A major pitfall in preparing the written report is failure to have the conclusions follow from the data presented (Herman and Levy 1989). The reader should appreciate a flow in the material and a cogent and credible formula-tion at the end. The conclusions and recommendaformula-tions should emerge in a rational way and should not take the reader by surprise. The report should contain enough process from the interviews so that the judge can appre-ciate that the expert did solicit and analyze enough infor-mation.
Testimony
A common pitfall in testifying is not being properly pre-pared for court. The expert should carefully review the written report and contemporaneous process notes prior to testimony. It is advisable for the court-appointed expert to refrain from meeting with attorneys prior to testimony. Unilateral meetings—even with the “friendly”
attorney—reduce the expert’s stature as impartial.
Although experts are usually permitted to review their reports and other notes when on the witness stand, they ought to be prepared and should convey the impression of having put considerable time and thought into the tes-timony.
CASE EXAMPLE EPILOGUES
Case Example 1
Dr. Smithson interviewed Elizabeth and Harvey together once and separately five times each. He also saw each of the parents with Hal. Harvey accused Elizabeth of “duplicity” by obtaining an ex parte order of temporary custody. He said he had great difficulty finding a home and had to go out of town for business.
It was his business, he emphasized to the doctor, that provided the child support for Hal. He also told Dr.
Smithson that Elizabeth had used cocaine and mari-juana regularly before the pregnancy.
Elizabeth questioned Harvey’s ability to care for their child. She also reported that Harvey had pushed
her down in anger on the day he attempted to take his son. She admitted to using cocaine and marijuana but insisted that she had stopped 4 years before she became pregnant with Hal. Both parents agreed that joint custody was no longer a possibility for them.
Elizabeth did say she saw nothing wrong with Hal spending an overnight with his father every other week, and she knew Hal enjoyed being with his father.
Dr. Smithson observed both parents acting lov-ingly and appropriately in their sessions with Hal. The child psychiatrist did notice Harvey being more phys-ical with his son; Elizabeth’s style with the infant was calmer and even sedate at times.
The forensic expert recommended that custody be awarded to the mother, opining that Hal’s routine and comfortable, predictable, and stable arrangement with his mother ought to be maintained. He recom-mended that the father have Hal with him one over-night every other weekend, to be gradually increased to two overnights on alternate weekends. He could also have his son for 2 hours for a midweek dinner, if he wished. The written report helped settle the case;
there was no trial, and each party entered into a writ-ten stipulation agreeing to Dr. Smithson’s recommen-dations.
Case Example 2
Dr. Wellington did her usual child custody and visita-tion evaluavisita-tion of the Greene family. After all of the clinical interviews, including telephone contact with therapists for each parent and with Hallie’s teacher and three sessions alone with Hallie, the child psychi-atrist was stumped. She found both parents to be quite fit and eminently qualified and capable to take primary care of their daughter. The doctor found Hallie’s sessions quite compelling. Although she was only 7 years old, she was quite bright and articulate.
She talked about feeling caught in the middle, of lov-ing and belov-ing attached to both of her parents, of the positives and negatives about the potential move 1,000 miles away from her father, and about how much she would miss her father.
Dr. Wellington found that she was unable to rec-ommend one parent over the other. She decided that she could best assist the court by elucidating each par-ent’s strengths and the nature of each parpar-ent’s attach-ment to Hallie. She discussed her analysis of the mother’s motivation for the move. Most importantly, she conveyed to the court the emotional state of the minor child and described in detail the nature of Hallie’s attachments to her mother and her father.
She concluded that the ultimate decision would have to be the court’s; the best she could do as a forensic clinician was to help the court understand the emo-tional needs of the child.
Case Example 3
Because Dr. Baird had been appointed by the court, he had access to many documents as well as the family itself. Along with interviewing the grandmother
sev-eral times, each of the children—alone and all with the grandmother—the mother, who was incarcerated, and other family members who might assist the grand-mother in caring for the six surviving children, the child psychiatrist reviewed the entire foster agency case record, including every progress note written about the children, their placement, and their visits with their grandmother. He also reviewed protective services documents in opposition to the placement, along with other interim psychiatric and psychological evaluations of the children and their grandmother.
Dr. Baird concluded that the children’s best interests would be served by allowing them to live with their grandmother. All of them had expressed this desire. Dr. Baird wrote—and later testified—that such a permanent placement would give the children the message that there was much good in their family to provide balance against the evil committed by their mother. Living with their grandmother, they would be better able to begin the long process of healing within the loving environment of their family.
The family court judge, twice having denied the grandmother’s petitions to care for her grandchildren, after hearing what she referred to as “Dr. Baird’s com-pelling and most sensible testimony—a reflection of a most complete and comprehensive clinical evalua-tion,” finally authorized the placement with the grandmother.
ACTION GUIDELINES
A. Getting involved
1. Agree to be a court-appointed expert only, or someone agreed to by both sides.
2. Make sure the questions posed by the court are understood and appropriate for someone of your profession to answer.
3. Make fee requirements clear and whenever possi-ble request full payment at the start of the evalu-ation.
B. Doing the evaluation
1. Explain to all parties how the evaluation will be conducted and be sure to get waivers of rights of confidentiality and privilege.
2. Consider the evaluation a profile of parenting—
not a psychiatric examination.
3. Be sure all relevant people are interviewed and for adequate time.
C. Writing the report
1. Remember that the report is a communication with a non–mental health professional; it should be written clearly and should be free of undefined jargon or arcane terminology.
2. Clearly list who was seen, when, and for how long.
Include all important data from the interviews, along with direct quotes.
