Play by the Rules: why States Should Adopt Uniform Court Rules for Forensic Psychologists in Child Custody Evaluations

• Date: 01 July 2016
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12227
• Author: Tiffani DiPrizito

PLAY BY THE RULES: WHY STATES SHOULD ADOPT UNIFORM

COURT RULES FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGISTS IN CHILD

CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Tiffani DiPrizito

It is not uncommon for children to fall victim to the stress and tension of a contentious custody dispute. If a party seeks a men-

tal health evaluation and the opposing party challenges the results, the child then endures a series of evaluations until a valid

report is produced. The court will often remedy this situation by appointing a neutral forensic psychologist to perform the eval-

uation independent from a previous party-hired forensic psychologist.

1

This Note proposes that the court instead appoint the

forensic psychologist first to conduct an evaluation and draft a report. Only at the judge’s discretion may the parties hire a pri-

vate forensic psychologist to challenge the report. Additionally, states should codify court rules that enumerate standards for

forensic psychologists in child custody evaluations. These rules should set forth criteria that shall be required and highlighted

throughout each mental health evaluator’s report, allowing judges to compare and contrast each evaluation more effectively.

This legislation will not only reduce the child’s exposure to excessive testing, but will also provide a more efficient way of

arriving at a just result.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Forensic psychologists are to observe, assess, and analyze the fit between each parent and the child.

The ultimate responsibility of the forensic psychologist is to determine the best interests of the child.

States should adopt court rules that implement uniform standards for child custody evaluation in addition to requiring

that forensic psychologists be court appointed in child custody cases where the parties seek a forensic evaluation.

Keywords: Child Custody; Expert; Forensic Psychologist; Mental Health Evaluator/Evaluation; Neutral; Parens Patriae;

Regulation; and Standards.

I. INTRODUCTION

Over a century ago, the California Supreme Court recognized the need for court-appointed, disin-

terested experts “who shall review the whole situation and then give their opinion with their reasons

...regardless of the consequences to either litigant.”

2

The job of these evaluators requires impartial-

ity, similar to that of a judge.

3

In the area of child custody, judges order mental health evaluations to

“obtain a neutral mental health professional’s assessment of the family, each parent’s ability to par-

ent, and the children’s needs and capabilities.”

4

Courts exercise the doctrine of parens patriae, meaning “father of his country,” in making deter-

minations regarding the welfare of children.

5

This doctrine grants courts the inherent power and

authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

6

In all cus-

tody determinations the best interest of the child is of paramount concern to the court, and the court

has broad discretion to enforce that standard.

7

The court-appointed mental health evaluation is a

well-established part of custody litigation, intended to provide the court with an unbiased professio-

nal opinion.

8

It is important to minimize the exposure of children to the emotional stress of a conten-

tious divorce process by reducing the number of times the children have to be interviewed and the

number of evaluators the children must encounter.

9

This Note proposes that the states adopt a court rule that explicitly enumerates standards to reg-

ulate the use of forensic psychology in child custody evaluations. The rule should set forth

Corresponding: tdiprizito@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 3, July 2016 512–524

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts