Training parenting plan evaluators: Looking towards the future

Standards of practice for parenting plan evaluations continue to evolve, informed by advances in research and the development of innovative, evidence-based approaches to assessment and intervention. Parenting plan evaluators are asked to inform the court, parents, and other professionals on how to address the complex needs of increasingly diverse families amid reorganization, high conflict, and crisis. How can we attract and properly train new mental health professionals to do important work in an increasingly strained adversarial system? How can evaluators keep up with these advances over the course of their careers? How can they deepen and refine their skills to work with a diverse array of individuals, family constellations and an enormous range of family circumstances? And how can evaluators care for their own well-being and their colleagues? In this article, the authors describe a multi-dimensional approach to training both new and experienced custody evaluators that includes imparting baseline knowledge on how to conduct quality parenting plan evaluations as a starting point. We discuss a variety of modalities and approaches that can enable evaluators to deepen and expand their skills over the years, contribute to the diverse community of family law professionals, and manage the exceptional demands of working in this field.     

The admissibility and persuasiveness of expert evidence

Parenting plan evaluators are expert witnesses who offer their opinion. Courts in common law jurisdictions generally do not accept evidence of an opinion as it is not considered to be reliable evidence from which to establish a fact. An exception to that general principle is expert opinion evidence. In short, an opinion from a person with specialized knowledge or expertise about the area in which they are an expert may be sufficiently reliable to form an evidentiary basis from which to make a finding of fact, provided the opinion meets certain criteria. These criteria will be discussed in this article, as well as what is relevant, reliable and persuasive evidence. The relevant legal principles will be examined in an historical and contemporary, theoretical and practical context. The authors reflect on their considerable experience as consumers of expert evidence and apply this to parenting plan evaluations, as well as considering future challenges in the field.     

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.     

Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations: Empirical Evidence,Strategies for Professionals,and Research Directions

Several states have passed civil commitment laws that allow the precautionary detention of sex offenders who have completed their criminal sentences. Over 2,500 sex offenders have been committed across states with such statutes and several thousand more sex offenders have been evaluated. Most statutes call for an evaluation of risk by a mental health professional and, although each state statute is worded differently, three main elements common to sexually violent predator evaluations are used to guide evaluators: mental abnormality, volitional capacity, and likelihood of future sexual violence. The current article presents empirical evidence for the main tenants of these forensic evaluations, provides recommendations for evaluators in light of current limitations of evidence, and offers suggestions for future research in this area of forensic assessment.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

MAKING A PLACE AT THE TABLE:

This response to Timothy Tippins and Jeffrey Wittmann's article "Empirical and Ethical Problems with Custody Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance" builds upon the authors' conclusions that custody evaluations cannot and should not be a substitute for the socio-legal judgment of the best interests of the child. Recognizing that clinical humility and judicial vigilance may not be sufficient to restrain the misuse of psychological evaluation, we offer for consideration three structural changes that would provide for a more appropriate use of the skills and talents custody evaluators bring to legal decisions. We suggest using custody evaluators in the less adversarial setting of preparing parenting plans, revising the procedures by which custody evaluations are elicited in litigation, and adopting the approximation standard for child custody determinations.     

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATIONS: APPLICATIONS TO CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME CASES PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA

A program to apply Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE), a confidential, settlement‐oriented and accelerated alternative dispute resolution technique, to child custody and parenting time cases has been cooperatively developed by Hennepin county Family Court Services and the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Family Court. Parties are referred by the court to a male/female team of experienced neutral evaluators for early feedback on the probable outcome of a full evaluation and an opportunity to negotiate a settlement. It has proven to be a highly successful program in its first 2 years, with the majority of cases reaching an early settlement. The ENE program reduces the stress and expense of custody disputes for clients, expedites judicial case management, maximizes Family Court Services staff efficiency, and focuses subsequent evaluations on critical 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.     

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.     

Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree?

Despite many studies that examine the reliability of competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations, few shed light on "field reliability," or agreement among forensic evaluators in routine practice. We reviewed 216 cases from Hawaii, which requires three separate evaluations from independent clinicians for each felony defendant referred for CST evaluation. Results revealed moderate agreement. In 71% of initial CST evaluations, all evaluators agreed about a defendant's competence or incompetence (kappa = .65). Agreement was somewhat lower (61%, kappa = .57) in re-evaluations of defendants who were originally found incompetent and sent for restoration services. We also examined the decisions judges made about a defendant's CST. When evaluators disagreed, judges tended to make decisions consistent with the majority opinion. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they more often did so to find a defendant incompetent than competent, suggesting a generally conservative approach. Overall, results reveal moderate agreement among independent evaluators in routine practice. But we discuss the potential for standardized training and methodology to further improve the field reliability of CST evaluations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Do PCL-R scores from state or defense experts best predict future misconduct among civilly committed sex offenders?

In a recent study of sex offender civil commitment proceedings, Murrie et al. (Psychol Public Policy Law 15:19-53, 2009) found that state-retained experts consistently assigned higher PCL-R total scores than defense-retained experts for the same offenders (Cohen's d > .83). This finding raises an important question about the validity of these discrepant scores: Which type of score, state or defense evaluator, provides the most useful information about risk? We examined the ability of PCL-R total scores from state and defense evaluators to predict future misconduct among civilly committed sex offenders (N = 38). For comparison, we also examined predictive validity when two state experts evaluated the same offender (N = 32). Agreement between evaluators was low for cases with opposing experts (ICCA,1 = .43 to .52) and for cases with two state experts (ICCA,1 = .40). Nevertheless, scores from state and defense experts demonstrated similar levels of predictive validity (AUC values in the .70 range), although scores from different types of state evaluators (corrections-contracted vs. prosecution-retained) did not. The finding of mean differences between opposing evaluator scores, but similar levels of predictive validity, suggests that scores from opposing experts in SVP cases may need to be interpreted differently depending on who assigned them. Findings have important implications for understanding how rater disagreement may relate to predictive validity.     

RELYING ON THE UNRELIABLE: HOW A COURT RULE COULD ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE NEUTRAL MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION PROCESS IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

Many states lack standards as to who should be conducting neutral mental health evaluations in child custody proceedings and what these evaluations should be comprised of. This will occasionally result in an unqualified evaluator giving a recommendation to the court as to which parent should receive custody of their child[ren]. This Note advocates for courts to adopt a court rule which specifically enumerates the qualifications of neutral mental health evaluators in the hopes of regularizing the evaluation process. The first part of the proposal addresses who should conduct evaluations by establishing the required credentials of the evaluator and minimizing the amount of evaluator bias by screening the process. The second part of the proposal focuses on the training needed before an evaluator may conduct an examination, as well as the amount of experience required.     

Trends and Developments in Program Evaluation in General and Criminal Justice Programs in Particular

The paper first describes general trends in evaluation in (mainly) western societies. Why is evaluation growing, what are the characteristics of this ‘growth industry’ and what developments are occurring outside western societies? Trends in the evaluation of criminal justice programs in the USA, the UK and the Netherlands are then discussed. Two important developments are therafter highlighted: experimental evaluations and theory-driven evaluations. Both approaches are discussed, and some pros and cons are listed. Finally, the paper outlines some challenges for future work in the evaluation of criminal justice programs, stressing the importance of combining good designs with both program and social science theories.     

Sexual predator civil commitment: a comparison of selected and released offenders

This study compared two groups of sex offenders who were considered for civil commitment under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act: Two hundred twenty-nine sex offenders who were recommended by forensic evaluators to be civilly committed and 221 sex offenders who were recommended for release. It was hypothesized that selected offenders would be more likely to display risk factors for sex offense recidivism than those who did not meet criteria. Data analyses revealed that selected offenders, as a group, scored significantly higher on actuarial risk assessment instruments. There were also significant differences between the groups on other risk factors that have been empirically correlated with sexual recidivism. Selected offenders had higher frequencies of paraphilia diagnoses and antisocial personality. These findings supported the hypotheses and suggested that evaluators are correctly selecting for civil commitment those sex offenders who have a mental abnormality predisposing them to sexual violence and who are at higher risk for reoffense.     

Independent Neuropsychological Evaluations

Unlike clinical practice, entering the realm of independent neuropsychological evaluations and similar types of nonclinical evaluations is an area of professional practice for which most neuropsychologists have little to no training. Many ethical and professional issues and challenges arise with such frequency in this type of work that it would be difficult to justify not being prepared for them. For the practitioner looking for guidance and standards of professional conduct in this arena, there are few comprehensive resources that address the range of issues raised by these types of evaluations and/or a clear standard by which to assess their competence. The purpose of this article is to provide a primer (and/or refresher) to acquaint the practitioner with some of the more salient issues associated with conducting these types of assessments and to review the pertinent literature that is evolving in relation to best practices in this area.