Forensic Custody Assessments

In recent years, a series of scholarly writers have raised substantive questions about the role taken on by forensic mental health evaluators in custody and access matters. Such critiques have ranged from:

1. The observation that what forensic psychologists are willing to say in their custody evaluation reports represent an egregious form of overreaching that is ethically questionable (e.g., Melton, Petrila, Poythress, Slobogin, (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts, (3nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press; Woody, R.H., Child Custody: Practice Standards, Ethical Issues & Legal Standards for Mental Health Professionals. Professional Resource Press (2000), p. 128); to
2. More nuanced models parsing what can and cannot be justifiably offered by psychologists in their assessments (Emery, R., Otto, R., & O'Donohue, William (2005) A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Vol 6 (1), p 24; Tippins, T.M. and Wittmann, J.J.P. (2005). Empirical And Ethical Problems With Custody Recommendations: A Call For Clinical Humility And Judicial Vigilence. 43 Family. Court. Review. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts); through
3. Suggestions for a complete moratorium on the involvement of mental health professionals in custody and access matters. (e.g., O'Donohue, W. & Bradley, A.R. (1999). Conceptual and empirical issues in child custody evaluations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(3), 310-322).

While these observers offer arguments primarily based on the notion that custody recommendations imply a specialized knowledge base on this topic that, in actuality, either does not exist or is quite thin, most also observe that there are very important evaluative services and information that can be offered by forensic psychologists in an ethical and appropriately circumscribed manner. Let us therefore look at some of the valuable and important information available to family and matrimonial courts via the services of skilled forensic psychologists who are cautious to ground their opinions in the empirically verified specialized knowledge base of their profession. When forensic psychologists observes the proper boundaries of their roles within the child custody system, there is no reason to throw out these professionals' valuable contributions to the discussion.