PDF - DISSERTATION PUBLICATION

EVALUATING PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CRITERIA FOR PARENTS WHO SETTLE: A
CASE STUDY.
Evaluating Procedural Justice Criteria For Parents who Settle Child Custody Matters Pre-trial:
A Case Study
Lisa K. Askinazi, Ph.D.
Adelphi University School of School of Work
Garden City, New York
Dr. Elizabeth Palley, Ph.D.
Dr. Patricia Joyce, D.S.W.
Dr. Diann Cameron Kelly, Ph.D.

UMI Number: 3579706
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Di!ss0?t&iori Piiblist’Mlg
UMI 3579706
Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
Evaluating Procedural Justice Criteria For Parents who
Settle Child Custody Matters Pre-trial: A Case Study
Lisa K. Askinazi, Ph.D.
Adelphi University School of School of Work
Garden City, New York
Professor Elizabeth Palley, Ph.D., Chair
By gathering interview data from parents, attorneys, judges and their law secretaries, this
study examined the extent to which the manner in which child custody disputes are settled in the
civil court system provides a fair venue for parents. It further examined the specific factors noted
by Lind and Taylor (1988) that contribute to a fair legal procedure. These factors include voice
opportunity, respect, neutrality, and trust. An explanatory case study design was used and the
data was analyzed using pattern matching (Yin, 2009). Finding suggest that Lind and Taylor’s
group value model of procedural justice provides an important lens to understand the impact of
pre-trial practices on parents related to child custody. The findings also suggest that time and cost
(which fall outside of Lind and Taylor’s model) influence people’s perceptions of procedural
justice.

DEDICATION
To Ethan and Zoe
my Sun & Star
“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose
they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”
~M artin Luther King, Jr.
“ By perseverance the snail reached the ark.”
~ Charles H. Spurgeon
“The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow ofjustice.”
~ M artin Luther King, Jr.

INDEX
CHAPTER 1: FOCUS OF INQUIRY 2
Introduction 2
Study Purpose 4
Study Question 4
Background of the Problem 4
Definition of the Terms 10
Concluding Comments 13
CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS 15
The psychology of Procedural Justice 15
The Control Model of Procedural Justice 16
The Group Value Model 17
Conclusion 23
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 25
How procedural justice and distributive justice dimensions are related 25
Key fair Process Predictors 26
Process Control (Voice) 26
Litigant participation 28
Neutrality 34
Trust 37
Respect 38
Procedural Justice and child custody courtroom litigation 39
Litigation costs 43
Conclusions 45
CHAPTER 4: METHODS 48
Introduction 48
Research Design 49
Study Sample 50
Definition of the Variables 53
Variable 1 -Decision Control 53
Variable 2-Voice 54
Variable 3 -Respect 55
Variable 4 -Trust 56
Variable 5 -Bias 57
Variable 6-Time/Cost 57
Other Factors 58
Procedure 59
Analysis 60
Limitations 60
CHAPTER S: RESULTS 62
Introduction 62
Variable 1. Decision Control 63
Parental viewpoint - Control over child custody outcomes
Attorney viewpoint - Control over child custody outcomes 69

Judge/law secretary viewpoint - Control over child custody outcomes 70
Variable 2. Experience o f Voice in the courtprocess 73
Voice Opportunity 73
Parent viewpoint - Opportunity for Voice 74
Attorney viewpoint - Opportunity for Voice 76
Judge/law secretary viewpoint - Opportunity for Voice 78
Variable 3. Experience o f Respect in the court process 82
Treatment Parents encounter during the pre-trial stage of litigation 82
Parental viewpoint - Respect 82
Attorney viewpoint -Respect 84
Judge/law secretary viewpoint - Respect 87
Summary 89
Variable 4. Experience of Trust in others involved in the court process 89
Parental viewpoint - Trust 91
Attorney viewpoint - Trust 95
Judge/law secretary viewpoint - Trust 96
Summary 99
Variable S. Feeling o f Bias in the Court Process 99
Feelings of Bias in the court process 99
Parental viewpoint of Bias 103
Attorney viewpoint of Bias 109
Judge/law secretary viewpoint of Bias 118
Other Factors 128
Mediation 128
Judge/law secretary viewpoint - mediation 128
Attorney viewpoint - mediation 131
Summary 132
Bifurcation (Separate child custody from other aspects of Matrimonial litigation) 133
Why bifurcation might improve the process
Judicial viewpoint -bifurcation 133
Attorney viewpoint regarding bifurcation 134
Summary 137
Undue time/cost considerations and Repeat litigation 138
Judge/law secretary viewpoints 138
Parent viewpoint 139
Generalperceptions ofthejustice system
Parental view of the justice system 140
Judge/law secretary view of the justice system 141
Attorney view of the justice system 142
Summary of the Findings 143

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 147
Introduction 147
Control over Outcomes 148
Undue pressure to settle absent parental input 149
Exclusion/lack of voice impinges on fair process judgments 152
Exclusion leads to distrust of others involved in the procedure 153
Why Inclusion matters 154
Advantage 157
Time/cost & repeat litigation 157
Conclusion 158
CHAPTER 7: POLICY IMPLICATIONS 160
Inclusion through informal processes 160
The Drug Court Model 162
Bifurcation/Early hearing 164
Dissemination of Procedural Justice research 167
Dissemination of Procedural Justice research through Lawschools/CLE 168
Conduct research to develop more inclusive rules and procedure 169
CHAPTER 8: PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS 171
Dignified Treatment 172
Educating the Judiciary, Court Staff and Court Administrators 173
Expansion of Social Work practice in the Courts 175
As a matter of practice - litigants must be knowledgeable of their Agreement before signing 177
Obtaining litigant feedback 177
Implications for Clinical Social Work Practice 177
CHAPTER 9: FUTURE RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS 179
Summary of Findings 179
Use of additional methodological frameworks 180
Conduct research in different state courts 180
Conduct Quantitative Analysis 181
Conduct research examining gender bias 181
Research programs that reduce time/cost/leverage 181
Implications for other court contexts 183
Conduct future research on why so many child custody matters repeat litigation 183
Conduct future research on the effect of the attorney/client rapport on
litigants procedural justice perceptions 184
Conduct future research on the new counsel fee/spousal maintenance rules 185
REFERENCES 186

EVALUATING PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CRITERIA FOR PARENTS WHO SETTLE.
CHAPTER 1: FOCUS OF INQUIRY
Introduction
This study examined our civil justice system from the perspective of procedural
justice, which is an individual’s perception about the fairness of court processes
(Thaibaut & Walker, 1975; 1978; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1988, 1994; 2000).
Procedural justice offers a paradigm from which to consider the fairness of our legal
system, because a large body of research has shown that perceptions about fair processes
are critical to peoples’ assessments of legitimacy of the institution providing justice
(Blader & Tyler, 2001; Brentano, 2001; De Cremer & Blader, 2006; Tyler, 2006; Van der
Tom,Tyler & Jost, 2011; Rankin & Tyler, 2009), and deference to legal authority
(Thibaut & Walker, 1978; Tyler & Folger, 1980; MacCoun & Tyler; 1988; Tyler; 1990;
Brentano, 2001; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Wenzel 2002; Hollander-Blumff & Tyler, 2008;
Murphy & Tyler, 2008; Blader & Tyler; 2004; Rankin & Tyler; 2009; Berman & Gold;
2012). The current study explored some of the central features of civil litigation of
contested child custody matters, highlighting aspects of the system that are likely to affect
parent-litigants’ perceptions of the fairness of court processes experienced at the pre-trial
stage of child custody litigation, either positively or negatively. Research focused on
parents who settle child custody disputes prior to the commencement of a formal
courtroom hearing, because most cases that enter the civil justice system settle (Galanter
& Cahill, 1994; Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New
York, 2006).

The body of procedural justice literature typically considers procedural justice
from the perspective of disputants. This research broadened analysis to encompass
perceptions of access to justice or a fair procedure, not only from the viewpoint of
disputant-parents, but also from the perspective of other important legal actors who are
involved in child custody litigation, including experienced matrimonial attorneys, judges
and their law secretaries. This research examined whether the procedural justice paradigm
is sufficient to fully encompass fairness considerations for those who enter pre-trial
agreements. It explored whether there might be other considerations that fall outside the
procedural justice framework in relation to litigant access to a fair and just procedure,
such as time and cost.
Historically, there have often been situations where one spouse controls the bulk
of the funds and income as well as having knowledge about the financial assets, which
creates a severe power imbalance between the monied and non-monied spouses during
civil matrimonial litigation (Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Judge of the
State of New York, 2006). In order to correct for this power imbalance, in October 2010,
the appellate courts charged the trial courts with an effort at leveling the financial playing
field between monied and non-monied spouses. D.R.L.§237 creates a presumption that
the court must award counsel fees to the lesser monied spouse in an effort to remedy
potential power imbalances. Despite that the courts are striving to increase access to a
fair and just procedure, there are continuing complaints that civil litigation, and
particularly child custody litigation, takes too long and costs too much. Backlogs and

delay have been decried as being an impediment to accessing justice in criminal courts as
well (Glaberson, 2013), and might be a prevalent problem in the American justice system
generally.
Study Purpose
This study is concerned with the extent to which the processing of child custody
disputes through a civil court system provides a fair venue for litigant-parents to resolve
child custody disputes at the pre-trial stage. This goal of this study is to expand the social
work knowledge base by examining and identifying factors that are key to litigant
perceptions of a fair and just civil court procedure among parents who settle child custody
disputes at the pre-trial stage of litigation.
Study Question
What are the factors that foster or impinge upon litigant-parents’ access to justice,
or a fair legal procedure, when child custody disputes resolve at the pre-trial stage of
litigation?
Background ofthe Problem
Escalating court filings involving civil divorce and domestic relations matters
suggest that Americans have become dependent upon the traditional adversary system to
resolve an array of life crises (Babb, 2008). Divorce rates began to escalate in the United
States in beginning in the late 1960s (Pryor & Rodgers, 2001; Emery, 1999). Though
divorce rates have flattened since the early 1980s and even dipped slightly, they are still
high. In 1992, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 40% of first marriages in

the United States are predicted to end in divorce. Between 1988 and 1995, child custody
disputes between married or unmarried parents increased 43 percent (Ostrom & Cauder,
1996). Between 1984 and 1995, domestic relations matters deluged court calendars
comprising half of all of the civil actions filed nationwide (Ostrom & Kauder, 1996;
Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chiefjudge of the State of New York, 2006). In
New York State, divorce matters comprise 75% of civil court filings (Report to the Chief
Judge of the State of New York, 2006). A special report on children and the courts
generated by the American Bar Association (1994), the most recent report of its kind,
indicated that one-halfof all of the children in this country will encounter the break up of
their parents’ marriage. While these statistics appear dated, they are likely to reflect
current conditions as the divorce rate has remained generally stable since the late 1970s
(US Census Bureau, 2005). The 1994 American Bar Association report indicated that of
the 4.7 million domestic relations cases that involve children, 39% consist of divorces
and 18% involve custody and support cases. This means that more than two million
children are subject to parental litigation annually. This has generated concern by policy
makers and social science researchers alike, over consequences for children’s
development and well-being (Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York, 2006).
As utilization of the American legal system has grown, settlement of contested civil
matters has increased, and the number of cases that continue to trial has decreased
markedly (Friedman & Percival, 1976; Kritzer, 1986). Most cases that enter the civil
justice system resolve just short of adjudication by a process popularly referred to as

“bargaining in the shadow of the law” (Mnookin & Komhauser, 1979). The high cost of
bringing an action all the way to a trial has led some to hypothesize that trials represent
mistakes, breakdowns in negotiations or a failure of the justice system (Cooter, Marks &
Mnookin, 1982; Gross & Syverud, 1991; Trubek, Grossman, Felstiner, Kritzer & Sarat,
1983). They further hypothesize that trials leave litigants worse off than if a settlement is
reached. The emphasis courts have placed on encouraging settlements and discouraging
trials implies that the judicial system agrees that trials are mistakes or represent a failure
of the system (Korobkin & Guthrie, 1994). Like other civil court cases, the vast majority
of child custody disputes that enter the civil justice system resolve with no civil ruling
(Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Justice of New York State, 2006). Further,
the movement of child custody matters through the civil justice system is sluggish, costly,
and settlement of child custody matters generally occurs only after substantial financial
and emotional costs have accrued (Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Judge of
the State ofNew York, 2006).
This study is concerned with the quality of procedure that parent-litigants
encounter during civil divorce litigation when child custody is an issue. Are people
walking away from the courthouse with the sense that the procedure that produced a child
custody settlement was fair? Did they feel that they had access to justice? Some data from
a study conducted by Brentano (2001) examined parental perceptions of procedural
justice (a fair procedure) and the parent and child adjustment to divorce. Findings from
Brentano’s (2001) study demonstrated a direct link between parents’ experience of a fair

courtroom procedure and their compliance with the custody decree after divorce.
Brentano (2001) also found a correlation between parents’ experience of a fair courtroom
procedure and lower levels of post-divorce conflict and infighting. The converse was true
for parents who reported that they encountered an unfair procedure. Brentano’s (2001)
research supports a wide body of procedural justice literature that link people’s
experience of a fair courtroom procedure with acceptance of, and compliance with,
decrees that flow from procedures involving a decision maker (Thaibaut & Walker, 1978;
Tyler & Folger, 1980; Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Lind & Tyler, 1988; MacCoun &
Tyler; 1988; Lind, MacCoun, Ebener, Felstiner, Hensler, Resnik & Tyler, 1989; Tyler
1990, 1994, 1997, 2006; 2012; DeCremer & Tyler, 2007; Hollander-Blumhoff & Tyler,
2008; Rankin & Tyler, 2009; van der Toom, Tyler & Jost, 2011). As mentioned earlier,
however, most matters settle before they ever reach a courtroom hearing.
It is important to look at the processes that move matters toward settlement prior
to a courtroom hearing, because settlement generally assumes that litigants maintain
control over the resolution of their dispute. In other words, there is no outcome unless the
parties agree. It also assumes that the people who enter into their own agreements are not
subject to the whims of a third-party decision maker. This study will evaluate whether the
procedural justice paradigm apply to litigants who settle child custody disputes in a
pre-trial atmosphere despite the implied consensual nature of settlement. It will also
evaluate whether there might be other factors that influence parental perceptions of a fair
legal procedure that fall outside of the procedural justice paradigm.

The civil justice system is expected to deliver to the public a fair and just procedure
in which to resolve disputes. Access to justice within the context of the courts and within
the legal arena has implications for both social and economic justice. Countless families
are turning to the American legal system for assistance in resolving an array of family life
crises. This is evidenced by the fact that domestic relations matters comprise more than
half of all of the civil filings nationwide, and divorce matters comprise a majority of civil
court matters in New York State (Matrimonial Comission Report to the Chief Justice of
the State of New York, 2006). “Higher caseloads do not reflect a heightened appetite for
adversarial combat; they represent people trying to cope with problems in a given array of
remedial alternatives” (Galanter, 1986, p. 38).
Thus far, in the area of law and mental health, Therapeutic Jurisprudence (Wexler,
1990) has been used by researchers as a framework for evaluating law and social policy.
Therapeutic Jurisprudence posits the law is a social force that affects individuals who
encounter the legal system either positively (therapeutically) or negatively
(anti-therapeutically). In essence, the legal rules, process and actors have potential
unintended adverse side effects beyond the win or lose outcome of a case (Wexler, 1990;
Winnick and Wexler, 2003). Therapeutic jurisprudence encourages researchers to
evaluate the therapeutic or anti-therapeutic consequences that the law, legal processes and
legal actors have upon the public (Madden and Wayne, 2003). Some social work
researchers have used this theory as a frame for conducting studies in the field of law and
mental health (Madden and Wayne, 2003). While Therapeutic Jurisprudence offers values

consist with the field of social work, it does not take into account issues of fairness for
the volume of individuals who are now pass through the civil court system.
There is wide a body of literature that recognizes that fairness is important to
people’s acceptance of legal orders, and which suggest that people care about the fairness
of procedures used to deal with the problems that bring them into court (Thibaut &
Walker, 1975; Kitzman & Emery, 1993; Brentano, 2001; Tyler & Lind, 1988; Tyler,
1990; 1994; 2000; 2006; 2012; Blader & Tyler, 2003; Blader, 2006; Frazer, 2006;
DeCremer & Tyler, 2007; Hollander-Blumhoff & Tyler, 2008; Hollander-Blumhoff 2011;
Blader & Chen, 2012). Data from Brentano (2001) demonstrates a link between parents’
perceptions of procedural justice derived from their courtroom experience and subsequent
effects upon an array of family adjustment factors (of which compliance with the custody
order and parental conflict and infighting were reported to be particularly vulnerable to in
the long term). If assertions contained in the wide body of procedural justice literature are
correct, then whether an individual is provided with access to justice and the kind of
justice that is experienced may translate into long term consequences for the health, safety
and welfare of families who utilize the justice system.
The social work profession has long been committed to the values of social and
economic justice (NASW, 2008). Litigant access to justice, or a fair procedure is a form
of social justice, - a core social work value. Social work researchers, however, have
contributed minimally to our understanding of the role ofjustice in the field of law and
mental health (Ashford and Holschuh, 2006). We have little knowledge of the quality of

civil court processes and procedures afforded to parent-litigants as they pass through a
traditional adversary system toward settlement. Examination of access to justice, or the
quality of processes and procedures people are subject to within the American justice
system, particularly involving the pre-trial phase of litigation, remains an untapped area
for the advancement of social work knowledge. With the expansion of social work
practice in the courts, social work professionals are in a unique position to make a
substantial contribution to the building the social work knowledge base within the legal
arena. Ultimately, findings from social science inquiry can play an important role in
informing the contribution to a knowledge base that would inform and facilitate fair
policy and practice within the courts, which this study endeavors to accomplish.
Definition of the Terms
Procedural Justice is concerned with the fairness of dispute resolution procedures.
A vast body of literature links peoples’ encounter of a fair procedure with long term
acceptance of and compliance with decisions that are made by an authority (Thibaut &
Walker, 1975; 1978; Tyler & Folger, 1980; Pruitt, Peirece, McGillicuddy, Welton &
Castrianno, 1993; MacCoun & Tyler; 1988; Tyler; 1990; Brentano, 2001; Tyler & Huo,
2001; Wenzel 2002; Hollander-Blumff & Tyler, 2008; Murphy & Tyler, 2008; Blader &
Tyler; 2009; Rankin & Tyler; 2009; Berman & Gold; 2012). The desire for the experience
of procedural justice is so profound that litigants’ perceptions involving fairness, or the
encounter of a fair procedure, affect how they view the decision that flows out of the
dispute resolution (Tyler, 2001, 2012; van der Toom, Tyler & Jost, 2011). It also forms

their perception about the legitimacy of the institution or agency providing the process
(Blader & Tyler, 2001; Brentano, 2001; Decremer & Tyler, 2007; Rankin & Tyler, 2009;
Tyler, 2006, 2012; Van der Tom, Tyler & Jost, 2011).
Procedural justice suggests that the way in which litigants regard the justice
system is related more to their perceived fairness of a procedure than to fairness of the
outcome of a procedure. In other words, even those individuals who “lose” their case will
view the system favorably if they feel the outcome was arrived at by way of a fair
procedure (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003, 2009). The procedural
justice literature has identified four primary elements of procedure forjudging fairness
that cut across culture and gender: 1. There must be an opportunity for the disputant to
have an adequate “voice” throughout the process; 2. the disputant must perceive that the
authority can be trusted; 3. the disputant must perceive that the process must be neutral
and free of any bias; and 4. the disputant must be treated with respect (Lind and Tyler,
1988; Tyler, 1994; Tyler 2000; Tyler and Blader 2000; Tyler and Huo, 2002). The four
above-mentioned fair process factors, combined with decision control (the ability to
directly influence decisions that are made), and the protection of individual rights have
been found to increase individual satisfaction with decision making processes (Lind &
Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1994, 2000; Tyler & Huo, 2002).
The concept of child custody litigation refers to a parent’s attempt to establish a
custody and visitation arrangement by commencing a civil court action. The terms legal
system, civil justice system and court setting will be used interchangeably, and refer to

the legal processes that parents encounter during the pre-trial stage of child custody
litigation. The traditional adversary system is a legal setting where two advocates
represent their clients’ positions before an impartial person, typically a judge, who is the
finder-of-fact, and strives to determine the truth of a case. This study seeks to highlight
peoples’ experience of the fairness of legal processes occurring in a traditional adversary
system at the pre-trial stage of litigation, not in courtroom litigation, and not in alternative
dispute resolution. Thus, parent-litigants who experienced a hearing or who were referred
to mediate their child custody disputes were not included. Further, "Access to justice" is
a term that can be defined in different ways. The movement to “increase access to justice”
has taken different directions, including the development of less formal forms of dispute
resolution including mediation, and arbitration, to simplification of legal processes, and
the progress of in-court assistance to the unrepresented (Zimerman & Tyler, 2010). The
definition of access to justice or a fair procedure for the purpose of this study will refer to
an individuals’ experience of the fairness of processes and procedures occurring in a
traditional civil court setting that resulted in settlement of child custody cases. In essence,
do parents feel the system that encouraged them to settle their child custody dispute was
fair? Does the civil justice system provide a fair venue in which their rights are respected?
These concepts underpin the procedural justice theory.
Concluding Comments
One of the most significant and replicated social science findings in the area of
social psychology is that one’s perception of procedural justice affects how an individual

responds to outcomes determined by an authority (Folger, 1977; Folger, Rosenfield,
Grove, and Corkran, 1979; Walker LaTour, Lind and Thibaut, 1974; Blader and Tyler,
2001; Brentano, 2001; Rankin and Tyler, 2009; Tyler, 1990, 2006, 2012). This
phenomena has also been referred to as the fair process effect (Greenberg & Folger, 1983;
Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt & Wilke, 1997). People are more likely to accept and
comply with outcomes made by an authority, when such outcomes are achieved through a
fair procedure, even when the outcome is not favorable (Tyler & DeGoey, 1995; Lind and
Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003, 2009; Tyler, 2012).
Thibaut and Walker (1975) were the first to empirically examine procedural
justice effects on peoples’ acceptance decisions made by a neutral, third-party authority.
Their research demonstrates that people’s experience of the fairness of decision making
procedures forms their outcome satisfaction. Subsequently, a wide body of literature has
demonstrated that people are more willing to accept legal decrees and decisions when
they feel that the decisions were arrived at through a fair process (MacCoun, Lind,
Hensler, Bryand, & Ebener, 1988; Kitzman & Emery, 1993; Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & de
Verr Park, 1993; Pruitt.et al., 1993, Brentano, 2001; Blader and Tyler, 2001; Tyler, 1997,
2000, 2006, 2012). Fair process effects have been demonstrated in a variety of field
settings involving decisions made in courtroom trials, in encounters with police, in
arbitration ( Tyler and Folger, 1980; McCoun & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1990; Shapiro &
Brett, 1993; Kitzman & Emery, 1993; Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & De Vera Park, 1993;
Hollander-Blumhoff & Tyler, 2008; Syrett, 2011). The influence of procedural justice on

litigant perceptions and future behavior has been analyzed in a variety of court contexts
including drug courts, community courts, family courts and small claims courts
(Brentano; 2001; Frazer, 2006; Kitzman & Emery; 1993; O’barr & Conley, 1990; Porter;
2011; Rossman et al., 2011; Berman & Gold, 2012).
Researchers have begun to examine the effect of mediation participants’ treatment
of one another based upon their procedural fairness perceptions (Pruitt, Pierce,
McGillicuddy, Welton and Castrianno, 1993; Welsh, 2001). There is also bourgeoning
experimental data documenting fairness in the context of simulated attorney negotiations
(Hollander-Blumhoff & Tyler, 2008). This suggests that fairness considerations are also
likely to apply to an individual’s encounters when disputes are resolved through
settlement.
Little is known about the relevance of people’s encounter of a fair legal procedure
when disputes that are brought to court settle prior to the onset of any formal courtroom
litigation. Only two studies (Brentano, 2001; Kitzman & Emery, 1993) have looked at the
effects of procedural and distributive justice among parents involved in child custody
conflicts. Findings from these studies will be further detailed in chapter III of this paper.

EVALUATING PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CRITERIA FOR PARENTS WHO SETTLE
CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
The Psychology ofProcedural Justice
The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair is known as due process.
The psychology of procedural justice provides an important paradigm from which to
consider the fairness of our legal system that suggests a need to focus not only on the
outcome of a dispute, but also on the fairness of the procedures that lead to the outcome.
Procedural justice provides a frame for understanding why people accept and adhere to
decisions made by an authority. It posits that an individual’s perception of procedural
fairness is more strongly influenced by their subjective experience of dispute resolution
processes than by the outcome of the dispute. Thibaut & Walker's (1978) developed a
control model of procedural justice that suggests that the value of procedural justice is
related to the fairness of the outcome. Tyler & Lind (1988) suggest the way people are
treated by a decision making authorities affects their perceptions of fairness independent
of whether or not they obtain a favorable outcome. The features of a fair procedure are
conceptually distinct from the distributive outcome (Tyler, 1990). Thus, procedures in
and of themselves are more than a means to an end.
The current study relied on Lind & Tyler’s (1988) group value model to examine
how real people encounter justice, or a fair procedure, in a real civil court setting that
generally results in settlement of child custody conflicts prior to the onset of a formal
courtroom hearing. Tyler & Lind’s (1988) model provides a frame to address issues about

litigants actual perceptions of fairness and legitimacy of legal processes with a focus on
the experiences they encounter in a court setting.
The Control Model of Procedural Justice.
The original model of procedural justice was developed by Thibaut and Walker
(1978), and is known as the control model. Thibaut and Walker’s (1978) research shed
light upon the relative contributions of process-control and decision-control. Process
control is the extent to which people feel that they have a voice and control over the
arguments and evidence to be considered during a legal procedure (Thibaut & Walker,
1978). Decision control refers to the disputants’ influence and control over the decisions
that are made (Thibaut & Walker, 1978). In other words, people value procedural justice
solely in light of the effect it has on outcomes. This model of procedural justice suggests
that a fair procedure that provides disputants with sufficient voice will result in a fair,
accurate and just outcome. For example, in a courtroom setting people do not have
control over the decisions that are made, a judge does. Thus, providing litigants with
ample opportunity to tell their side of the story and present facts and information about
the case, gives them indirect control over the outcome because the information provided
might influence the judicial decision. Thus, people might perceive a process as fair if they
feel that they have a voice and are heard particularly when they do not have control over
the outcome. The influence people have over the decisions that are made through process
control (opportunity for voice), is the main factor in achieving a fair dispute resolution
proceeding. When people lack direct control over the outcome (ie. low decision control),

the way in which evidence is presented (ie. process control) becomes crucial to litigants’
experience ofjustice. In other words, when individuals are provided ample opportunity to
voice their views, they can be more confident that the final decision will be fully
informed and substantively fair. Thibaut and Walker’s (1978) control model was found to
be an incomplete explanation of procedural justice when data revealed that the
opportunity for voice enhanced peoples’ fairness perceptions even when they obtained an
unfavorable outcome (Lind, Kanfer & Early, 1990; Van den Bos, 1999).
The Group Value Model of Procedural Justice.
Lind & Tyler’s (1988) research built upon Thibaut & Walker’s (1975; 1978)
procedural justice research. They developed a concept known as the Group Value Model.
This non-control perspective of procedural justice values process as it relates to the role
of a human being in society rather than the type of outcome achieved. Lind & Tyler
(1988) suggest that people care about their relationship with the third party decision
maker. This means that people are more concerned with non-control issues such as the
neutrality of the decision-making procedure, trust in the third party, and evidence about
social standing. The premise of the model is that people value membership in social
groups, and their group identification is psychologically rewarding.
People want to belong to social groups and to establish and maintain the
social bonds that exist within groups. The groups that people identify with
and belong to can be either small groups (such as family, friendship, or
work groups) or large organizations. In addition, people identify with and
belong to local, state, and national legal and political groups. This study
focuses on people's identification with their common membership in a
legal-political system, which has formalized rules, institutions, and

authorities. Although the legal system is a larger group than a family,
friendship, or work group, people nonetheless identify strongly with the
legal-political system and feel a striking sense of personal obligation to
legal and political authorities (Tyler, 1989, p. 831).
Lind & Tyler’s (1988) research made clear that outcome based theories fall short
of acknowledging other concerns that people have related to their experience ofjustice
and fairness. In particular, work in procedural justice shows that people are greatly
concerned with the process of social life (Lind and Tyler, 1988).
Social justice is a social concept that exists only in the minds of members
of an ongoing interaction, a group, an organization or a society. Hence,
justice is a socially created concept that... has no physical reality. It exists
and is useful to the degree that it is shared among a group of people (Tyler,
2000, p. 117-118).
The group value model of procedural justice is relational and is based upon the
treatment endowed upon people by a neutral, third party, decision maker. Lind & Tyler’s
(1988) research enumerate four determinants of fair treatment that are key to peoples’
perceptions of a fair procedure which include: 1. Whether there is ample opportunity for
voice, 2. whether authorities are neutral and even-handed, 3. whether individuals trust the
motives and intentions of the authority, and 4. whether people are treated with dignity and
respect (Lind & Tyler 1988; 1992; 2000; Tyler 1994; Tyler & Huo, 2002). People will
ultimately use the treatment they encounter by a decision maker to draw inferences about
their status in the social hierarchy of a group (Lind & Tyler; 1988; Tyler, 1988, 2000). In
essence, people care about justice because they want to maintain a high status within a
group and use how they were treated by the decision maker to evaluate their group status.

In other words, a fair process conveys the sense that a person is a valued part of the
procedure, and he or she feels respected by the decision making authority which leads the
person to perceive a sense of status and standing within the group. An unfair process
conveys the sense that a person is not a valued part of the procedure, and subsequently he
or she feels disrespected and even excluded from the group. The cues that people
encounter by a decision maker send powerful messages regarding their status and
standing in society, and go on to validate or invalidate their self-identity, self-esteem, and
self-respect (Lind & Tyler, 1988). When a litigant perceives that he or she is provided
with ample voice opportunity and treated with dignity, the litigant can infer that the
decision-maker is benevolent and trustworthy. Thus, the litigant derives a sense of status
based on the treatment he or she encountered and views the judge as working toward a
decision that supports their interests, even if the decision is not favorable to the person.
It is easy to understand why litigants would care about procedural justice when
they are subject to decisions made by a judge. If they feel they are provided ample
opportunity to tell their side of the story, if they feel that what they said was heard and
considered, if they feel they were endowed with dignified treatment, and the judge was
even handed and showed regard for the case and all involved, then it is easier to trust that
the judge has shown good faith in arriving at a fair resolution despite the outcome. But
what about litigants who settle their court case absent a courtroom hearing? As
mentioned earlier, settlement implies that litigants maintain control over how their
dispute resolves. So. under these circumstances, why would people who enter into their

own agreements even be concerned about whether or not their court experience was
procedurally just? Why would treatment by the court, their attorneys or court appointed
personnel even matter? Further, should courts even be concerned about whether people
experience procedural justice when a vast majority of people involved in civil litigation
freely enter into their own agreements absent any courtroom litigation?
Despite the implied consensual nature of settlement, it is likely that parents view
the court, attorneys, and court appointed personnel as legal authorities. Further, these
legal actors might also have substantial influence over how child custody matters are
settled. During the pre-trial stage of litigation judges and law secretaries conduct informal
case conferences with attorneys off the record. The attorneys often utilize the information
provided by the court and court appointed personnel discussed during case conferencing
to counsel their clients to settle the case in one way or another. Also, an attorney for the
child (formerly known as the Law Guardian) is a court appointed individual who is also
involved in child custody litigation. The attorney for the child advocates for the child(ren)
and takes a position based upon the child(ren)’s wishes (Matrimonial Commission Report
to the Chief Justice of New York State, 2006), and provides feedback to the court during
case conferencing (Matrimonial Commission Report, 2006). In addition, per the
discretion of the court, a forensic custody evaluator may be appointed to conduct an
extensive psychological evaluation. Some argue that forensic custody evaluations should
not be used in evidence because there is not sufficient scientific basis for forensic reports
(Tippins & Wittmann, 2005). Despite the controversy involving the scientific veracity of

forensic reports, they are widely used by the courts and deemed a significant tool in
helping the court reach a decision (Matrimonial Commission Report to the Chief Judge of
New York State, 2006). Case law indicates that the court may use the feedback provided
by forensic custody evaluators and law guardians as criteria to be weighed and considered
in rendering child custody and visitation decisions (Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114;
Neuman v Neuman, 19 AD3d; Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d; Nicholas T. v Christine T., 42
AD2d 526).
What does all of this mean? Basically, parents are likely to perceive the
individuals involved in their case as legal authorities whose feedback will influence a
judicial determination if the case goes to trial. In reality, the feedback provided by the
judge or legal secretary during informal case conferencing, by the attorney for the child,
by a forensic custody evaluator, and the attorneys is used to move the case toward
resolution, which might have substantial influence over the outcome. So, while parents
appear to be making their own deals, there are actually an array of legal actors involved in
child custody litigation whose feedback might have a strong influence in moving the case
toward resolution in one direction or another. This may leave parents feeling powerless
over their chid custody settlements.
According to a vast body of procedural justice literature, the way in which a
people are treated by a perceived legal authority is extremely relevant to their experience
of procedural fairness. Lind & Tyler’s (1988) group value theory suggest that if parent-
litigants feel they have been respected and provided with dignified treatment by legal

authorities (ie, the court, attorneys and court appointed personnel), this will result in the
sense that they were heard, validated and respected. Ultimately, the sense of status and
respect encountered during the procedure leads people to trust that the outcome of the
procedure was fair regardless of its favorability. The group value model of procedural
justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) further suggests that this validates their status in society at
large helps to legitimate peoples’ valuations of the court system. On the other hand, it
suggests that if parents feel demeaned by the court, attorneys and court appointed
personnel, they perceive they have been judged as insignificant or inferior in comparison
to the others involved in the legal procedure, and feel marginalized. This will produce a
negative perception of the legitimacy of the disputed outcome, a negative perception of
the perceived legitimacy of the court system (van der Tom, Tyler & Jost, 2011; Tyler,
2001, 2006), and perhaps a negative perception of their overall social standing in society.
In essence, the status litigants perceive based upon the treatment they encounter by legal
authorities involved in their child custody (ie the court, attorneys, and court appointed
personnel) is probably extremely meaningful to their perceptions of whether or not the
procedure is fair (Lind & Tyler; 1988; Tyler 1990, 1994, 2000).
Is it possible that there are other factors relevant to parent-litigants’ experience of
a fair procedure that fall outside of the treatment parents encounter by legal authorities?
For example, what if a mother feels satisfied with the way she is treated by the court and
she is also satisfied with the forensic evaluation report. She believes, however, that the
attorney for the child has misinterpreted the forensic report. If the mother is provided with

ample opportunity to verbalize her viewpoint to the child’s attorney, and is able to clarify
or counter any perceived misinterpretations or bias, she may feel that she has higher status
in the context of settlement discussions. This mother would likely report positive
procedural fairness ratings based upon her encounters with the court, the forensic custody
evaluator, and the attorney for the child. What happens, however, if the attorney and
expert fees deplete the mother’s finances and she feels pressured to settle on a less
favorable custody and visitation outcome than she believes she would have obtained at
fair hearing? Or, what if the time demands placed on both parents to take off work to go
back and forth to court for protracted time, place pressure on them to settle on terms that
they believe do not support the interests of the child, or that might not be viable in light of
the parental dynamic? Time and cost considerations, which fall outside of procedural
justice paradigm, might also play a role in influencing parent-litigants’ perceptions of
whether or not they experienced a fair child custody procedure.
Conclusion.
The process and procedure occurring in a civil justice system should deliver the
experience of a fair procedure. Research in the field of procedural justice has repeatedly
shown that the public desires courts to resolve their disputes in a way that they feel that
justice has been done. Settlement, however, is viewed as a condition of deal making that
occurs exclusively between two parties. The civil justice system is, therefore,
unconcerned with the quality of procedure that people are subject to when they enter into
their own agreements (Hollander-Blumhoff, 2011). What occurs during the pre-trial

stage of litigation is seen merely as assisted talks, bargaining, and fact finding. In reality,
an array of legal actors are involved in child custody litigation whom parents likely deem
to be legal authorities (Hollander-Blumhoff, 2011). Further, the court, court appointed,
personnel and attorneys might have substantial influence over how child custody matters
resolve. Under these circumstances, Lind & Tyler’s (1988) Group value model suggest
that parents who are involved in child custody litigation will care very deeply about the
treatment they encounter by the array of legal actors involved in the child custody
litigation. Using the key antecedents of procedural justice enumerated in Lind & Tyler’s
(1988) Group Value Model (the opportunity for voice, respectful treatment, neutrality,
and trust), this study explored whether the same relational factors that influence
perceptions of procedural fairness during formal courtroom litigation, are also relevant
for parents who settle their child their custody conflicts pre-trial. Research also examined
whether there are other factors, not identified in the procedural justice literature, that
influence parental perceptions of procedural fairness among those who settle in a pre-trial
atmosphere such as time, cost, or any other considerations.

