Custody Evaluations Research Articles

Applying Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model in Family Court

he work of Urie Bronfenbrenner is a key framework in Family Science, yet there are many areas where it has seldom been applied, including in the processes experienced by divorcing families in Family Court. Acknowledging the paucity of scholarship applying ecological systems theory to these topics, the paper offers instructive interpretations of personal practice experience in these roles. Described are two of several career roles in Family Court available to professionals trained in family science and how Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model of development is applicable in that work. Careers described are providing training and consultation for attorneys and judges and conducting custody evaluations. Bronfenbrenner’s model affords consistent and useful principles for both roles. The processes of separation and divorce are described as a series of ecological transitions that affect not only family structure, but the relationships that make up the family system, as well as family members’ participation in other ecosystems. Changes in relationships and ecosystems affect development by requiring individuals to adapt. Family Court itself is an ecosystem with roles, activities and macrosystem beliefs that are often stressful for family members and that may increase risks to family relationships and development. Discussion considers areas where Family Scientists can use Bronfenbrenner’s model to contribute to improved research and practice for divorcing families.

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.

Training parenting plan evaluators: Looking towards the future

AbstractStandards 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.

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.

The experience of domestic violence survivors in the US family courts: gender bias in the court

There is a significant body of research on gender bias against women in the family courts. During the Covid-19 pandemic, battered women's vulnerability to domestic violence increased on a global level as women experienced a significant increase in the severity of abuse. The problems of gender bias and the treatment of battered women and their children have a long history of human rights' abuses. In particular, battered mothers have been the focus of gender-biased theories of parental alienation, used as a defence against claims of abuse and child maltreatment, despite a lack of empirical validity and acceptance. Additionally, the family courts in the United States are closed to the public and as a result there is a lack of transparency and accountability. A large-scale national study revealed that many supporting mental health professionals who provide custody evaluations lack a formal graduate education in domestic violence and child maltreatment. Furthermore, legislative presumptions that favour joint legal custody in custody decisions and requirements of co-parenting, fail to take into consideration the long-term public health risks of such chronic traumatic exposure. Finally, this article will address needed systemic reforms that include increased transparency, longterm court-monitoring, and supporting mental health professionals with formal graduate education in trauma, child development, and abuse, to promote resilience in vulnerable families.

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.

Right to be heard by children in Custody Evaluation institution in the Iranian legal system

Advances in the humanities have led to a shift in attitudes toward children and the issuance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989. Social activists to reduce the negative consequences of divorce on children and their better adjustment after their parental divorce, have been wanted to change family law to provide children's participation in any judicial proceedings (such as custody and access disputes) to express their views about decisions affecting their lives and well-being. In this article we analyses with content method, Iranian family law statement, to extract capacity of children's legal right to decision- making in custody disputes. The findings show, three dimensions of approach in children's right and participation are identified: rights approach, best interests approach and mixed approach .The rights approach focuses on fundamentally rights such as: equality, dignity thus emphasis on the right of the child to be heard .the second approach seem to have negative views about children's right to participation because involving children in parental fighting, are very harmful. While the third approach states, it is necessary children's voice to be heard, as the same time emphasis on child protection. The paper notes, that under Iranian law, children's views are sometimes absent in decision- making particularly in custody litigation.