Judges Behind Closed Doors: The Danger of Secret Custody Rulings

In a democracy, the judicial system is meant to operate in the light. Courtrooms are open to the public. Judges issue rulings with written opinions. And litigants are entitled to understand how and why decisions about their lives are made. But in family court, that transparency often disappears behind closed doors. Custody decisions—the most life-altering rulings for a child—are frequently made in private, sealed from scrutiny, and delivered without explanation.

In many jurisdictions, judges hold “in chambers” meetings where major custody arrangements are discussed outside the public eye. These meetings may include attorneys, court-appointed professionals, or amicus attorneys—but often, the parents themselves are not present. Decisions are handed down based on summaries, impressions, or private reports. The official record may offer only the outcome—who gets primary custody, who gets supervised visits—without any documentation of the reasoning behind it.

This lack of transparency makes it nearly impossible to challenge unjust decisions. Appeals are limited when there’s no written opinion. Patterns of bias go unnoticed because rulings are not reviewed. And parents are left in the dark, trying to explain to their children why a judge decided something that no one understands.

The damage of closed-door rulings goes beyond confusion. It fosters distrust in the legal process and reinforces the sense that outcomes depend more on personalities and politics than on facts or justice. In cases involving abuse or high-conflict dynamics, protective parents may feel gaslighted not just by their ex—but by the system itself. When expert recommendations are ignored, or when courts rule against the weight of evidence with no explanation, it sends a message: truth is optional here.

And yet, it continues.

Part of the problem lies in how overwhelmed the courts are. Judges are managing massive caseloads. Written opinions take time. In an effort to streamline decisions, they default to informal rulings or rubber-stamp recommendations from court-appointed professionals—regardless of whether those professionals actually interviewed the children or understood the family dynamics. Expedience replaces accountability.

But children’s lives aren’t paperwork. The stakes are too high for decisions to be made without transparency. When courts don’t explain themselves, they are free to repeat mistakes—without ever being held to account.

Reform begins with shining a light on the process. Custody decisions should come with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Court-appointed professionals should be required to submit complete, reviewable reports. Litigants should have access to all documents used to shape their case. And appeals should be meaningful, not procedural dead ends.

Children deserve a system where life-changing decisions are made openly and thoughtfully—not in secrecy. Because justice behind closed doors isn’t justice at all.