This ethnographic study examines how Chilean family courts adjudicate domestic violence (DV) cases, highlighting a paradoxical shift away from their intended flexibility towards rigid bureaucratic procedure by examining the undue influence of psychological reports, which are expensive and difficult-to-obtain documents, on case outcomes. This research explores the role of these reports as 'legal technicalities', serving as both products and catalysts of specific social relations and tensions, and reveals an earnest yet unsuccessful effort to establish judicial authority amid poorly conceived DV reform. The article contributes to an empirical, bottom-up analysis of authority construction techniques used in recent widespread judicial reforms in Chile, providing fresh insights into the complexities of institutional changes within these contexts.