Tippins and Wittman Revisited: Law, Social Science, and the Role of the Child Custody Expert 14 Years Later

• Date: 01 January 2019
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12398

TIPPINS AND WITTMANN REVISITED: LAW, SOCIAL SCIENCE, AND

THE ROLE OF THE CHILD CUSTODY EXPERT 14 YEARS LATER

Jon Amundson and Glenda Lux

It has been 14 years since Tippins and Wittmann (2005) voiced concern for the overreaching role the expert may play in mat-

ters of family law. This article sets their levels of inference within the context of the culture of both law and social science.

We examine how inferences are impacted by the relative emphasis child custody experts give to the five stakeholders

involved in child custody evaluations(CCEs): cour ts,lawyers, parents, children, and professional governing bodies. Accultur-

ation of the assessor to law contributes to more egregious inferences, versus the more modest ones Tippins and Wittmann

advocated. How evaluators prioritize stakeholders shapes their opinion and methodology. We offer an expanded perspective

that views how their levels of inference are manifest in reports, methodology, and recommendations and the influence of the

culture of law and the mindset of the clinician. We hope to encourage clinicians to find ways to operationalize clinical humil-

ity, assume their proper role, and remain true to their master identity as licensed mental health professionals and their proper

sphere of authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

•Tippins and Wittmann’s (2005) levels of inference should be understood within the context of both law and social

science.

•Tippins and Wittmann’s(2005) lower levels of influence are mostlikely seen in childcustody evaluations (CCE’s) with

a biopsychosocial emphasis. Biopsychosocial proficiency is the specialized skill and knowledge that supports expert

CCE opinions and which best serves mental health disciplines.

•There are 5 stakeholders involved in CCEs: courts, lawyers, parents, children, and professional governing bodies.

Inference levels are influenced by the culture of law and the mindset of the clinician relative to the attention given to

the stakeholders.

•Child custody evaluators need to understand how their methodologies and recommendations are influenced by their

mindset and orientation toward the stakeholders, the culture of law, and the culture of social science.

•By understanding the two types of authority: authority by role and authority by status, mental health professionals can

remain true to their professional identity and to their proper sphere of authority within their role as child custody

experts.

•The more a CCE becomes acculturated toward law, the more Tippins and Wittmann’s seminal concern for ethics and

scope of practice emerges.

Keywords: Best Interests of Children; (BIC); Biopsychosocial; Child Custody Evaluation (CCE); Ethics; and Forensic

Assessment.

In family law matters, expert opinions are often sought from licensed mental health profes-

sionals (MHPs). These opinions assist the court in determining the best psychological interest

of the child relative to parenting time and parenting responsibilities when the parents are

unable to make these decisions themselves. One tool at the disposal of the court is the child

custody evaluation (CCE). CCEs are generally conducted by licensed MHPs with specialized

knowledge and skills. These evaluations are complex forensic studies of the family, the purpose

of which is to identify the needs of the child, determine the capacities of each parent, and

describe the resulting fit that is thought to promote the best interests of the child (BIC; Ameri-

can Psychological Association [APA], 2010).

Experts in the field of CCE have outlined the vast and complex array of relevant information that

must be considered to provide useful and probative opinions. This breadth of knowledge is best

Corresponding: glux@luxshortpupp.com; aapsych@telus.net

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 57 No. 1, January 2019 88–106

© 2019 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

specified in the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’(AFCC, 2006) “Model Standards of

Practice for Child Custody Evaluations.”Custody evaluators are expected to have training in the

following areas:

1. the psychological and developmental needs of children, especially as those needs relate

to decisions about child custody and access;

2. family dynamics, including, but not limited to, parent–child relationships, blended fami-

lies, and extended family relationships;

3. the effects of separation, divorce, domestic violence, substance abuse , child alienation,

child maltreatment including child sexual abuse, the effects of relocation, sexual orienta-

tion issues, and interparental conflict on the psychological and developmental needs of

children, adolescents, and adults;

4. the significance of culture and religion in the lives of parties;

5. safety issues that may arise during the evaluation process and their potential effects on all

participants in the evaluation;

6. when and how to interview or assess adults, infants, and children;

7. how to gather information from collateral sources;

8. how to collect and assess relevant data and recognize the limits of the reliability and

validity of different sources of data;

9. how to address issues such as general mental health, medication use, and learning or

physical disabilities;

10. how to apply comparable interview, assessment, and testing procedures that meet gener-

ally accepted forensic standards to all parties;

11. when to consult with or involve additional experts or other appropriate persons;

12. how to inform litigants, children, other participants, and collateral sources of the purpose,

nature, and method of the evaluation and the limits of confidentiality;

13. how to assess parenting capacity and co-parenting capacity and to construct effective par-

enting and co-parenting plans;

14. the legal context within which child custody and access issues are decided, and additional

legal and ethical standards to consider when serving as a child custody evaluator;

15. how to make the relevant distinctions among the roles of evaluator, mediator, therapist,

parenting coordinator, and co-parenting counselor;

16. how to write reports for the courts to which they will be presented;

17. how to prepare for and give testimony at deposition or at trial; and

18. how to maintain professional neutrality and objectivity when conducting child custody

evaluations. (APA, 2010, pp. 864–865).

In addition to this daunting list of general clinical obligations, specialized issues or populations

may be thrown into the mix. These specialty areas may include:

1. the assessment of allegations of child sexual abuse issues;

2. the assessment of children’s resistance to spending time with a parent or parent figure and

allegations of attempts to alienate children from a parent, parent figure, or significant

other;

3. the assessment of children’s best interests in the context of relocation (move-away) requests

by one parent;

4. the assessment of substance abuse; and

5. the assessment of child abuse and domestic violence and the assessment of safety plans

for both parents and children (AFCC, 2016).

The complexity of the material involved in a CCE exceeds any other area of forensic assessment

(Amundson, Daya, & Gill, 2000). The professional child custody evaluator therefore needs to know

and do many things with such a task. Adding to clinical complexity is contextual complexity: CCEs

Amundson and Lux/TIPPINS AND WITTMANN REVISITED 89