Excellence in Research and Innovation for Humanity

International Science Index


Select areas to restrict search in scientific publication database:
10004890
Qualitative Analysis of Current Child Custody Evaluation Practices
Abstract:
The role of the custody evaluator is perhaps one of the most controversial and risky endeavors in clinical practice. Complaints filed with licensing boards regarding a child-custody evaluation constitute the second most common reason for such an event. Although the evaluator is expected to answer for the family-law court what is in the “best interest of the child,” there is a lack of clarity on how to establish this in any empirically validated manner. Hence, practitioners must contend with a nebulous framework in formulating their methodological procedures that inherently places them at risk in an already litigious context. This study sought to qualitatively investigate patterns of practice among doctoral practitioners conducting child custody evaluations in the area of Southern California. Ten psychologists were interviewed who devoted between 25 and 100% of their California private practice to custody work. All held Ph.D. degrees with a range of eight to 36 years of experience in custody work. Semi-structured interviews were used to investigate assessment practices, ensure adherence to guidelines, risk management, and qualities of evaluators. Forty-three Specific Themes were identified using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Seven Higher Order Themes clustered on salient factors such as use of Ethics, Law, Guidelines; Parent Variables; Child Variables; Psychologist Variables; Testing; Literature; and Trends. Evaluators were aware of the ever-present reality of a licensure complaint and thus presented idiosyncratic descriptions of risk management considerations. Ambiguity about quantifying and validly tapping parenting abilities was also reviewed. Findings from this study suggested a high reliance on unstructured and observational methods in child custody practices.

