Been there; done that: Commentary on the Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations in Family Law Cases by the reporter for the Model Standards

• Published date: 01 January 2023
• Author: David A. Martindale
• Date: 01 January 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12695

COMMENTARY

Been there; done that: Commentary on the

Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations in

Family Law Cases by the reporter for the Model

Standards

David A. Martindale

Forensic Psychological Consultant, Saint Petersburg, Florida, USA

More than two decades ago, Hon. Stephen Hjelt, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) for the California

Office of Administrative Hearings in San Diego, published an article aptly entitled A View from the Bench

(Hjelt, 2000), in which he addressed the profession of psychology (the profession from which most custody evalua-

tors were being drawn, in California, in 2000). Judge Hjelt observed that “psychology views itself as being buffeted

by angry storms beyond its control…(p. 8),”but he opined that the future of the relationship between the legal

system and the profession of psychology was “in your profession's hands (p. 8).”Judge Hjelt's admonition was:

“Try taking responsibility for your actions (p. 12).”Though Judge Hjelt focused on the profession of psychology, a

reading of the full article makes clear the applicability of his observations to all mental health professionals who

present expert opinions in family law proceedings.

Judge Hjelt opines that designation as an expert can impair the ability to engage in realistic appraisals of the

knowledge base of the mental health professions. He urges mental health professionals to “[r]elearn the ability to

say, ‘I do not know (p. 12).’” He observes that in jurisdictions in which the Frye standard [Frye v. United States, 293 F.

1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)] is applied in making decisions regarding the admissibility of proffered expertise, “it is almost

impossible to fail to qualify as an expert witness…(p. 10).”He describes the Daubert Decision [Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)] as representing “a conscious attempt by the legal system to improve the

quality of decision making by improving the quality of expert testimony (p. 10).”As viewed by Hjelt, judicial gate-

keepers guided by the Daubert observations will require that experts “justify their opinions on the basis of reference

to real, empirically-based data (p. 10).”

In 2005, Thomas Grisso (Grisso, 2005), a highly respected psychologist, opined that organizations representing

specific disciplines are pressured by their members not to create practice-related documents that might complicate

the lives of practitioner-members. Grisso called for interdisciplinary collaboration. The interdisciplinary membership

of the AFCC makes such collaboration possible.

AFCC formed the Task Force for the Revisions of the Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation,

(hereinafter referred to as “2019–2022 Task Force”), the goal of which was to create a document that would assist

evaluators in performing their tasks more effectively and, in doing so, address the needs and rights of those to whom

evaluators' services are provided.

The composition of the task force that developed the Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation

(Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2007) was similar to the composition of the 2019–2022 Task Force

DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12695

© 2022 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

62 Family Court Rev. 2023;61:62–64.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fcre