Psychologists' Practices Compared to the Expectations of Family Law Judges and Attorneys in Child Custody Cases

Ackerman, Marc J.; Ackerman, Melissa C.; Steffen, Linda J.; Kelley-Poulos, Shannon

doi:10.1300/j190v01n01_04

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They were less inclined to favor frequent or routine use of experts and were firmly against the use of multiple experts. Further, Ackerman et al (2004) found that attorneys and judges showed a much higher preference for court-appointed, mutually agreed upon, or guardian ad litem psychologists. Second-opinion and rebuttal witnesses received much lower ratings.…”

Section: Survey Research With Legal Professionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ackerman and Steffen surveyed 159 family law judges, and Ackerman and Kelley surveyed 153 family attorneys; it is important to highlight that both these groups involved national samples. The findings from these two James N. Bow 39 studies, along with Ackerman and Ackerman's (1997) study on psychologists were reviewed and compared in Ackerman et al (2004). The findings from all these studies are summarized below.…”

Section: Survey Research With Legal Professionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These professionals have seriously questioned the adequacy of research 24 JOURNAL OF CHILD CUSTODY supporting child custody determinations, the role of the evaluator, and the appropriateness of addressing the ultimate issue. The present article reviews the empirical research concerning child custody practice, including the following studies: Ackerman and Ackerman (1997); Ackerman, Ackerman, Steffen, and Kelley-Poulos (2004); Bow and Quinnell (2001, 2004; Bow, Quinnell, Zaroff, and Assemany (2002); Bow and Boxer (2003); Gourley and Stolberg (2000); Horvath, Logan, and Walker (2002); Keilin and Bloom (1986); LaFortune (1997); LaFortune and Carpenter (1998); and Quinnell and Bow (2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Review of Empirical Research on Child Custody Practice

Bow

2006

Journal of Child Custody

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the current state of child custody practice and its significant changes over the past 20 years. Three types of research methodology are reviewed regarding child custody practice: survey research with child custody evaluators, survey research with judges and attorneys, and content analysis of child custody reports. The assessment of specialized issues in child custody evaluations, such as sexual abuse and domestic violence, are addressed as well. Factors promoting change in child custody practice over the years are discussed, along with areas needing further improvement and research.

show abstract

Section: Survey Research With Legal Professionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Survey Research With Legal Professionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of Empirical Research on Child Custody Practice

Bow

2006

Journal of Child Custody

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although no study to date has explored this issue systematically, research in intersecting areas is suggestive of the likely effects here. For instance, studies found that a history of psychiatric hospitalization influences family judges’ endorsement of one parent over the other [59], and that biogenetic explanations of psychiatric symptoms (compared with psychosocial information) evoke significantly less empathy for potential patients from clinicians, including mental health professionals [60]. Furthermore, although studies of judges and prospective jurors have found that psychiatric and behavioral genetic evidence has relatively limited impact on judicial determinations of punishment in criminal and other disciplinary cases, some evidence suggests that it reduces estimates of legal responsibility [61] and increases the level of apprehension and perception of need for treatment, including extended involuntary commitment [43, 61–64].…”

Section: Psychiatry In Child Custody Proceedingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychiatric Genetics in Child Custody Proceedings: Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues

Sabatello

Appelbaum

2016

Curr Genet Med Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by the prospect of increasing use of psychiatric genetic data in child custody litigation. Although genetic tests cannot currently confirm a parent or child's psychiatric diagnosis, it is likely that as relevant findings emerge, they will be introduced in family courts to challenge parental capacity. Here, we draw on three projected, but plausible, scenarios for obtaining psychiatric data about parents -- imposed genetic testing, access to medical records, and genetic theft -- then consider the use of psychiatric genetic data of children, to highlight the issues that judges, child custody evaluators, and clinicians who may provide treatment for parents or children with mental health issues will need to consider. These include: genetic privacy, stigma, genetic surveillance, and judicial and health professionals' bias. We argue that the unchecked introduction of psychiatric genetic data may have a detrimental effect on the administration of justice. In particular, the article highlights the risk that the (mis)use of psychiatric genetic data in custody disputes would 1) exacerbate stigma and treatment-avoidance among parents and incentivize privacy violations to pressure parents to relinquish parental rights; 2) disproportionately affect poor parents and single mothers of color involved with Child Protective Services; and 3) detract attention from social and environmental factors impacting mental health to the detriment of the families involved. Awareness of these issues and an understanding of the meaning of genomic data by judges and custody evaluators will be pivotal in ensuring that justice is served.

show abstract

“…Keilen and Bloom (1986) found that 75% of the psychologists in their extensive survey used psychological testing in their own child custody evaluations. In follow-up studies, results revealed that test utilization had generally increased in frequency (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997;Ackerman et al, 2004). Specifically, awareness of the multimodal, convergent, and investigative nature of the forensic evaluative process as distinctly different from clinical assessment has occurred (Gould, 1998;Gould & Martindale, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Collateral Contacts in Child Custody Evaluations

Kirkland¹,

McMillan²,

Kirkland³

2006

Journal of Child Custody

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four hundred nineteen members of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) identify themselves as custody evaluators in the 1999-2000 membership directory. One hundred of these custody evaluators were randomly selected for inclusion in this survey of the use of collateral contact interviews in child custody evaluations. Fifty-three of those selected responded to a brief questionnaire concerning their use and views of collaterals. All evaluators reported use of the collateral interview. Most practitioners reported using both personal and telephone interviews. Respondents indicated that they interview family and friends, but routinely place greater trust in more objective sources that have no obvious, vested interest in outcome. More experienced evaluators reported evolving toward use of written questionnaires for use in interviewing collateral sources for purposes of risk management as well as increasing relevance and convergent validity.Karl Kirkland, PhD, is an associate professor

show abstract

Psychologists' Practices Compared to the Expectations of Family Law Judges and Attorneys in Child Custody Cases

Cited by 24 publications

References 7 publications

Review of Empirical Research on Child Custody Practice

Review of Empirical Research on Child Custody Practice

Psychiatric Genetics in Child Custody Proceedings: Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues

Use of Collateral Contacts in Child Custody Evaluations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About