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW
How Procedural and distributivejustice dimensions are related.
Peoples’ experience of procedure and their impressions of the outcome
distribution are a source ofjustice judgments (Walker, LaTour, Lind, & Thibaut, 1974).
Justice research has shown that measures of procedural and distributive justice are
generally correlated (Tyler, 1994). For example, in a study evaluating parents experiences
of procedural justice in child custody courtroom litigation and subsequent adjustment to
divorce, Brentano (2001) found higher ratings of outcome satisfaction among parents
who reported that they experienced a fair courtroom procedure, while parents’ who
reported that they experienced an unfair courtroom procedure reported less favorable
outcome satisfaction scores. Data from procedural justice research demonstrates that
people’s fairness perceptions can influence their attitude about the outcome even when it
is not favorable (Tyler, 2000, 2012; van derToorn, Tyler & Jost, 2011). For example,
Kitzman & Emery (1993) examined parental satisfaction of child custody dispute
resolution in mediation and form courtroom litigation settings. Kitzman & Emery (1993)
found that men were more satisfied with the outcomes in a mediation setting, even though
men in mediation and courtroom litigation settings generally lost custody (Kitzman &
Emery, 1993). Data from Kitzman & Emery’s (1993) research demonstrated that mens’
greater satisfaction in mediation is related to the sense that they had greater control over
decisions that were made which increased their perception that the procedure was fair and
also resulted in greater outcome satisfaction.

Brockner & Wiesenfeld (1996) suggested that procedural justice matters more
when outcomes are unfavorable. Others have argued that procedural justice effects are
potent regardless of how favorable or unfavorable the outcome is (Walker, LaTour, Lind,
& Thibaut, 1974; Walker, Lind, & Thibaut, 1979; Lind, Lissak, & Conlon, 1983; Tyler &
Lind, 1991; van den Bos, Lind, Vermut & Wilke, 1997; Lind, Kurtz, Musante, Walter, &
Thibaut, 1980; Haunstein, McGamigle & Flinder, 2001). Some research has revealed that
under certain conditions a positive outcome can enhance procedural justice effects as
much as or more than negative outcomes (e.g., Lind & Lissak, 1985; Smith, Tyler, Huo,
Ortiz & Lind, 1998). Hollander-Blumoff & Tyler (2008) found that people were more
willing to accept negotiated outcomes when the procedure was rated as fair, even through
the outcomes themselves were not substantially better.
Key Fair Process Predictors.
1. Process Control (Voice).
A wide body of data reveals that people feel more fairly treated when they are
permitted to participate in the resolution of their dispute by verbalizing their ideas about
what should be done (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; 1978; Tyler & Folger, 1980; Pruitt,
Peirece, McGillicuddy, Welton & Castrianno, 1993; Tyler; 1990; Brentano, 2001; Tyler
& Huo, 2002; Wenzel 2002; Hollander-Blumff & Tyler, 2008; Murphy & Tyler, 2008;
Blader & Tyler; 2009; Rankin & Tyler; 2009; Berman & Gold; 2012). Robert Folger
(1977) identified “voice” as a key element of procedural justice. He defined voice as,
“having some participation in decision making by expressing on’s own opinion.

Thereafter, researchers in the procedural justice field began to refer to “voice” as the
opportunity for an individual to express his or her position prior to a decision being made
(Lind, Kanfer & Early, 1990; Tyler, Rasinski & Spodick, 1985). In other words, voice
provides a disputant with the ability to tell his or her side of the story. Thibaut and
Walker named the opportunity for voice “process control” (Thibaut and walker, 1975).
Voice effects have been demonstrated in studies of child custody courtroom litigation
(Brentano, 2001), in child custody mediation (Kitzman and Emery, 1993; Shapiro and
Bret, 1993); in plea bargaining studies (Houlden, 1980; Tor, Gazel-Ayel & Garcia, 2010)
and in a simulated negotiation setting that sought to mirror a real-world pretrial
negotiation (Hollander-Blumhoff & Tyler, 2008). Further, voice effects have been found
to go beyond the ability of people to assert indirect control over the outcome of a dispute.
Disputants have been found to value the opportunity to express their views to decision
making authorities in situations where they believe that there would be little to no
influence over the final decision (Lind, Kanfer, and Earley, 1990; Tyler, 1988).
Research on the psychology of voice asserts that the experience of voice has
interpersonal or “value-expressive” worth that is independent of influence on the final
decision (Tyler, 1988; 1994, 2000; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Data demonstrates that the
opportunity for voice is salient to the experience of a fair procedure even when a decision
has already been rendered (Tyler & Degoy, 1995). People also need to feel that the facts
and information that they have presented are being giving due consideration by the
decision making authority (Brockner, et al. 2001; van Prooijen, vanden Bos, Wilke,

2007). Thus, data from research on the opportunity for voice demonstrates that the
opportunity for voice has significance well beyond influencing the final outcome of a
dispute. Procedures with opportunities of voice (relative to no voice) are generally
perceived as fairer decision-making procedures (Folger, 1977; Thibaut & Walker, 1975;
Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1994; van prooijen, van den Bos & Wilke, 2007). Moreover,
voice is considered to be the most representative procedural fairness manipulation and is.
therefor, also the most commonly used manipulation in experimental research (Tyler,
2000; Van den Bos, 1999; Bauman and Skitka, 2009; van Prooijen, van den Bos &
Wilke, 2007; Fondacaro, Brank, Stuart, Villanueva-Abraham, Leuscher, and McNatt,
2006).
Litigantparticipation
Findings from procedural justice research conducted in different dispute
resolution settings converge around the point that people greatly value participation and
voice. If people are provided with an opportunity to participate in the resolution of their
disputes they feel more fairly treated (Tyler, 2000).
The opportunity to present one’s case leads people to feel that the forum is
more neutral, the authorities more trustworthy and the procedure more
respectful of them and their rights. For all of these reasons litigants are
more likely to accept decisions and evaluate the legal system more
favorably after they have experienced voice” (Zimmerman & Tyler, 2010,
p. 8).

The structure of processes occurring at the pre-trial stage of civil litigation provide
litigants with extremely limited participation because the courts rely heavily on attorney
representation (Hollander-Blumhoff, 2011; Zimerman & Tyler, 2010). Court rules and
procedures do not assign litigants much direct participation (Hollander-Blumhoff, 2011,
Zimerman & Tyler, 2010). Nor do the rules and procedures provide litigants with an
opportunity to speak before the court outside of giving testimony while on trial
(Hollander-Blumhoff. 2011; Zimerman & Tyler, 2010). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure essentially block litigants from any opportunity to speak directly to the court
outside of providing testimony at a formal courtroom hearing (Zimmerman & Tyler,
2010). This means that the attorney acts as the litigant’s voice, and this might cause
litigants to feel as if they are “invisible” throughout the court procedure (Resnik, 1991, p.
61). There is, however, no evidence at this point indicating that indirect participation in
court through an attorney diminishes litigant perceptions of voice (Zimerman & Tyler,
2010). There remains a need to more closely examine the specific impact of people’s
valuations of their court experiences, as well as the effect representation has upon
people’s experience of voice opportunity.
While it is understood that attorneys play a key role on behalf of litigants during
civil litigation, there is no clear data regarding the effects of procedural fairness
assessments by attorneys on clients. Nor is there any clear data regarding the relationship
between specific lawyer behavior and client perceptions of a fair procedure (Hollander-
Blumhoff, 2011, p. 8). An exploration of peoples experience of procedural fairness in

civil litigation, however, would be incomplete without acknowledging the role attorneys
play in representing their clients, and how the quality of the litigant/attorney rapport
might influence disputants’ perceptions of procedural justice. Whether people are
represented or unrepresented has generally not been studied within a procedural justice
framework, and the issue of legal representation has not been substantially investigated
(Zimmerman & Tyler, 2010, p. 6). Procedural justice research, however, has consistently
affirmed that the ability to provide important facts and information before the court, with
our without legal counsel, is essential to designing procedures that people perceive as fair.
Some data suggest that litigants perceive attorneys and judges fall short of
hearing and understanding their main concerns. Barclay (1996) conducted a study that
evaluated a group of ninety-five people who appealed their court case in three states. Data
from Barclay’s (1996) research, found that 27% of litigants who opted to appeal their
case without legal representation, did so in an effort to force the court to address
important issues that were not dealt with during the initial court action. In other words,
27% of litigants who appealed and proceeded to the appellate court with no legal
counselor felt that their attorneys and the court failed to hear and understand their primary
concerns during the initial court action. Barclay (1996) suggest that litigants’ decision to
go to the appellate court unrepresented was used as a strategy that would provide them
with, “the ability to place directly before the court the issues that they [the litigants
themselves] identified as most salient” (Barclay, 1996, p. 919). Findings from Barclay
(1996) suggest that disputants who feel their issues and concerns are not adequately

addressed by attorneys and judges during an initial court action might repeat litigation so
they can directly convey key issues to the court. Thus, if a disputants’ main concerns are
disregarded by legal authorities (if they are not heard), the disputant might be more likely
to repeal and self-represent to ensure key issues involving the case are addressed.
The need for litigant participation is also reflected in earlier research involving
litigant satisfaction with different civil court procedures. Lind et al. (1990) conducted a
study comparing peoples’ satisfaction of tort litigation in three different civil court
venues. To explore this issue, Lind et al. (1990) interviewed litigants involved in
personal injury cases in three state courts whose cases had been resolved in different civil
court venues: 1. in a court room trial, 2. in court-annexed arbitration a procedure in which
a lawyer-arbitrator hears the case and offers a non-binding judgement), 3. in negotiation
and, 4. injudicial settlement conferences (a procedure in which a judge attempts to assist
the attorneys in settling the case). Negotiation and judicial settlement conferencing are
informal, consensual processes. Arbitration and trial are formal procedures where a
decision is rendered by a Judge or Arbitrator. Of these different legal dispute resolution
venues, litigants ranked satisfaction in negotiation and judicial settlement conferencing
settings lowest. This was an interesting result because prior to this finding it had been
suggested that,
Settlement whether accomplished by the parties and their counsel alone or
assisted by judges or mediators, results in greater satisfaction because the
litigants are more involved in the settlement process and because
negotiated outcomes can be crafted to fit the litigants’ needs (Lind et al.,
1990, p. 961).

