Child Custody Evaluation Practices: A 1996 Survey of Psychologists

Family Law Quarterly

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 565-574

  Ackerman, Marc J ^a   Ackerman, Melissa C ^b  

^a Wisconsin Sch of Prof Psychology   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1542712531     PISSN: 0014729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. William Keilin &Larry Bloom, Child Custody Evaluation Practices: A Survey of Experienced Professionals, 17 PROF. PSYCHOL.: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 338 (1986).
2. Richard Chasin & Henry Grunebaum, A Model for Evaluation of Child Custody, 4 J. DIVORCE 57 (1981); A.M. Jackson, et al., Beyond the Best Interest of the Child Revisited: An Approach to Custody Evaluations, 3 J. DIVORCE 207 (1980); G. Landberg, Proposed Model for the Intervention of the Mental Health Specialist in the Resolution of Difficult Child Custody Disputes, 1 J. PREVENTIVE PSYCHOL. 309 (1982).
3. Richard Chasin & Henry Grunebaum, A Model for Evaluation of Child Custody, 4 J. DIVORCE 57 (1981); A.M. Jackson, et al., Beyond the Best Interest of the Child Revisited: An Approach to Custody Evaluations, 3 J. DIVORCE 207 (1980); G. Landberg, Proposed Model for the Intervention of the Mental Health Specialist in the Resolution of Difficult Child Custody Disputes, 1 J. PREVENTIVE PSYCHOL. 309 (1982).
4. Richard Chasin & Henry Grunebaum, A Model for Evaluation of Child Custody, 4 J. DIVORCE 57 (1981); A.M. Jackson, et al., Beyond the Best Interest of the Child Revisited: An Approach to Custody Evaluations, 3 J. DIVORCE 207 (1980); G. Landberg, Proposed Model for the Intervention of the Mental Health Specialist in the Resolution of Difficult Child Custody Disputes, 1 J. PREVENTIVE PSYCHOL. 309 (1982).
5. D. Karras & K. Barry, Custody Evaluations: A Critical Review, 16 PROF. PSYCHOL.: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 76 (1985).
6. Georgia Psychological Association, Recommendations for Psychologists' Involvement in Child Custody Case (1990); Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee on Child Custody, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation (1989); Nebraska Psychological Association, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations (1986); N.J. State Board of Psychology Examiners, Specialty Guidelines for Psychologists in Custody/Visitation Evaluations (1993); Oklahoma Psychology Association, Ethical Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation, (1988).
7. Georgia Psychological Association, Recommendations for Psychologists' Involvement in Child Custody Case (1990); Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee on Child Custody, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation (1989); Nebraska Psychological Association, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations (1986); N.J. State Board of Psychology Examiners, Specialty Guidelines for Psychologists in Custody/Visitation Evaluations (1993); Oklahoma Psychology Association, Ethical Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation, (1988).
8. Georgia Psychological Association, Recommendations for Psychologists' Involvement in Child Custody Case (1990); Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee on Child Custody, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation (1989); Nebraska Psychological Association, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations (1986); N.J. State Board of Psychology Examiners, Specialty Guidelines for Psychologists in Custody/Visitation Evaluations (1993); Oklahoma Psychology Association, Ethical Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation, (1988).
9. Georgia Psychological Association, Recommendations for Psychologists' Involvement in Child Custody Case (1990); Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee on Child Custody, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation (1989); Nebraska Psychological Association, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations (1986); N.J. State Board of Psychology Examiners, Specialty Guidelines for Psychologists in Custody/Visitation Evaluations (1993); Oklahoma Psychology Association, Ethical Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation, (1988).
10. Georgia Psychological Association, Recommendations for Psychologists' Involvement in Child Custody Case (1990); Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee on Child Custody, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation (1989); Nebraska Psychological Association, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations (1986); N.J. State Board of Psychology Examiners, Specialty Guidelines for Psychologists in Custody/Visitation Evaluations (1993); Oklahoma Psychology Association, Ethical Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation, (1988).
