Forensic psychologists are utilized by the family courts to assess the best interests for children in current divorce cases or in post decree cases. In some instances, there is a request to ascertain which parent should serve as the primary residential parent, while in other instances, the evaluator is asked to recommend whether the parents have the capacity to jointly make decisions or whether one parent should have sole legal custody to make unilateral decisions regarding education, medical decisions and/or extracurricular activities. The evaluator may also be asked to recommend a visitation schedule for the child or children, or to assess whether supervised visitation is appropriate. At times, evaluators are also assigned the task of recommending whether removal of the children to another state or country is in the best interest of the children.
Although most families arrive at decisions regarding custody and visitation without input from any professionals, approximately 10 percent of divorces involving children do litigate (Melton, Petrila, et al, 1999) and about 1 percent of custody decisions are the result of a trial.
Custody evaluations may be done by child psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, marriage and family counselors or licensed clinical professional counselors. In some municipalities, only licensed psychiatrists or clinical psychologists are deemed qualified to conduct evaluations. Regardless, most municipalities require specialized training in child custody evaluations. This may include training in child development, domestic violence, substance abuse, psychological testing, attachment, and/or mediation. Specialized training is available through a variety of sources, including the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), the American College of Forensic Psychologists (ACFP) and the American Psychological Association (APA).
There are arguments in the professional literature as to whether judges should refer families for child custody evaluations (Emery, Otto, et al, 2005; Kelly and Ramsey, 2009; O’Donohue and Bradley, 1999), while Austin (2009) suggested that there be quality control of the work product that is provided by evaluators. Day (2008) indicated that custody evaluations provide information to both the Court and families in the form of information, clarification and education. Tippins and Whitman (2005a, Tippins and Whitman, 2005b) have argued that custody evaluators should not make specific recommendations to the Court, while a number of others (Bala, 2005; Rotman, 2005; Stahl, 2005) have suggested that recommendations may be useful and appropriate. Martin (2005) has argued that recommendations should be viewed as a part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome.
Typically, judges are interested in the best interests of the child and there are specific factors to be assessed. These may differ somewhat in different states. For example, in Illinois, the best interest factors (750 ILCS 602) include the wishes of each parent as to custody, the wishes of the child as to custody, the interaction and interrelationship of the child or children with the parents, siblings and/or significant others, the child’s adjustment to home, school and community and the mental and physical health of all individuals involved. Other factors to be assessed include the physical violence or threat of physical violence by the potential custodian, whether directed against the child or another person, the occurrence of ongoing abuse whether directed against the child or another person, and the willingness of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child. Additional considerations include the stability of the environment, which parent has been the primary caretaker and parental conduct which has an effect on the child.
In Michigan, the best interest factors include many of the factors cited in Illinois, but also include the preference of the child if of sufficient age, the moral fitness of the parties, the length of time the child has lived in a stable environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity, the capacity of the parties to provide for basic needs, medical care and other material needs, the permanence of the existing or proposed home, and the capacity and disposition of each party to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in their religion or creed.
Additional factors may also be examined in removal cases. For example, in Illinois, the Illinois Supreme Court identified specific factors in determining best interest in removal. In IRMO Eckhart, these factors included whether the move has a likelihood of enhancing the general quality of life for both the custodial parent and the child, whether the custodial parent has a good motive in moving, whether the noncustodial parent has a good motive in resisting a move, whether a reasonable and realistic visitation schedule can be reached if removal is allowed and whether there is a direct benefit to the child. Eckhart was modified to some degree by the Collinborn Supreme Court decision, which indicated that both direct as well as indirect benefits to the child needed to be considered.
Best Practices and Guidelines
Most evaluators follow a model in conducting a child custody evaluation. Both AFCC (2006) and APA (2009) have recently re-done their guidelines and there is much similarity between the two models. Both emphasize the necessity for specialized training. In addition, both cite the need for multiple sources of data collection. This may include interviews with each parent, interviews with the child, observation of each parent with the child, observation of other family members or significant others with the child, psychological testing, home visits collateral interviews and review of collateral information. There has also been an emphasis on differentiating a forensic evaluation from “normal” clinical services (APA, 2009; apa, 2011).
Parent Interviews
At the initial interview with each parent, forms should be completed including an informed consent, whereby the individual acknowledges their understanding of the custody evaluation and the non-confidential nature of the evaluation.
