logo
Study Slams Family Court's Reliance On 'Junk' Research

Study Slams Family Court's Reliance On 'Junk' Research

Scoop17-07-2025
The Family Court is basing decisions on 'junk' evidence and putting children's futures at risk, according to a new journal article.
You might imagine the expert evidence heard in the Family Court, such as what's provided by court psychologists, would stand up to scrutiny… not so, according to a scathing new journal article.
The study suggests judges, lawyers and psychologists in New Zealand's Family Court are routinely accepting 'junk' evidence to support critical decisions about children's lives.
University of Auckland law scholar Associate Professor Carrie Leonetti reviewed 29 Family Court judgements under the New Zealand Care of Children Act in which court professionals claimed to be citing academic research to support their decisions. Her investigation finds they frequently cited material that was not academic research, instead relying on online content, unpublished handouts, and presentations from conferences or legal training sessions.
"Clinical psychologists, often working without specialised forensic training, are presenting evidence that would not withstand academic scrutiny," she says.
"I'm shocked at how judges never go … 'but but but'… and ask some questions. We need to define what's real, what isn't, what's reliable, and what's not.'
New Zealand's Evidence Act 2006 and the High Court Rules require expert witnesses to base their recommendations on evidence that's within their area of expertise and generally accepted within a scientific field and specify the literature they rely on. Yet Leonetti's paper details breaches of these requirements – including experts opining outside their area of expertise, misrepresenting research, and failing to qualify sweeping claims.
Examples include statements like "almost all disclosures of sexual abuse by children whose parents have separated are false" or "studies show that all children are better off in shared care" – broad claims Leonetti says are based on misrepresented or misunderstood literature.
"The Court's reliance on a small, fringe collection of writings from conferences, trainings, and legal journals rather than peer-reviewed science publications is dangerous and unjust."
Associate Professor Carrie LeonettiAuckland Law School
Leonetti's paper, published in the Indiana Health Law Review, says some professionals referenced controversial or discredited theories while omitting landmark studies like research into Adverse Childhood Experiences, which shows the long-term traumatic impact of exposure to family violence in childhood.
She says Family Court judges, lawyers, and psychologists frequently misrepresent or misuse academic literature, dismissing evidence they disagree with and cherry-picking non-peer-reviewed material to support pre-existing views.
The paper also identifies what Leonetti dubs "Family Court favourites" – a small number of obscure authors and articles cited disproportionately by court professionals, regardless of their academic significance.
"The Court's reliance on a small, fringe collection of writings from conferences, trainings, and legal journals rather than peer-reviewed science publications is dangerous and unjust."
She also highlights the high cost of accessing peer-reviewed scientific publications and the rise of "predatory" academic journals.
"Since the 2000s, thousands of online journals with little to no peer review have emerged, making it difficult for non-experts to identify scientifically valid research."
This erosion of the meaning of academic publication, says Leonetti, has made it harder for non-experts, such as judges, lawyers, and court psychologists, to 'separate the wheat from the chaff when deciding which literature warrants consideration and which is the functional equivalent of self-publication.
"These courts are essentially making life-changing decisions about children's futures based on what amounts to professional folklore rather than scientific evidence."
The study recommends broad reform, including forensic training for clinical psychologists, enhanced mechanisms for accessing rigorous, peer-reviewed research and comprehensive training for court personnel in understanding peer-reviewed research.
"For a start, court psychologists should have forensic training. Much of the 'research' they reference isn't drawn from academic journals or subjected to rigorous peer review. It's often recycled evidence that's been put forward by paid expert witnesses abroad, particularly in the US where poorly regulated expert evidence is highly monetised.'
"Then there's the issue of judges accepting this in court, not questioning the author, the name of the journal, whether it's peer-reviewed... simply not looking into things further."
Judges shouldn't allow psychologists (or lawyers for the child or themselves) to make blanket statements relating to "the literature" or "research" or "studies showing", says Leonetti.
"Any psychologist or other expert who cannot describe in detail, provide copies of, and explain the application of academic research on which their opinions are based lacks the qualification to offer expert forensic evidence."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Strong evidence to act': Calls grow for social media age limit
'Strong evidence to act': Calls grow for social media age limit

