Confirmation traps, implicit bias and parental alienation

Morten Kjellås

Structural biases in child welfare and court lead to decisions that are not in the best interests of the child. The justice system faces serious challenges in visitation cases, where confirmation bias and parental alienation can lead to erroneous decisions. The confirmation trap describes a tendency to favor information that confirms one's own preconceived notions, while neglecting conflicting information. Parental alienation involves manipulating a child into rejecting a parent, which can damage the child's relationship with the parents and not serve the child's best interests.

The article draws parallels to well-known court cases such as the Birgitte Tengs case and the Baneheia case, where the confirmation trap influenced court decisions and led to miscarriages of justice. The courts themselves can fall victim to this trap, which leads to the media and society having a skewed perception based on existing prejudices.

SAtructural biases in the legal system and child welfare services more often affect men, especially those of non-Norwegian origin. Women of non-Norwegian origin also seem to be affected more often than Norwegian women. These biases are confirmed through a number of examples that show how courts, experts, and child welfare services can contribute to unfair decisions in visitation cases.

We highlight implicit bias and confirmation bias as two psychological phenomena that can lead to unfair decisions in the justice system. Implicit bias refers to unconscious attitudes that influence decisions, while the confirmation trap causes individuals to search for and interpret information in a way that confirms their preconceptions. Together, these phenomena can reinforce each other and lead to decisions that don't reflect the best interests of the child.

Parental alienation is discussed as a process in which a child is manipulated into showing unreasonable rejection towards a parent, which can have long-lasting negative effects on the child's psychological well-being. The article argues that the confirmation trap and implicit bias in visitation cases can cause the court system to fail to adequately address parental alienation, which could harm the best interests of the child.

Furthermore, we discuss the consequences of these biases, such as unfair outcomes in visitation cases and long-term damage to the relationship between child and parent. That is why the need for comprehensive training and awareness among lawyers, experts and in the child welfare services is so great. We must ensure that decisions in visitation cases are fair, objective, and in the best interest of the child.

We have compiled data from the respondents, organised by court, experts, and child welfare services. It illustrates how confirmation bias and parental alienation can result from the interaction between these agencies, and how this can lead to wrong decisions and negatively affect the best interests of the child. The article concludes that it is necessary to be aware of how structural biases can affect the legal system and work actively to minimize their impact in visitation cases. Read also the article from lawyer Øivind Østberg on the home page of PASG about how a legal party can set requirements for experts' investigation to prevent implicit bias and confirmation bias in court.

Read the full article here (Norwegian only)
 the confirmation trap, implicit bias and parental alienation. :: What about the kids? (webnode.page)