Judging the quality of child custody evaluations
| Published date | 11 May 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-12-2014-0048 |
| Date | 11 May 2015 |
| Pages | 127-133 |
| Author | Alberto Yohananoff |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Forensic practice |
Judging the quality of child custody
evaluations
Alberto Yohananoff
Dr Alberto Yohananoff is a
Private Practioner, at
New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper was to assess whether the criteria that have been developed by mental
health professionals to judge the quality of child custody reports matches the criteria employed by members
of the legal profession.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper reviews the literature on the standards that have been
developed to assess the quality of child custody reports and compare it to the criteria used by attorneys
and judges.
Findings –The broad criteria used by mental health professionals in assessing the quality of child custody
reports mostly matches those employed by judges and attorneys.
Research limitations/implications –There is limited research that focusses on a detailed, qualitative
analysis of each component of a child custody report.
Practical implications –Is it essential that a qualitative analysis of child custody reports be performed
because it would impact on how professional approach such evaluations.
Originality/value –Having research focussing on a detailed qualitative analysis of child custody evaluations
may enhance the quality of such products.
Keywords Professional standards, Qualitative research, Attorneys’critique of child custody evaluations,
Child custody evaluations, Forensics assessments, Psychological testing in forensic assessments
Paper type Conceptual paper
Some observations on the congruence between criteria used by mental health
professionals and the community of legal consumers
Mental health professionals who have engaged in forensic evaluations, and child custody
evaluations in particular, have witnessed a gradual evolution in expectations (Ackerman and
Ackerman, 1997; Bow and Quinnell, 2001, 2002). Greater methodological rigor has become the
standard for the conduct of all forensic evaluations. Professional guidelines have been
promulgated by a variety of organizations such as the Association of Family Court and
Conciliation (2007) and the American Psychological Association (2013), leading to a fairly
standardized approach to the content of these evaluations.
This short paper will focus on the standard that have developed in the USA by mental health
practitioners as to what constitute adequate child custody evaluations, and whether the
standards that have been established by mental health professional regarding these evaluations
meet US legal benchmarks designed to govern the scientific admissibility of data in the
courtroom. Given that custody reports are ultimately intended to be used by the community of
legal consumers (attorneys and judges) this paper will then turn its focus on the research that has
been conducted in the USA as to whether the criteria used by mental health professionals in
judging the quality of these evaluations matches the criteria used by legal professionals. Finally,
this paper will focus on the “gaps”of such literature and the implications of such gaps for the
professional crafters of these reports.
Received 2 December 2014
Revised 26 January 2015
Accepted 26 January 2015
DOI 10.1108/JFP-12-2014-0048 VOL. 17 NO. 2 2015, pp. 127-133, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
PAG E 12 7
To continue reading
Request your trial