Commentary on “Empirical and Ethical Problems With Custody Recommendations:” What Now?

Abstract

Replying to the paper by Tippins and Wittmann, this commentary notes that the problems they identify have been recognized for many years, yet this has resulted in little change in the practice of child custody evaluations. Three underlying reasons are offered for the stalemate that frustrates the implementation of standards for an empirically based child custody evaluation practice: (a) the economics of child custody evaluation practice; (b) inconsistencies between proposals to restrict testimony in this area and the lack of similar restrictions in most other areas of forensic practice; and (c) inadequate motivation for researchers who might contribute an empirical base for child custody evaluations. Directions for breaking the stalemate are offered for each of these problems.

Tippins and Wittman Revisited: Law, Social Science, and the Role of the Child Custody Expert 14 Years Later

“…Although (it seems) there is populist agreement among practitioners, regarding the utility of Tippins and Wittmann's () perspectives, this consensus has not yet affected the legal system or courts. Grisso () stated categorically that this is nothing new in forensic psychology in general and custody evaluation in particular; that this discussion has a long history and, to date, “nothing [has] happened” (p. 223). “More than arguments, harangues, and published guidelines” (Grisso, , p. 224), he argued, are needed.…”

“…Grisso () stated categorically that this is nothing new in forensic psychology in general and custody evaluation in particular; that this discussion has a long history and, to date, “nothing [has] happened” (p. 223). “More than arguments, harangues, and published guidelines” (Grisso, , p. 224), he argued, are needed. As per Kisthardt and Fines (), a paradigmatic shift is perhaps required.…”

A Comprehensive Guide to Child Custody Evaluations: Mental Health and Legal Perspectives

“…Knowing this does not permit us to predict whether a given smoker will develop lung cancer, however, although it does allow us to say that the smoker probably has a greater chance of developing lung cancer than does his or her non-smoking sibling when matched for other variables. Grisso (2005) is referring to the group nature of empirical data when he notes that no research will ever provide prediction in individual cases. He goes on to say that custody recommendations should always be based on scientific theories that are supported by research because "ethical practice does not require empirical proof that a particular child will not thrive if left in the custody of a particular parent.…”

A Critical Examination of the Suitability and Limitations of Psychological Tests in Family Court

“…The recommendations that flow from such conclusions and subsequent opinion testimony can have persuasive authority before the court and often encroach on the ultimate issue (Waller & Daniel, 2004). Whether experts should opine on the ultimate issue is a hotly contested issue that many critics contend, and a recent New York trial court held, should be reserved solely for the trier of fact ( John A. v. Bridget M. , 2005; Grisso, 2005; Tillbrook, Mumley, & Grisso, 2003; Tippins & Wittmann, 2005); however, other scholars have thoughtfully argued otherwise (Rogers & Ewing, 2003).…”