PICKING CHERRIES WITH BLINDERS ON: A COMMENT ON ERICKSON ET AL. (2007) REGARDING THE USE OF TESTS IN FAMILY COURT*

Erickson, Lilienfeld, and Vitacco's (2007/this issue ) review of the suitability and limitations of psychological tests invites legal and mental health professionals to rely on it as an objective guide for selecting, using, and admitting psychological tests in family court matters. Unfortunately, their discussion is marred by a pronounced bias in favor of multiscale, objective personality inventories and against performance‐based or projective instruments. This bias is evident not only in their unbalanced emphasis on the strengths of the former and weaknesses of the latter, but also in their use of selective citations and loaded language in launching what amounts to a polemical argument in support of tests that they favor. Their discussion of the Rorschach inkblot test is particularly misleading. This article refutes their unwarranted criticisms of the theoretical underpinnings of the Rorschach test, its research base, its norms, its interscorer reliability, the validity of its scores, and its admissibility in the courtroom. The value of multimethod assessments that include the use of direct clinical observation of performance under standardized conditions in custody evaluations is highlighted.     

Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.     

THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING IN CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Evaluation of families for purposes of assisting the court in making decisions about custody is perhaps the most complicated forensic evaluation. Mental health professionals conducting such evaluations must ensure that their evaluations validly assess areas of concern deemed relevant by the judiciary and legislature. Evaluators sometimes use psychological measures in the evaluation process, and in recent years, a number of tests designed specifically for use in child custody evaluation contexts have been developed. Because some published tests do not meet basic professional standards, child custody evaluators should carefully review any test and its supporting documentation before including it in their examination procedures. In this article, the authors discuss the rationale for using psychological tests in child custody evaluations, describe current testing practices, review and critique contemporary custody evaluation instruments, and offer a template for mental health professionals to use when considering use of a particular test.     

The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment

Despite the apparent widespread use of psychological tests in evaluations performed by psychologists to assist legal decision makers, there has been little critical but balanced examination of the appropriate parameters for the forensic use of such tests. The following discussion examines the nature of legal decision making, and concludes that the primary legal criterion for the adminissibility of psychological testing isrelevance to the immediate legal issue or to some underlying psychological construct. Assuming thataccuracy is a more consistent concern for psychologists performing such evaluations, the criticisms of various commentators are discussed. Some criticisms appear appropriate and are incorporated into a set of proposed guidelines for the use of psychological tests in forensic contexts. Other criticisms appear misplaced, however, and the call for a whole sale ban on psychological testing in the forensic context is rejected.     

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Fragmented court systems are especially problematic for domestic violence victims because they typically are involved in more than one proceeding that stems from the same pattern of abuse. The proceedings are handled in different courts and before different judges, who are often unaware of these orders being issued in other proceedings. Consequently, conflicting orders are prevalent and the protection and needs of victims are often not met. A unified family court, on the other hand, provides one court with the subject-matter jurisdiction to handle all family-related matters and one judge to hear all cases that involve a single family, resulting in conflicting orders being issued less frequently. Additionally, the needs of victims are better served as a result of the services component. Given the fragmented state of the court systems in New York and Pennsylvania, United States; Alberta, Canada; and Australia, unified family courts should be implemented in each locality.     

Ten years in the life of an expert witness

American Courts are experiencing increased use of expert testimony based upon psychological research. Ten years ago, I began testifying about my own research on human perception, recollection, and eyewitness accounts. The growing acceptance of this testimony percipitated a backlash from some psychologists. This essay describes the chronology of these events, and their relevance for the more general use of psychological research as evidence in court.     

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.     

Ethical Advocacy for Immigrant Survivors of Family Crisis

The involvement of family courts in the lives of youth and families creates significant opportunities for advocates to assist their clients with immigration‐related issues. Informed and effective advocacy on these issues in family court can make life‐changing, and even life‐saving, differences for immigrants. More specifically, immigration issues are germane to family court because certain vital avenues of immigration relief available to survivors of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and other forms of family crisis explicitly depend on findings, orders, and certifications that are issued in the context of family court proceedings. After describing these forms of relief, and the family court's role in immigrants’ access to them, this essay analyzes how ethical mandates related to client counseling, representational goals, and competence affirmatively require family court practitioners to provide advice and advocacy related to these collateral benefits to family court proceedings.

Key Points for Family Court Community:
• The involvement of family courts in the lives of youth and families creates significant opportunities for advocates to assist their clients with immigration‐related issues
• Certain vital avenues of immigration relief available to survivors of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and other forms of family crisis explicitly depend on findings, orders, and certifications that are issued in the context of family court proceedings
• The substance of immigration‐related findings in family court, and their ultimate affect on family stability, are consistent with the core family court goal of supporting safety, well‐being, and permanency for children and families
• Ethical mandates related to client counseling, representational goals, and competence affirmatively require family court practitioners to provide advice and advocacy related to these collateral benefits to family court proceedings

     

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.     

Crossover Cases of High‐Conflict Families Involving Child Protection Services: Ontario Research Findings and Suggestions for Good Practices

Child protection services (CPS) are increasingly becoming involved in high‐conflict separations and the related custody and access proceedings. CPS involvement is often necessary to respond to abuse or neglect allegations or protect children from emotional harm. However, these crossover cases are very challenging for family justice professionals. This article reports on research on crossover cases in Ontario, including an analysis of reported court decisions, a survey of CPS staff, and interviews with family justice professionals. We suggest clearer CPS policies; improved understanding of respective professional roles; CPS summary reports for family courts; increased interagency coordination, communication, and training; and use of judicial case management.     

Restrictions on legal aid in family law cases in England and Wales: creating a necessary barrier to public funding or simply increasing the burden on the family courts?

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) resulted in significant cuts to the availability and scope of legal aid in family law proceedings. Some four years after the cuts were implemented, there has been a great deal of research about their devastating impact on vulnerable groups and individuals. This paper considers the other victim of the cuts, the family court itself. It is currently bulging under pressure from both an increase in applicants who have been forced to represent themselves in family proceedings and also from a rise in applications for injunctions linked to domestic violence. This paper will draw on case law to demonstrate that the reforms implemented through LASPO have seemingly only succeeded in passing the burden from one publicly funded agency, the Legal Aid Agency, to another, HM Courts and Tribunals Service. The family court system is currently at breaking point and further government review is urgently needed if people are going to be able to continue to use the system effectively.     

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.     

LEGAL USE OF MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS IN CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS

The authors examine the use of mental health evaluations in legal decision making within a large, urban juvenile court system. The focus was on court files in child protection cases relating to 171 randomly selected mental health evaluations completed on parents and 44 evaluations completed on children. Parent evaluations (46.7%) were much more likely to be present in court files than child evaluations (5.9%), and evaluations conducted by in-house court clinicians (63.8%) were more often present than those conducted by noncourt clinicians (37.5%). References to evaluations in child welfare, legal, or mental health documents varied with the type of information, subject (parent or child), and source of the evaluation. Findings and/or recommendations of evaluations were cited in legal or mental health documents for approximately two thirds of parent evaluations but only one third of child evaluations. Evaluation findings and/or recommendations were stated as a basis for legal decisions in 36.2% of court-based parent evaluations, 21.0% of noncourt-based parent evaluations, and 2.3% of child evaluations. These results provide evidence of a modest impact of parent evaluations on legal decisions and notably less impact for child evaluations. The authors suggest directions for future research and practice in order to increase the accessibility and usefulness of clinical evaluations in legal decision making.     

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?     

LEGAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF CASES WITH AN ALIENATED CHILD

Cases entering the family court with an alienated child require intensive and coordinated case management to intervene effectively. It is critical to link the authority of the court with the delivery of mental health services to address the complex systemic factors that may entrench a chilďs unwarranted rejection of a parent. This article provides principles of legal and psychological case management for families with an alienated child, followed by various structural interventions, including sample court orders, for managing these cases as they progress through the family court process. Finally, criteria for making custody recommendations in the most severe cases of child alienation are provided.     

