Practices of child custody evaluators: Implications for best practices.

摘要

Since the colonial times in America there has been much debate over the best and most appropriate ways to handle the custody of children in divorcing families. Due to the inherent emotional attachments that children engender, the ability of the divorcing parents to decide custody is often occluded, leaving courts of law to rule on this matter. In the current family law system, families that cannot amicably resolve issues of custody and timeshare are referred to specially trained, mental health professionals who conduct child custody evaluations. The results of these evaluations are then presented to the court with recommendations for custody and timeshare. The actual practice of child custody evaluating varies from region to region, but has general clinical and ethical guidelines provided by both the American Psychological Association and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. Although there have been several national studies on the practice of child custody evaluators, there are no known studies to date that look at particular regional child custody evaluator practices and whether or not they follow the clinical and ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.;In this study, seventeen child custody evaluators in Orange County, California, participated in a 24-item survey, and six participated in a semi-structured oral interview to determine: (a) what the actual practices of child custody evaluators in Orange County are; (b) what the level of concurrence of these practices are; (c) if they generally followed the guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts; and (d) if the practices were in line with the Daubert and Frye guidelines for scientific testimony admission. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of this mixed method study found that: (a) the level of concurrence in the methods of practice among child custody evaluators was quite high; (b) that the guidelines of both the American Psychological Association and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts are being adhered to; and that (c) the Daubert and Frye standards are being met by this population. This provides an excellent result and sample to compare with other counties child custody evaluators in future studies.