Custody evaluation reports: The case for empirically-derived information

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 87-99

  Martindale, David A ^a   Gould, Jonathan W ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Daubert; Expert opinion; Forensic model; Scientific knowledge

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; CUSTODY; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PSYCHOLOGIST; RELIABILITY;

EID: 35648944208     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: 15229092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v07n03_06     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. American Psychological Association (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677-680.
4. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
5. Amundson, J. K., Duda, R., & Gill, E. (2000). A minimalist approach to child custody evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 18(3), 63-87.
6. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (2006). Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation. Madison, WI: Author
7. Austin, W. G. & Kirkpatrick, H. D. (2004). The investigation component in forensic mental health evaluations: Considerations in the case of parenting time evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 1, 23-43.
8. Barlow, D. H. (1981). On the relation of clinical research to clinical practice: Current issues, new directions. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 49, 147-155.
9. 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, 261-268.
10. Calloway, G. (2002). When forensic rigor is overly applied. In "Child-based vs. forensic evaluations" by G. Calloway & S. M. Lee (Eds.). In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations and the Fifth International Congress on Parent Education and Access Programs (pp. 213-219). Madison, WI: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.
11. Committee on Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 655-665.
12. DeLoache, J. S. (1995). The use of dolls in interviewing young children. In M. S. Zaragoza, J. R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, R. Hirschman, & Y. S. Ben-Porath (Eds.). Improving children's testimony (pp. 160-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Flens, J. R. (2005). In J. R. Flens & L. Drozd (Eds). Psychological testing in child custody evaluations (pp. 1-29). New York, NY: Haworth.
14. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahr, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert testimony in a post-Daubert world. Law and Hwnan Behavior, 25(5), 433-458.
15. Gould, J. W. (1998). Conducting scientifically crafted child custody evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Gould, J. W. (1999a). Professional interdisciplinary collaboration and the development of psycholegal questions guiding court ordered child custody evaluations. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50(1), 43-52.
17. Gould, J. W. (1999b). A paradigm for the forensic evaluation of child custody determination. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37 2), 135-158.
18. Gould, J. W. (2004). Evaluating the probative value of child custody evaluations: A guide for forensic mental health professionals. Journal of Child Custody, 1(1), 77-96.
19. Gould, J. W. & Martindale, D. A. (2007). The art and science of child custody evaluations. New York, NY: Guilford.
20. Gould, J. W. & Martindale, D. A. (2005). A second call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance: Comments on Tippins and Wittmann (2005). Family Court Review, 43(2), 253-259.
21. Greenberg, S. A. & Shuman, D. W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 50-57
22. Gross, S. R. & Mnookin, J. L. (2003). Expert information and expert evidence: A preliminary taxonomy. Seton Hall Law Review, 34, 140-185.
23. Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16(3), 257-272.
24. Heilbrun, K. (1995). Child custody evaluation: Critically assessing mental health experts and psychological tests. Family Law Quarterly, 29, 63-78.
25. Heilbrun, K., Warren, J., & Picarello, K. (2003). Third party information in forensic assessment. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 11: Forensic psychology (pp. 69-86). New York, NY: Wiley.
26. Hjelt, S. (2000). Professional psychology: A view from the bench: Register Report, 26(1), 8-13.
27. LaFortune, K. A. & Carpenter, B. N. (1998). Custody evaluations: A survey of mental health professionals. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 207-224.
28. Martindale, D. A. (2001). Cross-examining mental health experts in child custody litigation. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 29(4), 483-511.
29. 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.
30. Martindale, D.A. & Gould, J.W. (2005). Child custody. In Encyclopedia of Psychology (pp. 323-328). New York, NY: Elsevier.
31. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York, NY: Guilford.
32. Myers, D. G. (2004). Psychology (7th ed). New York, NY: Worth.
33. Otto, R. K., Buffington-Vollum, J. K, & Edens, J. F. (2003). Child custody evaluation. In A. M. Goldstein (Volume Ed.), I. B. Weiner (Ed. in Chief), Handbook of psychology: Volume II, forensic psychology (pp. 179-208). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
34. Saunders, T. R., Gindes, M., Bray, J. H., Shellenberger, S., & Nurse, A. R. (1996). Should psychotherapists be concerned about the new APA child custody guidelines? Psychotherapy Bulletin, 31(3), 28-35.
35. Shuman, D. W. & Sales, B. D. (1999). The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 5, 3-15.
36. Tippins, T. M. (2006). Custody evaluations and illusion of helpfulness. The Matrimonial Strategist, 23(9). Available at http://wwv.lawjournalnewsletters.com.
37. Tippins, T. M. (in press). Custody evaluations and the illusion of helpfulness. Journal of Child Custody.
38. Tippins, T. M. & Wittmann, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43(2), 193-222.
39. Trubitt, A. (2004). Play therapy goes to court: Implications and applications in contested child custody (2nd ed.). Kailua, HI: Author.
40. Trubitt, A. (2006). To play or not to play in child custody evaluations. Recent challenges in current practice. Workshop outline for presentation to be offered to the Association for Play Therapy Conference, Toronto, Canada, October 13.