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.

     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

THE EMERGING FORENSIC ROLE FOR WORK PRODUCT REVIEW AND CASE ANALYSIS IN CHILD ACCESS AND PARENTING PLAN DISPUTES

An emerging forensic service is that of conducting a work product review of a court‐appointed child custody evaluator's evaluation and report. If the reviewer determines there are serious deficiencies in the work product, then the reviewer will provide consultation to the retaining attorney and expert testimony. The reviewer usually is in a hybrid role of consulting/advising the retaining attorney, testifying, and educating the court. Ethical issues in providing forensic services and rebuttal testimony as a reviewer are discussed. Both reviewers and evaluators have a duty to be objective and balanced in their analyses of data and issues. Both types of experts should strive to be helpful to the court and try to serve the best interests of children. Ethical nuances involving review work are discussed. Evaluator and reviewer share the same dataset. Evaluators need to take care to keep a high quality case record with legible interview notes. Reviewers provide a monitoring function for the court or a function of forensic quality control so the court will not be misled by expert testimony of evaluators that is based on flawed data collection and/or analysis. A list of questions is presented for reviewers to use in scrutinizing the quality of the custody evaluation. A list of questions is presented for examining the quality of the reviewer's own work product. The importance of a case analysis and use of conceptual frameworks by evaluators and reviewers is discussed.     

CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Judicial and legal changes in divorce rules and precedents over the last two decades have led to increasing involvement by mental health professionals in child custody disputes. This involvement usually entails an evaluation of the child and parents, along with a recommendation to the court regarding custody. To date, there is little empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of methods typically used by professionals in making recommendations to the court. This article presents a review of assessment methods currently used in resolving child custody disputes. It also reviews the limited number of outcome studies on child custody evaluation and methods used in litigation and mediation.     

Forensic Methods and Procedures Applied to Child Custody Evaluations: What Judges Need to Know in Determining a Competent Forensic Work Product

Judges are seeing an increase in the number of forensic reports in the area of child custody. This increase in forensic mental health involvement suggests that judges need to better understand the application of current forensic mental health methodology to assist them in determining a competent forensic work product. Recent literature has argued that child custody evaluators need to craft their reports consistent with scientific methods and procedures as well as legal standards governing admissibility of scientific evidence. This paper provides a framework for judges to assist in determining whether a child custody evaluation has been crafted consistent with current behavioral science literature pertaining to use of forensic mental health methods and procedures.     

LAWYERS AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WORKING TOGETHER: RECONCILING THE DUTIES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND MANDATORY CHILD ABUSE REPORTING

Lawyers are increasingly finding themselves working in conjunction with a social worker and/or a psychologist. This dynamic can be found in organizations that take a multi‐disciplinary approach to the law, such as New York City's Legal Aid Society and Lawyers for Children. Collaborative law is another such example. Collaborative law is an increasing trend in family law; it provides a divorcing couple the opportunity to work with professionals from different disciplines, without being subject to the court system. While a multi‐disciplinary approach to the law has the ability to maximize the value of representation, it also can create tension when inconsistent duties are imposed by conflicting professional obligations. A major area of conflict is between the lawyer's duty to maintain client confidences and the mental health professional's duty to report child abuse. This Note discusses the important policies behind these opposing duties. The Note recommends amending state child abuse and neglect laws in order to eliminate the conflict between the professions' duties and allow lawyers and mental health professionals to work together more harmoniously. Amending state child abuse and neglect laws will allow for mental health professionals working with a lawyer who represents a client the same reporting duties as lawyers in the process.     

Relocation Issues in Child Custody Evaluations: A Survey of Professionals

We report on a sample of 90 child custody evaluators in the United States, who completed an online questionnaire on their attitudes and beliefs in child custody relocation cases. Findings indicated that the vast majority of participants relied on relevant professional literature and utilized a relocation risk assessment forensic model. Participants found many risk, protective, and specific relocation factors important, but the triad of past parental involvement, support for the other parent, and child's age were afforded the most importance. Participants also reported that the moving parents sought relocation for educational/vocational reasons, to receive support of their extended family, or to remarry, while the nonmoving party most commonly opposed relocation due to fears of interference/damage to the nonmoving parent–child relationship, restrictive gatekeeping, and alienation. A common trend among participants was concerns over the possible detrimental impact of any relocation on the nonmoving parent–child relationship and quality of co‐parenting. The vast majority of participants reported that they made specific recommendations to the court about relocation, and the court agreed with their recommendation the overwhelming majority of the time. We discuss Implications of the findings as well as areas needing further research.     

SCIENTIFICALLY CRAFTED CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Part 1 of this two-part series proposed the use of an interdisciplinary model in the development of psycholegal questions that guide child custody evaluations. It was argued that defining the scope and focus of an evaluation at the time that a court order is entered provides a more structured and clearly defined set of questions to be researched and examined within the context of the behavioral science literature. The present article offers a conceptual model to be used in gathering and analyzing data in child custody evaluations. It is argued that the use of forensic methodology provides a more scientific basis for the information provided by the evaluator to the trier of fact, ultimately resulting in a more useful and accurate picture of the family in question.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

SCIENTIFICALLY CRAFTED CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

This article proposes a model for the interdisciplinary colloboration of judges, attorneys, and evaluators prior to the writting of a court order for child custody evaluation in the formulation of specific psycholegal questions that guide the examination. These questions accurately reflect the concerns of the court, the attorneys, and the parties to the dispute while framing the evaluation questions within the behavioral sciences, suitable for evaluation by a mental health professional. Such a model best suits the court by providing information on specific, legally relevant areas of parenting, child development, and/or mental health useful to the trier of fact.     

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.     

Clinical Assessment of Parents in Child Protection Cases: An Empirical Analysis

We investigated the content and legal relevance of clinical evaluations of parents conducted in child abuse and neglect cases. The sample consisted of 190 mental health evaluation reports, randomly selected from major providers, that had been completed on parents involved in a large, urban juvenile court system. We coded evaluations on 170 objective and qualitative characteristics in order to assess for criteria recommended in the forensic literature. We compared evaluations across groups categorized by type (e.g., psychological, psychiatric, bonding/parenting, substance abuse) and where the assessments were performed (outside or inside the court). We found numerous substantive failures to meet those criteria for forensic relevance. Evaluations of parents typically were completed in a single session, rarely included a home visit, used few if any sources of information other than the parent, often cited no previous written reports, rarely used behavioral methods, stated purposes in general rather than specific terms, emphasized weaknesses over strengths in reporting results, and often neglected to describe the parent's caregiving qualities or the child's relationship with the parent. Some relevant differences were evident across assessment groups, pointing to examples of more thorough, parenting-specific evaluation practices. We recommend ways to improve current practices in forensic parenting assessment.     

Quality of criminal responsibility reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary

This paper is the third in a series of research reports on quality of forensic mental health evaluations submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. Previous studies examined quality of reports assessing competency to stand trial (CST) and post-acquittal conditional release, in felony defendants undergoing court-ordered examinations. Utilizing a 44-item quality coding instrument, this study examined quality of criminal responsibility reports in a sample of 150 forensic mental health evaluations conducted between 2006 and 2010 by court-appointed panels. Raters attained high levels of agreement in training and quality coding. Similar to the previous studies, overall quality of reports was mediocre, falling below the .80 quality criterion score for report elements, regardless of evaluator professional identification or employment status. Level of agreement between evaluators and judicial sanity determinations was “fair” using Cicchetti's (1994) standards for interpretation of intra-class correlations. Level of agreement was lower than previously published findings for CST reports and better than conditional release reports. Reasons for mediocre report quality and “fair” inter-rater agreement are discussed, including the fact that criminal responsibility evaluations are complex, retrospective in nature, and involve significant degrees of inference. In contrast to CST evaluations, assessment of criminal responsibility involves a mental state at the time of the offense evaluation. Threats to reliability in forensic reports are discussed. Suggestions for improvement of report quality are proffered, including standardization of procedures and report format and use of forensic assessment instruments.