Child Custody Evaluations Research Articles

When Laws Change: Ramifications and Implications for Child Custody Evaluations

When Laws Change: Ramifications and Implications for Child Custody Evaluations

Operationalizing therapeutic jurisprudence in the family law system

AbstractThe family law system requires change to improve family outcomes, and the operationalization of therapeutic jurisprudence may be part of the solution. In this paper, the authors propose The Confluent Family Law Model, which realigns mental health professionals with the court to utilize their expertise better, mitigate problems with child custody evaluations, reduce system noise, and improve decision hygiene in family law. The model aims to work collaboratively with family court professionals to assist families and argues that “best interest” determinations may be better achieved through mental health input on a case‐by‐case basis at the level of the bench.

Are child custody evaluations beneficial to family law judges? A study from the judicial perspective

AbstractThere is a long history of dissension among legal and mental health professionals about the value of child custody evaluations. Despite frequent use by the courts, the lack of adequate empirical research impedes the ability to validate the efficacy of child custody evaluations. This study investigated the overall value of court‐ordered child custody evaluations by surveying a diverse, national sample of judges to gather data regarding the usefulness, and validity of child custody evaluations. Two hundred and sixty‐eight judges from 42 states completed an anonymous survey. The results indicated that judges find information voiced by the child in question, data obtained from the parent–child observations, and collateral data obtained about the litigants as most useful. Survey findings suggested judges perceived there to be a shortage of trained evaluators and also consider child custody evaluations too expensive and too time‐consuming. Overall, judges find child custody evaluations useful and clearly desire experts to include recommendations on legal custody and parenting time schedules in their reports.

Hybrid processes within parenting plan assessments: Rationale and an illustrative model

AbstractParenting plan Assessments, also known as child custody evaluations, are forensic psychological investigations into the needs of children, the parenting capacities of their caregivers, and the resulting fit between the children's needs and caregiver capacities. Typically, they result in recommendations that are, in the opinion of the assessor, formulated to meet the best interests of children regarding a parenting plan, child sharing, parental responsibilities and ancillary services that are likely to support the children's optimal functioning as well as the functioning of the now reconfigured family. Such assessments are part of a pathway to untangling conflicts between the parents regarding the most appropriate parenting plan for the reconfigured family. Paradoxically, the assessment process can exacerbate the conflict, entrench parental polarization, and create lingering feelings of helplessness, frustration, and disempowerment in the parents. This article provides a rationale for the use of a hybrid process that incorporates alternative dispute resolution as an integrated part of the parenting plan assessment and provides an illustrative model of such a hybrid process.

Models and methods of cost‐effective child custody evaluation

AbstractChild 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.

The emperor has no clothes: A systemic view of the status and future of child custody evaluation (CCE)

AbstractFor all of the time, effort, and money invested in child custody evaluation (CCE) and for all of evaluators' emphases on collecting empirically sound data, CCE is not itself an empirically robust process. The reliability, validity, efficacy, and efficiency of CCE has never yet been adequately demonstrated. The science has yet even to define and measure the variables that constitute a healthy family, much less how one is to measure and recommend changes for conflicted systems in the midst of tectonic transitions. This article proposes five ways in which family law professionals and the culture at large should work to better serve the needs of our children: (1) the establishment of proactive parenting and co‐parenting education intended to diminish the frequency and magnitude of family conflict and improve the quality of child and family functioning; (2) the introduction of organized incentives that motivate healthy parenting and co‐parenting practices as opposed to negative consequences that do too‐little, too‐late; (3) a greater emphasis on social equity, cultural humility, and universal professional training; (4) the creation of ethical guidelines that disconnect continuing conflict from professional income; and (5) outcome research that feeds back into the evolution of these and related processes.

The red herring of adolescent mental health

AbstractAn increase in adolescent distress and mental health symptoms has been clearly documented since the COVID‐19 pandemic, as has increased exposure to adverse childhood experiences. Layer on top of these stressors being a youth of divorcing or separating high conflict families, and adolescent symptomatology can suddenly become a flashpoint for parental attention, division and conflict. Approaching cases using an ecological and family systems framework is necessary for accurate conceptualization and assessment of best interests in the context of child custody evaluations. Doing so ensures that adolescent mental health does not become a red herring in high conflict cases, leading to undue focus on the adolescent's mental health without considering other salient factors in the case, such as the broader parent conflict. Programs offered at the Center of Excellence for Children, Families & the Law at William James College designed to improve the lives of youth by addressing parental conflict are described.

