Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

by a full disclosure to the parties of the purpose and

nature of the evaluation, the limits of confidentiality,

the potential range of outcomes, and the fee arrange-

ments. The evaluator schedules appointments with each

adult caregiver who is party to the suit and each child

for an interview and testing, observation of interactions,

and follow-up inquiry regarding matters in dispute.

Collateral or third-party sources of information are

sought, including records of previous court hearings,

school records, mental health treatment records, and

medical records for issues relevant to the dispute.

Additionally, the parties may present other records,

such as records of their communications with one

another, recordings of exchanges, and other such mate-

rials. The psychologist may also consult teachers, child

care workers, coaches, pediatricians, therapists, neigh-

bors, and relatives who may have relevant information.

PPssyycchhoollooggiiccaall TTeessttiinngg

While psychological testing is not explicitly required

in these evaluations, it is often included in the assess-

ment techniques. Although no specialized tests of the

best interests of the child or child custody fitness have

been developed that meet established psychometric

standards, some efforts have been advanced. When psy-

chological measures are employed, instrument selection

is driven by an appreciation of the importance of the rel-

evance and reliability of the instrument for the purpose.

Commonly used instruments include the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2), the

Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), and the

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI–III)

for assessing personality characteristics of the parents;

the Parent-Child Relationship Inventory,the Parenting

Stress Index, or some other measure of parental atti-

tudes; and the Child Behavior Checklist or Behavior

Assessment System for Children for children. Other

instruments may be helpful to address special issues

such as domestic violence allegations, substance abuse,

or childhood depression and anxiety. Comprehensive

social history and parenting history questionnaires may

also be used to collect parent input in a somewhat stan-

dard way. When the inferential leap is too great from

what the test measures to the matter at bar, it is advised

that the test not be used.

RReeppoorrtt ooff FFiinnddiinnggss

Finally, the data that have been collected are ana-

lyzed to develop information useful to the court in its

determination of sharing of parenting responsibility

and time. The psychologist may stop short of making

specific recommendations about how parenting respon-

sibility and time should be apportioned, recognizing

the final determination to be a matter for the court to

decide. When there are sufficient data to substantiate

a specific recommendation, however, there is no legal

bar to offering it.

Variations on the Nature

and Forms of Families

Disputes regarding parenting time and responsibility

are not limited to divorcing biological parents.

Adoptive parents, noncohabiting parents, grandpar-

ent caregivers, estranged grandparents of a child

with a deceased or incapacitated parent, gay and les-

bian parents, and many other configurations of fam-

ilies may seek the court’s assistance in settling

matters in controversy when children’s best interests

are at stake. Families may enjoy unique cultural

milieus, or there may be specialized concerns, such

as a child with special needs or a parent with specific

disabilities; all these issues may tax the court’s

resources in making particularized and customized

determinations that best address the needs of the

family whose child’s best interests are in question.

The psychologist may also be taxed by these special

issues but may also have greater time and resources

to invest in investigating their significance.

Psychologists are helpful to the trier of fact by

accomplishing this comprehensive, case-specific

evaluation of parenting time and responsibility.

Mary Connell

See also Alternative Dispute Resolution; Child Sexual Abuse;

Divorce and Child Custody; Parens Patriae Doctrine;

Substance Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence; Tender

Years Doctrine

Further Readings

American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for

child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. The

American Psychologist, 49,677–680.

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2007).

Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation.

Family Court Review, 45,70–91. Available at

http://www.afccnet.org

Connell, M. A. (2006). Notification of purpose in child

custody evaluation: Informing the parties and their

72 ———Child Custody Evaluations

C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 72