Hybrid processes within parenting plan assessments: Rationale and an illustrative model

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• Author: Robert A. Simon,Arnold T. Shienvold
• Date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12750

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Hybrid processes within parenting plan

assessments: Rationale and an illustrative model

Robert A. Simon

1

|Arnold T. Shienvold

2

1

Independent Practice of Forensic

Psychology, San Diego, California, USA

2

Riegler, Shienvold & Associates, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania, USA

Correspondence

Robert A. Simon, Independent Practice of

Forensic Psychology, 10620 Treena Street,

Suite 230, San Diego, CA 92131, USA.

Email: rsimon@dr-simon.com

Abstract

Parenting plan Assessments, also known as child custody

evaluations, are forensic psychological investigations into

the needs of children, the parenting capacities of their care-

givers, and the resulting fit between the children's needs

and caregiver capacities. Typically, they result in recommen-

dations that are, in the opinion of the assessor, formulated

to meet the best interests of children regarding a parenting

plan, child sharing, parental responsibilities and ancillary ser-

vices that are likely to support the children's optimal func-

tioning as well as the functioning of the now reconfigured

family. Such assessments are part of a pathway to

untangling conflicts between the parents regarding the

most appropriate parenting plan for the reconfigured family.

Paradoxically, the assessment process can exacerbate the

conflict, entrench parental polarization, and create lingering

feelings of helplessness, frustration, and disempowerment

in the parents. This article provides a rationale for the use

of a hybrid process that incorporates alternative dispute

resolution as an integrated part of the parenting plan

assessment and provides an illustrative model of such a

hybrid process.

KEYWORDS

ADR, CDR, child custody evaluation, dispute resolution, hybrid,

hybrid process, parenting evaluation

DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12750

© 2023 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Family Court Rev. 2023;61:801–817. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fcre 801

Key points for the family court community

•Parenting plan evaluations can include a settlement

component

•When a hybrid model is used, its incorporation into the

evaluation should be specified in the appointment order

•Not all cases are suited for a hybrid model of parenting

plan evaluation

•Ethical issues must be contemplated prior to using a

hybrid parenting plan evaluation model and during

its use

•Evaluators who use the hybrid model must have compe-

tence in dispute resolution

HYBRID PROCESSES IN CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION

Children live in families of varied compositions and configurations. Families are made up of an infinite variety of indi-

viduals who are complex because people are complex. Family members interact with one another hoping to provide

a safe, secure environment in which the children may grow and thrive. This multifaceted, complex system of persons

is often difficult to sustain and maintain over time. When the family falls apart, determining what new system

dynamics, rules, and protocols will best meet the needs and interests of the children can be extremely difficult. Ulti-

mately, the Court has the statutory responsibility to make the ultimate determinations for parenting plans when the

adult care providers cannot agree about the children's best interests. The basis for legal determinations of “custody”

or “parental responsibility”of children has changed through the years. For example, legal standards, such as paternal

right of ownership, gave way to the tender years doctrine which, in turn, gave way to the best interests of children

standard. This evolving and changing set of standards may represent a progressive and flexible understanding of

what is in a child's best interest with respect to a parenting plan. It also demonstrates an evolving understanding of

what best suits the interests of children, but it demonstrates some of the arbitrariness of parenting plan decisions as

well. Even as these legal standards evolve and advance, judges, attorneys, and parents have sought more nuanced

methodologies and processes to assist conflicting parties in making appropriate decisions to optimize the well-being

of children (Stahl & Martin, 2013).

Dissatisfaction with the adversarial litigation/adjudicative model as a method of deciding on these uniquely per-

sonal, emotional, human problems has led to the introduction of “alternative”dispute resolution processes (with the

alternative being what to do instead of litigating which sets litigation as the primary process –an assumption we

assert is worth questioning) (Hysjulien et al., 1994). In the early 1980s, mediation was introduced as an alternative

means of resolving family disputes. Proponents argued that mediation was a kinder, more compassionate, and civil

way to allow parents to maintain control over decisions regarding their children's futures. Simultaneous to the use of

mediation as an alternative to litigation, judges began to seek input from mental health experts regarding the relative

strengths and weaknesses of individual parent's competency to meet the needs of their children. Custody evalua-

tions gained popularity as a formal methodology, not as a dispute resolution process, but as an adjunct for improving

the decision-making of the arbiters of parenting disputes. Over time, the recommendations frequently requested by

judges to be included in the custody evaluation reports became the de facto final recommendation endorsed by a

judge or used as a template in some settlement process. Shienvold (2004) argued that even a so-called “pure”

802 FAMILY COURT REVIEW