A review of the practice and science of child custody and access assessment in the United States and Canada.

Abstract

Many psychologists in the United States and Canada provide child custody and access (C&A) assessments as part of their clinical services. There are guidelines based on ethical standards that inform this specialization, which include the recommendation that providers be familiar with the empirical bases of their work. This article provides an overview of guidelines, the assessment process, and the empirical basis for C&A assessment. Although there is limited evidence of traditional standards of direct empirical utility of such assessments, there are relevant research areas that include the impacts of separation and divorce on children, family relationships, and coparenting processes. Each is critical to understanding children's welfare, a parent's capacity to act in the best interests of a child, and the coparenting environment that may follow separation and divorce. Given the importance of minimizing postdivorce conflict within a coparenting environment, the indirect scientific evidence that supports C&A assessment can also be used to pursue more amicable solutions through mediation and parent education. Although research is growing supporting these alternative practices as well as C&A assessment itself, much more is needed. Psychologists who offer these services will find this article to be a useful overview of current practice and science, and for those contemplating involvement in these services, the article highlights issues to be considered.

Tippins and Wittman Revisited: Law, Social Science, and the Role of the Child Custody Expert 14 Years Later

“…The use of collaterals, then, is perhaps the best example of law leading experts’ methods. It has been estimated that 50% of experts interview friends and relatives (Keilin & Bloom, ) of the family, yet as Symons () stated, it is often difficult to understand how such contact serves a clinical purpose. The practice of custody evaluators providing input from collaterals who can speak for themselves in court has been questioned before (Wah, ).…”

Constructing Conflict: A Discursive Analysis of Family Law Conflict

“…For example, Bow, Gottlieb, Gould-Saltman, and Hendershot (2011) note that custody evaluations play a helpful role in ensuring that only 5 to 10 percent of custody disputes proceed to trial, suggesting that to some extent, resolution of diff erences is achieved. And Symons (2010), in a survey of MHP expectations of the C&A, concludes that psychologists, the primary MHP administrator of the C&A evaluation, hope that they will "reduce family confl ict, contribute to a positive co-parenting situation that best meets children's needs, and enhance better child and family outcomes" (271). In this way, the C&A assessment can be viewed as a decision-making technology used in family law proceedings that will function in part to address the best interests of children and thereby settle postdivorce confl ict.…”

Divorce and Coparenting: A Qualitative Study on Family Mediation in Italy

“…Joint legal custody refers to shared decision making by the two parents, but it is independent of access arrangements, and it does not mean that children reside with each parent an equal amount of time (Symons, 2010). At the same time, joint custody and the effective coparenting alliance and cooperation do not overlap.…”