The initial interview should be designed to collect information on the history of the relationship, including their and their significant others role in parenting. This may include who handled medical care and appointments, who got up at night with the child, who stayed home with an ill child, who changed diapers, fed and bathed the child, who transported the child to and from daycare and/or school, who helped with homework, school projects and test preparation, who attended school open houses, parent teacher conferences, field trips and school parties, who attended extracurricular activities, who transported the child to and from extracurricular activities, who served as a coach for a sport, who served as a room parent, and who took the child to religious education and/or services. In addition, inquire as to whom prepared school lunches, who took the child for haircuts and cut their nails, who read to the child, who put the child to bed, who dressed them and made breakfast in the morning and who bought their clothing. This information is designed to help the evaluator in assessing who, if either, has served as the primary parent.
The second area for assessment are the concerns of each parent, both concerns about the other parent as a parent, as well as the concerns about the other parent as a person. For example, a woman may cite that her partner is controlling. In what ways is the partner controlling? Is the parent also controlling towards the child and is this appropriate in setting an appropriate hierarchy? Is there any evidence of child abuse? Is there any physical or emotional abuse towards the partner witnessed by the children or not? Is there any substance abuse, whether witnessed or not by the children? Is there any inappropriate discipline or lack of discipline? Is there any exposure of the children to other partners? Is there any evidence of mental illness? Is there a lack of availability to the child? Is there a lack of involvement with the child? Is there any evidence of alienation? These questions help provide information on abuse, domestic violence and the emotional status of each parent, which are three of the best interest factors in most municipalities.
It is also essential to ascertain the wishes of each parent, particularly their suggested parenting schedule for the other parent. This often provides valuable information as to each parent’s ability to foster and facilitate a relationship between the child and the other parent, which is one of the best interest factors in most states. Querying each parent regarding the strengths of their partner often sheds light on this factor as well. Individuals who are unable to list strengths in other parent are more likely to have problems facilitating the child’s relationship with that parent.
Finally, a thorough history of each parent is vital to an assessment. Is there a history of divorce in the family? Is there a history of abuse? Is there a history of substance abuse in the family? Is there a history of mental illness in the family? What was each parent’s childhood like? Do either or both parents have a history of mental illness (including in or out patient treatment, medication), chronic medical problems, drug addiction or alcohol problems? Has either had an arrest record and for what? This information provides data regarding the parent’s emotional status. In addition, it can assist the evaluator in understanding the likelihood of the parent facilitating a relationship between the child and the other parent.
Ackerman (2001) suggested that parent interviews also cover employment history, educational history, current employment, place of residence and past moves, developmental history, major stressors, previous marital history and outside activities.
Follow-up interviews with each parent are often conducted, in order to allow each parent to respond to concerns and issues raised by the other parent, and to allow each parent to articulate any additional concerns.
Some evaluators also have joint interviews with both parents. Stahl (2011) reflected that a joint interview allows an opportunity to observe the interaction between the parents, as well as their ability to communicate about the child. He suggests that it is unwise to have a joint session when there are allegations of domestic violence or when one parent is opposed to such a meeting. There is a danger of joint interviews, in that one parent may be strongly opposed to joint legal custody (in essence joint decision-making in regards to educational, religious, medical and extracurricular decisions). One parent may attempt to precipitate conflict during the joint meeting, making it almost impossible for the evaluator to recommend joint legal custody, in that most state statutes require cooperation between the two parties. Goldstein (2012) recommends against joint interviews for this reason.
Stahl (2011) also utilizes the follow-up interviews to assess how each parent understands the child. This would include the child’s life, feelings, needs and the parent’s understanding of the child’s functioning academically, socially and emotionally.
Many evaluators also utilize questionnaires to gather information either prior to the initial appointment or early in the process. Dies (2008) conducted a survey and found that examiner-designed questionnaires are used extensively in child custody evaluations, but noted concerns related to reliability, validity, helpfulness and relevance. Goldstein (2012) has indicated that there is no assurance that the instruments are actually completed by the parent, unless the questionnaire is completed in the evaluator’s office and during the initial appointment. Otherwise, there is nothing to assure that the parent did not have assistance in completing the questionnaire.
Child Interviews
A number of individuals (Ackerman, 2001; Benjamin, Andrew, 2003; Hynan, 1998; Kovera and McAuliff, 1999; Kuhnle, Greenberg, et al, 2004; Stahl, 2011; Wolf, 2005; have offered strategies for interviewing children and adolescents in child custody evaluations.