Otago Daily Times

timean hour ago

  • Otago Daily Times

'Strong evidence to act': Calls grow for social media age limit

File photo: Getty Images A University of Auckland senior research fellow is calling for social media platforms to introduce enforced age limits, to help protect young people from harm. A briefing from the Public Health Communication Centre has outlined growing evidence social media use is linked to a range of mental and physical health problems. It highlights policy options for addressing these harms, including restricting access to social media for those under 16. Currently, the age limit to join the majority of platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat is 13, but it is not enforced. "Introducing an age restriction is the only comprehensive measure that addresses the full range of social media-related harms to young people," said author Dr Samantha Marsh. "It also empowers parents to set boundaries and shift social norms in a positive direction." Marsh said while social media may offer some benefits for some young people, such as helping connect with peers and find support, she warned these must be weighed carefully against mounting evidence of harm. "There's a huge imbalance. The weight of evidence showing that these platforms can negatively affect youth mental health has become too great to ignore," she said. "We now have years of consistent findings: young people who spend more time on social media are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and disrupted sleep. "These findings come not only from surveys, but also from longitudinal studies, randomised trials, and robust systematic reviews." Marsh said any changes to social media access should be accompanied by a coordinated effort to provide on and offline support for vulnerable youth, as well as empowering communication campaigns. The briefing's release coincides with the government's inquiry into online harms experienced by young people, which is currently open for public consultation, with submissions closing on 30 July. Marsh said the inquiry was a vital opportunity to build healthier digital environments. "Political decision-makers now have a strong enough evidence base to act. Delaying access to social media and supporting youth and whānau through a coordinated public health response is the path forward."

Waikato med school business case beats Auckland and Otago
Waikato med school business case beats Auckland and Otago

NZ Herald

timean hour ago

  • NZ Herald

Waikato med school business case beats Auckland and Otago

Option 2 was a specialist medical training programme focused on rural health run by those two universities and was estimated to cost $10.2b, while option 3, the new medical school at Waikato, was estimated to cost $9.1b, making it the cheapest overall – although the University of Auckland has criticised the assumptions behind this costing. Director-General of Health Dr Diana Sarfati and University of Waikato vice-chancellor Professor Neil Quigley, watched by Health Minister at the time, Shane Reti, and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, signing the Memorandum of Understanding for a third medical school in 2024. Photo / Mark Mitchell The Waikato medical school was also estimated to deliver greater benefits, leading to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.99, meaning each dollar spent on the school produced $1.99 in benefit. Option 1 and 2 had a ratio of 1.5 and 1.8 – placing them only narrowly behind Waikato. Health Minister Simeon Brown told the Herald the school was a 'game-changer for the long-term growth of our medical workforce in New Zealand'. 'Cabinet agreed to this proposal following the Ministry of Health undertaking a business case and a cost-benefit analysis which demonstrated this proposal would be the most effective at building this critical health workforce for New Zealand,' he said. The University of Auckland's Dean of Medical and Health Sciences Professor Warwick Bagg told the Herald he was 'deeply concerned' by the business case, which seemed to have a predetermined outcome: to favour the Waikato medical school the National Party took to the last election. He said the assumptions of the report were flawed. The capital cost for the new school at Waikato of $232 million was far greater than the other two options, which had costs of $49m and $81.5m respectively. The ongoing operational costs racked up over the years 2026 to 2042 were higher for the first two options, at $513.6m and $508m compared with $361.6m at Waikato. Bagg said this modelling made unfair and inaccurate assumptions about the existing two medical schools that put them at a disadvantage. For example, the business case said that it is 'more certain that Option 3, the Waikato school, has a lower operating cost … simply due to it being a shorter programme'. While it is correct that the Waikato Medical School is a shorter programme, tailored to just graduates, the students admitted the school will still have to offer an undergraduate programme somewhere, probably in New Zealand, which the Government will have to subsidise. Bagg said the cost of turning Waikato's students into graduates who can be admitted into the school isn't reflected in the business case. Lifting those costs out of the business case made Waikato look better overall. 'They are focused on the four-year graduate programme … they haven't focused on the three years that they'll have to do to get into that medical school,' he said. He said another way the high capital costs for Waikato have been 'offset' is the business case has found 'more benefits for the Waikato medical school'. The business case is particularly reliant on the assumption that far more Waikato graduates will go on to be GPs – and GPs who work rurally – than graduates of other schools. The business case found increasing capacity at the existing medical schools would result in just 23% of those graduates staying on to become GPs, while the joint rural training programme would result in 33% of its graduates becoming GPs. In the Waikato medical school's case, 38% of its graduates would become GPs. The business case notes that having a higher number of GPs in the community increases people's health. The fact the Waikato school provides the greatest number of GPs therefore weighs heavily in its favour. Benefits and costs of the three options analysed. Table / Ministry of Health Bagg said Sapere, who provided cost-benefit analysis for the business case, 'haven't used the data we provided them' to calculate the GP figure for the option of increasing capacity at Auckland And Otago. He said 'about 35%' of graduates from Auckland and Otago medical schools are working as GPs eight years after graduating – a far higher figure than the 23% quoted in the business case. He said this lower figure came from a survey of graduates' intentions when they graduated, not what they actually ended up doing. 'We told Sapere this assumption was incorrect,' he said. The assumptions for the number of GPs graduating from Waikato were based on figures from Australia's University of Wollongong Graduate School of Medicine, which will be a model for the Waikato school. Brown defended the modelling behind the business case. He said the school will 'offer a post-graduate medical qualification based on similar successful programmes in Australia'. 'These programmes include a year-long primary care placement and encourage students to work in primary care settings following graduation. The selection criteria of students alongside their long-term placements in primary care will both support a higher degree of these medical students to work in primary care after graduation,' he said. No expectation of ratepayer funding for med school – Brown Brown poured cold water on concerns councils could be asked to stump up for the new school. Brown's Cabinet paper suggested territorial authorities – local councils – are being lined up for a contribution to the school. A paragraph from the Cabinet paper progressing the school, which will be joint-funded by the Crown, the university and philanthropists, noted, '[t]he University of Waikato has identified $151.859 million which they will ... contribute towards the new medical school costs'. 'This contribution shows significant support for a new medical school from a range of stakeholders from private trusts and foundations, individuals, and territorial authorities'. But Brown told the Herald, 'as Minister of Health, I have no expectation that councils will financially contribute to the new Waikato Medical School'. University of Waikato vice-chancellor Neil Quigley told the Herald earlier this week about half of the university's $150m share of the school could come from donations. 'At the moment, we're well on the way to the 50% of donations just with a relatively small number of large trusts and very wealthy individuals so we don't see that as particularly challenging,' he said. Brown defends information release Labour's health spokeswoman Ayesha Verrall called for the business case to be published on Monday to show the assumptions underlying Cabinet's decision to proceed with the school. 'Treasury has raised concerns about this project. Decisions about the future of NZ's medical workforce are critical and must be transparent. The Government needs to release the costings quickly,' Verrall said. The business case was published by the Ministry of Health about 6pm on Friday, a time often associated with the Government trying to bury information because people are enjoying their weekend. Brown defended the timing of the release, saying: 'Cabinet made the decision to progress with the third medical school on Monday with officials tasked with preparing material for proactive release following this decision. 'Normally Cabinet decisions and supporting information are required to be proactively released 30 days following a decision, however due to the significant interest in this decision, this was sped up to ensure the information could be made available as quickly as possible.'

