In Texas, the law explicitly states that there is no presumption favoring either parent based on gender when determining the primary conservator of a child.
According to Section 153.003 of the Texas Family Code, the Court is mandated to evaluate the qualifications of each party without regard to their sex or marital status. This statute ensures that decisions regarding the appointment of a sole or joint managing conservator, as well as the terms of conservatorship and access to the child, are made based on the best interests of the child rather than outdated gender norms.
In In re Interest of D.A.A.-B., 657 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. App. 2022), the Texas Court of Appeals emphasized the necessity of interpreting the Texas Family Code in a gender-neutral manner, particularly in the context of same-sex marriages. The court held that non-biological spouses in same-sex marriages have standing to file a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR), underscoring the constitutional requirement to treat same-sex couples equally in parentage determinations. This case highlights the application of gender-neutral interpretations in custody decisions, ensuring that gender roles do not unfairly influence legal outcomes.
Similarly, in Marquez v. Cantu (Tex. App. 2018), the Texas Court of Appeals addressed allegations of gender discrimination in a custody decision. The court affirmed that the decision was based on the primary caregiver status rather than gender, in accordance with Section 153.003 of the Texas Family Code, which mandates that custody decisions be made without regard to the sex of the parties. The court reiterated that the best interest of the child is the primary consideration, as outlined in Section 153.002 of the Texas Family Code.
Despite this clear legal directive and supporting case law, the potential for unconscious gender bias remains a concern in family law proceedings. Judges – like all individuals – may carry implicit biases that influence their decision-making, even if they are not consciously aware of them. This can sometimes result in decisions that inadvertently favor one parent over the other based on traditional gender roles, rather than an objective assessment of each parent’s capabilities and the child’s needs.
To mitigate the impact of such biases, it is considered good practice for attorneys to mention that gender roles should not apply and that the Court specifically consider the best interest of the child and not fall back on traditional gender roles. Once this is pointed out – often in opening and closing arguments – then it is less likely that any unconscious bias will play a factor in the Court’s decision.
Recent Comments