Empirical and Ethical Problems With Custody Recommendations:

Tippins, Timothy M.; Wittmann, Jeffrey P.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00019.x

Cited by 112 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These writers and others, to varying degrees, also discuss specific tests worthy of use for parenting plan or custody evaluation and analyze their strengths and weakness in parenting assessment (see, for example, Otto, Buffington-Vollum, & Eden, 2003). A specific test battery has not been recommended in any widely acknowledged learned treatise and there is considerable disagreement among scholars and practitioners regarding the psychometric vitality of many of the commonly used instruments (a review of these arguments is beyond the scope of this article but see Erard, 2007;Erickson, Lilienfeld, & Vitacco, 2007a;Erickson, Lilienfeld, & Vitacco, 2007b;Flens & Drozd, 2006;Otto et al, 2003;Tippins & Wittman, 2005).…”

Section: Learned Treatisesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Parenting plan evaluation standards and guidelines for psychologists: Setting the frame

Connell¹

2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores how various sources of authority interact to govern psychologists' parenting plan evaluations (child custody evaluations), and remedies that are available when an evaluation is poorly conducted. The law in some jurisdictions may establish specific elements to be included in such evaluations; the professional associations to which psychologists belong may set forth enforceable standards, aspirational guidelines, and white papers; and learned treatises may describe ideal practices. Psychologists may rely on these sources of authority to shape their evaluations, and, finally, may consult with colleagues for guidance.

show abstract

Section: Learned Treatisesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Parenting plan evaluation standards and guidelines for psychologists: Setting the frame

Connell¹

2010

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Un aspect particulièrement décrié est la possibilité pour les experts de faire des recommandations concernant le partage du temps parental, car cela implique des tâches qui dépassent les connaissances scientifiques actuelles, soit soupeser différents éléments complexes d'une situation et prédire les conséquences des modalités de garde et d'accès (Emery et al, 2005;Gould et Martindale, 2005;O'Donohue et al, 2009;O'Donohue et Bradley, 1999;Tippins et Wittmann, 2005). Par exemple, des auteurs (Tippins et Wittmann, 2005) affirment que les professionnels devraient s'en tenir à l'exposition des faits (observations et éléments mentionnés lors des entrevues cliniques, scores des tests psychométriques, etc. ), leur interprétation prudente de ces données (sans l'utilisation de construits mal appuyés par la recherche) et la simple exposition des risques et avantages que présentent certaines modalités de garde dans la situation évaluée.…”

Section: Enjeux Scientifiquesunclassified

“…), leur interprétation prudente de ces données (sans l'utilisation de construits mal appuyés par la recherche) et la simple exposition des risques et avantages que présentent certaines modalités de garde dans la situation évaluée. Suivant cet avis, s'avancer plus loin dans l'interprétation des données ne serait pas éthiquement et légalement acceptable (Emery et al, 2005;Tippins et Wittmann, 2005). D'autres auteurs (Bala, 2005;Fridhandler, 2008;Kelly et Johnston, 2005) s'opposent à cette position empiriste très stricte.…”

Section: Enjeux Scientifiquesunclassified

Le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant dont la garde est contestée : enjeux, contexte et pratiques

Godbout

Parent

Saint‐Jacques

2014

efg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cette recension des écrits théoriques, scientifiques et professionnels s’intéresse à trois questions en lien avec la détermination du meilleur intérêt de l’enfant dont la garde est contestée à la suite d’une séparation : 1) Quels sont les enjeux entourant le principe de meilleur intérêt de l’enfant? 2) Quelles sont les caractéristiques des situations qui se retrouvent à être expertisées ou débattues en cour? 3) Comment ce principe est-il évalué concrètement; quel poids est accordé à différents critères examinés par les juges et les experts? Pour les professionnels qui doivent se prononcer sur le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant, la réponse à ces questions met en lumière différents défis inhérents au fait d’être guidés par un critère souple, mais offrant peu de balises claires dans un contexte souvent hautement conflictuel et complexe. L’examen des écrits sur les pratiques des experts et des juges met au jour une tension entre deux courants : l’importance du parent de référence, particulièrement pour les très jeunes enfants et une tendance vers la coparentalité et un partage équilibré de la garde entre les parents. À partir de ces constats, des pistes pour les recherches futures sont proposées.This summary of theoretical, scientific, and professional writings is focused on three questions related to determining the best interests of the child whose custody is disputed following a separation: (1) What are the stakes when it comes down to the best interests of the child? (2) What are the characteristics of the situations that end up being analyzed or debated in the courtroom? (3) How is this principle assessed from a practical point of view; what weight is given to the various criteria examined by the judges and the specialists? As concerns the professionals whose task it is to come to a decision as to the best interests of the child, the answers to these questions highlight a range of challenges that underlie their being regulated by a flexible yardstick that provides few clear guidelines within a context itself often extremely controversial and complex. An examination of these writings concerning the practices of judges and specialists reveals two conflicting currents of thought: the importance of the referral parent, more especially when the children are very young, and the trend towards co-parenting and an equal sharing of custody between the parents. It is on the basis of these conclusions that suggestions for future research are made

show abstract

“…There has been a movement in the literature (Tippins and Wittmann, 2005) to preclude or limit the evaluator from offering such recommendations, otherwise known as addressing the ultimate issue, but recommendations are still requested in most jurisdictions. Certainly, evaluators should carefully avoid offering opinions that exceed the scope of available data or the role assigned to the child custody evaluator, and should be careful to articulate the limits of any opinions they do express.…”

Section: Ffp Roles In Child Custody/juvenile Dependency Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family Forensic Psychology

Welsh

Greenberg²,

Graham-Howard

2009

The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of Family Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Family forensic psychology (FFP) is an area of specialized psychological practice that lies at the intersection of family psychology, forensic psychology, and the legal system. It is a notably challenging area of practice that encompasses specialized intervention, evaluation, and consultation. This chapter provides a general overview of the field of FFP focused into two areas. First, we will introduce the practice of forensic psychology and describe elements that differentiate forensic practice from general clinical practice. We will then extend that discussion to the specialty practice of FFP. The second part broadly covers the forensic roles in the specialty practice areas of child custody cases, dependency cases, and juvenile delinquency case. Because of the introductory nature of this chapter, it should not be understood as a satisfactory knowledge base for participating in the work of FFP. Accordingly, we reference important sources to consult throughout the chapter and conclude with recommendations for future education in FFP. Forensic Psychology and FFPForensic psychology has been defined in a number of ways and is currently a source of some disagreement in the field. For this chapter we use the definition of forensic psychology advanced by the American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP), which is generally consistent with the current Specialty Guidelines in Forensic Psychology (SGFP: Committee on Ethical Issues for Forensic Psychologists, 1991) and most other forensic specialty standards in the field. According to the ABFP (n.d.), "Forensic Psychology is the application of the science and profession of psychology to questions and issues relating to law and the legal system." Forensic psychologists may serve the judicial system and those involved in it by providing specialized services including evaluation, expert testimony, research, teaching, consultation, or specialized intervention services.

show abstract

Empirical and Ethical Problems With Custody Recommendations:

Cited by 112 publications

References 43 publications

Parenting plan evaluation standards and guidelines for psychologists: Setting the frame

Parenting plan evaluation standards and guidelines for psychologists: Setting the frame

Le meilleur intérêt de l’enfant dont la garde est contestée : enjeux, contexte et pratiques

Family Forensic Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About