Child Custody Evaluations and the Borderline Personality Disorder

This article addresses the issue of a Borderline Personality Disorderin parents in family courts world wide, with case examples from Australiaand Canada. It advocates that child custody evaluators can be usefulresources that can assist the courts in determining the best interestsof the child.

The development and psychometric properties of a quality measure for child custody evaluations

The aim of this study was to develop a measure of quality for Single Expert Reports (known as child custody evaluations or CCEs in the United States) and assess their psychometric properties. The Quality Measure for Child Custody Evaluations (QM-CCE) was derived from a previous survey of judges, lawyers and psychologists that identified 30 key components of a CCE plus an item assessing Overall Quality. Forty-four students enrolled in Master of Psychology programs in New South Wales (N = 44), Australia read seven mock reports and rated the quality using the QM-CCE. Inter-rater reliability was within the acceptable to excellent range across reports (ICC = .79 − .95). Exploratory Factor Analysis found a single dimension that underpins the measure. Internal consistency of the sub-scales was excellent (α = .98). Inter-rater reliability was also excellent (ICC = .99). Although the single item, Overall Quality, was highly correlated with the Multi-item Response, systematic patterns of difference were found. Given the promising psychometric properties of the QM-CCE, it may be a useful instrument not only for research purposes but for evaluators to improve the quality of their work and for legal professionals to decide the weight accorded to the CCE.

Questionnaires in child custody evaluations: The forgotten ubiquitous medium

Best practice requires that child custody evaluations (CCEs) incorporate multiple methods to sample varied sources. The family law literature is replete with discussions of four common methods of inquiry: interview, observation, review of historical documents, and the use of psychometric tests and inventories. This article defines questionnaires as a fifth method of child custody data collection that is as ubiquitous in practice as it is neglected in the literature. We define questionnaires as a valuable and unique means of collecting child custody data distinct from but complementary of these other four avenues of inquiry. Questionnaires can be critical means of collecting at least six distinct types of data: demographics, history, opinions and priorities, behavioral self-reports, perceptions of others, and for the collection of third party and collateral data. This article defines questionnaires as a unique data collection method and discusses their use in CCEs. A preliminary survey of child custody evaluators’ use of questionnaires is discussed. Results find that the evaluators sampled routinely use questionnaires and find them helpful. Recommendations are offered regarding the effective use of questionnaires during a CCE. Evaluators are urged to routinely incorporate CCE questionnaires in the interest of standardization, time and cost-efficiency.

Specific Factors Influencing Child Custody Evaluations

Child custody evaluations are often ordered by a judge when there is a disagreement between parents on what is in the best interest of their children. Psychologists are often the mental health professionals who get appointed to conduct these evaluations, and as such, there is an expectation that these assessments are made in an objective manner, free from the interference of explicit or implicit bias.

Family Court Responses to Claims of Parental Alienation in Quebec

Abstract An increasing number of cases of parental separation involve high conflict and claims that a parent is alienating a child. This study analyzes reported family law cases involving claims of parental alienation in Quebec between 2017 and 2020 (n = 164). Bivariate analyzes were undertaken to establish correlations between family characteristics (child's age, safety issues concerning the children and parents, severity of the parental conflict, child's age, allegations of domestic violence and child abuse) and court decisions. Judges made a finding of parental alienation in a minority of cases where a claim of alienation was made, and in more than a quarter of cases did not resolve the claim. Issues of family violence were raised in about a quarter of the cases where alienation was an issue. The courts rarely dismissed a claim of violence and made a finding of alienation. The most common outcome of all cases was a continuation of the status quo, with a custody reversal in only a few cases (n = 7). Mothers were more often alleged to be engaging in alienating behaviour, but there is a lower rate of judicial substantiation of alienation against mothers, and the study did not find evidence of gender bias. Judicial findings of alienation were associated with substantiation by a child custody evaluator or the child protection service. Only a small portion of cases resulted in orders psychosocial interventions. The authors argue that courts, agencies professionals need to better address issues of parental alienation and family violence.

