Custody evaluations: A critical review.

Abstract

Mental health professionals have become involved in child custody litigation by serving as custody evaluators. This article, which gives specific attention to the roles of custody evaluators and the method and content of evaluations, proposes that mental health professionals serve as strictly impartial evaluators. Ethical dilemmas associated with the professional as eualuator and the limitations of evaluative conclusions due to the paucity of research on custody arrangements is also discussed.Increasingly, mental health professionals are being asked to assist in the settlement of contested child custody disputes. Two factors are responsible for this growing demand. First, with the nation's divorce rate increasing, judges are able to make custody decisions more expeditiously if they rely on mental health professionals as custody evaluators. Second, judges are readily acknowledging that their area of expertise does not equip them to determine which social, psychological, and physical conditions are necessary for adequate child development. The expertise of those knowledgeable about mental health issues can be invaluable to judges who must make custody decisions that are in the child's best interests (Derdeyn, 1983).Acting as custody evaluator, the mental health professional seeks information that can help the judge determine which custody arrangement will serve the best interests of the child. After a series of family interviews, evaluators write a formal report, which is presented to the court. Description of family member relationships, interactions, and each member's psychological adjustment is often included in this report. In addition, most evaluators customarily make a specific custody arrangement recommendation. It is at this stage that the custody evaluator's role changes from one of diagnostician to quasi decision maker.There has been a growing body of literature on custody evaluation. The articles and books published during the past decade range from the "how to ..." types of work to a limited amount of research into the issues and variables involved in custody cases.Concomitantly, several ethical issues have arisen due to the increasing interest, demand, and monetary rewards associated with custody evaluations. In this article, the role of the evaluator and the method and content of the custody evaluation are examined.In addition, the ethical dilemmas involved are discussed, and some recommendations are made.

Empirical and Ethical Problems With Custody Recommendations:

“…We are in agreement with forensic scholars who conclude that clinicians should routinely avoid addressing the ultimate issue before the court in the form of a specific recommended access plan (e.g., Karras & Berry, 1985; Melton et al, 1997). Drawing conclusions about the ultimate issue before the finder of fact blurs critically important boundaries between the person invested with the power to make socio‐moral and social‐control decisions (the judge) and the expert witness who is hired to assist the court (e.g., the psychologist).…”

Mandated Custody Evaluations and the Limits of Judicial Power

“…66 Among the custody practices proposed, the UMDA stipulated that courts can order a custody investigation that includes professional consultation. 67 Karras and Berry's reference is presumably to Section 405 of the UMDA, which states that "in contested custody proceedings, and other custody proceedings if a parent or the child's custodian so requests, the court may order an investigation and report concerning custodial arrangements for the child." 68 The section goes on to state that this report may be made by "the court social service agency, the staff of the juvenile court, the local probation or welfare department, or a private agency employed by the court for the purpose."…”

The Responsible Use of Psychological Testing in Child Custody Evaluations: Selection of Tests

“…those that utilized survey methodology (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997;Karras & Berry, 1985;Keilin & Bloom, 1986; and those that reviewed the methodology contained within child custody reports (Bow & Quinnell, 2002;Horvath et al, 2002). The first study was conducted by Keilen and Bloom almost 20 years ago.…”