Relying on the Unreliable: How a Court Rule Could Alleviate the Problems Inherent in the Neutral Mental Health Evaluation Process in Child Custody Cases

Abstract

Many states lack standards as to who should be conducting neutral mental health evaluations in child custody proceedings and what these evaluations should be comprised of. This will occasionally result in an unqualified evaluator giving a recommendation to the court as to which parent should receive custody of their child [ren]. This Note advocates for courts to adopt a court rule which specifically enumerates the qualifications of neutral mental health evaluators in the hopes of regularizing the evaluation process. The first part of the proposal addresses who should conduct evaluations by establishing the required credentials of the evaluator and minimizing the amount of evaluator bias by screening the process. The second part of the proposal focuses on the training needed before an evaluator may conduct an examination, as well as the amount of experience required.f cre_1331 571..582

Play by the Rules: why States Should Adopt Uniform Court Rules for Forensic Psychologists in Child Custody Evaluations

“…75 It is this lack of uniformity that opens the door to deviation from protocol and guidelines that are already loosely enforced. 75 It is this lack of uniformity that opens the door to deviation from protocol and guidelines that are already loosely enforced.…”

“…A problem in some states concerning neutral mental health evaluators in child custody cases is the lack of standards governing such evaluations. 75 It is this lack of uniformity that opens the door to deviation from protocol and guidelines that are already loosely enforced. Currently, there is no requirement that forensic psychologists demonstrate a foundation for their ability to render a proper recommendation for a child in a custody proceeding.…”

Conducting Child Custody Evaluations: Best Practices for Mental Health Counselors who Are Court-Appointed as Child Custody Evaluators

“…Ethical violations in legal testimony are likely to occur if identified clients and primary goals were not clear at the outset; the most common violation occurs when custody recommendations are made by counselors who are not qualified to make such recommendations (Terzuoli, 2010). For instance, if a child's counselor, at the request of one of the litigating parties, testifies as a treating expert but also provides a custody recommendation, the counselor is offering testimony outside the scope of the professional role of treating expert.…”

“…However, some 10% of separating parents disagree on custody and visitation arrangements, leading to litigation and court intervention (American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry [AACAP], 1997; American Psychological Association [APA], 2010; Luftman, Vetkamp, Clark, Lannacone, & Snooks, 2005). In these cases, judges tasked with making custody decisions will often call upon court-appointed mental health professionals for assistance with the decision-making process (Bow & Quinnell, 2004;Terzuoli, 2010).…”

“…This article therefore reviews ethical issues related to CCEs and common counselor misconceptions about their role in the evaluation process. It is based both on the ethical codes of the counseling profession (i.e., American Counseling To further complicate matters, the qualifications for child custody evaluators differ from state to state (Terzuoli, 2010). Though this article does not provide information specific to any particular state, it provides general guidance to MHCs who work with families involved in high-conflict separation cases.…”