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.     

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.     

It's just so difficult to get anything done: Teen mental health in the family court setting

Navigating the family court setting to protect teen mental health, meet teens' mental health needs, and promote resilience and coping skills is challenging. We have tools that can help us meet that challenge. That toolkit includes: expanding who is involved in the work to develop a parenting plan or treatment plan; not reducing the case to a one-dimensional fact pattern; restructuring family court proceedings for ongoing problem-solving, providing protections for the teen's privacy; using consensual dispute resolution and adjudication on parallel tracks; and educating the decision makers through expert declarations and Brandeis briefs (even at the trial court level).     

Judicial decision-making in family court involving children with autism spectrum disorder

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents has increased over the past decade. Consequently, the courts and experts are more likely to be exposed to these children whose needs are highly heterogeneous. The present study aims to document judicial decision-making about children with autism spectrum as well as the parenting recommendations made by experts involved in these cases. There were 104 court decisions reviewed in Quebec over the past ten years. The results show that 85.6% of the decisions included a child custody assessment and that judges are more likely to order primary care to mother (56%). However, shared parenting (27%) and primary care to the father (17%) were also ordered in disputes involving an autistic child. Bivariate analyses revealed that challenges with parental monitoring and supervision were associated with court-ordered parenting arrangements. The present study revealed that a child custody assessment as well as father custody are more often observed than in the general population. This study highlights the need for further research to shed light on the best interests of children with ASD following the separation of their parents.