Gender bias in child custody judgments: Evidence from Chinese family court

Based on a quantitative analysis of a novel dataset comprising 10,093 publicly available judgments of adjudicated child custody disputes from the China Judgments Online website, this article identifies potential gender bias in Chinese family courts under certain conditions. Key findings include: 1....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2024-07, Vol.19 (7), p.e0305479
Hauptverfasser: Zhang, Xin, Chen, Shi, Wang, Mengyuan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 7
container_start_page e0305479
container_title PloS one
container_volume 19
creator Zhang, Xin
Chen, Shi
Wang, Mengyuan
description Based on a quantitative analysis of a novel dataset comprising 10,093 publicly available judgments of adjudicated child custody disputes from the China Judgments Online website, this article identifies potential gender bias in Chinese family courts under certain conditions. Key findings include: 1. Mothers are generally more proactive in seeking custody and are awarded custody in the majority of cases compared to fathers. 2. Specifically, mothers have a significant advantage in cases involving daughters, while their advantage in cases involving sons is less pronounced. 3. In rural courts, the results are notably different: mothers are disadvantaged overall, fathers are particularly assertive in seeking custody of sons compared to daughters, and mothers are less likely than fathers to be awarded custody of sons. Building on existing literature, this study highlights potential judicial biases rooted in societal gender norms prevalent in rural areas. This raises questions about whether courts have achieved substantive gender equality and whether the legal principle of 'the best interests of the child' is consistently upheld in every court decision. This study enhances the understanding of gender bias within China's family court system by providing valuable insights for those interested in addressing gender inequality. It not only highlights specific challenges women face in custody cases but also calls for broader societal and policy changes to support women and combat gender discrimination in all its forms.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0305479
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_3082558048</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A801798163</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_5cf7bfdf7989405682d4bcecfa6dc571</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A801798163</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c572t-f30b284c7ffb5623b12e85ea9f287e8afb921242cd56b62e7171608affe1c1e43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1v0zAUhiMEYmPwDxBEQkJw0eKP2HG4QVM1RtGkSXzdWo593LpK4s5OJvrvcWk2NWgXyBdxTp7zno-8WfYSozmmJf6w8UPoVDPf-g7miCJWlNWj7BRXlMw4QfTx0f0kexbjBiFGBedPsxNaIVIQwU-zr5fQGQh57VTMXZfrtWtMrofYe7PLN4NZtdD18WN-cesMdBpyG3ybL9aug5heVOuaXa5TL_3z7IlVTYQX4_Ms-_n54sfiy-zq-nK5OL-aaVaSfmYpqokodGltzTihNSYgGKjKElGCULauCE7dacN4zQmUuMQcpbgFrDEU9Cx7fdDdNj7KcQ1RUiQIYwIVIhHLA2G82shtcK0KO-mVk38DPqykCr3TDUimbVlbY8tKVAViXBBT1Bq0VdykfnHS-jRWG-oWjE7bCKqZiE6_dG4tV_5WYkzSvIInhXejQvA3A8Reti5qaBrVgR8OjXPCMKMJffMP-vB4I7VSaQLXWZ8K672oPBcIp1Ew32vNH6DSMdA6nUxjXYpPEt5PEhLTw-9-pYYY5fL7t_9nr39N2bdH7BpU06-jb4be-S5OweIA6uBjDGDvt4yR3Hv-bhty73k5ej6lvTr-Q_dJdyanfwD23Ptw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3082558048</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gender bias in child custody judgments: Evidence from Chinese family court</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Zhang, Xin ; Chen, Shi ; Wang, Mengyuan</creator><contributor>Fiumara, Giacomo</contributor><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Xin ; Chen, Shi ; Wang, Mengyuan ; Fiumara, Giacomo</creatorcontrib><description>Based on a quantitative analysis of a novel dataset comprising 10,093 publicly available judgments of adjudicated child custody disputes from the China Judgments Online website, this article identifies potential gender bias in Chinese family courts under certain conditions. Key findings include: 1. Mothers are generally more proactive in seeking custody and are awarded custody in the majority of cases compared to fathers. 2. Specifically, mothers have a significant advantage in cases involving daughters, while their advantage in cases involving sons is less pronounced. 3. In rural courts, the results are notably different: mothers are disadvantaged overall, fathers are particularly assertive in seeking custody of sons compared to daughters, and mothers are less likely than fathers to be awarded custody of sons. Building on existing literature, this study highlights potential judicial biases rooted in societal gender norms prevalent in rural areas. This raises questions about whether courts have achieved substantive gender equality and whether the legal principle of 'the best interests of the child' is consistently upheld in every court decision. This study enhances the understanding of gender bias within China's family court system by providing valuable insights for those interested in addressing gender inequality. It not only highlights specific challenges women face in custody cases but also calls for broader societal and policy changes to support women and combat gender discrimination in all its forms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305479</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39024286</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Child ; Child custody ; Child Custody - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; China ; Communism ; Court decisions ; Courts ; Culture ; Custody of children ; Discrimination ; Divorce ; East Asian People ; Equal rights ; Equality ; Families &amp; family life ; Family ; Family law ; Fathers ; Female ; Gender ; Gender differences ; Gender equality ; Gender equity ; Human bias ; Humans ; Judges &amp; magistrates ; Judgment ; Judgments ; Judicial opinions ; Male ; Mediation ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Mothers ; Parents &amp; parenting ; People and Places ; Qualitative research ; Roles ; Rural areas ; Rural Population ; Sex discrimination ; Sexism ; Sexism - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Social aspects ; Social Sciences ; Women</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2024-07, Vol.19 (7), p.e0305479</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2024 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2024 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2024 Zhang et al 2024 Zhang et al</rights><rights>2024 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c572t-f30b284c7ffb5623b12e85ea9f287e8afb921242cd56b62e7171608affe1c1e43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6739-1881</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11257286/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11257286/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,2915,23847,27905,27906,53772,53774,79349,79350</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39024286$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Fiumara, Giacomo</contributor><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Shi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Mengyuan</creatorcontrib><title>Gender bias in child custody judgments: Evidence from Chinese family court</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Based on a quantitative analysis of a novel dataset comprising 10,093 publicly available judgments of adjudicated child custody disputes from the China Judgments Online website, this article identifies potential gender bias in Chinese family courts under certain conditions. Key findings include: 1. Mothers are generally more proactive in seeking custody and are awarded custody in the majority of cases compared to fathers. 2. Specifically, mothers have a significant advantage in cases involving daughters, while their advantage in cases involving sons is less pronounced. 3. In rural courts, the results are notably different: mothers are disadvantaged overall, fathers are particularly assertive in seeking custody of sons compared to daughters, and mothers are less likely than fathers to be awarded custody of sons. Building on existing literature, this study highlights potential judicial biases rooted in societal gender norms prevalent in rural areas. This raises questions about whether courts have achieved substantive gender equality and whether the legal principle of 'the best interests of the child' is consistently upheld in every court decision. This study enhances the understanding of gender bias within China's family court system by providing valuable insights for those interested in addressing gender inequality. It not only highlights specific challenges women face in custody cases but also calls for broader societal and policy changes to support women and combat gender discrimination in all its forms.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child custody</subject><subject>Child Custody - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>China</subject><subject>Communism</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Custody of children</subject><subject>Discrimination</subject><subject>Divorce</subject><subject>East Asian People</subject><subject>Equal rights</subject><subject>Equality</subject><subject>Families &amp; family life</subject><subject>Family</subject><subject>Family law</subject><subject>Fathers</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Gender differences</subject><subject>Gender equality</subject><subject>Gender equity</subject><subject>Human bias</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judges &amp; magistrates</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Judgments</subject><subject>Judicial opinions</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mediation</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Mothers</subject><subject>Parents &amp; parenting</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Roles</subject><subject>Rural areas</subject><subject>Rural Population</subject><subject>Sex discrimination</subject><subject>Sexism</subject><subject>Sexism - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1v0zAUhiMEYmPwDxBEQkJw0eKP2HG4QVM1RtGkSXzdWo593LpK4s5OJvrvcWk2NWgXyBdxTp7zno-8WfYSozmmJf6w8UPoVDPf-g7miCJWlNWj7BRXlMw4QfTx0f0kexbjBiFGBedPsxNaIVIQwU-zr5fQGQh57VTMXZfrtWtMrofYe7PLN4NZtdD18WN-cesMdBpyG3ybL9aug5heVOuaXa5TL_3z7IlVTYQX4_Ms-_n54sfiy-zq-nK5OL-aaVaSfmYpqokodGltzTihNSYgGKjKElGCULauCE7dacN4zQmUuMQcpbgFrDEU9Cx7fdDdNj7KcQ1RUiQIYwIVIhHLA2G82shtcK0KO-mVk38DPqykCr3TDUimbVlbY8tKVAViXBBT1Bq0VdykfnHS-jRWG-oWjE7bCKqZiE6_dG4tV_5WYkzSvIInhXejQvA3A8Reti5qaBrVgR8OjXPCMKMJffMP-vB4I7VSaQLXWZ8K672oPBcIp1Ew32vNH6DSMdA6nUxjXYpPEt5PEhLTw-9-pYYY5fL7t_9nr39N2bdH7BpU06-jb4be-S5OweIA6uBjDGDvt4yR3Hv-bhty73k5ej6lvTr-Q_dJdyanfwD23Ptw</recordid><startdate>20240718</startdate><enddate>20240718</enddate><creator>Zhang, Xin</creator><creator>Chen, Shi</creator><creator>Wang, Mengyuan</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6739-1881</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240718</creationdate><title>Gender