The future of parenting plan evaluations: A view from the trenches

As expectations rise for parenting plan evaluators to be well-trained, skilled, and knowledgeable in numerous subject areas, and scrutiny of evaluators' work intensifies, the pool of qualified evaluators is shrinking nationwide. The future of parenting plan evaluation as a forensic subspecialty relies upon the availability of competent and committed professionals to do this challenging work, yet few are entering the field. Five experienced parenting plan evaluators from various regions of the United States, including the authors, met for a roundtable discussion to ponder the future of parenting plan evaluations. The panel discussed what drew them to the work, their experiences “in the trenches,” and what has kept them committed to doing evaluations despite daunting challenges. Their views of the rewards and risks of doing the work, barriers and disincentives to newcomers entering the field, recommendations to new evaluators, and outlook for the future are presented.     

To recommend or not recommend: That is still the question

The boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision-making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio-moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case-resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy.     

ATTORNEYS' BELIEFS AND OPINIONS ABOUT CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

We surveyed a national sample of family law attorneys (N = 192) regarding their beliefs and opinions about child custody evaluations, particularly those performed by independent/private practitioners. Findings revealed participants' strongly preferred court‐ordered evaluations performed by doctoral‐level psychologists who assumed a neutral position. The participants expressed concern regarding procedures used by evaluators, the application of evaluation data to the Best Interests of the Child Standard, and certain report components. A clear majority supported evaluators making recommendations about custody and parenting time, but their satisfaction with these evaluations varied widely. Specific concerns and suggestions noted by the participants are highlighted; we conclude with recommendations.     

Hybrid processes within parenting plan assessments: Rationale and an illustrative model

Parenting plan Assessments, also known as child custody evaluations, are forensic psychological investigations into the needs of children, the parenting capacities of their caregivers, and the resulting fit between the children's needs and caregiver capacities. Typically, they result in recommendations that are, in the opinion of the assessor, formulated to meet the best interests of children regarding a parenting plan, child sharing, parental responsibilities and ancillary services that are likely to support the children's optimal functioning as well as the functioning of the now reconfigured family. Such assessments are part of a pathway to untangling conflicts between the parents regarding the most appropriate parenting plan for the reconfigured family. Paradoxically, the assessment process can exacerbate the conflict, entrench parental polarization, and create lingering feelings of helplessness, frustration, and disempowerment in the parents. This article provides a rationale for the use of a hybrid process that incorporates alternative dispute resolution as an integrated part of the parenting plan assessment and provides an illustrative model of such a hybrid process.     

RESPONDING TO THE CALL FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS TO JUSTIFY THE REASON FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL EXISTENCE: SOME THOUGHTS ON KELLY AND RAMSEY (2009)

Kelly and Ramsey (2009 ) propose that it is time to examine the costs and benefits courts and participants derive from child custody evaluations. A structure for a research program was suggested. This article endorses this call for such an examination on the system that provides for forensic mental health evaluations for custody disputes. There is a need to examine the costs and benefits of various types of approaches that are emerging, including the comprehensive evaluation and brief, focused evaluations. This article suggests that there is a need for forensic quality control of the work product that is produced by evaluators. Courts are cognizant of the need to encourage settlement between parties, but they also need to be accurate in making judicial determinations that will be in the best interests of children. Quality evaluations are a cornerstone in working toward this goal. Kelly and Ramsey are mindful of the need for evaluations to facilitate settlement, but also to get it right for the court on accurate predictions about children's developmental outcomes.     

RELOCATION,RESEARCH, AND FORENSIC EVALUATION,PART I: EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY ON CHILDREN OF DIVORCE1

The issue of relocation presents courts and child custody evaluators with dilemmas on the issue of allowing a child to move with a parent to a new community and how to craft long‐distance parenting plans if relocation is allowed. The issue of the potential effects of residential moves on children of divorce has focused on the importance of the child–nonresidential parent relationship. The research literature on the effects of residential moves, or relocation, on children of divorce has not been fully integrated into the examination of this issue and its relevance for the child custody evaluation. The literature shows residential mobility is a general risk factor for children of divorce and this is a starting point for the custody evaluation, but it is not a basis for bias or a presumption against relocation. Predicting a child's adjustment to relocating or not relocating requires a careful and contextual investigation of the child and family circumstances. The research literature is a helpful frame of reference.     

TIPPINS AND WITTMANN ASKED THE WRONG QUESTION:

Tippins and Wittmann (2005) provide an important analysis of the limitations of child custody evaluations, but they are wrong to propose that court-appointed evaluators should be precluded from making recommendations about best interests decisions. While some of the evidence of evaluators may fail to meet the high standard of reliability expected for "expert evidence," the role of court-appointed evaluators in child-related cases is not the same as the role of party-retained experts in other types of litigation, and the legal basis for their involvement in the family law dispute resolution process is very different. The family courts should not apply the "expert evidence" standard when deciding how to use the evidence of a court-appointed evaluator, but rather should use a more flexible standard that takes account of the family law context. If the Tippins and Wittmann proposal is adopted, it will have negative implications for the resolution of family law cases, including making settlements less common, thereby deleteriously affecting children.     

Practice tips for managing challenges in parenting capacity assessments in child protection court

Courts frequently rely on parenting capacity assessments to make decisions about visitation and case progress in child protection court. Although these evaluations can provide valuable information to courts, they often involve assessing areas of human behavior that are not clearly defined in the literature. For example, mental health professionals are often tasked with identifying risk and protective factors for child maltreatment while identifying factors that can impede progress towards reunification. Although some of these factors may be easy to identify and assess (e.g., symptoms of mental illness or substance abuse), others may be more challenging. For example, factors such as denial and minimization about risk factors and maltreatment, a parent(s)’ ability to protect their child(ren) from future incidents of maltreatment, the parent(s)’ potential for change, and the consideration of what is in the best interest of the child are hard to assess. This article will provide a summary of the research in these areas, provide tips for managing these areas, and highlight directions for future investigation that will help inform parenting capacity assessments in child protection court.     

CRITIQUE OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS BY THE LEGAL PROFESSION

This study explored the congruency between child custody evaluations and the needs of the legal profession. One hundred twenty-one judges and attorneys were surveyed. In general, both groups expressed similar attitudes and beliefs. Findings indicated that court-ordered evaluations were most useful, and objectivity was paramount. Judges and attorneys also expressed a need for improvements in child custody reports, particularly greater child focus, provision of custody and visitation recommendations, discussion of legal criteria, and timely completion of evaluations. It is hoped that the findings will inform professional practice and help evaluators better serve the needs of the family court.     

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SUITABILITY AND LIMITATIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS IN FAMILY COURT

Psychologists are frequently consulted by the courts to provide forensic evaluations in a variety of family court proceedings. As part of their evaluations, psychologists often use psychological tests to assess parents, guardians, and children. These tests can have profound effects on how psychologists arrive at their opinions and are often cited in their reports to the court. However, psychological tests vary substantially in their suitability for these purposes. Most projective tests in particular appear to possess little scientific merit for evaluations within family court proceedings. Despite these serious limitations, expert testimony derived from evaluations using both projective and objective tests is often admitted uncontested. This article reviews the psychometric properties of psychological tests that are widely used in family court proceedings, cautions against their unfettered use, and calls upon attorneys to inform themselves of the limitations of evaluations that incorporate these tests.     

MEDIATIVE EVALUATIONS: THE PROS AND PERILS OF BLENDING ROLES

Child custody evaluators with experience in mediation may be tempted to use mediation skills and strategies in their evaluation processes. This article explores the benefits and risks of blending mediation with evaluation, comparing the perspectives of professionals and clients.     

SETTLEMENT‐FOCUSED PARENTING PLAN CONSULTATIONS: AN EVALUATIVE MEDIATION ALTERNATIVE TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

The divorce mediation field has recently seen the development of several “hybrid” alternative dispute resolution approaches to child custody disputes. The “settlement‐focused parenting plan consultation” (SFPPC) is a form of evaluative mediation, conducted by a “parenting plan consultant” (PPC), who possesses the combined expertise of a mediator and child custody evaluator. This hybrid model is a more expedient and considerably less expensive approach than a child custody evaluation, but preserves the hallmark mediation principle of self‐determination. The article describes the theory underlying the SFPPC, delineates the role requirements, procedures, and techniques of the parenting plan consultant, and addresses legal and ethical issues.     

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION

Tippins and Wittmann provide a cogent argument for custody evaluators not to make recommendations to the court. From their forensic and scientific perspectives, they have identified some important issues, which will certainly stimulate interesting discussion among custody evaluators. In response to their article, it is my view that public sector custody evaluations offer a philosophical and procedural alternative to forensic evaluations. This article proposes that recommendations should be viewed as part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome. Based on a qualitative and interpretive model, recommendations are judged based on their applicability, transferability, and transparency. Recommendations viewed in qualitative terms provide parents with opportunities to step out of litigation and provide guidance for parents' ongoing roles postseparation.     

PARTNERS IN THE PROCESS: HOW ATTORNEYS PREPARE THEIR CLIENTS FOR CUSTODY EVALUATIONS AND LITIGATION

We surveyed 113 family attorneys regarding what they did to prepare their clients for child custody evaluations and litigation. Findings revealed that participants saw child custody evaluations as useful on a variety of levels and effective in settling cases. In general, participants reported using professionally acceptable procedures, appropriately advocated for their clients, and dealt with complaints in a reasonable fashion. Referrals to mental health professionals in advance of a child custody evaluation were generally made to provide support rather than for evaluation or test preparation. Work product reviews by mental health consultants were infrequent, although such reviews were seen as highly useful by those who used them. Lastly, participants reported that allegations of parental alienation and domestic violence were often used to gain leverage in custody cases. Implications for practice are discussed for both attorneys and evaluators.     

It's just so difficult to get anything done: Teen mental health in the family court setting

Navigating the family court setting to protect teen mental health, meet teens' mental health needs, and promote resilience and coping skills is challenging. We have tools that can help us meet that challenge. That toolkit includes: expanding who is involved in the work to develop a parenting plan or treatment plan; not reducing the case to a one-dimensional fact pattern; restructuring family court proceedings for ongoing problem-solving, providing protections for the teen's privacy; using consensual dispute resolution and adjudication on parallel tracks; and educating the decision makers through expert declarations and Brandeis briefs (even at the trial court level).     

Models and methods of cost-effective child custody evaluation

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are often seen as a necessity by the legal system when caregivers cannot find a resolution to their child custody disputes. In many instances, these evaluations are quite costly for the litigants and cost can act as a barrier to equal access to justice. Affluent families are better able to access private evaluators while families with lesser means may encounter delays in receiving services or be unable to afford an evaluation at all. This can, in turn, prolong resolution of league disputes, increasing the emotional toll on families, and hamper courts in making decisions in the best interests of the children involved. This article examines models of providing CCEs outside of an isolated individual provider private practice format. It examines the benefits and considerations for lower-cost evaluations, while discussing how to maintain high quality services that adequately assess family systems. Broader issues that impact the courts and overall access to justice through offering cost effective evaluations are also discussed.     

COMMENTARY ON TIPPINS AND WITTMANN'S "EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:

Although in substantial agreement with Tippins and Wittmann's analysis, their call for a moratorium on the practice of custody evaluators making recommendations to the court does not solve the many problems that they have raised, and may have unintended consequences which place families at even greater risk. This commentary reflects our agreement with some of the authors' major points of contention, focuses on several points of disagreement, and suggests alternative remedies for the shortcomings and ethical problems described in child custody evaluations.     

The emperor has no clothes: A systemic view of the status and future of child custody evaluation (CCE)

For all of the time, effort, and money invested in child custody evaluation (CCE) and for all of evaluators' emphases on collecting empirically sound data, CCE is not itself an empirically robust process. The reliability, validity, efficacy, and efficiency of CCE has never yet been adequately demonstrated. The science has yet even to define and measure the variables that constitute a healthy family, much less how one is to measure and recommend changes for conflicted systems in the midst of tectonic transitions. This article proposes five ways in which family law professionals and the culture at large should work to better serve the needs of our children: (1) the establishment of proactive parenting and co-parenting education intended to diminish the frequency and magnitude of family conflict and improve the quality of child and family functioning; (2) the introduction of organized incentives that motivate healthy parenting and co-parenting practices as opposed to negative consequences that do too-little, too-late; (3) a greater emphasis on social equity, cultural humility, and universal professional training; (4) the creation of ethical guidelines that disconnect continuing conflict from professional income; and (5) outcome research that feeds back into the evolution of these and related processes.     

CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION PRACTICES: A 20‐YEAR FOLLOW‐UP

This study surveyed 213 experienced child custody evaluators utilizing the same questionnaire in the Ackerman & Ackerman 1997 and Keilin & Bloom 1986 studies. Demographic information, evaluation practices, custody decision‐making, and recommendations were surveyed. Comparisons were made across all three studies to identify the similarities and differences in child custody evaluation practices over the past 20 years. This study added questions about risk management and ethical issues, and current practices in placement/access schedules. The reader is advised that not engaging in the practices performed by a majority of psychologists could result in a difficult testimony experience.     

TRAINING,SKILLS, AND PRACTICES OF PARENTING COORDINATORS: FLORIDA STATEWIDE STUDY

This report details findings from the nation's first statewide study on parenting coordination. A survey was presented to all known practicing parenting coordinators (PCs) in Florida (N = 207), with 67 (32%) responding. Data concerning PC demographics, how PCs do their work, and how they perceive their clients at different stages of the parenting coordination process suggest substantial similarity between mental health and family law professionals in almost every realm of questioning. Study limitations, implications for further research, and practice considerations are discussed.