or care in a hospital. An additional criterion is that no
less restrictive alternative (other than hospitalization)
is available or feasible. But above all, the person must
be determined to be mentally ill.
Literally anyone can petition the court for an
examination of someone he or she believes requires
commitment. Usually, it is family or friends, or
sometimes the police or welfare officials, who act
as petitioners. If the court agrees, an order is issued
and the person is required to submit to a profes-
sional examination (Greene & Heilbrun, 2011).
Such an examination should be based on personal
observations of the individual by professionals and
not just on what others have reported. Common
matters to note are general appearance, clarity of
thinking, presence of delusions or hallucinations,
how well the patient understands the complaints,
the person’s use of drugs or alcohol, employment
status, intelligence, prior history of mental and
criminal problems, and kindred factors.
Domestic Issues. Many domestic issues these
days require intervention by the courts. Child cus-
tody, parental fitness, visitation rights, child abuse,
juvenile misbehavior, and adoption are but a few of
these issues. As an example, we discuss the issue of
child custody.
Because divorce has become so prevalent in our
society in recent years, it is only natural that
problems of child custody have proliferated as well.
The fact that marital roles and norms have likewise
changed also complicates matters. Increasingly,
fathers have assumed child care responsibilities, and
mothers are now commonly employed outside the
home. These and other factors have made custodial
questions much more complex than before.
Today, the doctrine of the“best interests of the
child”always takes precedence in custody disputes. To
better articulate exactly what standards are involved
here, the Michigan Child Custody Act of 1970 estab-
lished the following factors that are typically relied on
by the courts in making custodial decisions:
- The love, affection, and other emotional ties
existing between the competing parties and the
child.
2. The capacity and disposition of competing
parties to give the child love, affection, and
guidance, and continuation of educating and
raising the child in his religion or creed, if any.
3. The capacity and disposition of competing
parties to provide the child with food, clothing,
medical care, or other remedial care recognized
and permitted under the laws of this state in
lieu of medical care or other material needs.
4. The length of time the child has lived in a
stable satisfactory environment and desirability
of maintaining continuity.
5. The permanence, as a family unit, of the
existing or proposed custodial home.
6. The moral fitness of the competing parties.
7. The home, school, and community record of
the child.
8. The mental and physical health of the com-
peting parties.
9. The reasonable preference of the child, if the
court deems the child to be of sufficient age to
express preference. - Any other factor considered by the court to be
relevant to a particular child custody dispute.
Although 150 years ago children of divorce
were automatically awarded to the father and 50
years ago almost always awarded to the mother,
such reflexive decisions no longer hold today. The
present norm isjoint custody, which rests on the
belief that children should maintain ties with both
parents. In fact, many divorces culminate in infor-
mal joint custody decisions by the divorced couple;
a formal ruling by the court never occurs. When
the court does issue an order for joint custody, this
probably means that a dispute of some sort has
arisen between competing parties. In the final anal-
ysis, however, the only way joint custody can really
work is when competing parents set aside their ani-
mosity and anger toward each other and act in con-
cert and with sensitivity to the best interests of the
child.
Joint custody, however, may not always be in
the best interests of the child. Specifically, joint
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 549