The interviews focused on litigants’ evaluations of their experiences with the
court, which included their perception of procedural fairness and their satisfaction with
the outcome. Participants whose case went to trial reported more satisfaction with the
procedure and said the procedure was more fair than those who experienced the other
procedures (Lind et al, 1990). Further, most litigants in the trial and arbitration
procedures described the process as dignified, in contrast to most litigants in the judicial
settlement conference group who described the process as undignified. Findings from
Lind et al. (1990) suggest that preparing litigants for trial and their experience of
providing testimony while on trial enhanced participation and voice opportunities during
trial and arbitration, which subsequently enhanced their perceptions of procedural fairness
and satisfaction. The judicial settlement conferencing was an informal procedure and did
not involve litigant participation. Lind et al. (1990) suggest that the experience of
participation and voice in more formal legal settings of arbitration and at trial, resulted in
enhanced perceptions of fairness and satisfaction among litigants who participated in
more formal legal procedures, compared with litigants whose case was resolved through
judicial settlement conferencing, which did not provide litigants with the opportunity to
participate or to have a voice and which they felt was a less dignified procedure. The Lind
et al. (1990) study revealed that achieving settlement through judicial case conferencing
were not as satisfying as previously thought mainly because of the less formal procedures
excluded litigants from participating. On the other hand, the more formal procedures of
arbitration and a hearing were inclusive of litigants. They participated through trial

preparation, and by giving testimony on the record. So, inclusion in the procedures lead to
more formal court processes of arbitration and hearing that lead to substantially higher
ratings of satisfaction among litigants in those groups. Litigants were excluded from
participation in negotiations and judicial settlement conferencing. In fact, litigant
participation was viewed by the court and attorneys as “unnecessary and even counter
productive” (Lind et al. 1990, p. 963).
Research involving people’s perceptions of procedural fairness in different dispute
resolution venues does not provide clear answers because it is hard to evaluate different
processes and procedures. For example, in (1993), Kitzman & Emery conducted a field
study that used quantitative analysis to examine the relative effects of procedural and
distributive justice on parental satisfaction of child custody dispute resolution in
mediation and litigation settings. Seventy one couples from one court house were
randomly assigned to mediate or litigate their child custody dispute. Once custody was
resolved, parents in both groups were interviewed. A standardized measure was used to
rate satisfaction with their court experience. “Multiple regression analysis showed that
procedural factors (decision control and respect) and distributive factors (feelings of
winning what one wanted) were equally influential for parents’ satisfaction” (Kitzman &
Emery, 1993, p. 553)”. Mothers who participated in this study generally petitioned for
sole custody and obtained a favorable outcome in both groups. Obtaining a favorable
custody outcome and respectful treatment were equally important for women, and women
were generally more satisfied with a formal courtroom hearing then in mediation. Men,

who generally lost custody in both settings, preferred the experience of direct
participation in mediation to formal litigation, because in mediation they felt that they
influenced the process and outcome.
The Administrative office of the California Courts (2005) undertook research
involving 2414 California State residents who were randomly selected to participate in an
interview about their trust and confidence in the California state courts. The California
(2005) study asked the public through random phone calls, whether they had been
involved in a court action or not, to evaluate courts on a number of different dimensions.
Participants in the California (2005) study said that the courts are very fair in providing
dignified and respectful treatment. Participants, however, said that the California courts
were not fair because of a lack of participation and a lack of voice. Data from this study
suggest that people in California generally feel that the courts don’t listen. Thirty eight
percent of people who actually went to court said that the courts don’t listen, in contrast
to thirty percent of people who had not gone to court who said that the courts don’t listen.
This means that those people who had actually gone to court in California, were even
more likely to report the courts don’t listen than if the person had not gone to court.
2. Neutrality.
The procedural justice literature demonstrates that people believe that decisions
made by an authority should be based upon rules and facts, and not on the personal bias
or personal world view of the decision making authority (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler 1989;
1994; Tyler & Blader, 2003). “People are influenced by judgements about the honesty,

impartiality, and objectivity of the authorities with whom they are dealing” (Tyler, 2000,
p. 122). In the experience of a fair procedure, litigants seek out a procedure that provides
an “equal playing field” in which they have a sufficient opportunity to counter any
perceived bias (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler 1989, 1994). Litigants want a dispute
resolution venue in which neither party is at an unfair disadvantage, and when an decision
making authority follows and applies impartial rules, and makes decisions based upon the
facts and information presented, then they perceive that the procedures are fair (Lind &
Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989; 1994; Tyler & Blader, 2003).
The American justice system has set forth rules to make every effort that bias be
averted injudicial decision making procedures. The civil justice system aims for
transparency so that litigants have sufficient information to realize that judges and legal
processes and procedures are impartial (Hollander-Blumhoff, 2011). Judges are required
to recuse themselves from matters where there may be a conflict of interest. [U.S.C. §
455(a) (2006)]. Courts suggest that recusal is important even when there is no technical
conflict of interest, because it is imperative that courts maintain the appearance of
neutrality, and that judges remain free from any possible bias (Caperton v. A.T.Massey
Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252, 2262 (2009); Liljeberg v.Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486
U.S. 847, 865 (1988)). The appearance of bias must be averted in order to preserve
peoples’ trust and faith in the justice system (McGhie Land Title Co., 549 F.2d 1358,
1361 (10th Cir. 1977).

Bias, as it works itself out in real time, however, is a vastly more complex and
subtle issue (Hollander-Blumhoff & Tyler, 2008). What is a neutral and unbiased
decision maker? Research in the area of political science demonstrates that, in any given
case, judgments about neutrality and absence of bias for a particular judge are, themselves
subject to bias (Pinello, 1999; Edwards, 1998). Some research has described gender bias
in custody decisions (Polikoff, 1982; Chesler, 1986; Hensler, 1993; Grillo; 1991;).
Theoretically, law and case precedent are determinants ofjudicial decision making,
however, in reality it is not clear which factors are used (Emery, 1999; Settle & Lowery,
1982). In essence, a child custody case demonstrating the same fact patterns might have a
vastly different outcome when heard before different judges, based upon their subjective
world view. In fact, judges personal background characteristics were found to influence
child custody decision making more than the legal statutes (Pearson & Luchesi-Ring,
1982). Some judges with low integrity scores deviated from child support guidelines
(Ellis, 1999). Their age, years of experience and personal world view were found to be
determinants of child determinations, and fact data including psychological evaluations
and the child’s wishes were not. Older judges were more likely to draw on their life
experiences and often disregarded the statutes (Person & Ring, 1982; Weinberg, 1999). If
justices have based judicial determinations on their subjective world view, and biases,
then what about the host of other people involved in child custody litigation? Any such
biases related to the age, gender, cultural background, and personality of the array of legal

authorities involved in child custody, might contribute to people’s experience of bias,
which would influence their perceptions of fairness.
3. Trust
People also evaluate the fairness of a procedure based upon how they perceive the
motives of the decision making authority (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler. 1989; 1994; Tyler
& Blader, 2003). People evaluate whether a decision making authority is benevolent and
demonstrates care and demonstrates care and concern about arriving at a good outcome
(Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989; 1994; Tyler & Blader, 2003) . These elements combine
to shape people’s formulations of whether or not the authority is to be trusted (Lind &
Tyler, 1988; Tyler. 1989; 1994; Tyler & Blader, 2003). It is important to note that a
primary antecedent of trust is justification (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Litigants must
understand that a decision making authority has listened and given substantial
consideration to the decisions that have been made (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989;
1994; Tyler & Blader, 2003).
Data involving the issue of cooperation with authorities (e.g., De Cremer & Tyler,
2005; De Cremer &Van Vugt, 2002; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Van Vugt &
De Cremer,1999) has identified two important psychological antecedents of cooperation
(see De Cremer & Tyler, 2005), including trust in the authority and procedural fairness.
Previous studies have shown that the experience of a fair procedure promotes
cooperation, or compliance with the outcome, however, this occurs mainly when the
authority is trusted (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005). Authorities serve an important function in

