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.     

MAKING A PLACE AT THE TABLE:

This response to Timothy Tippins and Jeffrey Wittmann's article "Empirical and Ethical Problems with Custody Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance" builds upon the authors' conclusions that custody evaluations cannot and should not be a substitute for the socio-legal judgment of the best interests of the child. Recognizing that clinical humility and judicial vigilance may not be sufficient to restrain the misuse of psychological evaluation, we offer for consideration three structural changes that would provide for a more appropriate use of the skills and talents custody evaluators bring to legal decisions. We suggest using custody evaluators in the less adversarial setting of preparing parenting plans, revising the procedures by which custody evaluations are elicited in litigation, and adopting the approximation standard for child custody determinations.     

Evaluating the Probative Value of Child Custody Evaluations

It has previously been argued that a competent forensic work product is defined, in part, by the evaluator's use of conventional forensic methods and procedures applied to child custody evaluations (Gould, 1998) and that the more judges and other legal professionals understand about forensic methods and procedures, the better they are able to critically weigh the substance and merit of a child custody evaluation (Gould & Bell, 2000). These forensic methods and procedures have their foundation in the behavioral sciences and are characteristic of competent and comprehensive forensic evaluations conducted for other legal purposes. In this paper, we provide a more detailed model for critiquing the forensic competence of a child custody report. Such a model better assists courts and lawyers in understanding how to assess the substance and admissibility of custody reports.     

Assessing allegations of domestic violence in child custody evaluations

There has been an increased focus on child custody evaluations involving domestic violence allegations with much criticism of evaluators' training, practices, and procedures. A national survey of 115 child custody evaluators (doctoral and master's level) was conducted to explore these criticisms. Findings revealed adequate training, multiple sources of data collection, and practices/procedures that closely adhere to child custody guidelines. However, robust, specialized domestic violence instruments, tests, and questionnaires were underutilized. Respondents indicated that findings supporting domestic violence allegations had a substantial impact on their subsequent recommendations. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of assessing domestic violence when conducting custody evaluations and the need for developing practice standards in this domain. Generally, results did not support common criticisms of custody evaluation practice.     

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.     

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.     

The Place for Custody Evaluations in Family Peacemaking

Custody evaluations can serve the dual purpose of providing neutral, objective information to the court while also contributing to the possibility of earlier settlement, which coincides with the therapeutic jurisprudence goal of more positive outcomes for children and families. Research suggests that most cases settle after custody evaluations. However, most of the literature is focused on the use of custody evaluations for litigation. Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health consultants can influence parents to focus more on children's needs and less on their conflict as they go through the evaluation process. This article urges family courts to develop processes and require professionals to learn skills needed for an interdisciplinary process to utilize evaluations in peacemaking.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• All custody evaluation processes should aim to reduce and/or shorten children's exposure to parental conflict.
• Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health professional consultants should use the evaluation process to influence parents to be more aware of their children's needs and less invested in their adversarial positions.
• Evaluators should learn to write and orally present information and state opinions with consideration of the parents themselves as consumers of the custody evaluation as well as the court.
• Attorneys and mental health professional consultants should help clients review the report, process their emotional reactions, and consider their options for settlement versus litigation in terms of emotional and financial costs to the family.
• Court processes should be developed to contain the time and cost of custody evaluations and provide dispute resolution after custody evaluations.

     

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.     

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.     

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?     

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.     

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.     

SECOND OPINIONS An Ethical and Professional Process for Reviewing Child Custody Evaluations

When a parent is dissatisfied with the outcome of a child custody evaluation, he or she is tempted to discredit the evaluation. This article addresses many issues associated with the review of child custody evaluations, in particular, the professional and ethical obligations of the reviewer to maintain a neutral, objective position throughout the review process.     

AND HOW ARE THE CHILDREN?

Recent innovations in American child custody law have affected both the substantive law and the procedures by which custody decisions are reached. Professor Bruch describes these developments, analyses their underpinnings in psychology and ideology, and identifies both intended and unrecognized effects of the dispute resolution process on the custody decision. She concludes that many new doctrines and procedures that have been widely assumed to benefit children, including joint custody and mediation, often disserve children's interests.     

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.     

Parental Alienation Syndrome in Italian legal judgments: an exploratory study

The present study highlights the characteristics of separated families in Italy for whom Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) has been diagnosed during court custody evaluations. The study analyzed the psychological reports of 12 court-appointed expert evaluations of families for whom PAS had been diagnosed. Twelve evaluations that did not receive the PAS diagnosis served as a control group. A specific coding system was used for data analysis. The results indicated that the alienating parents were always the parents who had custody of the children. Children who were diagnosed with PAS were predominantly the only child in the family, had identity problems and manifested manipulative behavior. The consultant in these cases suggested individual psychotherapy for the children and recommended foster care to the Social Services agency.     

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.