Exploring a Process‐Oriented Forensic Family Observation Protocol

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12217
• Published date: 01 April 2016
• Author: Benjamin D. Garber
• Date: 01 April 2016

EXPLORING A PROCESS-ORIENTED FORENSIC FAMILY

OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

1

Benjamin D. Garber

This article recommends a modification of the child interview and observational components of the conventional child custody

evaluation. By scheduling these events in back-to-back sequence, the evaluator adds critical process-oriented data to familiar

content-oriented data. These additional data include at least eight landmark separation, reunion, and transition events valuable

to understanding the dynamic family system. The benefits of this protocol are discussed in terms of the ecological validity of

available data, reduced evaluation time and costs, and research. Limitations are discussed relevant to questions of sampling

bias, fatigue and sequence effects, and practical dilemmas that arise when evaluating families with many children.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Conventional systemic (custody) evaluations focus on data obtained within sessions.

A process-oriented observational protocol includes data available between sessions.

Observation of how children and caregivers manage the transition of care can be especially valuable to assessing the

children’s needs, the parents’ respective strengths, and the quality of the co-parenting relationship.

A process-oriented observational protocol is particularly valuable in consideration of a child’s tendency to adapt cha-

meleon like to each of two or more disparate and conflicted environments.

A process-oriented observational protocol is time and therefore cost efficient.

Keywords: Alienation; Best Interests; Chameleon Child; Co-Parent; Custody; Evaluation; Interview; Observation; and

Parenting Plan.

INTRODUCTION

Child custody evaluation (CCE) is both an art and a science (Gould & Martindale, 2007). The

evaluator is bound to work within relevant ethical guidelines, jurisdictional mandates, and cul-

tural norms, using methods consistent with the contemporary literature to draw cautious infer-

ences and make recommendations (or not) as requested by the specific court. The professional

who conducts a CCE is challenged to structure the evaluation process so as to collect a balanced

and representative sample of all aspects of the reconfigured family system in a time and cost-

efficient means.

The present article explores the benefits of adopting a process-oriented observati onal proto-

col as one component part of CCE. The proposed protocol increases the breadth and depth of

available data, while simultaneously decreasing participants’ total time invested and thereby

the costs associated with the process. It lends itself to repeat-measures comparisons within

each child in the interest of addressing consistency and between-child comparisons in the

interest of furthering forensic family research (Kelly & Ramsey, 2009; Vertue, 2011). Most

importantly, the proposed protocol captures critical process observations of how the child and

his or her parents manage separations, reunions, and transitions that are often neglected in our

conventional CCEs.

Correspondence: Papaben@healthyparent.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 2, April 2016 261–276

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Several professional guilds have produced standards or guidelines relevant to the conduct of

CCEs. These include the American Association of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML, 2011), the Ameri-

can Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP, 1997), and the American Psychological

Association (APA, 2010a).

2

In particular, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC,

2007) has published model standards for the conduct of CCEs intended to represent the highest

standards across professional guilds.

These publications all agree that CCE must incorporate a number of child-centered interviews and

observations. These include direct observation of and/or interview with the child individually (e.g.,

AFCC, 2007, item 5.8; AAML, 2011, item 4.7; APA, 2010a, item II[10]) and observation of the

child in the company of each parent (AAML, 2011, item 4.8; AFCC, 2007, items 5.9 and 10.2;

AACAP, 1997; APA, 2010a, item II[10]).

3

The latter observations are intended to address the quality

of the “fit” in the parent-child relationship (APA, 2010a).

CCE AND FIT

Despite this emphasis on fit, neither the regulating professional bodies nor the law adequately

define the term. The AACAP guidelines, for example, reference, “...assessment of the quality of the

attachments between the parents and the children [as the] centerpiece of the evaluation” (1997, p. 5).

The AAML similarly references assessment of, “...attachment or bonding...” (2011; p. 6).

4

These references suggest that fit is to be understood exclusively within each parent–child dyad.

5

Custody evaluation is not, however, a competitive sport in which the parent with the better fit wins

the child (Garber, 2009). In fact, a best-interests analysis must balance the quality of the child’s rela-

tionship within each dyad with an understanding of the how the child experiences the larger family

system, that is, those between-parent variables, including how the child manages separations from,

reunions with, and transitions between the parents’ care. Thus, CCE must include observations of the

child both within- and between-relationships.

WITHIN- AND BETWEEN-PARENT OBSERVATIONS

The complex interaction of within- and between- is well known to science. In general, the concept

recognizes that a simple comparison of a dependent variable (e.g., a child’s behavior) in each of two

or more distinct conditions is often inadequate. Instead, behavior within each condition must be

understood as compared to the same behavior between conditions. To statisticians, this means an

analysis of variance (ANOVA; e.g., Nussbaum, 2015). To researchers, this means, for example,

understanding to what degree each of two variables (e.g., medication, psychotherapy) and the inter-

action of the two may be associated with diminished anxiety (Ferrero et al., 2007). To clinicians, this

means, for example, understanding how a student’s behavior within each academic subject area is

impacted by his behavior between classes (McGrath & Rust, 2002).

In the context of CCE, observations of a child with each parent (within-dyad data) must be under-

stood in the context of how the child manages between-dyads. Separation, reunion, and transition

are, after all, hallmarks of the child’s postseparation reality.

Although seldom couched in these terms, the divorce-related literature has implicitly begun to rec-

ognize this within- and between-dyad distinction in recent years. This can be seen in the field’s

intense focus on the systemic dynamics that can corrupt the child’s role and relationship within

(Garber, 2011) and between relationships. Parental alienation illustrates the latter: Determining that

Parent A’s words and actions can undermine the quality of the child’s relationship with Parent B is

to recognize the interaction of between and within. In response, forensic family evaluation

262 FAMILY COURT REVIEW