Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings

Standards and Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in New York Country.^1,2

This article is authored past Neil S. Grossman, Ph.D., ABPP, who practices on Long Island.

---

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN NEW YORK Land.^1,two

by Neil S. Grossman, Ph.D., ABPP

The standards and guidelines for child custody evaluations in New York Country are reviewed, relevant parts summarized and based on the elements identified, recommendations are fabricated for child custody evaluations.

Conceptual Problems

There is a need for agreed upon norms for Child Custody Evaluations (CCE), and forensic evaluations in general, that inform professionals, members of the legal system and the public almost what should be included, and how the information should exist gathered, analyzed and reported (Zelechoski, 2010). The use of these norms helps provide consistency between forensic psychologists and should issue in a higher caste of accuracy in their evaluations.

Information about how to conduct forensic evaluations is contained in the standards and guidelines written and propagated by professional organizations on national and state levels. Standards indicate what is expected and specify that annihilation below this standard is non acceptable. The upstanding code of the American Psychological Association (APA) (2002) states what is expected of psychologists in full general areas of practise. Ethical standards represent a wide consensus in the field of psychology and are informed by practice guidelines and the results of research (Zelechoski, 2010). Guidelines on the other hand are aspirational and establish principles and parameters. Research and conceptual writings in books and professional journals also inform u.s. about conducting and reporting CCE (Ackerman, 2006; Bow & Quinnell, 2002 & 2004; Gould & Martindale, 2007; Heilbrun, et. al., 2007; Kirkpatrick, 2004; Melton, et. al., 2007).

A number of guidelines are written specifically about forensic issues that inform psychologists: APA Guidelines for Kid Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings (2010); Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, revised (in press), from the Forensic Division of APA; and the New York State Part of the Professions which has established Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations (updated, 2009).

Psychologists who carry CCE besides should be informed by the guidelines from other professions: e.g. Association of Family unit and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) (2006) and psychiatrists (Herman & Bernet, 1997). (A prepare of guidelines have been written for social workers but these were published by a group of social piece of work practitioners and were not created or sanctioned by the social piece of work organizations.)

Standards for Psychologists

The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002) is general and applies to psychologists across their various roles (this volition exist referred to as the "Code of Ideals")^{3, iv}. The standards most relevant to CCE involve the practice of psychology, multiple relationships, tertiary-political party request for services, maintaining records and selecting cess material.

The Code of Ethics states that the practice of psychology should exist based on established scientific and professional knowledge. Psychologists should be competent in areas of their practise and this competency should be maintained over time. While the content for areas of professional exercise is not specified, it is noted that in the forensic expanse, psychologists should be knowledgeable of judicial and administrative rules of the court.

The Code of Ethics (forth with other guidelines for forensic psychologists) land that multiple relationships should be avoided. (While the criteria for this is demanding, information technology is noted that in that location may be situations where the psychologist could enter into a multiple relationship when it was not expected to be harmful.) The concept of multiple relationships is also discussed nether the heading "conflict of interests." The Code of Ethics mandate that psychologists should avert roles where there is a conflict of interest that would impair their objectivity, etc. (Information technology is usually best to avoid roles where there may be even the advent of such conflict.)

Of particular concern to psychologists in forensic roles is the section on "Third-Party Requests for Services". Psychologists must make up one's mind who their customer is, how the data will be used and whether at that place are limits to confidentiality. Psychologists in all areas of professional practice should provide data most their services and obtain an informed consent. When services are court ordered, at the first psychologists must inform people they are working with well-nigh the services they are providing and any limits of confidentiality, even if these people are not officially the "client".

The Code of Ethics as well stipulates that appropriate records should exist maintained about the services psychologists provide; confidential information should only be disclosed when in that location is proper consent unless such disclosure is required by law; and fees and other financial arrangements should be discussed as early as possible in the professional human relationship.

Under the topic, "Assessment", the Code of Ethics states that the opinion of psychologists should be based on the substantive information that is obtained. This includes forensic testimony. In selecting assessment material, validity and reliability in relation to the specific population should exist considered. Psychologists notation and explain any limitations of the data and conclusions. Confidential test data, including exam manuals and materials, may not be released unless mandated by law.

National Guidelines for Psychologists

APA has established guidelines specifically for CCE (APA Guidelines for Kid Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings, 2010). Guidelines also have been established for psychologists practicing in forensic areas (Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, in printing).

The key principles of the Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations are that the evaluation should: be impartial; focus in on the best interests of the child; and consider parenting attributes, the child's needs and resulting fit relative to what each parent can provide. The evaluation should use multiple methods of data collection: 1) direct information gathering (psychological testing, clinical interview, and behavioral observation); 2) document review (school, medical, agencies, etc.); iii) information obtained from collateral sources; and 4) efforts may be fabricated to seek corroboration of data from third parties. Also emphasized is that the evaluator should strive to avoid multiple relationships.

The guidelines for psychologists practicing in forensic areas⁵ (The Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 2011) are informed by the APA Lawmaking of Ethics. Most relevant to CCE are impartiality, procedures in forensic evaluations and communicating the findings.

The responsibleness of forensic psychologists is to be impartial, fair and to avoid conflicts of interest. Forensic psychologists should be competent in the areas in which they provide services. They should accept cognition of the legal system, the legal rights of individuals, and the scientific foundation of their opinions and testimony. Setting of fees, the need for informed consent, possible conflicts in the practice of forensic psychology, and privacy, privilege and confidentiality are discussed.

The methods and procedures used in conducting forensic evaluations are particularly of import. A wide variety of data should exist sought and alternate hypotheses considered. Multiple sources of information should be used and information corroborated when possible. Opinions should non be given virtually people who were not evaluated.

Forensic assessments should focus on the psycho-legal bug of the case. Forensic reports and testimony typically provide "information about the examinee'due south functional abilities, capacities, knowledge, and beliefs, and address their opinions and recommendations to the identified psycho-legal problems" (p13). Assessments are designed based on the validity, reliability and relevance to the population being assessed. The strengths and limitations of the assessment should be explained.

When communicating information in written reports or testifying, data should be presented in a off-white manner with relevant data available regardless of whether information technology supports the hypotheses of the forensic psychologist. An effort is made to distinguish observations, inferences and conclusions. The relationship between expert opinions and legal bug should be explained. All sources of information used in reaching conclusions should be identified.

Specific Guidelines in New York State

In New York State the Role of the Professions has published Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations (updated, 2009). These guidelines state that the child's all-time psychological interests should be of primary business and include information nigh how CCE should exist conducted.

Psychologists should be impartial and not have other roles (multiple roles) with the child or parents. This helps ensure that the evaluation is independent and fair and not necessarily reflect the desired outcome of the person or bureau requesting the evaluation.

Child custody evaluations should exist based on a variety of data including information from the various settings in the child's life and the child's relationship with all parental figures, and the resulting fit of these relationships with the child's needs. The psychologist should determine the scope of an evaluation based on the best interests of the kid and not be limited past requests to evaluate specific areas of child custody. Efforts should be fabricated to minimize the number of sessions in evaluating the child, but should permit an accurate understanding and recommendations well-nigh the child. The report should be rendered in a timely manner and if custody recommendations are made they should be derived from the available data.

The psychologist should be knowledgeable and have experience in the areas of child and family evolution, variant forms of families, child abuse and neglect, family dynamics of divorce, court procedures, and legal options in obtaining a divorce. Additionally, psychologists are mandated child abuse reporters and they should follow appropriate procedures if any abuse is suspected. Informed consent should be obtained from the participants of the evaluation and the limits of confidentiality should be discussed. Finances should be established before starting a child custody evaluation.

Other Material in New York Country

The Matrimonial Commission Study to the Master Judge of the Country of New York (2006) recommended guidelines for child custody evaluations. The commission concluded that the apply of forensic evaluations in child custody cases has been important and that they should go on to be used when the issue of custody is complicated or there are specific needs in a example, e.one thousand., a question almost the mental health of the parents; needs of the child that would be difficult for the court to consider; or allegations of alienation or child abuse. The qualifications of the forensic practiced, i.eastward., education, training and experience, should friction match the needs of the example. In the long run, minimum standards and qualifications of the forensic adept should be established. The California Rules of the Courtroom are cited as an example of specifying the qualifications of the evaluator and the desired content of evaluations (Report Appendices, 2006).

