Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation

Martindale, David A.; Martin, Lorraine; Austin, William G.; Drozd, Leslie M.; Gould-Saltman, Dianna J.; Kirkpatrick, H. D.; Kuehnle, Kathryn; Kulak, Debra; McColley, Denise; Sheinvold, Arnold; Siegel, Jeffrey C.; Stahl, Philip M.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.129_3.x

Cited by 72 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Relevant ethical standards (American Psychological Association, 2002; Martindale et al, 2007) do not prohibit MHPs from assuming multiple roles, but it is generally unwise to do so. 5 Multiple roles are particularly hazardous in litigious situations, where parties are likely to be particularly alert to indices of bias and betrayal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…therapistpatient, attorney-client) to whom the law confers a particular communication right based on that relationship. Formal standards or guidelines have been developed for child custody evaluators, mediators and parent coordinators (American Psychological Association, 2002;Martindale et al, 2007) while best practices for consultants, experts, and therapists are the subjects of active discussion in the professional literature (Greenberg & Gould, 2001;Greenberg, Gould, Gould-Saltman, & Stahl, 2003;Greenberg, Martindale, Gould, & Gould-Saltman, 2004;Knapp, Gottlieb, Berman, & Handelsman, 2007;Shuman & Greenberg, 2003).…”

Section: Playing In Their Sandboxmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Playing in Their Sandbox: Professional Obligations of Mental Health Professionals in Custody Cases

Greenberg

Gould-Saltman²,

Gottlieb

2008

Journal of Child Custody

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Playing In Their Sandboxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Playing in Their Sandbox: Professional Obligations of Mental Health Professionals in Custody Cases

Greenberg

Gould-Saltman²,

Gottlieb

2008

Journal of Child Custody

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There have been remarkable improvements in the quality of CCEs that can be attributed to detailed ethical guidelines, (Martindale, 2007) standardized and structured procedures, training/workshops, specialized journals, and authoritative critiques. The problem today is not due to the wellmeaning professionals who perform CCEs but exists because of the adversarial context in which CCEs are applied.…”

Section: Rethinking the Purpose Of The Ccementioning

confidence: 99%

Child Custody Evaluations: Help or Hindrance?

Silver

2008

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A child custody evaluation (CCE) seems like a logical way to resolve the issue of who gets custody, yet it can produce many unintended, counterproductive consequences. This is not a plea to end the use of child custody evaluations; there will always be a place for them. Rather, the aim of this article is to promote judicious consideration as to appropriateness, giving more thought to alternatives that are less divisive and less financially and emotionally draining. The CCE should remain the last resort, not the first hope. Alternative dispute resolution techniques that exist can mitigate potential psychological damage for these vulnerable families.

show abstract

“…In this case this would involve fostering, as a criterion of initial decision (anchorage), joint custody, defined not as a means of sharing time equally between parents, but in terms of co-parenting in which both parents coordinate their efforts to raise their children (Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001), and to provide the best response to cater for the child's needs (APA, 2010;Martindale et al, 2007). This implies that the child's needs must be determined as well as the skill and ability of each parent in satisfy these, to reason each and every adjustment, and to ensure child's wellbeing and development in an environment and social conditions conducive to the child's advancement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estudio de los efectos del anclaje en razonamientos judiciales en casos de disputa por la guarda y custodia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial judgment and decision making should be sustained in formal or statistical reasoning, avoiding biased reasoning. Thus, judicial reasoning should not contain any bias. A profusely studied source of bias is anchorage implying a cognitive saving by accepting the initial hypothesis without confirming it and rejecting other information or alternative hypotheses though they may be relevant to the task at hand. As for knowing the prevalence and effects of anchored sentences in family cases' judicial sentences, 811 Spanish custody dispute sentences were randomly selected from the CENDOJ data base. Anchorage was measured through initial claimant in child custody dispute (first instance court) or prior judicial decision-making (appeal court). The results stated that 70.2 % of the judicial sentences were anchored. A systematic content analysis of the sentences gave support to the hypothesis that anchorage provides judges and courts a skill to save cognitive activity (about 12 %). Moreover, anchored sentences contained significantly fewer reasoning favourable to custody; fewer idiosyncratic information i.e., own reasoning of the judge; and fewer contextual information i.e., less evidence-based. The implications for judicial judgment and decision are discussed, as well as the possibilities to control the anchorage prevalence in judicial sentences. ResumenLa formación de juicios y la toma de decisiones judiciales deberían estar sustentadas en razonamientos formales o estadísticos, y no en razonamientos sesgados de modo que no deberían contener razonamientos sesgados. Una fuente de sesgo profusamente estudiada en la literatura es el anclaje que implica un ahorro cognitivo al aceptar la hipótesis inicial sin confirmarla y rechazar información o hipótesis alternativas, aunque puedan resultar relevantes para el juicio o decisión. Para conocer de la prevalencia y los efectos del anclaje en sentencias judiciales de casos de familia, seleccionamos al azar 811 sentencias en disputa por la guarda y custodia de la base de datos del CENDOJ. El anclaje se midió a través de la demanda inicial en la disputa por la custodia (juzgado de familia) o en la decisión del tribunal previo (apelaciones). Los resultados mostraron que el 70.2 % las decisiones estaban ancladas. Un análisis de contenido sistemático de las sentencias prestó apoyo a la hipótesis de que el anclaje sirve a jueces y tribunales como herramienta para el ahorro cognitivo (alrededor del 12 %). Además, las sentencias ancladas contenían significativamente menos razonamientos favorables a la custodia; menos información idiosincrásica, o sea, razonamientos propios del juez; y menos información contextual, esto es, menos prueba basada en evidencia. Se discuten las implicaciones de los resultados para la formación de juicios y toma de decisiones judiciales, así como las opciones de mitigar sus efectos.

show abstract

Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation

Cited by 72 publications

References 0 publications

Playing in Their Sandbox: Professional Obligations of Mental Health Professionals in Custody Cases

Playing in Their Sandbox: Professional Obligations of Mental Health Professionals in Custody Cases

Child Custody Evaluations: Help or Hindrance?

Estudio de los efectos del anclaje en razonamientos judiciales en casos de disputa por la guarda y custodia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About