Custody Evaluations without Psychological Testing: Prudent Practice or Fatal Flaw?

By Hagan, Leigh D. Phd; Hagan, Ann C. Ba | Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Spring 2008 | Go to article overview

Custody Evaluations without Psychological Testing: Prudent Practice or Fatal Flaw?


Hagan, Leigh D. Phd, Hagan, Ann C. Ba, Journal of Psychiatry & Law


When is it appropriate to omit psychological testing from a child custody evaluation? When is the omission serious error? Because all forensic evaluations begin with a legal question (typically: what is in the child's best interest), this discussion begins with a foundation in law and admissibility of scientific testimony and evidence. Then, this article distinguishes among tests, inventories and questionnaires. From there we present pertinent parameters flowing from ethics, regulatory authority, and test publisher requirements. With that foundation in place, we take up the issue of when it is entirely appropriate to omit psychological testing and, in converse, when such omissions likely fall below the standard for custody evaluations.

Foundation

Purpose of child custody evaluations

Custody examiners design evaluation methods, craft reports, and offer testimony that is relevant and helpful to the court, The examiner's report and consultation should advise the parties and inform the court based on generally accepted behavioral science methods. Although 42 states articulate statutory custody guidelines for the court to consider when making legal determinations of custody and visitation, rarely, if ever, do the statutory guidelines particularize the methods and procedures evaluators should use to assess those factors (Elrod & Spector, 2007). Absent specific direction from statute and/or case law, evaluators must rely on other considerations, including generally accepted scientific methods and procedures, standards of practice and ethical principles when designing a custody assessment strategy. Evaluation methods falling short of the prevailing scientific standard likely have little value and are probably inadmissible.

Custody evaluators serve several audiences. First, they consult with the parties who are front line decision makers in raising children. Second, through their reports, mental health evaluators (MHE) inform the attorneys of their findings, recommendations, and anticipated testimony. Third, if the parties do not or cannot fulfill their duty to make decisions on behalf of their children, then evaluators advise the court of findings based on generally accepted practices in the field. The court ultimately decides the issue based on law and the evidence.

MHEs should not proceed with unconfirmed assumptions about the scope of their evaluations. While custody might be at issue before the court, MHEs are not always engaged to conduct a full custody evaluation. The authority for and scope of the evaluation derive from the court order or an agreement between the parties. MHEs risk a host of criticisms when proceeding in pro forma fashion or with boilerplate procedures that are not responsive to the specifications of the appointment order or which are unenlighten about the law.

There are at least three types of evaluations, and one variant, when custody is before the court: full custody assessment, parental capacity evaluation, and/or focused psychological evaluations of specific issues involving one or more of the parties. First, by definition a full custody evaluation requires a comparative analysis of both parties' parenting in light of the needs of the child.. "To determine what is 'best' for the children, the court must engage in a comparative analysis. Such an analysis will permit the court to decide which parent is best qualified to provide the highest quality of care to the children" (Keel v. Keel, 1983). The correct test for the determination of child custody requires an analysis of the circumstances of both parents and the children. Positive as well as negative characteristics of each participant should be considered.

A change of circumstance case is a variant of the custody issue. Herein, a litigant moves the court to modify the existing final order controlling custody. Rather than reexamining all of the original issues and findings, the court typically limits its review to changes subsequent to the previous final order. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Custody Evaluations without Psychological Testing: Prudent Practice or Fatal Flaw?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.