In conducting the forensic evaluation, records and documentation should be advisedly reviewed and considered. There should exist a minimum number of interviews with the parents and children. The evaluation should include the parent's family, personal, marital and medical histories, a mental condition examination and a discussion of the nowadays bug. Also included should exist a clarification of the functioning of parents and children, the interaction between each parent and the children, a discussion of which parent all-time meets the children's emotional needs. At that place should be an evaluation for the presence of domestic violence and the possibility that a parent will interfere with the other parent'southward relationship with the children.

The commission recommended that reports focus on the "emotional" best interests of the child and incorporate an indication that the parties, children and collateral sources were informed that there is no confidentiality or privilege in these evaluations.

Other National Guidelines

Psychologists should too exist familiar with the guidelines of the Association of Family unit and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation, 2006 (note these are aspirational guidelines although the give-and-take "Standards" is used in the title). Some of the areas covered in these guidelines are:

1. training, instruction and competency
2. knowledge of law equally related to child custody and the legal questions involved
3. data gathering which should involve diverse methods, a balanced process, and indicate when there is incomplete or missing data and country how it effects of evaluation
4. utilize of formal assessment instruments
5. function conflicts and dual roles - take reasonable steps to avert multiple relationships and discloses potential conflicts of involvement
1. do non offering therapeutic advice
2. evaluators shall refrain from offer interim recommendations and negotiating settlements
6. interviews with children and parent/kid observations
7. use of collateral source data

Recommendations Regarding Psychologists Conducting and Reporting CCE^half-dozen

Based on this review of standards and guidelines, and informed past inquiry and conceptual writings, it is recommended that when conducting and reporting CCE psychologists should: Full general

1. base procedures and conclusions on scientific and professional person knowledge*
2. be competent in the areas of their evaluation*
3. accept cognition of judicial and administrative rules of the court*
4. avoid multiple relationships* (APA ethics acknowledges that in that location may be exceptions to this standard)
5. should avoid conflicts of involvement*
6. maintain appropriate records*
7. not release confidential examination data, manuals and material unless mandated by law*
8. consider validity and reliability in relation to the specific population being assessed when selecting assessment material*

Before Evaluation Begins or Shortly Subsequently

1. determine who is the customer, how the information will exist used and limits of confidentiality*
2. describe their services, obtain an informed consent, and hash out any limits of confidentiality to the customer and the person who they are evaluating if this person is not the client*
3. discuss fees and any other financial arrangements every bit early every bit possible*

During the Evaluation

1. be fair, objective, and impartial (independent of agency or people requesting the evaluation)
2. focus on the best (psychological/emotional) interests of the child
3. consider parenting attributes, the kid'south needs and relative fit of the kid with what each parent can provide
4. observe parent/child interactions
1. is the parent kid-centered
2. how well does parent sympathise kid's point of view and motivation
5. consider interviewing significant others
6. consider information from various settings of the child's life
7. apply multiple methods of information collection
1. obtain direct data such every bit clinical interview, behavioral observations and psychological testing - every bit much as possible employ the same method of information drove for both parents
2. review relevant documents
3. obtain information from collateral sources and question sources well-nigh the data they provide
1. consider that some sources may provide biased information
2. be prepared to discuss relative credibility of each collateral source
4. attempt to corroborate information from third parties
5. collect information in a counterbalanced process with respect to both parents
(It is recommended that family unit, personal, marital and medical histories, a mental status examination and a word of present issues exist included in data collection)
8. consider alternate hypotheses
9. not offer opinions most people who were non evaluated
10. focus on psycho-legal issues
11. be warning for presence of child abuse or domestic violence
12. empathize the importance of convergent validity: when multiple collateral sources indicate similar opinions or betoken to the aforementioned conclusion
13. not offer therapeutic advice (from AFCC)
14. refrain from offer interim recommendations and negotiating settlements (from AFCC)

