To Recommend or Not to Recommend: That Is Not the Question

Abstract

Tippins and Wittmann provide a cogent argument for custody evaluators not to make recommendations to the court. From their forensic and scientific perspectives, they have identified some important issues, which will certainly stimulate interesting discussion among custody evaluators. In response to their article, it is my view that public sector custody evaluations offer a philosophical and procedural alternative to forensic evaluations. This article proposes that recommendations should be viewed as part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome. Based on a qualitative and interpretive model, recommendations are judged based on their applicability, transferability, and transparency. Recommendations viewed in qualitative terms provide parents with opportunities to step out of litigation and provide guidance for parents' ongoing roles postseparation.

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

“…Similarly, Kelly and Johnson (2005) suggested that custody evaluation be more exclusively “reserved for serious allegations” (p. 238), prescribed “the use of extended interventions” (p. 238), and noted that “Tippins and Wittmann's concerns and caution are warranted and serve as a clarion call to the entire family law field” (p. 233). Such receptivity was further reflected in the responses of additional authors: “It is difficult to quarrel with Tippins and Wittmann's basic premise” (Rotman, , p. 242); “Tippins and Wittmann present a cogent argument” (Martin, , p. 251); “We express our agreement with Tippins and Wittmann… acknowledging the known limitations of our procedures” (Gould & Martindale, , pp. 253, 258); and finally, “The call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance is valid” (Dessau, , p. 266).…”

Operationalizing therapeutic jurisprudence in the family law system

“…Conversely, the types of questions envisioned in the CFL model are detailed, answerable, limited, and tailored to the specifics of a particular family. Ultimately, the judge approves these questions and directives, which becomes the judicial vigilance Tippins and Wittman (2005) have advocated for and that many others have parroted (Amundson & Lux, 2019;Dessau, 2005;Gould & Martindale, 2005;Kelly & Johnson, 2005;Martin, 2005;Rotman, 2005) • What factors appear to impact a child's expressed preferences regarding a particular parenting schedule? • To what degree are the children's views sufficiently independent, supported by adequate levels of maturity and capacity to reason, to see the big picture and to understand the potential impact on their development?…”

“…Conversely, the types of questions envisioned in the CFL model are detailed, answerable, limited, and tailored to the specifics of a particular family. Ultimately, the judge approves these questions and directives, which becomes the judicial vigilance Tippins and Wittman (2005) have advocated for and that many others have parroted (Amundson & Lux, 2019; Dessau, 2005; Gould & Martindale, 2005; Kelly & Johnson, 2005; Martin, 2005; Rotman, 2005). Examples include Describe the quality of reciprocal connectedness between the child and each parent. To what degree does a parent's addiction/mental health issue place the children at risk, and what are the implications of your findings regarding the mitigation of any identified parenting risk? What is the psychological and developmental status of the children?…”

Models and methods of cost‐effective child custody evaluation

“…This process clearly violates tenants of transparency and balancing thoroughness with avoidance of unintended harm central to the Guidelines , as there is little time to conduct more than a cursory examination of issues in this format. While there is ongoing debate in the literature over what recommendations should and could be made following a full evaluation (Tippins & Wittmann, 2005); Tippins & Wittmann, 2023) it is widely accepted that recommendations for parenting time should only be made when there is a proper foundation to do so (Gould & Lehrmann, 2009, Gould & Martindale, 2005). Even if this type of service would be considered under the Brief Focused Assessment rubric, it fails to meet the basic requirements of that model (Cavallero & Hanks, 2012).…”