In the context of litigated custody disputes, there are important differences between forensic consultants and expert witnesses. They address different subject matter, the discoverability of their files is different, and their expressed opinions are aimed at different targets. Once reviewers convey their initial impressions of an evaluator's work, retaining counsel must decide in which one of these two conflicting roles the reviewer will be most useful. Forensic consultants can provide invaluable assistance to counsel regarding an evaluator's background, methodology, opinion formulation, opinion communication, and possible multiple roles. Principles of the forensic consultation process require that consultants: (1) identify the required expertise; (2) identify the relevant forensic issue; (3) use multiple sources of data; and (4) focus on relevance, reliability, and sufficiency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677–680
2.
American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073
3.
CallowayG. C. (1997, November/December). Ethical issues in the professional role of critiquing child custody evaluations. The North Carolina Psychologist, 10–11
4.
Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 336–345
5.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
6.
EatonL. (2004, May 23). For arbiters in custody battles: Wide power and little scrutiny. The New York Times, p. Al
7.
EpsteinE. S. (2001). The attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine(4th ed.). New York: National Book Network
8.
Federal Rules of Evidence 702
9.
GouldJ. W.LehrmannD. (2002). Evaluating the probative value of child custody evaluations. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 53(2), 17–30
10.
GreenbergS. A.ShumanD. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 50–57
11.
Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
12.
GrossS. R.MnookinJ. L. (2003). Expert information and expert evidence: A preliminary taxonomy. Selon Hall Law Review, 34, 139–185
13.
Grossman v. State Board of Psychology, 825 A.2d 748 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
14.
GroveW. M.MeehlP. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323
15.
HeilbrunK. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York, NY: Kluwer
16.
KellyJ. B.LambM. E. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 297–311
17.
KennedyD. (2007). A new year. Science, 315(5808), 17
18.
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, 171–174
19.
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
20.
MarineE. C.BogieM. A. (2004). Professional liability claims: Processes and outcomes. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from www.athealth.com
21.
Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007).
22.
Matrimonial Commission. (2006). Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York. Albany, NY: Author
23.
OttoR. K.HeilbrunK. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57, 5–18
24.
PetersonL. W.HardinM. E. (1997). Children in distress: A guide for screening children's art. New York, NY: Norton
25.
PiechowskiL. D. (2006). Forensic consultation in disability insurance matters. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 34, 151–167
26.
SaundersT. R.GindesM.BrayJ. H.ShellenbergerS.NurseA. R. (1996). Should psychotherapists be concerned about the new APA child custody guidelines?Psychotherapy Bulletin, 31, 28–35
27.
ShapiroD. L. (1988). Ethical constraints in forensic settings: Understanding the limits of our expertise. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6, 71–86
28.
ShumanD. W. (2002). The role of mental health experts in custody decisions: Science, psychological tests, and clinical judgment. Family Law Quarterly, 36, 135–162
29.
Task Force for Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation. (2007). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation, Family Court Review, 45, 70–91
30.
TippinsT. M.WittmannJ. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43, 193–222
31.
TrubittA. (2004). Play therapy goes to court: Implications and applications in contested child custody(2nd ed). Kailua, HI: Author
