PUNCHING THE PARENTING TIME CLOCK: THE APPROXIMATION RULE,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND THE BASEBALL BAT KIDS*

The American Law Institute proposes that in contested physical custody cases the court should allocate to each parent a proportion of the child's time that approximates the proportion of time each has spent performing caretaking functions in the past. Examined through the lens of child development research, the approximation rule is unlikely to improve on the best interests standard. It is difficult to apply; is perceived as gender‐biased; creates a new focus for disputing parents; renders a poor estimate of parents’ contributions to their child's best interests; overlooks parents’ intangible, yet significant, contributions to their child's well‐being; and miscalculates the essence of how a child experiences the family. A preferable alternative is a better defined, contemporary best interests standard that accommodates new knowledge and reforms that encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of custody disputes.     

论子女最佳利益原则

子女最佳利益原则已发展成为各国家庭法在处理父母离婚后子女监护案件时的最高准则。虽然该原则其概念本身含有不确定性 ,具有多种可以不同明确表达的空间 ,但采用该原则的世界各国仍致力于列出若干决定子女最佳利益的具体准则。本文作者主张我国婚姻法应引进“子女最佳利益”原则作为处理子女监护问题时的最高指导原则 ,摒弃父母权利本位思想     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS: THE NEED FOR SYSTEMS‐LEVEL OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS*

Child custody evaluations need to be studied systemically as a human service system. There is little research on the history, caseload dynamics, economics, delivery systems, or impact of custody evaluations. This article identifies five systems‐level questions about custody evaluations and examines one, outcomes assessment, in detail by developing seven outcome hypotheses. The article concludes that such research could improve the practice and use of child custody evaluations.     

ON BEING A CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATOR: PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL CHALLENGES,RISKS, AND REWARDS

Conducting child custody evaluations is one of the most complex, challenging, and sometimes risky professional endeavors that a mental health professional can perform. This article examines the professional and personal challenges which may be encountered by the evaluator. In addition to discussing the role requirements and need to maintain awareness of bias and countertransference, challenges such as coping with state board or ethics complaints and possible risks to personal safety are also addressed. Suggestions for risk management and coping with the demands of these assessments are offered, as well as the benefits and rewards of engaging in this important work.     

THE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT DEBATE IN CANADA

The controversial issue of corporal punishment of children is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. Whether or not Canada's highest court rules that the "reasonable chastisement" defense to charges of assault on children by parents and teachers is unconstitutional, it is likely that Parliament will move forward with reforms. Social science evidence on the negative effects of corporal punishment has been accepted by the federal government, and it seems likely that Canada will soon join the list of countries that prohibit the practice.     

Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.     

Are Children's Best Interests Really Best? ZH (Tanzania) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Although the Supreme Court's decision in ZH (Tanzania) is an important one, as this note explains, it is less novel than many suppose – and is in some ways disappointing. By stressing the importance of immigrant children's best interests, it fails to use this opportunity to promote their Convention rights effectively.