TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION

Family Court Review

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 246-252

  Martin, Lorraine ^a  

^a Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario   (Canada)

Author keywords

child custody; custody evaluation; divorce; public services

Indexed keywords

EID: 85178917999     PISSN: 15312445     EISSN: 17441617     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00024.x     Document Type: Note

References (24)

1. Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. (1996). Child custody evaluations practices: A 1996 survey of psychologists. Family Law Quarterly, 30, 565–586.
2. Association of Family & Conciliation Courts. (1994). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluations. Retrieved September 2, 2004, from http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/Child_Model_Standards.pdf.
3. Austin, W. G. (2002). Guidelines for utilizing collateral sources of information in child custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 40(2), 177–184.
4. Bala, N. (2004). Assessments for postseparation parenting disputes in Canada. Family Court Review, 42(3), 485–510.
5. Birnbaum, R., & Radovanovic, H. (1999). Brief intervention model for access-based postseparation disputes. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 504–513.
6. Board of Registration for Social Workers in British Columbia. (2002). Standards of practice child custody and access assessments. Retrieved September 2, 2004, from http://www.brsw.bc.ca/pdf/CustodyAcessStd.pdf.
7. Clark, B. (1995). Acting in the best interest of the child: Essential components of a child custody evaluation. Family Law Quarterly, 29, 19–37.
8. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Denzin, N. K. (2002). Social work in the seventh moment. Qualitative Social Work, 1(1), 25–38.
10. Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York: Guilford Press.
11. Emery, R. E. (1999). Changing the rules for determining child custody in divorce cases. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 6(3), 323–327.
12. Fossey, P., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717–732.pmid/12406114
13. Hetherington, E. M., Stanley-Hagan, M., & Anderson, E. R. (1989). Marital transitions: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 44(2), 303–312.pmid/2653140
14. 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(6), 557–565.
15. Karras, D., & Berry, K. K. (1985). Custody evaluations: A critical review. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 76–85.
16. Kelly, J. B. (1997). The best interests of the child: A concept in search of meaning. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 35(4), 377–387.
17. Kruk, E. (1992). Psychological and structural factors contributing to the disengagement of non-custodial fathers after divorce. Family & Consiliation Courts Review, 30(1), 81–101.
18. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19. Madden-Derdich, D. A., Leonard, S. S., & Christopher, F. S. (1999). Boundary ambiguity and coparental conflict after divorce: An empirical test of a family systems model of the divorce process. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 588–598.
20. Melton, G., Petrilia, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford Press.
21. Saskatchewan Association of Social Workers. (2001). Standards in custody/access for registered social workers in Saskatchewan. Retrieved September 2, 2004, from http://www.sasw.ca/standards/Custody%20_%20AccessStandards.pdf.
22. Sherman, E., & Reid, W. (1994). Qualitative research in social work. New York: Columbia University Press.
23. 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.
24. Vayda, E. J., & Satterfield, M. T. (1997). Law for social workers: A Canadian guide (3rd ed.). Scarborough, ON: Carswell Thompson Professional Publishing.