Judge Jill Moss

• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Author: Jillian Frances Moss
• Date: 01 October 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12610

JUDGE JILL MOSS

Jillian Frances Moss

Brief commentary on practical use of social science research in judicial practice.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Application of Social Science research requires comprehensible educative description by assessing clinicians, with under-

standing that Judges are not trained in research method. A Judges role is evaluative,. A clinicians report which acknowledges

this, and provides and weighs research which expands understanding of options available to Judges is most useful.

1. How often and in what context do you use social science evidence?

Applying principles in my work requires fluent knowledge of trends in social science research.

Applying conclusions in research, where there are necessarily statistical limitations, requires con-

sideration of individual facts, the impact of these on the propositions tested in research, and

some value judgment.

In answering the question of how often, I can say, in general terms, all day every day. And in

answering the question at a finer grained detail, I would say, I use social science evidence when-

ever an assessing psychologist relies on social science research.

2. How can mental health professionals present information about the methodology or reliabil-

ity of information so that it will be most useful to you?

We tend not to have training in statistics, methodology or the philosophical approach to

design of research. We rely on mental health professionals to translate these things for us. And

therefore we rely on MH professionals to be well trained and well supervised to identify issues

with research, and issues with their own biases. We also need clear concise communication –see

below for additional comments.

3. What do you think is the most effective way for judges to receive social science information,

either in the court process or in training or other resources? Do you have preferences as to

format (e.g. oral, written, executive summary, bullet points, etc.)? Is this also dependent on

context?

Context is the driver here. If the question at issue is a quick question, without much

controversy, or conflicts exist among researchers, then bullet point summary as “aide memoire”

is very helpful. If the issue is fully litigated, then a brief of evidence needs to describe more fully

the choice of research study, the way it is used, why the assessor prefers it, and so on.

4. What concerns do you have about the relevance of social science evidence in the cases you hear?

I am concerned about the adequacy of my own training to identify shonky research, or biases

within results, and my incapacity, because of time, to ensure that the underpinning assumptions

within reported research are socially and culturally adjusted for our community.

5. What do you wish social scientists knew about judging parenting cases that might influence

the content and/or presentation of their evidence?

The Court’s task is evaluative. I need to choose among options. Reasoned evaluations which

consider options available to the Court match my required structure of thinking. And, we are

Corresponding: judge.moss@justice.govt.nz

Search terms: Communicating social science for judge’understanding.

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 59 No. 4, October 2021 765–766, doi: 10.1111/fcre.12610

© 2021 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.