Interviewing children and adolescents poses many challenges, in that children may have been coached by one or both parents. Hickson (1999) examined whether children’s perceptions of their parents were susceptible to persuasion by either mothers or fathers and the extent to which children were influenced by the physical presence of either parent. The results suggested that children overall did not change their perceptions of parents and that susceptibility was impacted by self-esteem. Pipe and Wilson (1994) showed that a child may conceal information from an authority figure when asked to keep it secret by an adult. Bottoms, Goodman, et al (1990) demonstrated that a child is unlikely to spontaneously divulge secrets, but were more likely to do so in response to the adult’s direct questioning about the event. It has also been found that children incorporate parental suggestions into their memory (Poole and Lindsey, 1995; Tate, Warren, et al, 1992). At times, parents may unintentionally use suggestive questioning that may alter the child’s memory to some degree (Goodman, Sharma, et al, 1995).
At times, one parent may have threatened the child or promised the child something (candy, ice cream, a toy, a new pet), so that the child feels compelled to respond a certain way. Older children and adolescents better understand the consequences of their interview responses and may attempt to protect one or both parents. Some children take a neutral position and are reluctant to make negative comments about either parent, regardless of reality.
Typically, coached children are relatively easy to spot. One sign is the child who only has positive comments about one parent and only negative comments about the other parent. Another sign is the child who spontaneously announces to the evaluator their preference for residing with one parent at the beginning of the interview. Directly querying the child at the end of each interview as to what each parent shared with them prior to the interview is useful. In addition, it is efficacious to ascertain whether either parent asked them to share anything with the evaluator or whether either parent asked them to not mention something to the evaluator. After the initial interview, it is important to query whether either parent questioned or interrogated them after the interview and what was discussed.
Recent research on child interviews reflects that there are risks in interviewing kids. This is particularly evident in cases with abuse allegations. Ceci and Bruck (1993) have shown that a child’s memory can be affected by the child’s emotions and the interviewer’s questions. A number of researchers (Ceci and Bruck, 1995; Ornstein and Hayden, 2001; Poole and Lamb, 1998; Saywitz and Lyon, 2002; Sternberg, Lamb, et al, 2002) have studied the issue of suggestibility in children.
The use of open-ended questions in child interviews has been universally accepted. Leading questions, repeated questions and forced choice questions all have been demonstrated to lead to suggestibility (Ceci and Bruck, 1995). In particular, repeated questions, especially with young children have been shown to lead to suggestibility (Cassel, et al, 1996; Poole and White, 1991; Siegal, et al, 1988). It has been shown that the use of clarification and elaboration through open-ended queries leads to more accurate assessments (Lamb, Orbach, et al, 2007). It is more useful to begin questions with “who,” “what,” “where” and “how.” Also remember that most children, particularly young children, have exceeding difficulty with time. It is often best practice to “anchor” questions to a particular time frame. Interviewing children in a supportive and non-threatening manner can contribute to positive outcomes in the acquisition of relevant information (Carter, et al, 1996; Goodman, et al, 1991).
As for the interview itself, remember that this is an anxiety-provoking experience for most children. To decrease anxiety, it is best to first observe the child with a parent, so that the child can become more comfortable with the evaluator, prior to the actual interview. From a consistency perspective, it is best practice to do observations with each parent prior to the child interview. In addition, this assists in developing rapport, which is essential in conducting child interviews. Furthermore, the interviewer’s use of language needs to match the child’s developmental stage. Also remember that the child may have little or no idea as to why they are at the evaluator’s office. Dunn, Davies, et al (2001) have pointed out that children are told little or nothing about changes in their family. It is best to first introduce yourself, share some information about yourself, look for connecting points with the child (e.g. wow, we both have blue shirts on) and the interviewer’s role. The APA (2009) Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings stipulates that psychologists provide “an appropriate explanation” and help the child understand the evaluator’s role as well as the issue of confidentiality.
The interviewer wishes to understand the child in relationship to each parent and their perception of each parent across a number of parameters. It is most efficacious to first ask the child to describe each parent, then to ask what the child does with each parent. In addition, how does each parent express their feelings, especially anger? What types of punishment does each parent utilize? Has the parent changed in their expression of affect and/or use of punishment?
It is also important to assess the child’s perception of each parent’s role in their life currently and historically. This may include which parent wakes the child in the morning for school, who makes them breakfast, how the child gets to school, who sets out clothes for the child or helps the child dress in the morning, how the child gets home from school, who is home after school, what the child does for lunch, who helps with homework, projects, and test preparation, and who handles bedtime rituals such as baths or showers, teeth brushing, nighttime reading and tucking into bed. Who signs the child up for activities? Who takes the child to and from activities? Who attends the activities? Who has coached or assisted with an activity? Who stays home if the child is ill? Who does the child go to if ill? Who takes the child to the doctor, dentist, medical specialist, therapist, and/or tutor?
In follow-up interviews with children, it is essential to ask the child about specific concerns and issues delineated by both parents. These may include issues related to parental conflict, domestic violence, child abuse (both physical, sexual and emotional), substance abuse and the exposure of children to significant others. It may also include boundary problems, such as a parent sharing inappropriate information about the other parent with the child, using the child as a confidant, making negative remarks about one parent when the child is present, and/or name calling. Other areas of concern include the availability of a parent (whether not being home, being excessively on the phone or computer or playing videogames or watching TV for countless hours), and the work hours of a parent.
As part of the child interview, the interviewer desires to determine the wishes of the child. However, it is typically not prudent to directly ask the child as to their preference as to where they would like to reside, although this is a common practice with adolescents. Younger children are typically not capable of participating in custody determinations. However, Larson and McGill (2010) have argued that adolescent input needs to be considered, and that forensic evaluators should consider the adolescents’ cognitive and decision-making ability as well as developmental factors that may impact their abilities. Historically, children’s views were often absent from custody decisions, although it is often one of the factors to be assessed. For example, in Illinois 750 ILCS602), the wish of the child is listed as one of the best interest factors.
Observation
Another key component to a child custody evaluation is an observation of each parent with the child. In addition, observation of siblings, step or half-siblings, step-parents, and significant others such as grandparents (if they reside in the household or have an ongoing role in caretaking) is a necessary component of the forensic evaluation. Observations may be done in the home and/or office. Home visits are preferred when young children are involved or when there are concerns about the suitability of the home.
Observation allows for an analysis of the parent-child interaction (Acklin and Cho-Stutler, 2006; Hynan, 2003). However, Slaven (2002) surveyed 518 clinical psychologists and found that there is a lack of standardized and uniform observational practices. Some evaluators utilize only an unstructured format, e.g. having the parent play games with the child. Others allow the parent and child to choose from a variety of materials, which might include drawing supplies, Legos, games and dolls. Some provide more structure, having the parent and child play a specific game, e.g. The Talking, Feeling and Doing game (Gardner, 1989), while other clinicians simply observe the parent and child talking to each other. Still others combine structured and unstructured tasks (in my practice, I allow the family to play a game as an unstructured task and have the family create stories from TAT or CAT pictures). Regardless, the evaluator is attempting to assess the family dynamics and interaction patterns. This includes the hierarchy in the family system, boundaries, communication patterns, level of supportiveness and attachment.
The applicability of attachment theory to the practice of conducting child custody evaluations has become a “hot” topic in the field in recent years. Lee, Borelli and West (2011) have argued that current practice involves the use of terminology and conclusions that often distort the findings from attachment research. Emery, Otto and O’Donohue (2005) discussed the foundations of non-attachment-related evaluations and concluded that they had a limited scientific basis. Garber (2009) proffered that attachment theory is an empirically rich, developmentally informed and systemically-oriented model that holds promise as a useful tool, but is not as of yet adequately validated. Issacs, George and Marvin (2009) have suggested the possibility of using attachment theory and attachment measures for child custody evaluations and presented a case study to support the use of attachment theory. Purvis, McKenzie, et al (2010) also presented a case study, utilizing the Adult Attachment Inventory, to demonstrate the efficacy of attachment theory in a child custody assessment. Mercer (2009) reviewed the use of attachment theory in custody evaluations and in particular, assessed the use of the Strange Situation Paradigm (the most widely used methodology for evaluating attachment). She concluded that the scientific support for the use of attachment theory is weak and that there was no clear rationale for deriving a custody arrangement from the use of Strange Situation Paradigm. Mercer also postulated that the use of attachment-related assessments provided no improvement in the scientific foundation of custody evaluations.
Psychological Testing
Both AFCC and APA stress the need for multiple methods of data collection, and psychological testing is frequently utilized, in assessing both the parents as well as the children. Research on custody evaluations indicates that over 90 percent of psychologists in the US who perform custody evaluations utilize psychological tests in their evaluations (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997). Bow, Gould, et al (2006) surveyed custody evaluators and found that psychological testing was most often used in ruling out psychopathology and assessing personality functioning. Bray (2009) found that psychologists are using more testing instruments than was evident in the Ackerman study. In another survey, Phillips (2008) reported that psychologists use multiple psychological tests, use psychological tests to reveal major pathology and combine test data with other sources of data.
A number of authors have commented on the use of psychological tests in custody evaluations. Flens (2005) has commented that the use of tests requires a thorough understanding of test selection and the legal criteria pertaining to the admissibility of psychological test data. He has also stipulated that there is a necessity to select psychological tests with demonstrated validity and reliability. Gould (2005) described a functional approach to the use of psychological tests and measures in custody evaluations and the relationship to parental competencies. Gould-Saltman (2005) expressed concern that the ways in which results are administered to litigants can be substantially different. Otto, Edens and Barcus (2000) noted that some tests do not meet professional standards. Hagan and Hagan (2008) have questioned whether it is always necessary or appropriate to administer psychological tests in all custody evaluations. Brodzinsky (1993) commented about the risks, as well as the benefits, of psychological testing. Other authors (Bricklin, 1999; Gould, 1998; Stahl, 2011) have echoed similar thoughts.
The most widely used test in custody evaluations is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-II (MMPI-II) (Ackerman and Ackerman, 1997). More recently, there has been a revision of the instrument, resulting in the MMPI-II-RF, which consists of 338 True-False items in comparison to the MMPI-II, which has 567 items. Although the instrument is the most widely used evaluative tool in custody cases, Otto and Collins (1995) warned of the necessity of having multiple sources of data. Mandappa (1995) emphasized the need to consider both group and national norms to ensure informed decisions. Bow, Flens and Gould (2010) expressed concern about the lack of verification of data entry, inadequate knowledge of significance cutoff scores and over-reliance on computer generated interpretive reports.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals undergoing custody evaluations tend to present themselves in a favorable light in comparison to control groups on the MMPI-II. Defensiveness and minimization are common response styles, resulting in an underreporting of psychological symptoms and an attempt to portray oneself in a positive light. Schenck (1996) examined MMPI-II norms for custody litigants and found significantly higher T-scores on the L and K scales in custody litigants in comparison to non-custody counseling outpatients. Caldwell (2005), Cook (2010), Greene (2003), Hopkins (1999) and Siegel (1996) all had similar findings. However, Medoff (1999) opined that these scores may be statistically significant, but fail to be clinically significant. Bagby, Nicholson, et al (1999) suggested that the S scale, as well as the Wiggins Social Desirability scale, were more effective in the identification of underreporting than the L and K scales.
After the development of the Superlative (S) scale, research has indicated that individuals undergoing custody evaluations tend to respond defensively on the L, K and S scales. Gready (2006) found that custody litigants displayed higher mean scores on the L, K and S scales in comparison to a normative population. Tinder (2009) had similar findings. Selbom and Bagby (2008) compared groups of custody litigants with university students and found that the two groups were differentiated by their L and K scores on the MMPI-II-RF. Archer, Hagan, et al (2011) examined MMPI-II-RF scores for child custody litigants and found elevations on the L and K scales, consistent with prior research.
Other researchers have examined the various scales on the MMPI-II and compared custody litigants to normative populations. Leib (2008) found that only scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviate) was significantly elevated and that none of the family problems scales were elevated, although male child custody litigants were significantly different than female custody litigants, in that females scored higher than males on all family problems scales. Kravit (2011) found elevations on Scales 3, 4 and 6 for custody litigants and that mothers without custody had the highest mean scale scores on most scales, in comparison to the other groups. Wisneski (2007) examined high-conflict, re-litigation custody litigants and reported that these individuals had higher Represssion (R) scores.
The Millon Multiaxial Personality Inventory III (MCMI-III), designed to assess Axis 2 disorders, is also widely used in custody evaluations. An objective personality instrument, the MCMI-III has been questioned as a tool for custody cases by Ackerman and Ackerman (1997). As with the MMPI-II, custody litigants are often seen as defensive (Lampel, 1999; Lenny and Dear, 2009), reflected in scores on the Modifying indices. In addition, females often score higher on 3 scales, particularly on the Histrionic. Lampel (1999) found that the majority of custody litigants elevated on one of three scales—obsessive compulsive, histrionic and narcissistic. Her study also demonstrated that males tended to elevate on only one scale, while females tended to litigate on combinations of scales. Lenny and Dear (2009) noted that custody litigants have shown elevations on the Desirability, Histrionic, Compulsive and Narcissistic scales. Halon (2001) warned that the interpretation of profiles of custody litigants is highly problematic. However, McCann, Flens, et al (2001) related that the MCMI-III does not over-pathologize child custody examinees.
Other objective personality instruments have been increasingly utilized in custody cases, including the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the 16PF, the FIRO-B, the Bell Object Relations Test, as well as numerous instruments designed to assess specific personality components (depression, anxiety, psychopathy, post- traumatic stress, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse and trauma).
