Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Forensic Sociology and Psychology pp 305–321Cite as

Child Custody Evaluations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the role of the forensic psychologist in conducting a child custody evaluation, whether in a current divorce or post decree matter. An overview of the process is delineated, including techniques and strategies in interviewing adults, children, and collateral sources, parent–child observations in the office and home, and the use of collateral sources and information. The use of psychological testing in custody cases is also explored. Tests evaluated include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (both the MMPI-II and the MMPI-II-RF), the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III), and projective tests including the Rorschach Inkblot Test. A number of parenting inventories are also discussed. Specific instruments for custody litigants, including the various Bricklin scales and the ACCESS, are explored as well. In addition, best interest factors and best practice guidelines are offered. Furthermore, special issues are addressed including recommendations in cases involving removal, supervised visitation, domestic violence, substance abuse, sexual abuse, mental illness, nontraditional religious practices, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents. In addition, the issue of parental alienation is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abidin, R. (1990). Parenting stress index. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abidin, R., & Konold, T. (1999). Parenting alliance measure. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achenbach, T. (1997). Child behavior checklist. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, M. (2001). Clinician’s guide to child custody evaluations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, M. (2005a). The Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for parent evaluation of custody: A review of research and update. Joburnal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(1–2), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, M. (2005b). Transfusion maybe, laid to rest, no: A response to the Mary Cornell review of the ASPECT. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(1–2), 211–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, M., & Ackerman, M. (1997). Custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(2), 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, M., & Schoendorf, K. (1992). The Ackerman-Schoendorf parent evaluation of custody test. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acklin, M., & Cho-Stutler, L. (2006). The science and art of parent–child observation in child custody evaluation. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2009). Revised guidelines address child custody evaluations, Practice update. APA Practice Directorate, 6(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, E., Hagan, L., Mason, J., Handel, R., & Archer, R. (2011). MMPI-2-RF characteristics of custody evaluation litigants. Assessment, 18(1), 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2006). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. Madison, WI: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W. (2001). Partner violence and risk assessment in child custody evaluation. Family Court Review, 39(4), 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W. (2002). Guidelines for utilizing collateral sources of information in child custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 40(2), 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W. (2008a). Relocation, research and forensic evaluation: Effects of residential mobility on children of divorce. Family Court Review, 46(1), 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W. (2008b). Relocation, research and forensic evaluation: Research in support of the relocation risk assessment model. Family Court Review, 46(2), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W. (2009). Responding to the call for child custody evaluators to justify the reason for their professional existence: Some thoughts on Kelly and Ramsey. Family Court Review, 47(3), 544–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W., & Gould, J. (2006). Exploring three functions in child custody evaluation for the relocation case: Prediction, investigation, and making recommendations for a long-distance parenting plan. Journal of Child Custody, 3(3–4), 63–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W., & Kilpatrick, D. (2002). Effective collateral sources of information, presentation at a workshop of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Tucson, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagby, R., Nicholson, R., Buis, T., Radovanovic, H., & Fidler, B. (1999). Defensive responding on the MMPI-2 in family custody and access evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 24–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bala, N. (2005). Tippins and Wittman asked the wrong question: Evaluators may not be experts, but they can express best interest opinions. Family Court Review, 43(2), 554–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, D., & Cornell, M. (2005). Child custody evaluations in cases involving sexual abuse: A view from the bench. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(3), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, G., Andrew, H., & Gollan, J. (2003a). Family evaluation in custody litigation: Reducing risks of ethical infractions and malpractice. Forensic Practice Guidebook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, G., Andrew, H., Gollan, J., & Jackie, K. (2003b). Observations of parents and children. In G. Benjamin, G. Andrew, & H. Gollan (Eds.), Family evaluation in custody litigation: Reducing risks of ethical infractions and malpractice. Forensic practice guidebook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Billick, S., & Jackson, M. (2007). Evaluating parents in child custody and abuse cases and the utility of psychological measures in screening for parental psychopathy or antisocial personality. In A. Felthous & H. Sab (Eds.), International handbook on psychopathic disorders and the law (Vol. 2, pp. 95–112). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, B., Goodman, G., Schwartz-Kenney, B., Sachenmaier, T., & Thomas, S. (1990). Keeping secrets: Implications for children’s testimony. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society meeting, Williamsburg, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bow, J. (2010). Use of third party information in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28(4), 511–521.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bow, J., & Boxer, P. (2006). Assessing allegations of domestic violence in child custody evaluations. In A. Bartol (Ed.), Current perspectives in forensic psychology and criminal justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bow, J., Flens, J., & Gould, J. (2010). MMPI-2 and MCMI-3 in forensic evaluations: A survey of psychologists. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(1), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bow, J., Gould, J., Flens, J., & Greenhut, D. (2006). Testing in child custody evaluations—selection, usage and Daubert admissibility: A survey of psychologists. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 6(2), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bow, J., Quinell, F., Zaroff, M., & Assemany, A. (2002). Assessment of sexual abuse allegations in child custody cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(6), 566–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, T. (2009). Child custody evaluation practices: A survey of psychologists. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 69(7-B), 4410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breeden, C. (2005). Child custody evaluations when one divorcing parent has a physical disability. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 66(4-B), 2297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breeden, C., Olkin, R., & Taube, D. (2008). Child custody evaluations when one divorcing parent has a physical disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53(4), 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricklin, B. (1984). The Bricklin perceptual scales. Furlong, PA: Village.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricklin, B. (1989). The perception of relationships test. Furlong, PA: Village.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricklin, B. (1995a). The Custody evaluation handbook: Research-based solutions and applications. New York: Brunner Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricklin, B. (1995b). The parent perception of child profile. Furlong, PA: Village.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricklin, B., & Elliott, G. (1995). ACCESS: A comprehensive custody evaluation standard system. Furlong, PA: Village.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodzinsky, D. (1993). On the use and misuse of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24(2), 213–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, A. (2005). How can the MMPI-2 help child custody examiners? Journal of Child Custody, 2(1), 83–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calloway, G. (2005). The Rorschach: Its use in child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(1), 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C., Bottoms, B., & Levine, M. (1996). Linguistic and socioemotional influences on the accuracy of children’s reports. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassel, W., Roebers, C., & Bjorklund, D. (1996). Developmental patterns of eyewitness responses to repeated and increasingly suggestive questions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 116–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical view and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 401–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cling, B. (2005). Evaluation of allegations of child sexual abuse in child custody disputes. In L. Grunberg & P. Hymowitz (Eds.), A handbook of divorce and custody: Forensic, developmental and clinical perspectives. New York: The Analytic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, G. (2010). MMPI-2 defensiveness in child custody evaluations: The role of education and socioeconomic level. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 28(2), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, M. (2005). Review of “The Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody”. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(1–2), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. (2008). Child custody evaluations are essential. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8(3), 293–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dies, R. (2008). The use of questionnaires in child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 4(1–2), 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drozd, L., & Olesen, N. (2004). Is it abuse, alienation and/or estrangement? A decision tree. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 13, 65–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J., Davies, L., O’Connor, T., & Sturgess, W. (2001). Family lives and friendships: The perspectives of children in step, single-parent, and non-step families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(2), 272–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, M., & Elterman, M. (1995). Evaluating allegations of sexual abuse in the context of divorce, child custody and access disputes. In T. Ney (Ed.), True and false allegations of child sexual abuse: Assessment and case management. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, E. (2000). Evaluation of sexual abuse allegations in child custody cases. In E. Ellis (Ed.), Divorce wars: Interventions with families in conflict. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, E. (2008). A stepwise approach to evaluating children for parental alienation syndrome. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 4(1–2), 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, R., Otto, R., & O’Donohue, W. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: limited science and a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, F., & Schutz, B. (2008). The Rorschach in child custody and parenting plan evaluations: A new conceptualization. In C. Gacono, F. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L. Gacono (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flens, J. (2005). The responsible use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations: Selection of tests. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(1–2), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. (1994). Parent behavior checklist. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garb, H., Wood, J., Lillenfeld, S., & Nezworski, M. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in clinical practice: Let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(5), 454–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, B. (2009). Attachment methodology in custody evaluation: Four hurdles standing between developmental theory and forensic application. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 6(1–2), 38–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R. (1989). The talking, feeling, doing game. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse. Creskill, N.J: Creative Therapeutics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffner, R., Conradi, L., Geis, K., & Aranda, M. (2009). Conducting child custody evaluations in the context of family violence allegations: Practical techniques and suggestions for ethical practice. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 6(3–4), 189–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard, A. (1994). Parent–child relationship inventory. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilch Pesantez, J. (2001). Test-retest reliability and construct validity: The Bricklin Perceptual Scales. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 61(9-B), 4982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M. (2011). Clinical interviews in child custody evaluations. Paper presented at the American College of Forensic Psychologists meeting, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G., Bottoms, B., Schwartz-Kenney, B., & Rudy, L. (1991). Children’s memory for a stressful event: Improving children’s reports. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1, 69–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G., Sharma, A., Thomas, S., & Considine, M. (1995). Mother knows best: Effects of relationship status and interviewer bias on children’s memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 195–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, J. (1998). Conducting scientifically crafted child custody evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, J. (1999). Conducting scientifically crafted child custody evaluations: A paradigm for the forensic evaluation of child custody determination. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37(2), 135–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, J. (2005). Use of psychological tests in child custody assessment. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(1–2), 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, J., Martindale, D., & Eldman, M. (2008). Assessing allegations of domestic violence. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 4(1–2), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould-Saltman, D. (2005). Testing, one, two, three testing: An attorney perspective. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(1–2), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gready, P. (2006). Use of the MMPI-2 in child custody evaluations and child protection cases: An examination of defensive responding and psychopathology. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering A66(11-B), 6272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, L. (2006). The final word: Domestic violence allegations in child custody disputes: The importance of forensic perspective. The Family Psychologist, 22(2) APA, Division 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. (2003). Forensic applications of the MMPI-2. Paper presented at the American Academy of Forensic Psychology meeting, Long Beach, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, N. (2006). Domestic violence and family forensic psychology. The Family Psychologist, 22(2), APA, Division 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove, W., Barden, R., Garb, H., & Lillenfeld, S. (2002). Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive System-based testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Kumbo standard. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(2), 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, L., & Hagan, A. (2008). Custody evaluations without psychological testing: Prudent practice or fatal flaw? Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 36(1), 67–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halon, R. (2001). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III: The normal quartet in child custody cases. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(1), 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (2004). Assessing allegations of domestic violence in high-conflict child custody cases. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 65 (5-B), 2628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfritz, L., Stanford, M., Conklin, S., Greve, K., Villemarette-Pitman, N., & Houston, R. (2006). Usefulness of self-report instruments in assessing men accused of domestic violence. Psychological Record, 56(2), 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, L. (1999). The role of the K scale as a validity measure in court-ordered custody MMPIs. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 60 (6-B), 3010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynan, D. (1998). Interviewing children in custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 36(4), 466–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynan, D. (2003). Parent–child observations in custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 41(2), 214–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illinois 750 ILCS 5/610

    Google Scholar 

  • IRMO Collingbourne (2002). 204 Ill, 2nd 498, Illinois Supreme Court Decision.

    Google Scholar 

  • IRMO Eckert (1988). 119 Ill 2nd, Illinois Supreme Court Decision.

    Google Scholar 

  • Issacs, M., George, C., & Marvin, R. (2009). Utilizing attachment measures in child custody evaluations: Incremental validity. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 6(1–2), 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, P., Crooks, C., & Bala, N. (2009). A framework for addressing allegations of domestic violence in child custody disputes. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 6(3–4), 169–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, B., Ehrenberg, M., & Hunter, M. (1997). Psychologists’ ratings of the best interests of the child custody and access criterion: A family systems assessment model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(3), 253–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J., Walters, M., & Olesen, N. (2005). Is it alienating parenting, role reversal or child abuse? A study of children’s rejection of a parent in child custody disputes. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(4), 191–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R., & Ramsey, S. (2005). Child custody evaluations: The need for systems-level outcome assessments. Family Court Review, 43(2), 286–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennelly, J. (2002). Rorschach responding and response sets in child custody evaluations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 63 (6-B), 3034.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkland, K., McMillan, E., & Kirkland, K. (2004). Use of collateral contacts in child custody evaluation. Journal of Child Custody, 2(4), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovera, M.B. and McAuliff, B.D (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 362–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravit, A. (2011). Commonly elevated scales on the MMPI-2 in a contested custody evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuehnle, K., Greenberg, L., & Gottlieb, M. (2004). Incorporating the principles of scientifically based child interviews into family law cases. Journal of Child Custody: Research Issues, and Practices, 1(1), 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehnle, K., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2005). Evaluating allegations of child sexual abuse within complex child custody cases. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(3), 3–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehnle, K., & Sparta, S. (2006). Assessing child sexual abuse allegations in a legal context. In S. Sparta & J. Koocher (Eds.), Forensic mental health assessment of children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, M., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse and Neglect, 319(11–12), 1201–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampel, A. (1999). Use of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III in evaluating child custody litigants. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 17(4), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, K., & McGill, J. (2010). Adolescent input into custody decisions: Evaluating decision-making capacities. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10(2), 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Borelli, J., & West, J. (2011). Children’s attachment relationships: Can attachment data be used in child custody evaluations? Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practices, 8(3), 212–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Olesen, N. (2001). Assessing for alienation in child custody and access evaluations. Family Court Review, 39(3), 282–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leib, R. (2008). MMPI-2 family problems scales in child custody litigants. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences 7 Engineering 68 (7-B), 4879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenny, P., & Dear, G. (2009). Faking good on the MCMI-III: Implications for child custody evaluations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(6), 553–559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, T., Walker, R., Jordan, C., & Horvath, L. (2002). Child custody evaluations and domestic violence: Case comparisons. Violence and Victims, 17(6), 719–742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mandappa, P. (2005). MMPI-2: The need for specific norms in child custody evaluations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 65 (10-B), 5412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. (2005). To recommend or not recommend: that is not the question: a response to Tippins and Wittman’s article “Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: a call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance”. Family Court Review, 43(2), 246–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, J., Flens, J., Campagna, V., Collman, P., Lazzaro, T., & Connor, T. (2001). The MCMI-III in child custody evaluations: A normative study. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1(2), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGleughlin, J., Meyer, S., & Baker, J. (1999). Assessing sexual abuse allegations in divorce custody and visitation disputes. In R. Galatzer-Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody decisions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medoff, D. (2003). The scientific basis of psychological testing: Considerations following Daubert, Kumho, and Joiner. Family Court Review, 41(2), 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythrees, N., & Slobogin, C. (1999). Psychological evaluation for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, J. (2009). Child custody evaluations, attachment theory, and an attachment measure: The science remains limited. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 7(1), 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moncho, R. (2004). Defensive responding on the Rorschach in a simulated child custody evaluation context. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 65 (3-B), 1557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, L., Morrison, W., & Taylor, R. (1982). Family relationship inventory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Psychological.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neustein, A., & Lesher, M. (2009). Evaluating PAS: A critique of Elizabeth Ellis’s “A stepwise approach to evaluating children for PAS”. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 6(3–4), 322–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, S. (2011). Obtaining and analyzing school-related data in a child custody evaluation. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 8(3), 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donohue, W. and Bradley, A (1999). Conceptual and empirical issues in child custody evaluations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(3), 310–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, P., & Hayden, C. (2001). Memory development or the development of memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 202–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, R., & Collins, R. (1995). Use of the MMPI-2/MMPI-A in child custody evaluations. In Y. Ben-Porath, J. Graham, G. Hall, R. Hirschman, & M. Zaragoza (Eds.), Forensic applications of the MMPI-2 (pp. 222–252). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, R., Edens, J., & Barcus, E. (2000). The use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38(3), 312–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. (2008). A qualitative study investigating psychologists’ use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 69 (5-B), 3314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pipe, M., & Wilson, J. (1994). Cues and secrets: Influences on children’s event reports. Developmental Psychology, 30, 515–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D., & Lamb, M. (1998). Investigative interviews of children: A guide for helping professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D., & Lindsay, D. (1995). Interviewing preschoolers: Effects of nonsuggestive techniques, parental coaching, and leading questions on reports of nonexperienced events. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 129–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D., & White, L. (1991). Effects of question repetition on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27, 975–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, K., McKenzie, L., Kellermann, G., & Cross, D. (2010). An attachment approach to child custody evaluation: A case study. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 7(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rand, D., Rand, R., & Kopetski, L. (2005). The spectrum of parental alienation syndrome: The Kopetski follow-up study. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(1), 15–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzler, B., Erard, R., & Pettigrew, G. (2002). Protecting the integrity of the Rorschach expert witness: A reply to Grove and Barden 1999. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 8(2), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotman, A. (2005). Commentary on empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for new family court priorities. Family Court Review, 43(2), 242–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachsenmaier, S. (2005). Complex child custody evaluations: Evaluating the alleged incestuous parent. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(3), 57–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saini, M. (2008). Evidence base of custody and access evaluations. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 8(1), 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saywitz, K., & Lyon, T. (2002). Coming to grips with children’s suggestibility. In M. Eisen, J. Quas, & G. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 85–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenck, P. (1996). MMPI-2 norms for child custody litigants. Paper presented at the Georgia Psychological Association meeting, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selbom, M., & Bagby, R. (2008). Validity of the MMPI-2-RF L-r and K-r scales in detecting underreporting in clinical and nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 20(4), 370–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J. (1996). Traditional MMPI-2 validity indicators and initial presentation in custody evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14(3), 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, M., Waters, L., & Dinwiddy, L. (1988). Misleading children: Causal attributions for inconsistency under repeated questioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 438–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J., Hoppe, C., Lee, S., Olesen, N., & Walters, M. (2008). Child custody litigants: Rorschach data from a large sample. In C. Gacono, F. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L. Gacono (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaven, M. (2002). Observational techniques in child custody evaluations. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering 63 (1B), 551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, P. (2005). The benefits and risks of child custody evaluators making recommendations to the court: a response to Tippins and Wittmann. Family Court Review, 43(2), 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, P. (2011). Conducting child custody evaluations: From basic to complex Issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahly, G. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on domestic violence in child custody. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 6(3–4), 165–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, K., Lamb, M., Esplin, P., Orbach, Y., & Hershkowitz, I. (2002). Using a structured interview protocol to improve the quality of investigative interviews. In M. Eisen, J. Quas, & G. Goodman (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 409–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, C., Warren, A., & Hess, A. (1992). Adults’ liability for children’s “lie-ability”: Can adults coach children to lie successfully? In S. Ceci, M. Leichtman, & M. Putnick (Eds.), Cognitive and social factors in early deception (pp. 69–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinder, A. (2009). An empirical investigation of parental response styles as measured by the validity scales of the MMPI-2. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 5795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tippins, T., & Wittmann, J. (2005a). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43(2), 193–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippins, T., & Wittmann, J. (2005b). A third call: restoring the noble empirical principles of two professions. Family Court Review, 43(2), 270–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tishelman, A., Newton, A., Denton, J., & Vandeven, A. (2006). Child physical abuse and neglect: Medical and other considerations in forensic psychological assessment. In S. Sparta & G. Koochman (Eds.), Forensic mental health assessment of children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tye, M. (2003). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents: Special considerations for the custody and adoption evaluator. Family Court Review, 41(1), 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wah, C. (1997). Evaluating “nontraditional” religious practice in child custody cases. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35(3), 300–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warshak, R. (2006). Warshak Parent Questionnaire. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 10, 1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, I. (2005). Rorschach assessment in child custody cases. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues and Practice, 2(3), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisneski, J. (2007). The MMPI-2 in contested child custody cases: Differences for parents in entrenched disputes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 68 (1-B), 640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, T. (2004). Child and adolescent abuse. In R. Craig (Ed.), Clinical and diagnostic interviewing (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mark L. Goldstein Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Mark L. Goldstein Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark L. Goldstein Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nursing and Health Sciences, California State University, East Bay, San Francisco, California, USA

    Stephen J. Morewitz

  2. College of Medicine, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Mark L. Goldstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goldstein, M.L. (2014). Child Custody Evaluations. In: Morewitz, S., Goldstein, M. (eds) Handbook of Forensic Sociology and Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7178-3_22

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation