Surveilling Women and Children in the Midwest

• In Event: Sociology of Law Section Roundtables Session
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): Sociology of Law Section Roundtables: Table 3 — Gender, Sexuality, and Legal Categories

Abstract

Courts and attorneys commonly invoke the “best interest of the child” standard when determining custody and parenting time, yet in so‑called high‑conflict cases this principle is often overshadowed by adversarial practices and financial incentives. Attorneys may amplify hostility between parties, and judges frequently outsource decision‑making to fee‑for‑service evaluators—unelected clinicians whose recommendations are almost always adopted in full. These evaluators, deemed experts by virtue of their credentials, can charge families tens of thousands of dollars, creating incentives for delays, repeated adjournments, and prolonged involvement. Their decisions often result in extreme outcomes, including one parent receiving sole custody while the other is restricted to supervised visits in locked or surveilled settings. Requests for video or audio monitoring—typically by fathers seeking coercive control—are routinely granted.

Families in these cases often face compounding challenges such as substance misuse, domestic violence, sexual violence, and mental illness. During and after the evaluation process, children and mothers frequently experience suicidality. This paper examines multiple cases handled by a Michigan custody evaluator later sanctioned by the Attorney General’s Office for ethical violations against 11 parents and children. Drawing on administrative data, police reports, and death certificates, the analysis identifies systemic patterns that contribute to health disparities. The paper concludes with recommendations to end the outsourcing of custody determinations to for‑profit clinicians who lack appropriate training, particularly in cases involving violence, mental illness, or substance use disorders.

Author

• Meghan M. O'Neil, Michigan State University