity about your unique situation and the specific challenges you're facing

• Initial insights into strategies that could work for your particular case

• A better understanding of how coaching can help you navigate the complex family court system

• A sense of direction and next steps that put you back in control

• The relief of knowing you don't have to face this journey alone

Whether or not we decide to work together, you'll leave this call with valuable perspective and practical ideas you can implement right away.

"The journey through family court doesn't have to leave you feeling powerless. Let's talk about how you can strategically advocate for yourself and your children in a system that wasn't designed to understand post-separation abuse."

Want to know more about what I do?

Resources

"Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It" by Chris Voss is a must-read for anyone trying to get judges, evaluators, and other professionals to truly hear their side of the story.

As a former FBI hostage negotiator, Voss teaches specific techniques that help disarm even the most resistant minds. His concept of "tactical empathy" is invaluable when you're dealing with legal professionals who might have biases or assumptions about your situation.

The book shows you how to use calibrated questions that encourage the other person to solve your problems for you, rather than putting them on the defensive. When a judge or evaluator feels they've arrived at a conclusion themselves, they're much more likely to endorse that position.

Voss also explains how to recognize and respond to different negotiation styles, which is crucial when it comes to understanding what motivates a particular judge or court professional. His mirror technique, where you repeat the last few words someone says, is invaluable. It creates space for them to elaborate and often reveals their underlying concerns.

This book teaches you to remain calm and strategic in high-pressure situations, rather than responding emotionally. This is a skill that's invaluable when you're fighting to protect your children in a system that often misunderstands the dynamics of post-separation abuse.

Even if you're not a "natural" at these conversations, Voss's step-by-step approach provides practical tools you can start using immediately to influence the judges, evaluators, and other professionals who have the power to decide on your children’s future.