Forgotten Children of Immigration and Family Law: How The Absence of Legal Aid Affects Children in the United States

The absence of government‐appointed legal counsel in immigration proceedings adversely affects large numbers of children in the United States. Children born in the United States to parents without citizenship status (U.S.‐born children of noncitizen parents or UCNP) are harmed by a parent's detention and removal. Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) who have entered the country without legal status are adversely affected by their own detention and removal. The possibility of obtaining relief from removal is drastically diminished by the lack of legal representation. Currently UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to court‐appointed attorneys. Any meaningful change in immigration law, such as a federal statutory amendment to provide UAC and immigrant parents with government‐appointed counsel is unlikely due to the present political dissension in Congress regarding this issue. Because UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to government‐funded legal representation, a pro bono legal service system has developed, but is unable to meet the present need adequately. For immigrant parents, this Note proposes the adoption of a statute to allow the appointment of court liaisons in family court proceedings. The court liaison is a nonattorney who is familiar with the processes of the family court and ensures that immigrant parents are fully informed regarding all pertinent family court proceedings. For UAC, this Note proposes an amendment to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to mandate the appointment of a child advocate to all UAC. The child advocate is not a lawyer, but works with the UAC's attorney to provide the child with legal representation and advocacy.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• UCNP confront the loss of parents to detention and removal. Children are condemned to limbo, torn between absent biological parents and placement in foster care.
• The recent surge in the number of UAC who enter the United States by crossing the border from Mexico has been described as a humanitarian crisis. These children often remain alone without legal protection, vulnerable to detention and removal.
• Ideally, UAC and the immigrant parents would be provided with government‐funded legal representation in immigration proceedings. In the absence of the federal statutory reform necessary to make that a reality, state statutory reform to allow for the provision of court liaison programs for immigrant parents and federal statutory reform to allow the appointment of child advocates for UAC can begin to offer children and families needed legal support and advocacy.

     

现代英国家事案件审判体制的变迁及其启示

英国家事案件审判体制的变革顺应了社会发展,反映了民众呼声,从最初由宗教法院审理离婚案件发展到20世纪末建立完整的三级家事案件审判体制,即家事程序法院——治安法院中由家庭问题专家开庭审理案件;郡法院;高等法院家事法庭。英国家事案件审判体制变迁的司法理念包括建立专门的家事法庭;设立专门的保护儿童权利的机构;重视和解和调解工作。对我国未来司法体系变革的启示是：建立专门的家事合议庭;建立配套的儿童保护机构;完善家事纠纷中的法院调解。     

ENABLING CHILDREN OF DIVORCE TO WIN

Divorce mediators, attorneys, judges, and psychologists approach the issues in marriage dissolution from disparate vantage points. Legal niceties, actuarial acrobatics, and egosaving mechanisms tend to dominate the proceedings. Too often, however, some of the professionals have neither the training nor the experience to recognize the potential impact of such decisions on the children of divorce. The children rarely have an advocate whose sole task it is to make certain that their "best interests" are truly served. Questions are raised and suggestions for research are offered in an effort to reduce children's victimization and enable them to emerge as winners.     

MAKING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) LESS ALTERNATIVE: THE NEED FOR ADR AS BOTH A MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENT AND A BAR EXAM TOPIC

Divorce proceedings have had a negative reputation due to their adversarial nature. Litigation in the family law field has exacerbated an already emotionally charged atmosphere. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has grown in importance over the past three decades and has helped to alleviate some of the animosity which accompanies divorce and child custody matters. Parents in particular are aided by the benefits of options such as mediation and collaborative divorce, obtaining increased control over their agreements in situations where the relationships will be continuous due to shared parenting responsibilities. However, much more could be done to increase the use of ADR in family law proceedings. Current family law practitioners could fill many roles, including mediator, advocate during mediation, collaborative negotiator, arbitrator, and counselor regarding which process to implement. Knowledge about these different roles, with their attendant skills and ethical issues, has become imperative. This Note will advocate for a mandatory continuing legal education requirement in ADR for matrimonial attorneys, as well as for the inclusion of ADR as a topic on state bar examinations. An increased knowledge of ADR will benefit divorcing parents and their children, ease an overcrowded court system, and lead to greater personal and professional satisfaction for the family law practitioner.