regulating coordination and cooperation (see De Cremer & Tyler, 2005, for a review).
Procedural fairness can thus be seen as another important motivational tool to shape and
foster cooperation (Tyler, 2012, van der tom, Tyler & Jost, 2011; Rankin & Tyler, 2009).
Trust in the decision maker seems to affect litigant compliance and cooperation (De
Cremer & Tyler, 2005, Tyler, 2006). In other words, if people trust the decision maker,
they are more likely to view the process as fair (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Tyler, 2006).
4. Respect.
Litigants value having their rights respected and their status in society, known as
standing (Tyler & Lind, 1988; Tyler, 1994; 2000). In other words, the extent to which a
litigant feel that he or she is respected also affects his or her perception of fairness of the
overall process (Tyler & Lind 1988; Lind, et al, 1993). For example,
When the police (a legal authority) harass minorities or treat them rudely,
they communicate to members of those groups both their low social
standing and the fact that the authorities may not protect them and may, in
fact, even hurt them. ... If people are treated rudely, they know that the
authority they are dealing with regards them as having low status within
the group. Conversely, polite and respectful treatment communicates that
the authorities involved regard them as having high status in the group.
Similarly, if authorities show respect for individuals’rights as a group
member, individuals gain knowledge that those rights will be respected,
whereas abuse of one's rights brings their existence into question and
leaves people feeling unprotected (Tyler & Lind, 1988, p. 832).
Procedural justice research suggest that litigants’ fairness formulations are
influenced by how a third party authority treats them on an interpersonal level (Lind et al,
1990; Tyler, 2000; Blader & Chen, 2012). Specifically, litigants evaluate the degree to
which an authority treats them in a dignified and polite manner (Lind, et al., 1989).

People are more likely to defer to decisions when they perceive that the authority is acting
with the intention of achieving justice, which is a relational concern (Tyler, 1988; Tyler &
Huo, 2002; Blader & Chen, 2012). Blader & Chen (2012) suggest the likelihood of
people reaching an integrative agreement relies largely on a persons’ perception that they
encountered high quality, trustful interactions with an authority, based upon the
attentiveness and concern that an authority proffers (p. 1009). This supports earlier
procedural justice findings suggesting that the way people perceive they are treated by a
high ranked decision maker not only influence their perception of procedural fairness, but
also influences their perception of the value of agreements reached. The status people
perceive derived from interpersonal interactions with decision makers is most important
when people feel that they have little or no power in a group (Blader & Chen, 2012).
Procedural Justice and Courtroom Litigation of Child Custody
Brentano (2001) examined the effect of parental perceptions of the fairness of
formal child custody courtroom litigation and perceptions of the fairness of the child
custody Order, on subsequent compliance with the child custody Court Order, and family
adjustment to divorce. To explore this issue, Brentano (2001) conducted a longitudinal,
repeated measure field study in the Orange County Superior that included 185 parent-
respondents. A series of self-report measures were administered to parents at three points
in time, “Time 1: shortly before a targeted hearing or trial; Time 2: within a month after
the custody hearing or trial, and Time 3: three to six months after the hearing or trial”
(Brentano, 2001, p. 71). Brentano (2001) developed a measure to evaluate parental

satisfaction with the court procedure based upon parents’ perceptions of fairness of their
courtroom experience and the judge (based upon perceptions of unbiased treatment,
respect, voice, trust and decision control) and fairness and favorability of the child
custody outcome. This measure was sent to litigants through the mail within a month
after the trial had begun and agin three to six months later.
Findings from Brentano’s (2001) study indicate that the treatment parents
experienced during formal courtroom litigation was the exclusive predictor of long term
compliance with the court order. Distributive justice made virtually no contribution to
the parental relationship long term (Brentano, 2001, p. 127). Brentano (2001) found that
there were no improvements for problems involving the parental rapport when
experiences of the court process were reported to be poor. In contrast, those who had
reported positive perceptions of fairness not only returned to pre-litigation levels of
conflict, but seemed to be on a continuing path of improvement. If replicable, these
patterns emphasize that the quality of the legal procedure will not only predict
compliance with judicial decrees, but also has the potential to aggravate or assuage
parental conflict long term. Presumably, positive reports of fairness will decrease parental
conflict and infighting around the child and reduce the incidence of repeat litigation
In Brentano’s (2001) study, parents who settle prior to litigation differed from
those who litigated. The settlement group was largely comprised of first time litigators
while the trial group was comprised of parents involved in repeat litigation. Shortly
before the child custody hearing parents in the settlement group were more likely to have

legal counsel then those in the litigation group. Parents in the settlement group were also
more satisfied with their attorney. Within one month of the hearing (Time 2)
representation and attorney satisfaction was no different among settlers and litigators.
One reason the settlement group might have moved from being represented to
unrepresented is because of the costs of protracted child custody litigation. Our civil
justice system ascribes great importance to the right of individuals to participate in legal
procedures, and to have their "day in court”, however, legal rules, processes and
procedures are complex and less accessible without appropriate legal representation. A
conclusion of the New York State Matrimonial Commission Report (2006) is that
custody disputes are too lengthy and too costly. Some posit that parents involved in
family law conflicts might not access justice because of the high cost of legal fees and
inability to secure free legal representation (Babb, 2008; Zimmerman & Tyler, 2010).
Without the funds to subsidize litigation, parents unfamiliar with how to navigate through
the legal system might feel pressured to enter into custody agreements that they are
unhappy with, or worse, that they can not effectuate due to the parental dynamic that led
to the divorce in the first place.
In a follow up to her study, Brentano (2001) found one to three years after initially
filing for custody, a staggering “sixty four percent of the original settlement cases
returned to court for further litigation (p. 70)”, and, “parents who already had been to
court with the other parent and were dissatisfied with their [earlier court] experience were
more likely to return to court and litigate” (p. 70). This lends support to Barclays’ (1996)

suggestion that disputants will repeat litigation without legal counsel when they are
dissatisfied with their initial court experience. What is particularly striking about this
finding, is that those who litigated and those who settled “did not differ in terms of
pre-existing problems in the co-parental relationship, nor were there significant
differences for personality traits of neuroticism, agreeableness and cynical hostility”
(Brentano, 2001, p. 123). This means that parents in the litigation group were no more
contentious or mentally disturbed than parents in the settlement group. The finding that
no significant differences in personality traits and hostility was found between settlers and
litigators; that most settlers who started their first action with an attorney, concluded with
no representation; and that 64% of settlers who were not satisfied with their first court
action and returned to court to re-open child custody litigation, causes one to wonder
about the quality of procedure parents encounter during their initial court appearance
which generally resolves by way of settlement. For example, are parents experiencing a
legal procedure in which they feel they have a voice? Do they feel as if they are a
meaningful part of the proceedings, and have some influence over the settlements they
enter into? Or, are parents entering into agreements because of undue pressure they feel
based upon the other individuals involved in their case, and/or because of the undue
pressure related to time and cost? If people feel unduly pressured into settling their
dispute, then are the stipulations they are signing off on even viable in light of the
parental dynamics that lead to divorce in the first place?

Litigation Costs
Procedural justice data posit that time and cost factors are not relevant to whether
or not people perceive a procedure involving a decision maker as fair (Tyler, 2001; Lind
& Tyler 1988; Lind et al., 1990, Resnik, 1991). Emerging data involving people’s
perceptions of the court, however, suggests otherwise. For example, a Report to the Chief
Judge of the State of New York (2006) determined that “the delay and attendant cost [of
contested matrimonial actions] continues to frustrate the public” (Matrimonial
Commission Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York, 2006, p. vi). Further,
in 1994, the American Bar Association conducted a legal needs study of low to moderate
income Americans with five main objectives: 1. “To evaluate the nature and number of
situations households face that raise legal issues, 2. to see what steps people take in
dealing with those situations, 3. to ascertain what kids of legal services are provided
regarding the needs brought to the legal system, 4. to assess the public’s awareness of
available legal services, and 5. to gauge the reactions of those who have had contact with
the civil justice system” (ABA Consortium on Legal Services and the Public, 1994, p. 7).
The study included more than 3,000 low to moderate income Americans and relied on
three samples: 1. A sample of all households with telephones with numbers drown from
exchange known to contain households with low-incomes, 2. A sample of non-phone
households in urban areas, and 3. A sample of in-person interviews was also used to
provide some control for the possibility that the legal needs of households without
telephones differed in important ways from those with phones. Data from this study

indicated that approximately 71% of low income people in America who are facing legal
situations do not access the justice system. The California study (2005) also evaluated
the costs of representation by an attorney. People were asked whether the counsel fee
might keep them from going to court. Sixty nine percent of respondents said that the cost
of counsel fees might prevent them from going to court. Costs also fostered a variety of
negative evaluations of the court system (Tyler & Zimmerman, 2010). Data from the
study conducted in California (2005) found that “those who indicated that they might not
be able to go to court due to attorney costs indicated that the courts performed less well,
that the courts were less satisfactory institutions, that the courts were less procedurally
just; and that they had less confidence in the court system” (Tyler & Zimmerman, p. 14,
citing Rottman, 2005). Data from ABA (1994) and the California (2005) study provide
introductory evidence that people perceive legal fees associated with litigation as
prohibitive to proceeding. This underscore an important issue: Whether the lack of an
attorney might make it difficult for people to go to court (Zimmerman & Tyler, 2010).
There are likely some people who are unable to hire an attorney, but who feel they can to
go to court without one (Zimmerman & Tyler, 2010). Moreover, if counsel fees are
salient to whether or not people will bring an action to court in the first place, then does
the do legal fees also factor into whether people settle or proceed once they have already
retained an attorney and opened a court action? If people are making child custody deals
because they feel they can not afford to continue their court case, does this effect their
perceptions of procedural fairness?

