Abstract:Custody evaluations can serve the dual purpose of providing neutral, objective information to the court while also contributing to the possibility of earlier settlement, which coincides with the therapeutic jurisprudence goal of more positive outcomes for children and families. Research suggests that most cases settle after custody evaluations. However, most of the literature is focused on the use of custody evaluations for litigation. Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health consultants can influence parents … Show more
“…Yet Mary Lund 10 notes the pattern which I also see. Where money already severely restricts access to family DR services, the price for skilled helpers is also rising due to: complex training, professionalization, avalanches of interdisciplinary knowledge, cross-referrals, emerging specializations, increased time with clients, burnout, and escalating demand for due process.…”
Section: Access Restricted By Money: Dr Pathways For the Rich And Poomentioning
In the last edition of the FRC, there are a number of articles which highlight ever-present themes in the many dispute resolution industries. These themes are: The cyclical nature of family law and DR reform to and fro "faster, cheaper, less formal and more accessible"; Access barriers for the poor and middle class; Access barriers due to geography, distance, and cultural differences; Blossoming of a range of "abbreviated" (short and inexpensive) DR services; The essential, yet neglected, task of systematic diagnosis of possible causes of conflict, and of a possible range of helpful interventions: DR practitioners should aim to "at least do no harm"; If a DR practitioner exhibits care, and core communication skills, how much do different processes matter? The Hawthorne effect-all pilot projects tend to succeed?; There is a constant flow of stories, systematic and statistical knowledge in DR industries. Who is listening and translating this flow of information between the various DR silos and to the public?Key Points for the Family Court Community:The repetitive and predictable cycles of family law reform. Access to DR services restricted by finances, geography and cultural differences. The old saying "at least do no harm" should find a prominent place in all family DR services and training. The Hawthorne effect-all pilot and new projects seem to "succeed" for awhile. What follows?In the many family DR silos, there are "truths" embodied in stories, systems and statistics. Who can translate helpfully from one silo to another?The ten articles in the previous edition of Family Court Review reflect anew many of the traditional themes present in the "conflict management" and "dispute resolution" (DR) industry. Everything old is new again. I will set out a few of the themes which jumped off the pages as I read. Each idea can be expanded helpfully and at length via three levels of attempted truth propositionsnamely, anecdote, conceptual analysis, and more formal research. Or more colloquially, stories, systems, and statistics. These ten articles deal predominantly with reactions to family conflict and separation, rather than prevention of family conflict and separation. Darkly, these responses are sometimes distinguished as "bottom of the cliff" and "top of the cliff." As usual, helpful analogies can be found in the medical field by comparing big themes, stories, and research surrounding reactions to and prevention of illness.The themes that jumped off the pages for me were:Cycles in family law reform and in DR reform Access restricted by money: DR pathways for the rich and the poor in the private and public sectors Access restricted by geography and culture The rush of abbreviated interventions Diagnosis-do it At least do no harm Caring, core skills and-any process?The Hawthorne Effect-all pilot projects succeed (and all institutionalized projects go into decline?) Stories, systems, and statistics-who listens and translates between the DR silos?