11. American Psychological Association, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation in Divorce Proceedings, 49 AM. PSYCHOL. 677 (1994).
12. Id.
13. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation, 32 FAM. CONCILIATION CTS. 504 (1994).
14. BENJAMIN SCHULTZ ET AL., SOLOMON'S SWORD: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO CONDUCTING CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION (1989).
15. See e.g., PHIL M. STAHL, CONDUCTING CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE (1994); MARC J. ACKERMAN, A CLINICIAN'S GUIDE TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS (1995) [hereinafter CUSTODY EVALUATIONS].
16. See e.g., PHIL M. STAHL, CONDUCTING CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE (1994); MARC J. ACKERMAN, A CLINICIAN'S GUIDE TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS (1995) [hereinafter CUSTODY EVALUATIONS].
17. See e.g., PHIL M. STAHL, CONDUCTING CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE (1994); MARC J. ACKERMAN, A CLINICIAN'S GUIDE TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS (1995) [hereinafter CUSTODY EVALUATIONS].
18. See, e.g., MARC J. ACKERMAN & KATHLEEN SCHOENDORF, ACKERMAN-SCHOENDORF SCALES FOR PARENT EVALUATION OF CUSTODY (1992) (these scales address fifty-six different variables used in child custody determination disputes); BARRY BRICKLIN, BRICKLIN PERCEPTUAL SERIES (1984).
19. See, e.g., MARC J. ACKERMAN & KATHLEEN SCHOENDORF, ACKERMAN-SCHOENDORF SCALES FOR PARENT EVALUATION OF CUSTODY (1992) (these scales address fifty-six different variables used in child custody determination disputes); BARRY BRICKLIN, BRICKLIN PERCEPTUAL SERIES (1984).
20. ROBERT GORDON & LEON PEEK, THE CUSTODY QUOTIENT (1988).
21. David Brodzinsky, The Use and Misuse of Psychological Testing in Child Custody Evaluations, 24 PROF. PSYCHOL.: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 213, 217 (1994).
22. Keilin & Bloom, supra note 1. They surveyed 302 psychologists, psychiatrists, and masters-level practitioners, but only 82 fit their selection criteria and were included in their study. Of the 82, 78.1% were doctoral-level psychologists, indicating that 64 psychologists were represented in their sample. The mean age of the respondents was 47.7 years, with 78% males and 22% females. They averaged 16.1 years of clinical experience and 156.5 custody evaluations, with 80.3% being primarily involved in private practice settings.
23. Four hundred names provided by members of the American Bar Association Family Law Section were identified as psychologists who perform child custody evaluations who are respected by judges. The other 400 names were provided by psychologists or psychological associations across the nation.
24. A blank questionnaire with a stamped return envelope was mailed to each subject with a cover letter requesting participation and giving the rationale for the study. No follow-up letters or reminders were sent to those who failed to respond to the initial mailing due to the large number who did respond. The face sheet of the questionnaire, which included a code number, was detached from the questionnaire upon receipt to preserve the anonymity of the responder. Individuals were asked to provide their names and addresses on the cover sheet if they wished to receive a summary of the results in return for participation in the study.
25. The mean age of the respondents was 49.1 years of age, with 68.7% males and 31.3% females. One hundred percent of the sample were doctoral level psychologists who averaged 19.0 years of practice. One hundred percent of the sample was Caucasian. The average number of child custody evaluations performed by this sample
26. Id. The high frequency of MMPI-2 usage may be of some concern based on the results of recent research which reports mean K scores up to 60.7, thus reducing the utility of the clinical scales and content scales for interpretive purposes.
27. Marc J. Ackerman & Una-Marie O'Leary, The MMPI and MMPI-2 in Child Custody Cases, paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention (1995).
28. ASPECT, BPS, PORT, PASS, PPCP, PCRI, and Custody Quotient.
29. Only 20% represented participants from Bricklin's area of the country. Only three participants, all from Pennsylvania, used all of the Bricklin instruments.
30. One-third represented respondents from Ackerman's area of the country.