The Issue of Ethics and Authority for Licensed Mental Health Professionals Involved in Parenting Coordination

It has been 14 years since Tippins and Wittmann () voiced concern for the overreaching role the expert may play in matters of family law. This article sets their levels of inference within the context of the culture of both law and social science. We examine how inferences are impacted by the relative emphasis child custody experts give to the five stakeholders involved in child custody evaluations (CCEs): courts, lawyers, parents, children, and professional governing bodies. Acculturation of the assessor to law contributes to more egregious inferences, versus the more modest ones Tippins and Wittmann advocated. How evaluators prioritize stakeholders shapes their opinion and methodology. We offer an expanded perspective that views how their levels of inference are manifest in reports, methodology, and recommendations and the influence of the culture of law and the mindset of the clinician. We hope to encourage clinicians to find ways to operationalize clinical humility, assume their proper role, and remain true to their master identity as licensed mental health professionals and their proper sphere of authority.

Section: K Methodology and Inferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparing the Cultures Of Law And Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparing the Cultures Of Law And Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparing the Cultures Of Law And Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tippins and Wittman Revisited: Law, Social Science, and the Role of the Child Custody Expert 14 Years Later

Amundson¹,

Lux²

2019

“…In short, as Amundson and Lux () recommend, PCs must function in a way that is consistent with their professional ethics and standards. These ethical issues and advisements remain true for all PCs regardless if acting in a single or dual capacity.…”

Section: Ethical and Risk Management Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duel or Dual: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Parenting Coordination for Uber‐Conflicted Parenting Relationships

Brown¹,

Behrman²,

Zimmerman³

2017

Parenting coordination for families struggling with severe conflict can be challenging for both the family and the parenting coordinator (PC). These families can put an inordinate strain on the PC as they lobby their positions and try to bias the PC against the other parent. The interdisciplinary dual‐PC model is an innovative approach using aspects of the collaborative practice model to enhance the efficacy of the process while utilizing the strengths of both disciplines. Through a case illustration, the identification of the family dynamics and situations that give rise to use of this approach shall become clear. This article also demonstrates the potential benefits to both the family and the PCs. All aspects synthesize into a cohesive, well‐balanced approach to the uber‐conflicted parenting relationships.

Parenting Coordination and Confidentiality: A (Not‐so) Delicate Balance

Carter¹,

Frenkel²

2020

This article describes the current state and range of information protection in the growing number of states and Canadian provinces that employ parenting coordination in an effort to reduce repeat custody litigation. The predominant approach—in which what is revealed during the process is not confidential—is analyzed in terms of its compatibility with the parenting coordinator's multiple tasks of educating parents, seeking to facilitate agreements, and, if necessary, providing the court with a report, a recommended decision, or an arbitrated result. Using a case scenario with multiple parts, the article then examines such confidentiality schemes in practice by providing an action‐oriented series of questions that illustrate how much of this topic must be resolved through a parenting coordinator's exercise of discretion in the absence of rule clarity. The article then raises a number of policy questions about whether current parenting coordination confidentiality norms strike the optimal or even the correct balance on information protection and concludes by identifying several policy options that might address these questions.