On Being a Child Custody Evaluator: Professional and Personal Challenges, Risks, and Rewards

Abstract

Conducting child custody evaluations is one of the most complex, challenging, and sometimes risky professional endeavors that a mental health professional can perform. This article examines the professional and personal challenges which may be encountered by the evaluator. In addition to discussing the role requirements and need to maintain awareness of bias and countertransference, challenges such as coping with state board or ethics complaints and possible risks to personal safety are also addressed. Suggestions for risk management and coping with the demands of these assessments are offered, as well as the benefits and rewards of engaging in this important work.

Ethical Violations: What Can and Does Go Wrong in Child Custody Evaluations?

“…Although child custody work is difficult, there are many benefits as the evaluator has an opportunity to do an intensive case study of a family in crisis and has a chance to make a positive impact (Pickar, 2007). As a result, evaluators should always strive to improve their abilities no matter how long they have been doing the work.…”

Licensing Board Complaints in Child Custody Practice

“…A fourth type of bias in child custody evaluations is counter-transference reactions by evaluators (Pickar, 2007a(Pickar, , 2007b. Due to highly charged emotional issues in such evaluations, the evaluators' own personal issues or past experiences might impact their feelings and thoughts toward a parent and influence the findings and recommendations.…”

Child Custody Evaluations: Help or Hindrance?

“…Pickar (2007) identifies some of the inherent dangers to CCE evaluators, which include a high risk of complaints, threats to personal safety, and having to deal with angry and disgruntled people who disavow responsibility and project blame. The usual complaints are that the report is biased; one was misunderstood, misrepresented, or unfairly or unjustifiably criticized; too much weight was given to an issue that the participant believes is unimportant; or important issues were neglected or ignored by the evaluator.…”