“What we have here is a failure to communicate”: The misuse of attachment and bonding in the courtroom: A call for definitions and explanations

AbstractAttachment and bond are two words often used in child custody evaluations and in family courts. Many professionals misuse these terms. Professionals often use phrases such as “strong attachment,” “healthy bond,” and “well‐attached,” all phrases which are not in the scientific literature. Attachment has a specific definition in the scientific literature. Furthermore, other than the Strange Situation method of assessment, there are no well‐research reliable and valid methods for assessing the type of attachment, as defined in the scientific literature. Until such measures exist, evaluators, therapists, and family court professionals should avoid using the term attachment to describe parent‐child relationships, and instead focus on functional aspects of the parent‐child relationship.

What constitutes a high-quality child custody evaluation? A qualitative analysis

Eleven highly experienced Australian professionals (psychologists, family lawyers, and judges) were interviewed regarding Single Expert Reports (also known as a Child Custody Evaluation CCE) written by psychologists. A semi-structured interview explored their opinion about the role of and weight afforded to the CCE; the value of psychologists as Single Experts (evaluators), what makes a CCE helpful or unhelpful where there are allegations of mental illness, alienation, family violence and sexual abuse; the inclusion of formal risk assessments in reports; and how psychologists could improve the quality of CCEs. Thematic Analysis was used to capture emergent themes from the data. Four major themes were identified. The first three themes explain what components make for a high-quality report: (1) Thoroughness, (2) Transparency and (3) a Pathway Forward. The fourth theme was informed by the first three themes, in that if the above components were done to a high standard, the overall CCE could be given more weight, and be of greater (4) Assistance to the Court. Findings add depth to previous survey data, confirm the essential components of a CCE that make it helpful in family law proceedings, and provide clarification about how psychologists can improve the quality and consistency of CCEs.

Definitions and terminology regarding child alignments, estrangement, and alienation: A survey of custody evaluators.

Parental alienation (PA) is a highly consequential family dynamic that causes harm to children and parents. While many mental health and legal professionals agree that PA is common and potentially very harmful to children, there is still the appearance that there is controversy and discord in the field. The purpose of this study was to test the extent of consensus in the field regarding the basic tenets of PA theory. Specifically, 11 key terms related to PA were identified through expert input and preliminary field-testing. An on-line survey was created specifically for the study to assess level of agreement with these key terms among custody evaluators. This profession was selected because of their high degree of training and experience with a variety of family conflict situations; 119 child custody evaluators selected as members of a professional custody evaluator listing (88% response rate) rated their endorsement of these 11 key definitions with response options including: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Results revealed that roughly 80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with each of the 11 definitions. These results demonstrate a high degree of consensus and should guide future trainings of legal and mental health professionals to ensure a common language and understanding of this phenomenon.

Child custody evaluation practices: Where we were, where we are, and where we are going.

Child custody evaluation practices: Where we were, where we are, and where we are going.

Making the case for videoconferencing and remote child custody evaluations (RCCEs): The empirical, ethical, and evidentiary arguments for accepting new technology.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its requirements for social distancing and limited, if any, in-person contact have forced the child custody community to consider remote child custody evaluations (RCCEs) conducted through videoconferencing CCEs are perhaps the most complex of all forensic evaluations, requiring complex, multifaceted assessments of multiple parties and their relationships in order to address the best interests of the child Attempting these evaluations via videoconferencing should be done carefully and only after consideration of numerous factors, including whether this alternative can be safely and reliably accomplished This article outlines the conceptual approach used by the child custody community for determining the foci of the evaluation, tailoring data collection via multiple methodologies, and analyzing the data The article reviews the empirical literature demonstrating that professional relationships and various clinical and forensic processes have reliably and successfully used videoconferencing with adults, children, and different clinical and forensic populations The article also outlines how evaluators conducting RCCEs must comply with the ethical demands of their discipline or profession, as well as ethical demands unique to remote service delivery Finally, the article addresses how evaluators can prepare for challenges to their work that are based upon the standards for admissibility of expert witness testimony The limitations of videoconferencing, including limitations specific to the demands of RCCEs, are also reviewed (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

"Making the case for videoconferencing and remote child custody evaluations (RCCEs): The empirical, ethical, and evidentiary arguments for accepting new technology." Correction to Dale and Smith (2020).