References:
American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child-custody evaluations in family law proceedings. American Psychologist, 65(9), 863-867.
[2] Hagan, L. D., & Hagan, A. C. (2008). Custody evaluations without psychological testing: Prudent practice or fatal flaw? The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36, 67-106.
[3] Elrod, L. D., & Spector, R. G. (2007). A review of the year in family law: ERISA. Jurisdiction, and third-party cases multiply. Family Law Quarterly, 40, 545-601.
[4] Martindale, D. A. (2007). Setting standards for custody evaluators. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 35, 173-199.
[5] Ackerman, M. J. (2006). Clinician’s guide to child-custody evaluations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
[6] Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and a flawed system. American Psychological Society, 6(1), 1-29.
[7] Gould, J. W. (2006). Conducting scientifically crafted child-custody evaluations. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
[8] Derdeyn, A. P. (1978). Child custody: A reflection of cultural change. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 7(3), 169-173.
[9] Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2000). Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(4), 843-879.
[10] Hagan, M. A., & Castagna, N. (2001). The real numbers: Psychological testing in custody evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(3), 269-271.
[11] Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1997). Child custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(2), 137-145.
[12] Melton, G., Petrilia, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
[13] American Psychological Association Ethics Committee. (1999). Report of the Ethics Committee, 1998. American Psychologist, 54, 701-710.
[14] Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2001). Psychologists’ current practices and procedures in child custody evaluations: Five years after American Psychological Association guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(3), 261-268.
[15] Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 39-54.
[16] Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A Smith (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods (pp. 51-80). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
[17] Fade, S. (2004). Using interpretative phenomenological analysis for public health nutrition dietetic research: A practical guide. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 647-653.
[18] Pickar, D. B. (2007). On being a child custody evaluator: Professional and personal challenges, risks, and rewards. Family Court Review, 45(1), 103-115.
[19] Ackerman, M. J., & Kane, A. W. (1998). Psychological experts in divorce actions (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
[20] McCurley, M. J., Murphy, K. J., & Gould, J. W. (2005). Protecting children from incompetent forensic evaluations and expert testimony. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 19, 277-319.
[21] Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2002). A critical review of child-custody evaluation reports. Family Court Review, 40(2), 164-176.
[22] Horvath, L. S., Logan, T. K., & Walker, R. (2002). Child custody cases: A content analysis of evaluations in practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 557-565.
[23] Freedman, M. R., Rosenberg, S. J., Gettman-Felzien, D., & Van Scoyk, S. (1993). Evaluator countertransference in child-custody evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 11(3), 61–73.
Vol:11 No:09 2017Vol:11 No:08 2017Vol:11 No:07 2017Vol:11 No:06 2017Vol:11 No:05 2017Vol:11 No:04 2017Vol:11 No:03 2017Vol:11 No:02 2017Vol:11 No:01 2017
Vol:10 No:12 2016Vol:10 No:11 2016Vol:10 No:10 2016Vol:10 No:09 2016Vol:10 No:08 2016Vol:10 No:07 2016Vol:10 No:06 2016Vol:10 No:05 2016Vol:10 No:04 2016Vol:10 No:03 2016Vol:10 No:02 2016Vol:10 No:01 2016
Vol:9 No:12 2015Vol:9 No:11 2015Vol:9 No:10 2015Vol:9 No:09 2015Vol:9 No:08 2015Vol:9 No:07 2015Vol:9 No:06 2015Vol:9 No:05 2015Vol:9 No:04 2015Vol:9 No:03 2015Vol:9 No:02 2015Vol:9 No:01 2015
Vol:8 No:12 2014Vol:8 No:11 2014Vol:8 No:10 2014Vol:8 No:09 2014Vol:8 No:08 2014Vol:8 No:07 2014Vol:8 No:06 2014Vol:8 No:05 2014Vol:8 No:04 2014Vol:8 No:03 2014Vol:8 No:02 2014Vol:8 No:01 2014
Vol:7 No:12 2013Vol:7 No:11 2013Vol:7 No:10 2013Vol:7 No:09 2013Vol:7 No:08 2013Vol:7 No:07 2013Vol:7 No:06 2013Vol:7 No:05 2013Vol:7 No:04 2013Vol:7 No:03 2013Vol:7 No:02 2013Vol:7 No:01 2013
Vol:6 No:12 2012Vol:6 No:11 2012Vol:6 No:10 2012Vol:6 No:09 2012Vol:6 No:08 2012Vol:6 No:07 2012Vol:6 No:06 2012Vol:6 No:05 2012Vol:6 No:04 2012Vol:6 No:03 2012Vol:6 No:02 2012Vol:6 No:01 2012
Vol:5 No:12 2011Vol:5 No:11 2011Vol:5 No:10 2011Vol:5 No:09 2011Vol:5 No:08 2011Vol:5 No:07 2011Vol:5 No:06 2011Vol:5 No:05 2011Vol:5 No:04 2011Vol:5 No:03 2011Vol:5 No:02 2011Vol:5 No:01 2011
Vol:4 No:12 2010Vol:4 No:11 2010Vol:4 No:10 2010Vol:4 No:09 2010Vol:4 No:08 2010Vol:4 No:07 2010Vol:4 No:06 2010Vol:4 No:05 2010Vol:4 No:04 2010Vol:4 No:03 2010Vol:4 No:02 2010Vol:4 No:01 2010
Vol:3 No:12 2009Vol:3 No:11 2009Vol:3 No:10 2009Vol:3 No:09 2009Vol:3 No:08 2009Vol:3 No:07 2009Vol:3 No:06 2009Vol:3 No:05 2009Vol:3 No:04 2009Vol:3 No:03 2009Vol:3 No:02 2009Vol:3 No:01 2009
Vol:2 No:12 2008Vol:2 No:11 2008Vol:2 No:10 2008Vol:2 No:09 2008Vol:2 No:08 2008Vol:2 No:07 2008Vol:2 No:06 2008Vol:2 No:05 2008Vol:2 No:04 2008Vol:2 No:03 2008Vol:2 No:02 2008Vol:2 No:01 2008
Vol:1 No:12 2007Vol:1 No:11 2007Vol:1 No:10 2007Vol:1 No:09 2007Vol:1 No:08 2007Vol:1 No:07 2007Vol:1 No:06 2007Vol:1 No:05 2007Vol:1 No:04 2007Vol:1 No:03 2007Vol:1 No:02 2007Vol:1 No:01 2007