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.     

PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATIONS OF ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL CHILD CUSTODY PROCESS AND PREFERENCES FOR COURT SERVICES

Domestic relations courts continue to experience large caseloads. As the volume of cases in which families are in crisis continues to grow, policy makers, practitioners, judges, and attorneys struggle to meet the growing demand and seek more effective ways to address the needs and issues of those who are engaged in child custody processes. The present study provides an examination of parent attitudes concerning various aspects of the legal process and preferences concerning a variety of court‐based family services and interventions.     

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION

The Child Abduction Convention, an international treaty, protects custody rights internationally among its member states by providing a remedy of return in cases where a child was wrongfully removed in violation of a parent's custody right. There is no such remedy for the violation of a parent's access (or visitation) rights. A ne exeat clause in a child custody agreement restrains a custodial parent from removing a child from a predetermined jurisdiction (such as a particular country) and can be issued when there is a risk that the custodial parent might flee to another country with the child(ren). Currently there is a circuit split within the United States as to whether a ne exeat right coupled with the right of access should equal a protected custody right under the Convention. Most international courts protect the ne exeat right under the Convention; however some do not. A ne exeat right should convey a protected custody right for policy reasons. The beneficial implications of a ne exeat right creating a protected custody right under the Child Abduction Convention clearly outweigh the detriments. While there is no instant solution to the inconsistencies among various courts in interpreting the Child Abduction Conventions’ scope in regard to a ne exeat right, there are ways to resolve the problem. If consistency in judicial interpretation cannot be achieved, a movement needs to be initiated to create a protocol to the Child Abduction Convention to further explain the scope of custody rights and ne exeat rights under the Convention.     

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR HAGUE CONVENTION CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES*

This note explains that an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) protocol should be adopted as part of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to facilitate the amicable resolution of cross‐border child custody cases. It suggests that national ADR models should be used as a guide to improve this treaty. First, this note brings to light the negative effect of cross‐border litigation on children as well as the complexities and the deficiencies of this international treaty. Second, it examines mediation and arbitration systems employed in the United States, Europe, and Australia and how these can be transposed on the international scale. Third, it proposes how the ADR protocol should be drafted and implemented. A sound ADR mechanism would alleviate the unfortunate conditions of children trapped in long and destructive international child custody battles.     

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.     

SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE: A PROPOSAL FOR CHILD CUSTODY MEDIATION*

Same‐sex marriage is a contentious, politically charged issue full of diverse, complicated considerations. In 2003, Massachusetts joined the list of jurisdictions to legalize same‐sex marriage, the first in the U.S. Now that same‐sex couples can marry in particular international jurisdictions, governments must address how to sensitively allow these couples to divorce. Same‐sex couples have a unique set of needs and issues, most clearly demonstrated if children are involved in the marriage. This Note argues for the creation of mediation programs in American jurisdictions with same‐sex marriage, to specifically determine child custody agreements upon divorce.     

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.     

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?     

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.     

ASSESSING THE PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN PARENTING CAPACITY EVALUATIONS: CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF ATTACHMENT RESEARCH

The lack of an articulated model of parenting competence and the limited use of empirically based assessment procedures is a weakness of current parenting capacity assessment protocols. The current article attempts to address this issue through the application of attachment theory and research in assessing one of the most critical components of parenting capacity assessments: the parent–child relationship. New empirically and attachment‐based assessment tools and procedures, well suited for the assessment of parental fitness, are presented, along with recommended practice guidelines to enhance the assessment of the parent–child relationship in cases of young, maltreated children (under 6 years of age).     

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.     

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.     

COMMENTARY ON KELLY AND JOHNSTON'S "THE ALIENATED CHILD: A REFORMULATION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME"

In a previous issue of this journal, Joan B. Kelly and Janet R. Johnston describe their reformulation of the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Here, I present areas in which I agree with the authors and areas in which I disagree. Particular focus is placed on these PAS-related issues: the syndrome question, PAS versus parental alienation, the medical model, custodial transfer, gender bias, DSM-IV . empirical studies, and the misapplication of PAS.     

THE MULTILEVEL CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL SENTENCING: INTEGRATING JUDGE‐ AND COUNTY‐LEVEL INFLUENCES*

This study extends recent inquiries of contextual effects in sentencing by jointly examining the influence of judge and courtroom social contexts. It combines two recent years of individual sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) with data on judicial background characteristics and county court social contexts. Three‐level hierarchical models are estimated to investigate the influence of judge and county contexts on individual variations in sentencing. Results indicate that nontrivial sentencing variations are associated with both individual judge characteristics and county court contexts. Judicial background factors also condition the influence of individual offender characteristics in important ways. These and other findings are discussed in relation to contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision making that highlight the importance of both judge and court contexts in sentencing. The study concludes with suggestions for future research on contextual disparities in criminal sentencing.     

“I WANT MY MOMMIES”: THE CRY FOR MINI‐DOMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES*

In child custody cases, courts will look to the best interests of a child to maintain visitation/custody rights only with the child's biological parent, not third parties. However, with a same‐sex couple, it is inevitable that one parent will not be the biological parent. Thus, when that parent is in a mini‐DOMA state, where same‐sex couples from non‐mini‐DOMA states do not have to be recognized, that parent will be viewed as a third party and lose all visitation/custody rights if the couple separates. This note advocates that mini‐DOMAs allow both the biological and nonbiological parents of a same‐sex couple to have visitation/custody rights of their children if it would be in the best interest of the children to do so.     

STRICTLY LIABLE: GOVERNMENTAL USE OF THE PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIP AS A BASIS FOR HOLDING VICTIMS LIABLE FOR THEIR CHILD'S WITNESS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Studies estimate that between three and ten million children in the United States witness domestic violence annually. Although studies have demonstrated a co‐occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse, there is no concrete evidence to support the assumption that a child's exposure to domestic violence increases the risk to the child of abuse or neglect. Recently the New York State Court of Appeals determined that a child's witness to abuse does not suffice, in and of itself, to show that removal of the child is necessary or that removal is in the “best interests” of the child. Programs which have developed alternatives to presumptive removal understand the importance of viewing the interests of the battered parent and children as being in accord with each other rather than in opposition. Private and government sponsored programs have demonstrated some success in protecting the parent‐child relationship, ensuring the safety of both parent and child, and increasing accountability of batterers while reducing the necessity for removals. Alternative programs are less costly to the state than foster care, and emotionally less costly to the families.