CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION PRACTICES: A 20‐YEAR FOLLOW‐UP

• Author: Tracy Brey Pritzl,Marc J. Ackerman
• Published date: 01 July 2011
• Date: 01 July 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01397.x

CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION PRACTICES:

A 20-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

Marc J. Ackerman and Tracy Brey Pritzl

This study surveyed 213 experienced child custody evaluators utilizing the same questionnaire in theAckerman & Ackerman

1997 and Keilin & Bloom 1986 studies. Demographic information, evaluation practices, custody decision-making, and

recommendations were surveyed. Comparisons weremade across all three studies to identify the similarities and differences in

child custody evaluation practices overthe past 20 years. This study added questions about risk management and ethical issues,

and current practices in placement/access schedules. The reader is advised that not engaging in the practices performed by a

majority of psychologists could result in a difficult testimony experience.

Keywords: custody;evaluations;testing;parenting;placement;forensic psychology

Child custody evaluation practices continually evolve over the decades. In 1986, Keilin & Bloom

published a seminal study in child custody evaluation practices. That study was replicated by Acker-

man & Ackerman in 1997. The current study is the third in the succession over the past 20 years and

essentially addresses the same concepts that were addressed in the previous twostudies, in addition to

assessing several concepts that have become more prominent in child custody evaluation practices

during the past decade. Since the Ackerman & Ackerman study was published, the guidelines and

standards for performing child custody evaluations have been updated across all professional groups.

The American PsychologicalAssociation published a new Ethical Principles of Psychologists and

Code of Conduct in 2002. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (2007) published a new

model standard of practice in child custody evaluations. As this article is being written, theAmerican

Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of theAmerican Psychological Association) is working on a

revision of the 1991 specialty guidelines for forensic psychology.

The case of Daubert v. Merrill Dowwas relatively new when the Ackerman &Ackerman study was

performed in 1997. However, the General Electric v. Joiner (1997) and Kuhmo v. Carmichael (1999)

cases were published after the Ackerman &Ackerman study. They refined the Daubert Standard that

resulted from the 1993 case. Today, from the many“evidenced based” texts and articles that have been

written and the APA Code of Ethics (2002), it is clear that Daubert has had a strong effect on child

custody evaluation practices. This will be reflected in the results of this particular study.

Prior to the Ackerman & Ackerman study there were very few survey studies that were published

about child custody evaluation practices. However, since the Ackerman &Ackerman study, numerous

survey studies that address specific issues in child custody evaluation practices have been published.

Studies were performed by Ackerman,Ackerman, Steffen, & Kelly-Poulos (2004) and Bow &

Quinnell (2004) addressing the expectations of attorneys and judges for psychologists performing

child custody evaluations. Bow & Boxer (2003) addressed domestic violence allegations in child

custody evaluations, and Bow, Quinnell, Zaroff, and Assemany (2001) addressed sexual abuse alle-

gations in child custody cases. Studies by Ackerman & Dolezal (2006) and Bow & Quinnell (2004)

addressed the issue of risk management and complaints that have been filed against psychologists in

child custody cases.

For this study, participants were obtained from a membership list of Division 41 of the American

Psychological Association, members of theAmerican Psychological-Law Society (AP-LS), Diplo-

mates in Forensic Psychology, and psychologists who were members of theAssociation of Family and

Correspondence: mjackerman@aol.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW,Vol. 49 No. 3, July 2011 618–628

© 2011 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts