CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS: THE NEED FOR SYSTEMS-LEVEL OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS*

Family Court Review

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 286-303

  Kelly, Robert F ^a   Ramsey, Sarah H ^b  

^a LE MOYNE COLLEGE   (United States)

^b National Institute of Disability Rehabilitation and Research   (United States)

Author keywords

child custody; child custody evaluations; evaluation research; methodology; systems analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952506616     PISSN: 15312445     EISSN: 17441617     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01255.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. (1996). Child custody evaluation practices: A 1996 survey of psychologists. Family Law Quarterly, 30, 565–586.
2. American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677–680.
3. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (1997). Practice parameters for child custody evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 57S–68S.
4. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2008). 2008 kids count: Data book. Baltimore: Author.
5. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (1994). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 504–513.
6. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2007). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. Family Court Review, 45, 70–91.
7. Bala, N. (2004). Assessment for postseparation parenting disputes in Canada. Family Court Review, 42, 485–510.
8. Bala, N. (2005). Tippins and Wittmann asked the wrong question: Evaluations may not be “experts,” but they can express best interests opinions. Family Court Review, 43, 554–562.
9. Birnbaum, R. (2007). Differential interventions in access based post-separation disputes. Abstract retrieved from the Society of Social Work and Research website, http://sswr.org/papers2001/217.htm.
10. Birnbaum, R., & Radovanovic, H. (1999). Brief intervention model for access-based postseparation disputes: Family and court outcomes. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 504–513.
11. 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.
12. Budd, K. S., Poindexter, L. M., Felix, E. D., & Naik-Polan, A. T. (2001). Clinical assessment of parents in child protection cases: An empirical analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 93–108.
13. California Legal Services Trust Fund. (2006). Evaluation toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.calegaladvocates.org/library/folder.72505-Evaluation_Resources.
14. Cherlin, A. J., Furstenberg, F. F., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Kiernan, K. E., Robins, P. K., Morrison, D. R., et al. (1991). Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science, 252, 1386–1389.
15. Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.
16. Dennis, D. M. (2006). A good report will keep you out of court: Reports as settlement tools. Symposium conducted at the Seventh International Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations, Atlanta, GA.
17. nd Annual conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Seattle, WA.
18. nd ed.) (pp. 229–279). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
19. Emory, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 1–29.
20. Equi, R. W. (2006). Custody evaluation from the judge's perspective. Paper presented at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Seventh International Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations, Atlanta, GA.
21. Erard, R. (2007). Picking cherries with blinders on: A comment on Erickson et al. (2007) regarding the use of tests in family court. Family Court Review, 45, 175–184.
22. Erickson, S. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Vitacco, M. J. (2007a). A critical examination of the suitability and limitations of psychological tests in family court. Family Court Review, 45, 157–174.
23. Erickson, S. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Vitacco, M. J. (2007b). Failing the burden of proof: The science and ethics of projective tests in custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 45, 185–192.
24. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2007). America's children in brief: Key national indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: Author.
25. Federal Judicial Center. (1981). Experimentation in the law: Report of the Federal Judicial Center Advisory Committee on Experimentation in the Law. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
26. Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco: Jassey-Bass.
27. Gould, J. W. (2006). Conducting scientifically crafted child custody evaluations (2nd ed.). Saratoga, FL: Professional Resource Press.
28. Grisso, T. (2005). Commentary on “Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations:” What now? Family Court Review, 43, 223–228.
29. Heatherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York: W.W. Norton.
30. Hetherington, E. M., Stanley-Hagan, M., & Anderson, E. R. (1989). Marital transition: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 44, 303–312.
31. Heilbrun, K. (1995). Child custody evaluations: Critically assessing mental health experts and psychological tests. Family Law Quarterly, 29, 63–78.
32. 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.
33. Kelly, J., & Johnston, J. (2005). Commentary on Tippins & Wittmann's “Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance.” Family Court Review, 43, 233–241.
34. Kelly, R. F. (1985). Family policy analysis: The need to integrate qualitative and quantitative research methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 13, 363–86.
35. Kelly, R. F. (2000). Family preservation and reunification programs in child protection cases: Effectiveness, best practices and implications for legal representation, judicial practice and public policy. Family Law Quarterly, 34, 359–391.
36. Kelly, R. F., & Ramsey, S. H. (2007). Perspectives on family law & social science research: Assessing and communicating social science information in family and child judicial settings: Standards for judges and allied professionals. Family Court Review, 45, 22–41.
37. 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, 843–879.
38. LaFortune, K. S., & Carpenter, B. N. (1998). Custody evaluations: A survey of mental health professionals. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 207–224.
39. Martin, L. (2005). To recommend or not to recommend: That is not the question: A response to Tippins and Wittmann's article: “Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance.” Family Court Review, 43, 246–252.
40. Martindale, D. A., & Gould, J. W. (2004). The forensic model: Ethics and scientific methodology applied to child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 1(2), 1–22.
41. Mnookin, R. H., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88, 950–989.
42. Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. O'Donohue, W., & Bradley, A. R. (1999). Conceptual and empirical issues in child custody evaluations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 310–322.
44. Otto, R. K., & Martindale, D. A. (2007). The law, process and science of child custody evaluation. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 251–275). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
45. Pruett, M. K. (2008). Evaluation of the CT screen in triaging court services: Fitting the forum to the family. AFCC Pre-conference Institute. Vancouver, BC.
46. Pruett, M. K., Insabella, G. M., & Gustafson, K. (2005). The collaborative divorce project: A court-based intervention for separating parents with children. Family Court Review, 43, 38–51.
47. Quinnell, F. A., & Bow, J. N. (2001). Psychological tests used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 491–501.
48. Ramsey, S. H. (2007). Child well-being: A beneficial advocacy framework for improving the child welfare system? University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 4, 9–27.
49. Ramsey, S. H., & Kelly, R. F. (2004). Social science knowledge in family law cases: Judicial gate-keeping in the Daubert era. University of Miami Law Review, 59, 101–181.
50. Ramsey, S. H., & Kelly, R. F. (2006), Assessing social science studies: Eleven tips for judges and lawyers. Family Law Quarterly, 40, 367–380.
51. Ramsey, S. H., & Kelly, R. F. (2007). Law making through the adversarial process: The need for standards for social science briefs in family law cases. In L. Wardel & C. Williams (Eds.), Family law: Balancing interests and pursuing priorities. Buffalo, NY: Wm. S. Hein & Co.
52. Rotman, A. (2005). Commentary on “Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations.” Family Court Review, 43, 242–245.
53. Rubinfeld, D. L. (2000). Reference guide on multiple regression. In Reference guide on scientific evidence (pp. 179–227). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
54. Schepard, A. (2004). Children, courts & custody: Interdisciplinary models for divorcing families. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Schepard, A. (2005). Mental health evaluations in child custody disputes. Family Court Review, 43, 197–190.
56. Stahl, P. M. (1994). Conducting child custody evaluations: A comprehensive guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. 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, 193–222.
58. Turkat, I. D. (2005). On the limitations of child custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 48, 8–13.