Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

Identifying and managing evaluator biases in parenting plan evaluations

Psychologists and other professionals are often appointed by the courts to assist families in resolving post-separation disputes and to assist judges in making orders on behalf of the best interests of the child(ren). Although these evaluations provide valuable information to the court, they require assessing areas of human behavior that are imprecisely defined or lacking professional consensus. As parents separate, their disputes may become more challenging, and they may act in uncharacteristic and unpredictable ways. Families that cannot solve their own challenges outside of court often show high levels of conflict and/or have issues that are extremely complex, including domestic violence allegations, resist-refuse family dynamics, and relocation requests. Evaluators and judges, being human, tend to oversimplify complex issues due to the limitations of the human brain. Evaluators are subject to cognitive biases that result from the use of mental heuristics, leading to shortcuts and errors in their reasoning and judgment. Other biases, such as implicit and explicit cultural biases, often influence evaluators' reasoning and conclusions. This article explores various biases that affect and potentially diminish the quality of an evaluator's work. We conclude by addressing “de-biasing” strategies that can reduce, but not negate, the risks associated with such biases.     

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.     

Navigating adolescent depression and anxiety in the context of parenting plan evaluations

This article touches upon theories accounting for the rise in adolescent anxiety and depression and how the prevalence of adolescent anxiety and depression affects how we navigate parenting plan evaluations. This article also discusses the importance of screening youth for depressive and anxious symptoms and assessing family, parental, and youth risk and protective factors related to adolescent depression and anxiety. This article also highlights the importance of assessing for mediating factors that increase the risk of anxiety and depression in youth in the context of parental separation, such as interparental conflict, financial difficulties, and limited contact with one parent. This article also identifies various methods of assessing depression and anxiety, including the adolescent interview, observations during the interview, and self-report measures. Additionally, this article discusses potential interventions that address mediators of the impact of divorce, such as parenting problems, family conflict, or the parent–child relationship.     

New AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (2019)

In 2017, AFCC President Annette Burns (2017–18) commissioned a Task Force, led by Dr. Debra Carter, to review the many changes and developments in parenting coordination that had occurred across the United States, in Canada, and across the world in the approximately 12 years since the 2005 Parenting Coordination Guidelines were released. Though primarily commissioned to update and revise the 2005 Guidelines, the Task Force also identified emerging issues in need of exploration – the use of technology in parenting coordination, parenting coordination as an intervention when intimate partner violence is a component of the dynamic, the importance of multicultural awareness and responsiveness, and the overall impact of the statutes, rules, and regulations that had evolved in significantly varying forms since parenting coordination first presented as an intervention for court‐involved families. The work of the Task Force, including the new (2019) Guidelines for Parenting Coordination, is presented.     

The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research

Securing public funding to conduct research and leading it by being a principal investigator (PI) is seen as significant career development step. Such a role brings professional prestige but also new responsibilities beyond research leadership to research management. If public funding brings financial and infrastructure support, little is understood about the inhibiting factors that publicly funded PIs face given the research autonomy offered by publicly funded research. Our study finds that there are three key PI inhibiting factors (1) political and environmental, (2) institutional and (3) project based. Traditional knowledge, skills and technical know-how of publicly funded PIs are insufficient to deal with the increasing managerial demands and expectations i.e. growing external bureaucracy of public funding agencies. Public funding is no longer the ‘freest form of support’ as suggested by Chubin and Hackett (Peerless science: peer review and US science policy. Suny Press, New York, 1990) and the inhibiting factors experienced by publicly funded PIs limits their research autonomy. We also argue that PIs have little influence in overcoming these inhibiting factors despite their central role in conducting publicly funded research.     

Courts and health policy: judicial policy making and publicly funded health care in Canada

The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided political actors with the opportunity to make rights-based challenges to public policy decisions. Two challenges launched by providers and consumers of health care illuminate the impact of judicial review on health care policy and the institutional capacity of courts to formulate policy in this field. The significant impact of rights-based claims on cross-jurisdictional policy differences in a federal regime is noted.     

Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessment: AFCC Task Force on Brief Focused Assessments.

The Association of Family and Conciliations Courts (AFCC) Task on Brief Focused Assessment was convened in 2007 to study the issues inherent in the use of brief focused assessment models in family courts. The resultant “Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessment” were approved by the AFCC Board of Directors in 2009 and are presented here to prompt discussion and further dialogue about this clearly needed practice.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Issue‐specific assessments are increasingly requested by family court judges
• Practice guidelines for clinicians conducting brief focused assessments (BFAs)
• Types of issues/questions appropriate for BFAs
• Advantages and pitfalls of BFAs
• Comparison of BFAs and comprehensive child custody evaluations

     

‘I just drifted into it’: constraints faced by publicly funded family lawyers

This paper draws on interviews with English family lawyers who do publicly funded work, and examines their reasons for entering family law. Generally, lawyers did not deliberately choose to enter family law, and instead explained that they ‘drifted’ into the field. On closer inspection, however, rather than ‘drifting’ into family law, it would appear that the careers of publicly funded family lawyers are strongly constrained by structural and cultural factors. These findings have important implications for attracting and retaining family lawyers.     

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.     

A compass but not a road map: Diversity considerations with the AFCC Guidelines on Parenting Plan Evaluations

The 2022 Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations in Family Law Cases were developed taking into account membership feedback which identified guidance around issues of Diversity Equity & Inclusion (DE&I) as a high priority. The current Guidelines have integrated issues of diversity in many areas of the document, by adding a section on guiding principles and values, expanding and clarifying evaluator education and training, and embedding cultural and diversity considerations in many sections of the document. The Guidelines do not provide more direct instruction or education on specific topics or aspects of culture and diversity.     

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.