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.     

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.     

THE “EYE OF THE BEHOLDER”: PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are a central feature of parenting litigation in many North American jurisdictions. However, there has been little recent research comparing CCE decisions about children's interests with decisions made by judges. This article presents empirical research about the extent to which Ontario judges accept custody and access recommendations from CCEs employed by Ontario's Office of the Children's Lawyer. The central finding was that the judges fully agreed with the CCEs only about half of the time. Possible explanations for this finding are explored, the most salient of which is the effect of delay in Ontario family litigation. In conclusion, the article suggests that a more efficient synthesis of the judicial and CCE decision‐making processes might be more consonant with the best interests of children involved in these disputes.     

COMMENTARY ON “EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:” WHAT NOW?

Replying to the paper by Tippins and Wittmann, this commentary notes that the problems they identify have been recognized for many years, yet this has resulted in little change in the practice of child custody evaluations. Three underlying reasons are offered for the stalemate that frustrates the implementation of standards for an empirically based child custody evaluation practice: (a) the economics of child custody evaluation practice; (b) inconsistencies between proposals to restrict testimony in this area and the lack of similar restrictions in most other areas of forensic practice; and (c) inadequate motivation for researchers who might contribute an empirical base for child custody evaluations. Directions for breaking the stalemate are offered for each of these problems.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

ASSESSING SUBSTANCE ABUSE QUESTIONS IN CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Substance use is rampant in contemporary society, but little attention has been paid to it in the context of child custody evaluations (CCEs). This article provides concrete suggestions for integrating issues about substance abuse into a more overarching CCE and discusses specific assessment strategies.     

ALLEGATIONS AND SUBSTANTIATIONS OF ABUSE IN CUSTODY‐DISPUTING FAMILIES1

In this study of 120 divorced families referred for child custody evaluations and custody counseling, multiple allegations of child abuse, neglect, and family violence were raised in the majority of cases. About half of the alleged abuse was substantiated in some way with one fourth involving abuse perpetrated by both parents. Different kinds of allegations were raised against mothers compared with fathers. Implications of these findings for social policy, family court interventions, and the provision of coordinated services within the community are discussed.     

MANDATED CUSTODY EVALUATIONS AND THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POWER

Kelly and Ramsey are clearly correct that a shift from a “how to” approach to custody evaluations to one that asks the more fundamental question “why” is long overdue. However, in addition to assessing the efficacy of custody evaluations (which Kelly and Ramsey propose), the legal system must also clarify the justification for imposing this extensive—and often expensive—intrusion into the privacy of parents. Three possible justifications for these intrusions are examined in this article: privilege, harm, and voluntariness. Is divorce a privilege, rather than a right, and can qualifications (including intrusive and expensive ones) be attached to requesting that privilege? Are custody evaluations instead justified as a means of avoiding harm to children? If a harm justification is asserted, exactly what harm do evaluations prevent, and how do they accomplish this harm avoidance? Finally, given the high value placed on parental cooperation by the family courts, is it simply too perilous for a parent to oppose a custody evaluation if one is suggested, either by the other parent or by the court? If so, are consents to custody evaluations truly voluntary?     

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.     

ELIJAH AND ISHMAEL

This article examines the leading custody cases in Canada dealing with children's cultural and racial identity. The author argues in favor of fluid and open understandings of culture in custody assessments rather than static notions of culture.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.