3. Be sure conclusions and recommendations flow naturally and logically from the data that are pre-sented.
4. Proofread carefully!
REFERENCES
Allen M, Burrell N: Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: meta-analysis of existing research. J Homosex 32:19–35, 1996
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Her-man SP, principal author): Practice parameters for child custody evaluation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 36 (suppl):57S–68S, 1997
American Association of Family and Conciliation Courts: Mod-el Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation.
Madison, WI, American Association of Family and Concil-iation Courts, 1994
American Psychiatric Association: Child Custody Consultation:
Report of the Task Force on Clinical Assessment in Child Custody. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Associa-tion, 1988
American Psychological Association: Guidelines for child custo-dy evaluations in divorce proceedings. Am Psychol 49:677–680, 1994
Ash P, Guyer M: Court implementation of mental health pro-fessionals’ recommendations in contested child custody and visitation cases. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 12:137–147, 1984
Atwell A, Moore U, Nielsen E, et al: Effects of joint custody on children. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 2:149–157, 1984
Benedek E, Schetky D: Custody and visitation: problems and perspectives. Psychiatr Clin North Am 8:857–873, 1985 Bozett F (ed): Gay and Lesbian Parents. New York, Praeger,
1987
Chan R, Raboy B, Patterson C: Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child Dev 69:443–457, 1998 Cole W, Bradford J: Abduction during custody and access
dis-putes. Can J Psychiatry 37:264–266, 1992
Curran W: The vulnerability of court-appointed impartial ex-perts in child-custody cases. N Engl J Med 312:1168–
1170, 1985
Derdeyn A: Child custody contests in historical perspective.
Am J Psychiatry 133:1369–1376, 1976
Derdeyn A, Scott E: Joint custody: a critical analysis and ap-praisal. Am J Orthopsychiatry 54:199–209, 1984
Dillon P, Emery R: Divorce mediation and resolution of child custody disputes: long-term effects. Am J Orthopsychiatry 66:131–140, 1996
Emery R, Matthews S, Kitzmann K: Child custody mediation and litigation: parents’ satisfaction and functioning one year after settlement. J Consult Clin Psychol 62:124–129, 1994
Goldstein J, Solnit A, Freud A: Beyond the Best Interests of the Child. New York, Free Press, 1973
Green A: True and false allegations of sexual abuse in child cus-tody disputes. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 25:449–456, 1986
Herman S: Special issues in child custody disputes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 29:969–974, 1990
Herman S: Child custody evaluations and the need for stan-dards of care and peer review. Journal of the Center for Children and the Courts I:139–150, 1999
Herman S, Levy A: Does peer review have a place in child cus-tody evaluation? Children Today 18:15–18, 1989
Hodges W: Interventions for Children of Divorce. New York, Wiley, 1986
In the Matter of the Adoption of a Child Whose First Name Is Evan, 583 NYS2d 997 (NY Surr 1992)
Kelly J: Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and di-vorce: a decade review of research. J Am Acad Child Ado-lesc Psychiatry 39:963–973, 2000
Kermani E: Issues of child custody and our moral values in the era of new medical technology. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 31:533–538, 1992
Kleber D, Howell R, Tibbits-Kleber A: The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: a review of the liter-ature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 14:81–87, 1986
Levy A: Disorders of visitation in child custody cases. Psychia-try and Law, Winter, 1982, pp 471–489
Levy R (ed): Visitation with infants, in Legal and Mental Health Perspectives on Child Custody Laws: A Deskbook for Judges. Danvers, MA, Westlaw, 1998, pp 15.1–15.5 Lieberman A, Van Horn P: Attachment, trauma, and domestic
violence: implications for child custody. Child Adolesc Psy-chiatr Clin N Am 7:423–443, 1998
Long N, Forehand R, Zogg C: Preventing parental child abduc-tion: analysis of a national project. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 30:549–554, 1991
Mason S: Custody planning with HIV-affected families: consid-erations for child welfare workers. Child Welfare 77:161–
177, 1998
Miller T, Veltkamp L: Disputed child custody: strategies and is-sues in mediation. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 15:45–56, 1987
NY Social Services Law § 378-a(2), 1999
Opinion of the Justices, No 87–080, NH S Ct (1987) Painter v Bannister 258 Iowa 1390, NW2d 152 (1966) Pruett M, Hoganbruen K: Joint custody and shared parenting:
research and interventions. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Clin N Am 7:273–294, 1998
Santosky v Kramer 455 US 745, 102 S Ct 1388 (1982) Schetky D, Haller L: Parental kidnapping. Journal of the
Amer-ican Academy of Child Psychiatry 22:279–285, 1983 S.E.G. v R.A.G., 735 SW2d 164, MO App ED (1987) Stanton A: Grandparents’ visitation rights and custody. Child
Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 7:409–422, 1998
Steinman S: The experience of children in a joint-custody ar-rangement: a report of a study. Am J Orthopsychiatry 51:403–414, 1981
Steinman S: A study of parents who sought joint custody fol-lowing divorce: who reaches agreement and sustains joint custody and who returns to court. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24:554–562, 1985
Thoennes N, Tjaden P: The extent, nature, and validity of sex-ual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse Negl 14:151–163, 1990
Tibbits-Kleber A, Howell R, Kleber D: Joint custody: a compre-hensive review. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psy-chiatry and the Law 15:27–43, 1987
Tropea v Tropea, 642 NY S2d 575 (Ct App 1996)
Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57, 120 SCt 2054, US Wash (2000) Wallerstein J, Johnston J: Children of divorce: recent findings regarding long-term effects and recent studies of joint and sole custody. Pediatr Rev 11:197–204, 1990
Weithorn L (ed): Psychology and Child Custody Determina-tions. Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press, 1987
81