Making a Place at the Table:

Abstract

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.

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

“…“More than arguments, harangues, and published guidelines” (Grisso, , p. 224), he argued, are needed. As per Kisthardt and Fines (), a paradigmatic shift is perhaps required.…”

“…Tippins and Wittmann's () original article was generally reviewed as valid and of significance to both MHPs and the law. In the spirit of “clinical humility and judicial vigilance” (p. 193), Kisthardt and Fines () suggested a paradigmatic shift is required to incorporate their critique into practice. Similarly, Kelly and Johnson (2005) suggested that custody evaluation be more exclusively “reserved for serious allegations” (p. 238), prescribed “the use of extended interventions” (p. 238), and noted that “Tippins and Wittmann's concerns and caution are warranted and serve as a clarion call to the entire family law field” (p. 233).…”