A three‐factor ethical reasoning model for court‐involved practitioners: Services, roles, and values

• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Author: Jeffrey P. Wittmann
• Date: 01 July 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12656

ARTICLE

A three-factor ethical reasoning model for

court-involved practitioners: Services,

roles, and values

Jeffrey P. Wittmann

Child Custody Forensics, Albany, New

York, USA

Correspondence

Jeffrey P. Wittmann, Child Custody Forensics,

18 Corporate Woods Blvd., Albany, NY,

12211, USA.

Email: jw@childcustodyforensics.com

Abstract

Court-involved mental health professionals (CIMHPs)

practice in a context fraught with ethical challenges and

complexity. Prior commentators have offered perspectives

on the factors that should be considered as these ethical

issues are navigated, yet no structured system for organizing

the process of ethical analysis has been offered to date in

this area of practice. The three-factor ethical reasoning model

described below suggests the following basic process: (a) the

operational definition of the service (s) requested; (b) a precise

definition of the professional role that will be assumed for

each separate service; and (c) an analysis of the ethical issues

within a case by referencing promulgated statutes, regula-

tions, codes, and guidelines, as well as foundational values.

KEYWORDS

court, custody, divorce, ethical, ethics, roles

Key points for the family court community

•The risks of ethical errors for practitioners, clients, and

the profession can be reduced via a systematic model for

reasoning.

•Precisely defining service requests and roles is an essen-

tial first step.

•Reference to written rules should be augmented with

reflection on foundational values.

DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12656

© 2022 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Family Court Rev. 2022;60:507–529. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fcre 507

INTRODUCTION

Ethical reasoning in the context of court-involved professional relationships involves complexities and perils that are

unique when compared with other forms of professional engagement (Berman & Killeen, 2019). Therapists for clients

not involved in court can make ethical errors that cause emotional stress for patients, yet a court-involved therapist

can make errors that can contribute to a mother or father having their parental rights truncated. A sufficiently broad,

yet user-friendly model for analyzing ethical choices becomes paramount, since the choices made with court-

involved families can have serious implications for the general welfare and personal liberties of those affected.

There has been discussion about various ethical lenses seen as important for court-involved mental health

professionals (CIMHPs) to incorporate into their practices: (a) an emphasis on the role that is assumed in any

given court-involved relationship (i.e., to whom the professional has primary and secondary responsibilities)

(Drogin & Barrett, 2007; Gould, Martindale, Tippins, & Wittmann, 2011;Hess,1998;Martindale, 2006;Melton,

Petrila, Poythress, Slobogin, Otto, Mossman, & Condie, 2018;Weissman&DeBow,2003); (b) An emphasis on the more

molecular services (i.e., activities the professional is asked to engage in) (Dale & Gould, 2014; Austin, Dale, Kirkpatrick, &

Flens, 2011); and (c) an emphasis on staying vigilantly focused on the social value ensconced in the “best interests of the

child”principle (Hobbs-Minor & Sullivan, 2008;Lee&Nachlis,2011).

This article argues that all three of the factors listed above (services, roles, and guiding values) are critical for

effective and cautious ethical reasoning. Each factor can be viewed as a quasi-distinct construct that, when used in

concert, can offer a clarifying analytic lens for making decisions about what represents good, bad, or risky practice.

While ethical challenges have been discussed in areas of custody-related practice (e.g., Amundson & Lux, 2016;

Erickson, Lilienfeld, & Vitacco, 2007; Fridhandler & Lehmer, 2014; Martindale & Gould, 2013; Greenberg, Gould-

Saltman, & Gottlieb, 2008; Pepiton, Zelgowsky, Geffner, & Pegolo de Albuquerque, 2014; Sullivan, 2004), there has

been great diversity in emphasis and no comprehensive model for such analyses that spans the variety of service

options and roles relevant to this area of practice.

The three primary streams of thought regarding ethics (emphases on services, roles, and values) will be described

here as practice emphases rather than models because while each suggests certain ways of analyzing ethical issues,

none of them is a fully elaborated system for analyzing ethical dilemmas. Instead, each concentrates on one or two

factors as especially important for practitioners. While the three approaches attend, to varying degrees, to the ethical

complexity in this practice area and while there is much overlap in what they suggest represents sound practice, each

has been given a label by this author that attempts (albeit imperfectly) to capture its conceptual center of gravity. In

addition, it is argued below that certain practice emphases are incomplete or potentially risky.

After a general discussion about professional ethics, each of the three factors of the proposed model will be

described, and the relevant literature will be summarized and critiqued, followed by suggestions for that factor's

application. A formal ethics-discernment process will then be proposed, followed by case examples.

DEFINITIONAL ISSUES

The model presented here was designed to be relevant to the broad spectrum of CIMHPs. While most of the roles

discussed are forensic in nature (involving the application of social science knowledge to psycho-legal questions), in

family court-related practice therapeutic services for families are only occasionally labeled as forensic in nature

(despite their relevance to issues in court). In fact, relevant guidelines for CIMHPs draw an explicit distinction

between therapeutic experts and forensic experts (AFCC, 2010), unlike, for example, in the criminal area, where

helping an incompetent person return to competency is considered a forensic service (e.g., American Academy of

Psychiatry and the Law, 2007). Consequently, the term “court-involved mental health professional”(CIMHP) rather

than “forensic professional”is used to ensure that all therapeutic services and other interventions are included.

508 FAMILY COURT REVIEW