Report of Evaluation or Courtroom Testimony

1. base opinions on substantive information obtained*
2. explain any limitations of data and conclusions* (explain strengths and limitations of assessment)
3. place all sources of information used in reaching conclusions
4. try to distinguish between observations, inferences and conclusions
5. explain human relationship between expert opinions and legal issues
6. necktie conclusions and recommendations, if whatsoever, to the information
7. render the report in timely fashion

Notes

^oneGrossman, N. Due south. (2012). Standards and Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in New York State. New York State Psychologist: Forensic Psychology, 14(2), 7-10.

²The information contained in this article is in part abstracted from original sources and is based on the interpretation of this author. The reader should consult the original standards and guidelines to insure an accurate understanding of these principles.

^threeThe APA Code of Ethics may conflict with laws and regulations that apply to psychologists. When this happens psychologist should endeavour to resolve the disharmonize and they should non employ the APA ethics as a reason to disobey other authorities.

⁴The APA Code of Ideals applies to all psychologists whether or not they are APA members.

^fiveThese guidelines apply to psychologists practicing in forensic areas whether or not they consider themselves forensic psychologists.

⁶Aspects that are derived from a standard and thus mandatory are marked with an asterisk. All other aspects are derived from guidelines and therefore should be considered aspirational.

References

Ackerman, 1000. 2006. Clinician's Guide to Child Custody Evaluations (3rd Edition). Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Upstanding principles of psychologists and lawmaking of deport. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in legal proceedings. American Psychologist, 65, 863-867.

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2006). Model Standards of Exercise for Kid Custody Evaluation. Retrieved vii/26/2012 from http://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/ModelStdsChildCustodyEvalSept2006.pdf

Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2004). Critique of child custody evaluations by the legal profession. Family Court Review, forty(1), 115-127.

Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2002). A critical review of child custody evaluation reports. Family Court Review, twoscore(two), 164-176.

Gould, J. W. & Martindale, D. A. (2007). The Art and Science of Child Custody Evaluations. New York: Guilford Press.

Heilbrun, K., Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D. & Mack-Allen, J. (2007). A principles-based approach to forensic mental health assessment: Utility and update. In A.M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic Psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles, (pp. 45-72). Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.

Kirkpatrick, H. D. (2004). A floor, non a ceiling: Beyond guidelines-an argument for minimum standards for practise in conducting child custody and visitation evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 1(1), 61-75.

Betrothed Committee. (2006). Report to the Chief Gauge of the State of New York. Retrieved on 7/26/2012 from http://www.nycourts.gov/reports/matrimonialcommissionreport.pdf

Matrimonial Commission. (2006). Report Appendices: California rules of the Court- Rules 5.220, v.225, and 5.230. Retrieved on 7/26/2012 http://www.courts.state.ny.the states/reports/matrimonialcommissionAPPENDICES.pdf

Melton, M., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., Slobogin, C., Lyons, P., & Otto, R. K. (2007). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (third edition). New York: Guilford.

New York State the Role of the Professions. (updated, 2009). Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations. Retrieved on 7/26/2012 from http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/psych/psychcustodyguide.htm

Herman, S. P. & Bernet, Due west. (1997). Practice parameters for kid custody evaluation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 36 (x Suppl.) 57S-68S.

Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, (in press), American Psychologist. Retrieved vii/26/ 2012 from http://www.ap-ls.org/aboutpsychlaw/SpecialtyGuidelines.php

Zelechoski, A. (2010). Reconciling the practices of kid custody evaluators with the needs of the legal community. Presentation at the Ninth Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

---

Dr. Neil S. Grossman is a clinical and forensic psychologist who specializes in divorce and recovery working with children and families. Dr. Grossman serves all of Long Island.

burnsmosedeted.blogspot.com

Source: https://divorcerecoveryrx.com/forensic%20articles/Standards%20and%20Guidelines%20for%20Child%20Custody%20Evaluations.htm

Share this post