Social media age restriction needed to protect young people from harm
Social media age restriction needed to protect young people from harm

RNZ News

timean hour ago

  • RNZ News

Social media age restriction needed to protect young people from harm

ABC social media graphic. Photo: Supplied/ABC A University of Auckland senior research fellow is calling for social media platforms to introduce enforced age limits, to help protect young people from harm. A briefing from the Public Health Communication Centre has outlined growing evidence social media use is linked to a range of mental and physical health problems. It highlights policy options for addressing these harms, including restricting access to social media for those under 16. Currently, the age limit to join the majority of platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat is 13, but it is not enforced. "Introducing an age restriction is the only comprehensive measure that addresses the full range of social media-related harms to young people," said author Dr Samantha Marsh. "It also empowers parents to set boundaries and shift social norms in a positive direction." Marsh said while social media may offer some benefits for some young people, such as helping connect with peers and find support, she warned these must be weighed carefully against mounting evidence of harm. "There's a huge imbalance. The weight of evidence showing that these platforms can negatively affect youth mental health has become too great to ignore," she said. "We now have years of consistent findings: young people who spend more time on social media are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and disrupted sleep. "These findings come not only from surveys, but also from longitudinal studies, randomised trials, and robust systematic reviews." Marsh said any changes to social media access should be accompanied by a coordinated effort to provide on and offline support for vulnerable youth, as well as empowering communication campaigns. The briefing's release coincides with the government's inquiry into online harms experienced by young people, which is currently open for public consultation, with submissions closing on 30 July . Marsh said the inquiry was a vital opportunity to build healthier digital environments. "Political decision-makers now have a strong enough evidence base to act. Delaying access to social media and supporting youth and whānau through a coordinated public health response is the path forward."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store