bias in child custody judgments: Evidence from Chinese family court</title><author>Zhang, Xin ; Chen, Shi ; Wang, Mengyuan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c572t-f30b284c7ffb5623b12e85ea9f287e8afb921242cd56b62e7171608affe1c1e43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child custody</topic><topic>Child Custody - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>China</topic><topic>Communism</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Custody of children</topic><topic>Discrimination</topic><topic>Divorce</topic><topic>East Asian People</topic><topic>Equal rights</topic><topic>Equality</topic><topic>Families &amp; family life</topic><topic>Family</topic><topic>Family law</topic><topic>Fathers</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Gender differences</topic><topic>Gender equality</topic><topic>Gender equity</topic><topic>Human bias</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judges &amp; magistrates</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Judgments</topic><topic>Judicial opinions</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mediation</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Mothers</topic><topic>Parents &amp; parenting</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Roles</topic><topic>Rural areas</topic><topic>Rural Population</topic><topic>Sex discrimination</topic><topic>Sexism</topic><topic>Sexism - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Shi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Mengyuan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhang, Xin</au><au>Chen, Shi</au><au>Wang, Mengyuan</au><au>Fiumara, Giacomo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gender bias in child custody judgments: Evidence from Chinese family court</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2024-07-18</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0305479</spage><pages>e0305479-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Based on a quantitative analysis of a novel dataset comprising 10,093 publicly available judgments of adjudicated child custody disputes from the China Judgments Online website, this article identifies potential gender bias in Chinese family courts under certain conditions. Key findings include: 1. Mothers are generally more proactive in seeking custody and are awarded custody in the majority of cases compared to fathers. 2. Specifically, mothers have a significant advantage in cases involving daughters, while their advantage in cases involving sons is less pronounced. 3. In rural courts, the results are notably different: mothers are disadvantaged overall, fathers are particularly assertive in seeking custody of sons compared to daughters, and mothers are less likely than fathers to be awarded custody of sons. Building on existing literature, this study highlights potential judicial biases rooted in societal gender norms prevalent in rural areas. This raises questions about whether courts have achieved substantive gender equality and whether the legal principle of 'the best interests of the child' is consistently upheld in every court decision. This study enhances the understanding of gender bias within China's family court system by providing valuable insights for those interested in addressing gender inequality. It not only highlights specific challenges women face in custody cases but also calls for broader societal and policy changes to support women and combat gender discrimination in all its forms.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>39024286</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0305479</doi><tpages>e0305479</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6739-1881</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2024-07, Vol.19 (7), p.e0305479
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_3082558048
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Adult
Biology and Life Sciences
Child
Child custody
Child Custody - legislation & jurisprudence
China
Communism
Court decisions
Courts
Culture
Custody of children
Discrimination
Divorce
East Asian People
Equal rights
Equality
Families & family life
Family
Family law
Fathers
Female
Gender
Gender differences
Gender equality
Gender equity
Human bias
Humans
Judges & magistrates
Judgment
Judgments
Judicial opinions
Male
Mediation
Medicine and Health Sciences
Mothers
Parents & parenting
People and Places
Qualitative research
Roles
Rural areas
Rural Population
Sex discrimination
Sexism
Sexism - legislation & jurisprudence
Social aspects
Social Sciences
Women
title Gender bias in child custody judgments: Evidence from Chinese family court
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T04%3A41%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gender%20bias%20in%20child%20custody%20judgments:%20Evidence%20from%20Chinese%20family%20court&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Zhang,%20Xin&rft.date=2024-07-18&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0305479&rft.pages=e0305479-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0305479&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA801798163%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3082558048&rft_id=info:pmid/39024286&rft_galeid=A801798163&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_5cf7bfdf7989405682d4bcecfa6dc571&rfr_iscdi=true