Reports an error in Making the case for videoconferencing and remote child custody evaluations (RCCEs): The empirical, ethical, and evidentiary arguments for accepting new technology by Milfred D Dale and Desiree Smith (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Advanced Online Publication, Aug 24, 2020, np) In the article (https://doi org/10 1037/law0000280), in the first paragraph of VC Use in Forensic Interviews of Children Regarding Possible Child Abuse, the authors realized after publication that a staged event was incorrectly cited as a field study All versions of this article have been corrected (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2020-62826-001 ) The COVID-19 pandemic and its requirements for social distancing and limited, if any, in-person contact have forced the child custody community to consider remote child custody evaluations (RCCEs) conducted through videoconferencing CCEs are perhaps the most complex of all forensic evaluations, requiring complex, multifaceted assessments of multiple parties and their relationships in order to address the best interests of the child Attempting these evaluations via videoconferencing should be done carefully and only after consideration of numerous factors, including whether this alternative can be safely and reliably accomplished This article outlines the conceptual approach used by the child custody community for determining the foci of the evaluation, tailoring data collection via multiple methodologies, and analyzing the data The article reviews the empirical literature demonstrating that professional relationships and various clinical and forensic processes have reliably and successfully used videoconferencing with adults, children, and different clinical and forensic populations The article also outlines how evaluators conducting RCCEs must comply with the ethical demands of their discipline or profession, as well as ethical demands unique to remote service delivery Finally, the article addresses how evaluators can prepare for challenges to their work that are based upon the standards for admissibility of expert witness testimony The limitations of videoconferencing, including limitations specific to the demands of RCCEs, are also reviewed (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique

This article analyzes rhetorical strategies that are often used to legitimize classifying children's parent rejection as “alienation,” conceived as a mental disorder or diagnosis. Use of evaluative labels or diagnoses instead of descriptions of behavioral functioning is problematic in child custody evaluations. We address Distorted Claims of consensus, Alienation Labeling, Renaming, Proof by Assertion, Misrepresenting Endorsement by Authorities, Reduction Ad Absurdum, and Ad Personam Attacks. Rhetoric distracts from the evidence and observable behaviors required to accurately classify mistreated/alienated children and protective/alienating parents. It creates an ideology that obfuscates the absence of and need for scientific validity studies; reliable prevalence data; non‐conclusory assessment of parent–child relationship quality; empirical evidence testing the coaching hypothesis; and valid, objective evaluations of treatment programs. The article concludes with suggestions to improve dialogue between scholars in order to advance research and custody evaluations.

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Resist/Refuse Dynamics: Confirmatory Bias and Abductive Inference in Child Custody Evaluations

Had Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective, the great Sherlock Holmes, actually engaged in deductive reasoning, he would have solved many fewer crimes. In fact, Holmes' logical progression from astute observation to hypotheses is a model of a type of inductive reasoning. This paper argues that mental health professionals tasked to evaluate why a child is resisting/refusing contact with one parent must approach each family the way that Holmes approached each case, without a presumed suspect, moving systematically from detail to hypothesis, well‐versed in the full range of dynamics that may be at play, and erring in favor of parsimony rather than pathology. By contrast, the custody evaluator who approaches these matters through a deductive process, seeking data that support an a priori theory, is vulnerable to confirmatory bias and doing harm to the child whose interests are paramount. The literature concerned with resist/refuse dynamics is reviewed, yielding 13 non‐mutually exclusive variables that evaluators must consider so as to more fully identify why a particular child is resisting or refusing contact with one parent. On this basis, the hybrid model is expanded to include the full spectrum of contributing dynamics. Specific recommendations are made for judicial officers in the interest of writing orders for custody evaluations that minimize the risk of confirmatory bias.Key Points for the Family Court Community Deductive reasoning seeks to confirm or refute an a priori hypothesis Deductive reasoning is highly vulnerable to confirmational bias Confirmational bias can corrupt and invalidate forensic evaluation to the detriment of all involved Resist/refuse dynamics must be understood through an inductive process that is open to all possible hypotheses A survey of the literature identifies at least thirteen mutually compatible hypotheses, all of which must be evaluated Courts must take care to word orders for forensic family evaluations in a manner that minimizes confirmatory bias and invites inductive investigation