Projective personality tests are also administered at times, but these are often challenged in court, as not meeting Daubert or Fry standards. Some authors (Garb, Wood, et al, 2002; Grove, Barden, et al, 2002) contend that the reliability and validity of the Rorschach are insufficient to allow the data to be presented in court. Weiner (2005) addressed the limitations and utility of the Rorschach in child custody issues. He cited the value of the instrument in identifying level of adjustment or psychological disturbance as well as personality characteristics that inhibit or impede adequate parenting. Calloway (2005) opined that the Rorschach is uniquely suited for custody cases in that the instrument allows examiners to directly obtain measures of behavior from subjects and yields descriptions of individual’s traits. Medoff (2003), and Ritzler, Erard and Pettigrew (2002) offered similar opinions, while Evans, Barton and Schutz (2008) delineated the utility of the Rorschach for forensic cases.
Singer, Hoppe, et al (2008) examined child custody litigants on the Rorschach and demonstrated that this group had marked deficits in managing interpersonal conflict, problematic ability to modulate, control and tolerate their own affective experience and difficulty in engaging collaboratively in problem solving. The authors added that these deficits are consistent with clinical descriptions of this population. In another study, Kennelly (2002) evaluated response sets of Rorschach responding within an imagined child custody evaluation. Participants were not successful in altering their protocols on several variables.
Other projective instruments, including the Thematic Apperception Test, projective drawings and sentence completion tests appear to lack the reliability and validity for use in custody cases, and these are infrequently utilized. When these assessment tools have been used, they have not met Daubert or Frye standards when challenged in Court.
In addition to objective and projective personality tests, there are a number of parenting inventories. These include the Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1990), which is designed to measure sources of stress within areas of the child domain (Adaptability, Acceptability, Mood, Demandingness, Distractibility and Reinforces Parent) and sources of stress within areas of the parent domain (Depression, Guilt, Attachment, Restrictions imposed by the role, Sense of Competence, Social Isolation, Relationship with spouse and Health). There is also a Life Stress score, reflecting the amount of stress each parent is currently experiencing.
A second parenting inventory is the Parenting Alliance Measure (Abiden and Konold, 1999), which reflects the strength of the parent alliance between parents. The instrument is particularly beneficial in assessing communication between parents and is helpful in ascertaining whether to recommend joint versus sole custody.
A third tool is the Parent Child Relationship Inventory (Gerard, 1994). It assesses how parents view the task of parenting and how they feel about their children. There are scales related to Parental support, Satisfaction with parenting, Involvement, Communication, Limit setting, Autonomy and Role orientation.
Other measures related to parenting include the Parent Behavior Checklist (Fox, 1994), the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991), the Family Relations Inventory (Nash, Morrison and Taylor, 1984), the Parent Perception of Child Profile (Bricklin, 1995), the Best Interest of the Child Questionnaire (Jameson, Ehrenberg and Hunter, 1997), the Parent Discipline Techniques-Self Report (1997) and the Warshak Parent Questionnaire (2006).
There have also been attempts to assess the child’s perception and a number of instruments have been developed with this goal in mind. Bricklin, 1984; 1995; 1997) has published the Bricklin Perceptual Scales (BPS), the Perception of Relationships Test (PORT), the Parent Awareness Skills Survey (PASS) and the Parent Perception of Child profile (PPCP). The BPS is the most widely used custody measure for children (Ackerman and Ackerman, 1997), but it has been criticized for lacking adequate standardization, as well as reliability and validity to support its credibility. There has been little research on Bricklin’s measures, and Otto et al (2000) cited that these are either not valid or have significant limitations. Gilch and Jessica (2001) found a significant relationship between BPS scores and scores on the Family Environment Scale, but also indicated that the BPS did not provide an accurate picture of the family environment and their study did not support the hypothesis that the BPS is a valid and reliable instrument.
Bricklin and Elliott (1995) also developed the ACCESS, an integrated system in which each measure is designed to elicit information related to child custody. Ackerman and Schoendorf (1992) developed the ASPECT, in an effort to incorporate all the components of a custody evaluation. The ASPECT was later modified in 2001 (Ackerman) and the ASPECT-SF was published. There have been many criticisms of the Ackerman instruments, including Cornell (2005), who commented that the evaluator is led to offering unsubstantiated opinions on the central opinion. Ackerman (2005a, b) disagreed with Cornell’s opinion that the ASPECT should be “laid to rest.” Stahl (2011) concluded that these instruments may be used as adjunctive sources of information rather than definitive tools in custody cases.
Some evaluators may utilize other psychological measures on occasion, including instruments to assess intelligence (e.g. the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale), neuropsychological issues (e.g. Halstead-Reitan), substance abuse (e.g. the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-IV), post-traumatic stress (e.g. the Clinician-adminsistered PTSD scale), anxiety (e.g. the State-trait Anxiety Inventory 2), depression (e.g. the Beck Depression Inventory-II), psychopathy (e.g. the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised), and trauma (e.g. the Trauma Symptom Inventory).
In addition to the various Bricklin instruments, evaluators may also administer psychological instruments to children and adolescents, in order to assess their psychological functioning. These include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent, the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory, the Millon Pre-Adolescent Clinical Inventory, the Personality Inventory for Children, the Personality Assessment Inventory-Adolescent, the Beck Youth Inventories II for Children and Adolescents, the Connors Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales, the Behavior Assessment System for Children-2 and various scales for assessing Attention Deficit Disorder or other specific disorders.
Collateral Information
Both the APA and AFCC stress the importance of collecting collateral information from neutral sources. A survey of AFCC member custody evaluators revealed that 100 percent relied on collateral sources in conducting custody evaluations (Kirkland, McMillan and Kirkland, 2004). Collateral data includes all information from other sources, including interviews and review of materials. This may include interviews with physicians, dentists, orthodontists, medical specialists, teachers, school social workers, school counselors and school psychologists. It may also include interviews with clergy, marriage counselors, individual counselors, psychiatrists and/or social service agencies. In addition, the evaluator may interview current spouses, significant others, half siblings, step children, grandparents and/or other significant family members. Interviews with an AA or NA sponsor may also be fruitful. At times, neighbors may also be interviewed. It may be prudent to also interview individuals who have had direct observation of the parent child interaction, including a child’s baseball or soccer coach, or Boy Scout leader. Most evaluators do not interview family or origin, because these individuals often have a bias on the behalf of their family member.
Bow (2010) reviewed the use of third party information and its potential in enhancing the usefulness as well as accuracy in custody evaluations. Newton (2011) emphasized the data collection of school records, particularly when the parents are in disagreement related to school placement, the child’s performance and the child’s adjustment to school.
Austin (2002) recommended that custody evaluators utilize a concentric circle approach when collecting collateral information. He indicated that those closest to the family, those in the most inner part of the concentric circle, are likely to have the most complete information about family members. These individuals are also most likely to be biased. In Austin’s second concentric circle are those who are likely to have narrower knowledge of family members. This would include teachers, therapists, pediatricians, dentists, coaches and scout leaders. In the third concentric circle are individuals who may know very little about the family, but may have information to share about a specific event. For example, a postal worker may have observed an argument between the parents with the child present, or another parent may have observed a parent striking a child at school.
Austin and Kilpatrick (2002) related that it may be helpful to consider the relationship between the collateral informants and the parent who suggested the collateral source. Generally, an individual who is closer to a parent is less credible while an individual who is more emotionally disconnected to a parent is more credible. Stahl (2011) suggests that the evaluator attempt to determine whether there is evidence that a particular collateral source is less than credible. He added that an individual’s therapist may be less believable if they appear to be unwavering in their support of their client, particularly if they are unable to perceive any weaknesses in their client. Gould (1999) warned that information from family members in particular may be confounded by the self-interest inherent in the relationship with the parents.
In addition to collateral interviews, it is essential for an evaluator to examine collateral records. This may include school records, police or criminal records including incident reports, medical and hospital records, employment records and therapist records. Furthermore, evaluators may also have access to prior psychological evaluations and/or testing, prior parenting agreements, divorce documents and various motions and petitions related to the case. Stahl (2011) notes that the volume of material provided by the two parties is often indicative of the level of conflict, with volumes of material often related to high levels of conflict.
The record review may assist the evaluator in ascertaining each parent’s role with the children and the veracity of each parent. For example, one parent may claim that he or she took the children for the majority of medical appointments, but the medical records and interview with the pediatrician and specialists reveals that the parent was only present for appointments on a few occasions. In another instance, one parent may contend that there was domestic violence, but a review of police records and interviews with neighbors and children do not support such a contention.
Special Issues
Custody evaluators are typically asked to make recommendations regarding the issue of residential custody and/or joint versus sole legal custody, as well as a preferred visitation schedule. However, at times, evaluators are asked to evaluate whether relocation or removal is in the best interest of the child. The evaluator is not only required to evaluate the best interest factors, but other factors specific to removal in these cases. In most states, the issue of the child’s access to the other parent is of paramount importance. Illinois provides a list of factors to be assessed in removal cases and evaluators can examine two major Illinois Supreme Court decisions related to removal. In Illinois, both factors that directly impact the child as well as indirect factors must be considered. This includes the child’s access to the other parent, a plan to accomplish access, and direct and indirect benefits to the child (e.g. quality of education, economic advantages, access to extended family, support). Saini (2008) opined that these evaluations need to be framed within an evidence-based model. Austin (2008a) commented that the literature shows that residential mobility is a risk factor for children of divorce. He also related that predicting a child’s adjustment to relocating or not relocating requires a careful and contextual investigation of the child and the family circumstances. Austin and Gould (2006) echoed the need for evaluating the child and the family. More recently, Austin (2008b) proposed a relocation risk assessment model.
