Notification of purpose in custody evaluation: Informing the parties and their counsel

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 446-451

  Connell, Mary ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Consent; Custody; Ethics; Notification; Parenting

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749460763     PISSN: 07357028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.446     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677-680.
2. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
3. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (n.d.). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluations. Milwaukee, WI: Author.
4. Bush, S., Connell, M. A., & Denny, R. (in press). Ethical issues in forensic psychology: Key concepts and resources. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.
6. Foote, W. E., & Shuman, D. W. (2006). Consent, disclosure, and waiver for the forensic psychological evaluation: Rethinking the roles of psychologist and lawyer. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 437-445.
7. Greenberg, S. (2005, August). Psychologists in the courtroom; Possibilities and pitfalls: Making informed consent real. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
8. Greenberg, S., & Shuman, D. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 50-57.
9. Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
10. Grisso, T. (2005). Commentary on "Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations": What now? Family Court Review, 43, 223-228.
11. Heilbrun, K. (2001). Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
12. Heilbrun, K., Marczyk, G. R., & DeMatteo, D. (2002). Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook. New York: Oxford.
13. Heilbrun, K., Warren, J., & Picarello, K. (2002). Third party information in forensic assessment. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 69-86). New York: Wiley.
14. Informed Consent/Describing Psychological Services, Texas Administrative Code Rules of Practice, Title 22, Pt. 21, Chap. 465.11(a)-(c), (e) (June 5, 2005).
15. Kirkland, K., & Kirkland, K. L. (2001). Frequency of child custody evaluation complaints. A survey of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 171-174.
16. Kuehnle, K. (2002). Child sexual abuse evaluations. In A. M. Goldstein & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic Psychology (pp. 437-460). New York: Wiley.
17. Martindale, D. A., & Gould, J. W. (2004). The forensic model: Ethics and scientific methodology applied to custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 2, 1-22.
18. Montgomery, L. M., Cupit, B. E., & Wimberly, T. K. (1999). Complaints, malpractice, and management: Professional issues and personal experiences. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 402-410.
19. Shuman, D., & Foote, W. E. (1999). Jaffee v. Redmond's impact: Life after the Supreme Court's recognition of a psychotherapist-patient privilege. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 479-487.
20. Tippins, T. M., & Wittman, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43, 193-222.