Conclusions
The experience that litigants have when they come to court is important because
it shapes their willingness to comply with judicial decrees, and also forms their
evaluations of the legitimacy of the civil justice system. Access to justice is a social
justice concern and foundational social work principle. A wide body of evidence
highlights that procedural elements are key to an individual’s perception of a fair
procedure (Brentano, 2001; Brannan, 2011; Hollander-Blumhoff, 2011; Tyler, Beckman,
Smith & Huo, 1997; Rottman, 2005; Tyler, 2012, Shestowsky, 2004). This literature
suggests that people care greatly about the fairness of process and procedures used to deal
with problems that bring people to court, and has identified particular criteria that form
peoples’ fairness perceptions (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1994; Tyler & Huo, 2002,
Blader, 2006; Tyler, 2012).
The current study investigates whether these criteria are the same for litigants who
involved in the civil justice system but do not experience formal courtroom litigation.
Emerging data suggest that the quality of procedure people experience during an initial
court action is related to repeat litigation (Brentano, 2001; Barclay, 2006). Some data
suggest that people who felt that their attorney and the court failed to address their main
concerns during an initial court action, opted to appeal their case without an attorney so
they could voice their concerns directly to the court (Barcley, 1996).
As mentioned earlier a wide majority of child custody disputes that come to court
settle prior to the onset of any formal courtroom litigation. As a result, it is important to

explore whether the procedural justice paradigm is relevant for people who enter into
agreements prior to formal courtroom litigation. Do the quality of procedure parent-
litigants encounter in a civil court setting comport with procedural justice? Do time and
cost considerations factor into peoples’ perception of whether they encountered a fair
legal procedure? The current body of procedural justice literature does not capture the
people’s experiences of procedural fairness in a traditional civil court system that
typically moves matters toward settlement. This research shed light on the procedural
values that matter to litigants when they settle contested child custody disputes at the pre
trial stage of litigation.

CHAPTER 4: METHODS
Introduction.
This section explains the methods that were used to assess the fairness of civil
court processes for parents who settle child custody conflicts prior to the onset of formal
courtroom ligation. An explanatory case study design was used to evaluate whether Lind
& Tyler’s (1988) model of procedural justice is relevant for who parents who resolve
child custody disputes at the pre-trial stage of litigation. Interviews were conducted with
parents, matrimonial attorneys, judges and their law secretaries to explore their
perceptions of the fairness of civil court processes, and to examine whether there might
be other factors relevant to a fair procedure, such as time and cost. This study is different
from existing analyses of procedural justice because it shed light on whether Lind &
Tyler’s (1988) group value model that was developed in formal courtroom procedures, is
relevant for litigants who settle their disputes absent a direct, third party decision maker.
The study is also unique because it examines people’s perceptions ofjustice in response
to the treatment of an array of individuals involved in child custody litigation, and not in
response to treatment by a judge alone. Further, this study is also unique as findings were
based upon a convergence of evidence reported among the different respondent groups,
and not upon the viewpoint of one group alone.

Research Design.
Explanatory case studies are used in order to examine a theory (Yin, 2009). A
single, explanatory case study design was utilized for this research because it evaluated
whether the fair process factors enumerated in the body of procedural justice literature as
prime factors that influence people's fairness perceptions in formal litigation settings, are
also relevant for those who settle in an informal legal setting absent a courtroom hearing.
Case studies use multiple data sources to examine complex social phenomena, and
provide a more in depth account of the study phenomena than research conducted from
the viewpoint of a single group. The common thread of case studies conducted in various
fields is that they converge around the same need to see below the surface of a situation
and provide a way to shed light on research phenomena in-context and from different
angles (Yin, 2009; Stake, 1995; 2005).
There are an array of individuals involved in contested child custody litigation
including the disputants, their attorneys, and a judge and his or her legal secretary. Other
studies evaluating procedural justice have systematically identified fairness factors in
response to a single, third-party decision maker, from the viewpoint of the disputant
alone. For example, Brentano (2001) evaluated parental perceptions of procedural justice
in response to treatment encountered by a judge during child custody courtroom
litigation. The current case study is different than the other studies that came before,
because it explores fairness of civil court processes for parent-litigants from the
perspective of all of the individuals familiar with such processes. In this case study, I

gathered information from three distinct groups of people who are familiar with child
custody litigation from differing vantage points to provide a more in-depth account of the
study phenomena than had data been gathered from the viewpoint of the parent-litigants
alone.
Study Sample.
1. Parents.
The first study group was comprised parents who had a child custody dispute that
rose to the level of assignment of an attorney for the child or court appointed forensic
custody evaluator, and who settled their child custody conflict prior to the onset of formal
courtroom litigation. A sample of parents was randomly drawn from the fiduciary New
York State Part 36 private paid law guardian appointment list. This list is accessible to
the public. The assignment sheet was comprised of matrimonial cases from one
jurisdiction in one down-state County in New York, comprised of largely Caucasian,
middle class to wealthy parents and a minority of African American, Asian, Latino and
Middle Eastern individuals. The names and contact information of parents were drawn
from the Part 36 list and also obtained through the public phone directory. Participants
were required to: (1) filed (or were filed against) for child custody (2) were assigned a
private pay law guardian (3) entered into a custody agreement prior to the onset of a
formal courtroom hearing; and (4) speak English; and (5) must have a closed divorce
filing.

2. Matrimonial Attorneys.
Matrimonial attorneys were also interviewed as a component of this research
because they are key players in child custody litigation. They observe directly how
parents are treated by the all of the individuals involved in child custody matters, as well
observe parents' response to their experiences in the civil court system. These attorneys
advocate, as well as serve as the surrogate voices for parents during child custody
litigation. They directly observe he way in which parents are treated by the court and
court appointed personnel. They also hear feedback from parents regarding the fairness of
court processes and procedures, as well as feedback regarding parents’ encounters in
court. Furthermore, attorneys generally have greater knowledge and understanding of
court processes, rules and procedures than do parents, unless the parents themselves are
attorneys and knowledgeable of court rules and procedures. They are, thus, in a good
position to share observations about the things parents experience in a civil court setting
to develop their own sense of the fairness of the process.
The attorneys’ perception of the fairness their clients receive is different than that
of the parents. First, their legal rights are not at stake. Second, they may be motivated to
push a case toward settlement even though settlement is pre-mature, or drag out a case
longer than needed. For example, an attorney might be motivated to drag a case on longer
than needed to accrue legal fees. Or, on the other hand, attorneys might be motivated to
push a case toward settling if they have been working on a case and are not being paid for
their work. Matrimonial attorneys were drawn from the Matrimonial Bar Association list

who practice in the same jurisdiction in which the parent-litigants were drawn. This list is
available to the public. Perspective attorneys were: (1) self identified as
matrimonial/family law attorneys; and (2) in practice for at least five years.
3. Judges and Law Secretaries.
The third group of people interviewed were civil court justices and their law
secretaries. The role and function of civil court justices and law secretaries are essentially
the same at the pre-trial stage of contested child custody litigation, so they were grouped
together in the analysis. Prior to the onset of a formal courtroom hearing, both judges and
their law secretaries, conduct informal case conferences with the attorneys and the
attorney for the child. Most judges and law secretaries have little or no direct involvement
with litigants during court appearance dates and deal mainly with the attorneys. Judges
and law secretaries who are assigned matrimonial matters are knowledgeable of rules,
processes and procedures that parents are subject to during child custody litigation. A
sample ofjudges and law secretaries was obtained through the internet Courtnet database,
which is accessible to the public, and by the court directory which is also accessible to the
public. Perspective court personnel had to have served as a matrimonial judge or law
secretary presiding over matrimonial matters for at least two years in the same
jurisdiction that the attorney and parent sample were drawn.

Definition Of the Variables
Brentano (2001) created a measure based on questions from Kitzman and Emery’s
(1993) and Tyler and Lind’s (1988) procedural justice research, which evaluated parental
perceptions of procedural justice in response to formal child custody courtroom litigation
and treatment by a judge. A semi-structured interview questionnaire was developed to
examine procedural fairness criteria. The items contained in the interview list of
questions are based on Brentano’s (2001) procedural justice measure, and they include
decision control, voice, respect, trust and neutrality. The items were reviewed by two
litigants and by an attorney who was law secretary to a family court judge in New York
County. Feedback from these individuals regarding the clarity of the items was used to
refine the measure prior to application.
Variable 1. Decision Control
Decision control is the amount of direct power and influence that an individual
has over a disputed outcome (Thibaut & Walker, 1978). It has been consistently
demonstrated that people’s willingness to accept an order or mandate from a person in a
position of authority is the belief that fair procedures were used to arrive at the outcome
of a dispute. Disputants are thought to prefer procedures that provide a sense of control
over the process (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; 1978) and a sense of control over the final
decision (Shapiro & Brett, 1993). Factors such as personal control are thought to be more
important when disputes are resolved absent a decision maker (Thibaut & Walker, 1978).
As mentioned earlier in this paper, it is widely assumed that when people enter into child

PDF - DISSERTATION PUBLICATION

PDF - DISSERTATION PUBLICATION

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PDF - DISSERTATION PUBLICATION

Similar to PDF - DISSERTATION PUBLICATION (20)

PDF - DISSERTATION PUBLICATION