ABSTRACT This article analyzes 24 New York (NY) published child custody cases decided between 2001 and 2017 that contained parental alienation and child sexual allegations. It addresses whether there was a tendency toward gendered decisions and the evidence on which the decisions were based. It reveals that most decisions favored alienation allegations over child sexual abuse allegations and transferring custody from mothers communicating sexual abuse allegations in court to fathers defending against them by alleging parental alienation. On appeal, these family court decisions were overwhelmingly upheld. The analysis also shows that the decisions were based as often on implicit misogynistic cultural assumptions in the absence of allegation-specific evidence as they were on allegation-specific evidence. The article adds to the growing understanding of sources of bias by proposing four errors that support biased reasoning. It concludes with suggestions about how experts, attorneys, and judges can question themselves and others to reduce bias.

中文翻译：

---

纽约监护权决定中的厌女症与父母疏远和儿童性虐待指控

摘要 本文分析了 24 起纽约 (NY) 已公布的 2001 年至 2017 年间判决的儿童监护权案件，其中包含父母异化和儿童性指控。它涉及是否存在性别决定的趋势以及决定所依据的证据。它表明，大多数决定倾向于异化指控，而不是儿童性虐待指控，并将监护权从在法庭上传达性虐待指控的母亲转移到通过指控父母异化来为他们辩护的父亲。在上诉中，这些家庭法院的裁决得到压倒性的支持。分析还表明，在缺乏针对特定指控的证据的情况下，这些决定通常基于隐含的厌恶女性的文化假设，就像基于特定指控的证据一样。这篇文章提出了支持偏见推理的四个错误，从而加深了对偏见来源的理解。最后提出了关于专家、律师和法官如何质疑自己和他人以减少偏见的建议。