In the last decade complaints against evaluators have increased dramatically as have malpractice actions. There is much controversy concerning the qualifications and methods employed by evaluators. It is proposed that legislatures and court systems develop standards to be used in regulating the professional preparation of and conduct of those who perform child custody evaluations. Professional organizations representing specific disciplines are torn by competing responsibilities—an obligation to the public and accountability to their members. They are pressured by their own members not to create practice-related documents that may complicate the lives of practitioner-members. It is recommended that courts, legislatures, and regulatory agencies use the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts' Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation in developing appropriate standards and regulations. The process by which the model standards were developed is described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportG.W.PostmanL.J. (1947). The Psychology of Rumor. New York, NY: Holt
2.
American Psychological Association (1987). General guidelines for provision of psychological services. American Psychologist, 42, 712–723
3.
American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611
4.
American Psychological Association (1993). Record keeping guidelines. American Psychologist, 48, 984–986
5.
American Psychological Association (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677–680
6.
American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (2000). Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation. Madison, WI: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
9.
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (2005). Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. Madison, WI: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
10.
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (2007). Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation. Family Court Review, 45:1, 70–91
11.
BalaN. (2005). Tippins and Wittmann asked the wrong question: Evaluators may not be “experts” but they can express best interests opinions. Family Court Review, 43:4, 554–562
12.
BarnettJ. E. (2003). APA's revised ethics code: Implications for professional practice. The Register Report, 29/Spring, 9–11
13.
BenjaminG.A.H.GollanJ.K. (2003). Family evaluation in custody litigation: Reducing risks of ethical infractions and malpractice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
14.
BowerG.H. (1986). Mood and memory. American Psychologist. 36, 129–148
15.
BowerG.H.GilliganS.G. (1979). Remembering information related to one's self. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 420–432
16.
BowerG.H.MonteiroK.P.GilliganS.G. (1978). Emotional mood as a context of learning and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 573–585
17.
BruckM.CeciS. J.HembrookeH. (1998). Reliability and credibility of young children's reports: From research to policy and practice. American Psychologist, 53:2, 136–151
18.
CallowayG. (2002). When forensic rigor is overly applied. In “Child-based vs. forensic evaluations” by CallowayG.LeeS. M. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations and the Fifth International Congress on Parent Education and Access Programs (pp. 213–219). Madison, WI: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
19.
CeciS. J.BruckM. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403–439
20.
CeciS.J.FriedmanR.D. (2000). The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications. Cornell Law Review, 86, 33–106
21.
CeciS. J.HuffmanM. L.SmithE.LoftusE. F. (1994). Repeatedly thinking about non-events: Source misattributions among preschoolers. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 388–407
22.
CeciS. J.LoftusE. F.LeichtmanM.BruckM. (1994). The role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 62, 304–320
23.
Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15:6, 655–665
24.
Daubert v. MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (on remand), 43 F.3d 1311 (1995).
25.
EatonL. (2004). For arbiters in custody battles: Wide power and little scrutiny. The New York Times, May 23, 2004, p. 1
26.
GatowskiS. I.DobbinS. A.RichardsonJ. T.GinsburgG. P.MerlinoM. L.DahrV. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert testimony in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 433–458
27.
HeilbrunK. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
28.
HjeltS. (2000). Professional psychology: A view from the bench. Register Report, 26:1, 8–13
29.
Idaho v. Wright 497 U.S. 805 (1990).
30.
KirklandK.KirklandK. L. (2001). Frequency of child custody evaluation complaints and related disciplinary action: A survey of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32:2, 171–174
31.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
32.
MandlerG. (1982). Stress and thought processes. In GoldbergerL.BreznitzS. (eds.), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. New York, NY: The Free Press
33.
MarineE. C.BogieM. A. (2002). Professional liability claims: Processes and outcomes, www.athealth.com (on-line Continuing Education (CE course).
34.
Matrimonial Commission (2006). Report available at www.nycourts.gov.
35.
NolanJ. R.Nolan-HaleyJ. M. (1990). Black's law dictionary (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West
36.
PooleD. A.LindsayD. S. (2001). Children's eyewitness reports after exposure to misinformation from parents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 27–50
37.
SaundersT. R.GindesM.BrayJ. H.ShellenbergerS.NurseA. R. (1996). Should psychotherapists be concerned about the new APA child custody guidelines?Psychotherapy Bulletin, 31:3, 28–35
38.
SaywitzK. J.GoodmanG. S. (1996). Interviewing children in and out of court: Current research and practical implications. In BerlinerL.BriereJ.BulkleyJ. (Eds.) APSAC handbook on child maltreatment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
39.
SchepardA. (2006). Law and children: Professionalizing child custody evaluations. New York Law Journal, 236, 11/17/06. Accessible on line at www.law.com/jsp/nylj/index.jsp.
40.
ShapiroD. L. (1988). Ethical constraints in forensic settings: Understanding the limits of our expertise. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6:1, 71–86
41.
TreismanA.M. (1964). Verbal Cues, Language and meaning in selective attention. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 206–219
42.
TrubittA. (2006). Workshop outline for To play or not to play in child custody evaluations: Recent challenges in current practice. Workshop presented 10/13/06 at the Association for Play Therapy conference in Toronto, Canada
43.
WalkerA. G. (1994). Handbook on questioning children: A linguistic perspective. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Committee on Children and the Law
44.
Washington v. United States, 9. F.2d 444 (1967).
45.
WoodyR. H. (2000). Child Custody: Practice Standards, Ethical Issues, and Legal Safeguards for Mental Health Professionals. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press
46.
YounggrenJ. H. (2000). Review of Steve Hjelt's view of psychology. Register Report, 26:1, 9. [Refer to: Hjelt, S. (2000). Professional psychology: A view from the bench. Register Report, 26:1, 8–13.]