“…Yet Mary Lund 10 notes the pattern which I also see. Where money already severely restricts access to family DR services, the price for skilled helpers is also rising due to: complex training, professionalization, avalanches of interdisciplinary knowledge, cross-referrals, emerging specializations, increased time with clients, burnout, and escalating demand for due process.…”
Section: Access Restricted By Money: Dr Pathways For the Rich And Poomentioning
In the last edition of the FRC, there are a number of articles which highlight ever-present themes in the many dispute resolution industries. These themes are: The cyclical nature of family law and DR reform to and fro "faster, cheaper, less formal and more accessible"; Access barriers for the poor and middle class; Access barriers due to geography, distance, and cultural differences; Blossoming of a range of "abbreviated" (short and inexpensive) DR services; The essential, yet neglected, task of systematic diagnosis of possible causes of conflict, and of a possible range of helpful interventions: DR practitioners should aim to "at least do no harm"; If a DR practitioner exhibits care, and core communication skills, how much do different processes matter? The Hawthorne effect-all pilot projects tend to succeed?; There is a constant flow of stories, systematic and statistical knowledge in DR industries. Who is listening and translating this flow of information between the various DR silos and to the public?Key Points for the Family Court Community:The repetitive and predictable cycles of family law reform. Access to DR services restricted by finances, geography and cultural differences. The old saying "at least do no harm" should find a prominent place in all family DR services and training. The Hawthorne effect-all pilot and new projects seem to "succeed" for awhile. What follows?In the many family DR silos, there are "truths" embodied in stories, systems and statistics. Who can translate helpfully from one silo to another?The ten articles in the previous edition of Family Court Review reflect anew many of the traditional themes present in the "conflict management" and "dispute resolution" (DR) industry. Everything old is new again. I will set out a few of the themes which jumped off the pages as I read. Each idea can be expanded helpfully and at length via three levels of attempted truth propositionsnamely, anecdote, conceptual analysis, and more formal research. Or more colloquially, stories, systems, and statistics. These ten articles deal predominantly with reactions to family conflict and separation, rather than prevention of family conflict and separation. Darkly, these responses are sometimes distinguished as "bottom of the cliff" and "top of the cliff." As usual, helpful analogies can be found in the medical field by comparing big themes, stories, and research surrounding reactions to and prevention of illness.The themes that jumped off the pages for me were:Cycles in family law reform and in DR reform Access restricted by money: DR pathways for the rich and the poor in the private and public sectors Access restricted by geography and culture The rush of abbreviated interventions Diagnosis-do it At least do no harm Caring, core skills and-any process?The Hawthorne Effect-all pilot projects succeed (and all institutionalized projects go into decline?) Stories, systems, and statistics-who listens and translates between the DR silos?
“…Wah () and Lund () spoke clearly to the issue of the expert under the influence of the law. First, Lund (), similar to Amundson and Lux (), discussed two types of authority: legitimate power and informational power.…”
It has been 14 years since Tippins and Wittmann () voiced concern for the overreaching role the expert may play in matters of family law. This article sets their levels of inference within the context of the culture of both law and social science. We examine how inferences are impacted by the relative emphasis child custody experts give to the five stakeholders involved in child custody evaluations (CCEs): courts, lawyers, parents, children, and professional governing bodies. Acculturation of the assessor to law contributes to more egregious inferences, versus the more modest ones Tippins and Wittmann advocated. How evaluators prioritize stakeholders shapes their opinion and methodology. We offer an expanded perspective that views how their levels of inference are manifest in reports, methodology, and recommendations and the influence of the culture of law and the mindset of the clinician. We hope to encourage clinicians to find ways to operationalize clinical humility, assume their proper role, and remain true to their master identity as licensed mental health professionals and their proper sphere of authority.
“…Similarly, in an overview of custody and access evaluations using an evidence‐based lens, Saini () notes there is no evidence of improved family functioning or child adjustment after the C&A evaluation. Lund () also worries about the lack of improved family functioning after the C&A evaluation and describes features of the decision‐making process that contribute to the system‐induced escalation of conflict:Positions about requested physical and legal custody arrangements and the perceived faults of the other parent can become sharply focused and strengthened. The attention during the evaluation to parents’ allegations against each other and the forming of a tribe of legal and mental health professionals who show support for the parent's position during the evaluation process, followed by the win–lose result in a litigated hearing, may further polarize parents’ negative feelings toward each other and worsen the conflict.…”
Section: Custody and Accessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lund () recommends that families be given dispute resolution counseling after the evaluation to repair the harm done during it. We begin to see how a C&A evaluation that wants to serve the court, and not the needs of the family, can contribute to a negative and conflict‐ridden experience for families.…”
Section: Custody and Accessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Building on this observation, others have been definitive in suggesting that “the time has come for specific custody recommendations to be viewed as unethical for at least the foreseeable future” (Tippins and Wittmann , 205–206; see also Greenberg et al ). Similarly, Lund () forecasts that “custody evaluations may have a decreasing use in family courts in the future” (414). And finally, Stahl and Simon () caution that in this “young” field, practitioners must be open to new knowledge and points of view, as “elements of best practices may turn out to be partially or fully erroneous” (xvi).…”
Assumptions that disputants are responsible for their conflicts are embedded in many of our practices for engaging conflict, when, in many instances, rational‐legal institutions we rely on to do our conflict business, not individuals, may be causing and sustaining our conflicts (Cloke 2001). Using a discursive framework that draws on Foucault (1980) and Bacchi's (2009) methodology of problematization, this article critiques a psychological assessment tool used and required in a custody and access evaluation in the context of family law to show how institutional structures and context matter when third parties work with conflict.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
