Psychological evaluations for the courts. Melton, G., Petrilia, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(2), 137-145. Child custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(3), 269-271. The real numbers: Psychological testing in custody evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(4), 843-879. Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 7(3), 169-173. Child custody: A reflection of cultural change. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press. Conducting scientifically crafted child-custody evaluations. American Psychological Society, 6(1), 1-29. A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and a flawed system. Clinician’s guide to child-custody evaluations (3rd ed.). The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 35, 173-199. Setting standards for custody evaluators. Jurisdiction, and third-party cases multiply. A review of the year in family law: ERISA. Custody evaluations without psychological testing: Prudent practice or fatal flaw? The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36, 67-106. Guidelines for child-custody evaluations in family law proceedings. Findings from this study suggested a high reliance on unstructured and observational methods in child custody practices.ĭigital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1125475 Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDFĪmerican Psychological Association. Ambiguity about quantifying and validly tapping parenting abilities was also reviewed. Evaluators were aware of the ever-present reality of a licensure complaint and thus presented idiosyncratic descriptions of risk management considerations. Seven Higher Order Themes clustered on salient factors such as use of Ethics, Law, Guidelines Parent Variables Child Variables Psychologist Variables Testing Literature and Trends. Forty-three Specific Themes were identified using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Semi-structured interviews were used to investigate assessment practices, ensure adherence to guidelines, risk management, and qualities of evaluators. degrees with a range of eight to 36 years of experience in custody work. Ten psychologists were interviewed who devoted between 25 and 100% of their California private practice to custody work. This study sought to qualitatively investigate patterns of practice among doctoral practitioners conducting child custody evaluations in the area of Southern California. Hence, practitioners must contend with a nebulous framework in formulating their methodological procedures that inherently places them at risk in an already litigious context. Although the evaluator is expected to answer for the family-law court what is in the “best interest of the child,” there is a lack of clarity on how to establish this in any empirically validated manner. Complaints filed with licensing boards regarding a child-custody evaluation constitute the second most common reason for such an event. The role of the custody evaluator is perhaps one of the most controversial and risky endeavors in clinical practice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |