Introduction to the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations in Family Law Cases

• Published date: 01 January 2023
• Author: Arnold T. Shienvold,Kathleen McNamara
• Date: 01 January 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12691

COMMENTARY

Introduction to the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting

Plan Evaluations in Family Law Cases

Arnold T. Shienvold

1

| Kathleen McNamara

2

1

Riegler Shienvold & Associates, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA

2

PLLC, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Correspondence

Arnold T. Shienvold, Riegler, Shienvold and Associates, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

Email: rsapsy@aol.com

The AFCC Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (“Model Standards”) have long been recognized as

promoting the highest quality work product for professionals who conduct child custody evaluations. Nonetheless,

the most recent iteration of the Model Standards was completed in 2006 and was due for a careful review and

update, incorporating changing trends and research in the field. Therefore, in 2019 then-president of AFCC,

Dr. Matthew Sullivan, constructed a task force and appointed Arnie Shienvold as chair and Kate McNamara as

reporter to fulfill the directive of updating the Model Standards. Members of the Task Force included private and

court-connected practitioners, family law attorneys, members of the domestic violence advocacy community, and a

family law judge. Professional representation included psychologists, social workers, attorneys, judges, and adminis-

trative personnel.

The Task Force began its work by reviewing the Model Standards and asking broad questions, such as “What is

missing?”and “What needs to be improved?”At the beginning of the two-and-a-half-year process, the Task Force

considered and debated whether the document should be another iteration of the Model Standards or a set of

aspirational guidelines. Additionally, we pondered whether the title of the document should continue to be “Model

Standards”or changed to “Guidelines.”We considered that, on the one hand, there were many areas that were

generally aspirational concepts and procedures, which argued for renaming the document as “Guidelines”rather than

“Model Standards.”On the other hand, there were many areas that were viewed as essential components of the

evaluation process, and therefore, must be followed, which was consistent with using the term “Model Standards”

rather than “Guidelines.”Still, other nuanced and complex areas did not fit nicely under either label.

Another consideration was the fact that AFCC has no enforcement mechanism, and therefore, regardless of

what we called them, they would not be mandatory. After much discussion, consideration of public comments, and

further discussion, the Task Force reached a full agreement that the revised document would be named “Guidelines”

with liberal use of the term “should”to convey that the Guidelines are strongly recommended practices but are not

mandatory. That said, the new Guidelines may be adopted as standards or requirements by statute or court rule, as

the Model Standards were in some jurisdictions, and at that point they would become mandatory in that jurisdiction.

The Task Force amply discussed the question of whether the Guidelines represent the “floor”(basic require-

ments) of good practice or the “ceiling”(best practices) and concluded that collectively framing them as one or the

other is a false binary. In many instances, the difference between the floor and ceiling of good evaluation practice is

DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12691

© 2022 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Family Court Rev. 2023;61:7–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fcre 7