In other instances, evaluators are asked to evaluate whether one parent should have supervised visitation with the child. This may include cases where there has been physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, mental illness, domestic violence and/or substance abuse. These cases may require specialized assessments, which may be done by the evaluator if she or he has the necessary training to conduct such evaluations. In some cases, it may be necessary to hire a consultant, who has specialized training, to conduct this portion of the evaluation.
Certainly assessment of sexual abuse is one specialized arena where a specialist may be needed to assist the evaluator in a custody case. A number of authors (Behnke and Cornell (2005); Bow, Quenell, et al (2002); Cling (2005); Ellis 2000); Ehrenberg and Elterman (1995); Kuehnle and Kirkpatrick (2005); Kuehnle and Sparta (2006); McGleughlin, Meyer and Baker (1999); Sachsenmaier (2005); and Tishelman, Newton, et al (2006) have all written about abuse evaluations in the context of custody evaluations and noted the importance of such assessments. Kuehnle and Kirkpatrick (2005) have suggested that a forensic evaluation model (Heilbrun) be employed, while Ellis (2000) and Sachsenmaier (2005) outlined alternate models. Johnson and Cavanaugh (2006) have warned that allegations of sexual abuse are sometimes based on a child’s problematic sexual behaviors.
Another area of specialized assessment is domestic violence, which is frequently alleged in the course of a custody evaluation. Austin (2001), Bow and Boxer (2006), Geffner, Conradi, et al (2009), Gould, Martindale and Eldman (2008), Grossman (2006), Greenberg (2006), Harris (2004), Helfritz, Stanford, et al (2006), Jaffe, Crooks and Bala (2009), Logan, Walker, et al (2002), Moncho (2004) and Stahly (2009) have all offered thoughts on partner violence and risk assessment in the context of custody evaluations. Harris (2004) has expressed concern that there are no clear standards of best practice in assessing allegations of domestic violence in custody cases. Jaffe, Crooks and Bala (2009) have emphasized the need for crafting parenting plans that protect children and victims in domestic violence cases. Logan, Walker, et al (2002) note the high overlap between domestic violence and child abuse.
A third specialized area for forensic psychologists are parental alienation cases, and whether alienation is a form of abuse (Drozd, Olesen and Williams, 2004). Much has been written about parental alienation in the literature since Gardner (1987) coined the term. Many have argued that parental alienation syndrome is not a syndrome, while others have argued that alienation clearly exists and that it exists in many different forms and extremes. Ellis (2008) proposed a three-step process for evaluating children for parental alienation syndrome, while Neustein and Lesher (2009) criticized her model. Johnston, Walters, et al (2005) reported that there findings supported a multi-factor explanation of children’s rejection of a parent. Lee and Olesen (2001) suggested that evaluators can develop an accurate understanding of alienated children by integrating psychological test data, interview data and collateral data. Rand, Rand and Kopetski (2005) assessed a spectrum of parental alienation cases, particularly those at the severe end of the spectrum.
Evaluators may also be called upon to evaluate other issues, including substance abuse, psychopathy and anti-social personality disorder (Billick and Jackson, 2007), physical disability (Breeden, 2005; Breeden, Olkin and Taube, 2008), lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents (Tye, 2003) and non-traditional religious practices (Wah, 1997).
Conclusions
Forensic psychologists who conduct child custody evaluations are faced with the exceedingly difficult task of making recommendations to the Court as to which parent should serve as the primary residential parent and as to whether the parents have the capacity to share joint legal custody. In addition, the evaluator is asked to help craft a visitation schedule that is in the best interest of the child or children. At times, the evaluator may also be asked to address whether one parent can relocate with the children to another state or country, or whether supervised visitation is in the best interest of the children. In some cases, specialized evaluations may be necessary, for example in cases involving allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse and alienation.
Custody evaluators collect data through multiple means, including interviews with parents, children and collateral sources, psychological testing, observation of parent-child interactions in the office and/or home and review of collateral information. Evaluators follow guidelines created by the APA and AFCC, which emphasize multiple methods of data collection, and evaluators ultimately generate reports which are designed to help the Court in determining the best interest of the child.