By Judi Atwood
In the intricate landscape of Boulder County Family Courts and law enforcement agencies like the Longmont Police Department, a systemic issue has emerged—confirmation bias. This bias, fueled by societal expectations and gender roles, appears to disproportionately favor affluent men, allowing them to manipulate judicial officers and psychologists to evade accountability for child abuse.
As we delve into the psychology of gender identity and the theory of precarious manhood, it becomes apparent that the dynamics at play are deeply rooted in the complex interplay of masculinity, status, and societal expectations. The theory of precarious manhood posits that masculinity is intricately tied to status-related concerns. Unlike femininity, which is often considered stable and tied to physical maturity, masculinity is seen as a form of status awarded through the achievement of culturally defined 
standards of manhood.
These standards are demanding, and the status of men is deemed precarious—it can be lost when one fails to measure up. When faced with a threat to their gender identity, men are believed to take public action to restore perceptions of control and competence, adhering to the hallmarks of hegemonic masculinity. Men’s vigilant pursuit of opportunities to advance their status is a key aspect highlighted in this context. The desire to restore one’s public image as a man when threatened, known as gender threat, is thought to necessitate actions that demonstrate control or competence. This drive for status becomes especially pronounced when it comes to men valuing wealth and power more than women, as wealth and power are often associated with masculinity.
The field of science, along with a study conducted by the University of Virginia on “Implicit pro-rich bias is shaped by the perceived gender and socioeconomic status,” illuminates the implicit pro-rich bias influenced by gender, income, and education. Men, especially those with higher incomes, demonstrate a heightened pro-wealth bias, aligning with prior research that suggests a preference for high-status groups among individuals who identify themselves as members of such groups. Conversely, individuals with in-congruent status, like high-income women and low-income men, exhibit a more subdued pro-rich bias, potentially stemming from ambivalent feelings toward wealth.
In the context of family courts and law enforcement, this bias takes a concerning turn. Affluent men, driven by the societal pressure to maintain their precarious status, may exploit confirmation bias to evade punishment for child abuse. The system, inadvertently or not, appears to be susceptible to these dynamics, leading to an imbalance in the pursuit of justice.
The implications of confirmation bias within these institutions are far-reaching, potentially perpetuating a cycle where the wealthy and influential evade consequences while the marginalized face undue scrutiny. Addressing this issue requires a comprehensive reevaluation of how gender dynamics and societal expectations influence decision-making within family courts and law enforcement agencies.
I am penning this opinion piece on behalf of my 15-year-old daughter, who has endured abuse since the tender age of 4. Recognizing that I am a woman, I am cognizant that my perspective may face skepticism from those associated with Boulder County. Additionally, my indigent status stems from my efforts to shield my daughter from her affluent father, who, ironically, amassed part of his wealth through my contributions during our marriage. Throughout our union, he benefited from my support as I managed our home while he garnered social security, stock-based sales commissions, and inheritances from family members I cared for.
Despite his claim of possessing $3 million in assets and a monthly income of $20,000, the court granted me a settlement of $140,000 and a monthly allowance of $1,200. In 2015, exploiting the loopholes within the family court system, he evaded consequences, subjecting my family to further economic abuse and perpetuating the ongoing mistreatment of our daughter. The systemic failures allowed him to continue his abuse with impunity, leaving my daughter devoid of her voice and purpose, mirroring the struggles I endured for over a decade.
The family court system, intended to be a protector of the marginalized, has unfortunately evolved into a mechanism perpetuating injustice, subjecting us to economic challenges and enduring abuse. In Boulder County, the prevailing confirmation bias unapologetically favors the affluent, resulting in severe consequences. Two young girls were forcibly separated from their mother and placed in an abusive environment, overlooked by individuals motivated by a hunger for campaign contributions and reliant on public elections to maintain their positions of power.
This systemic issue extends beyond legal matters; it operates on wealth rather than scientific principles, underscoring the prevalence of implicit bias favoring the rich. The family court industry, instead of fulfilling its role in safeguarding the marginalized, has become an instrument of further injustice, forcing us to confront economic hardships and ongoing abuse.
The repercussions of confirmation bias in Boulder County are glaring, particularly evident when young girls are forcibly separated from their mothers and placed in abusive environments. This bias persists due to individuals motivated by their quest for campaign contributions and reliance on public elections to maintain their positions of power. The entire system operates on wealth rather than scientific principles, disproportionately favoring men who have undergone significant harm and seek validation against those they perceive as wrongdoers. In numerous instances, the mothers of their children are not the instigators of harm, unless advocating for justice and a fair system is deemed harmful.
The harsh reality is that men, like women, can be ensnared as victims in the clutches of the family court system and law enforcement, manipulated by the pervasive force of confirmation bias. Despite a convergence of both scientific evidence and my own poignant experiences in Boulder County, the disheartening truth remains—Judge Thomas Mulvahill, in his rulings, not only disregards data, science, and psychology but starkly showcases a confirmation bias against marginalized mothers tirelessly battling to shield their children. His dismissive stance perpetuates an alarming injustice, underscoring a dire need for systemic change and accountability in the pursuit of justice within our legal framework.
Judi Atwood – Activist/Public Policy Advocate/Civil Engagement Promoter
