builds upon the authors' conclusions that custody evaluations cannot and should not be a substitute for the socio-legal judgment of the best interests of the child. Recognizing that clinical humility and judicial vigilance may not be sufficient to restrain the misuse of psychological evaluation, we offer for consideration three structural changes that would provide for a more appropriate use of the skills and talents custody evaluators bring to legal decisions. We suggest using custody evaluators in the less adversarial setting of preparing parenting plans, revising the procedures by which custody evaluations are elicited in litigation, and adopting the approximation standard for child custody determinations.Tippins and Wittmann provide much food for thought about why we have come to the present situation and what we can do about it. In the first instance, they make a very persuasive case for the exclusion of forensic psychological assessments on the ultimate questions presented in disputed child custody cases. Their conclusions appear to be based on two general theories: first, there is simply no reliable scientific basis for making such determinations, and second, the best interest standard currently used by the courts is not a psychological construct but rather a legal and socio-moral one. As to the first point, they make a compelling case for the lack of empirical research sufficient to make these judgments and we are not prepared to dispute those findings. Rather, as lawyers and law professors, it is the second basis for their conclusion that raises more interesting questions.

Planning for this issue began in May 2020, during the initial crisis stage of lockdowns and vague calls for "pivots."At that time, Barbara Glesner Fines anticipated need for a "Post-Covid" special issue of lessons learned, and we thought that a publication date of April 2022 was far enough in advance to provide this perspective. We now know

This essay summarizes key points from the book and observes the very different players and processes involved when families in poverty enter the family court system.

No abstract

No abstract