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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

SETTLEMENT‐FOCUSED PARENTING PLAN CONSULTATIONS: AN EVALUATIVE MEDIATION ALTERNATIVE TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

The divorce mediation field has recently seen the development of several “hybrid” alternative dispute resolution approaches to child custody disputes. The “settlement‐focused parenting plan consultation” (SFPPC) is a form of evaluative mediation, conducted by a “parenting plan consultant” (PPC), who possesses the combined expertise of a mediator and child custody evaluator. This hybrid model is a more expedient and considerably less expensive approach than a child custody evaluation, but preserves the hallmark mediation principle of self‐determination. The article describes the theory underlying the SFPPC, delineates the role requirements, procedures, and techniques of the parenting plan consultant, and addresses legal and ethical issues.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The foster family in Poland,a custodial and educational environment (XX – the early XXI centuries)

ABSTRACT

A thorough study of the sources made it possible to conduct a retrospective analysis as well as outline normative and legal principles of the foster family in Poland as one of the main forms of child custody in the XX – early XXI centuries rooted in national traditions and social legacy. Foster family formation and early functioning indicate that its value depends on who is entrusted with a child to care for, what child is to be placed in foster care, what kind of support a foster family could expect, what control is exercised over it. The second half of the XX – the early XXI centuries mark the evolution of the legal and regulatory framework underlying foster care, one of the main institutional forms of child custody in Poland. It appears that the foster family provides a child with proper living conditions and a favourable environment for its education and socialisation, closest possible to those in a natural family. To this end, the state is to make sure that potential foster parents are properly trained. The development of foster care speeds up in the 1970’s and 1990’s. We have discovered that at the turn of the century, foster family functioning, provision of care and adequate conditions for a child’s development and upbringing etc. are defined by the social policy of the state. Of great significance for the international community is the Polish experience regarding the requirements for foster family candidates, children’s placement in such families, material assistance, foster parent salary calculations; the amount of money biological parents must pay for their child’s placement in a foster family. In modern Poland the foster family is an important social institution which promotes the development of a child deprived of parental care and is prioritized over other institutional forms of care.     

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.     

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.