2011 • NYS Psychologist - New York State Psychological Association

– unless the judges had taken steps to learn about domestic violence
or were women, when they had the lowest estimations.
Custody evaluators and judges were least likely to believe that
fathers make false allegations of domestic violence. Belief in false
allegations of domestic violence was strongly related to beliefs
that domestic violence is not important in custody and visitation
decisions, that mothers alienate children from fathers, and that
reluctance of victims to co-parent harms children. Acquisition of
knowledge about domestic violence (attending lectures or workshops,
reading books and articles, reviewing websites, etc.) was
associated with support of victims. In particular, knowledge of
danger assessment resulted in more frequent recommendations
of sole custody for victims. Acquisition of knowledge about children’s
exposure to domestic violence was associated with more
frequent recommendations for supervised visitation.
Implications of the study are that custody evaluators most need to
learn about post-separation violence and assessing dangerousness.
They also need to understand the problems that can arise
from granting joint legal custody to abusers even when the victim
has sole physical custody. Finally, the authors conclude that evaluators
need to understand the limits of psychological testing to
assess for domestic violence and to assess mental health of victims.
The third study reviewed custody evaluations in a sample of
69 custody cases heard in New York City Family and Supreme
Courts (O’Sullivan, 2010). The primary outcome variables in this
study were the safety of the parenting plan for the mother and
child in (1) the evaluators’ recommendation and (2) the court outcome
(either by a decision of the court following trial or by settlement
agreement between the parents). Parenting plan safety was
a composite of a number of variables with a range from unsafe to
most safe, such as frequent or infrequent transfer of the children
between the parents, unsupervised versus third party transfer,
and unsupervised overnight visits versus visits at a supervised
visitation center.
The evaluators’ recommendations were followed in both settlements
and court decisions, with no significant difference between
the evaluators’ recommended plans and the plans in settlements
and court orders in overall safety. The strongest influence
on the evaluators’ recommendations, and therefore on the outcome
of the case, was the evaluator’s familiarity with empirically
established risk factors for ongoing abuse and potential lethality.
The evaluator’s general knowledge of domestic violence and use
of a power and control model also significantly predicted the safety
of the parenting plan. Surprisingly, the severity of the abuse
and the thoroughness of the evaluator’s investigation (e.g., conducting
collateral interviews or reviewing criminal records) had no
relationship to the safety of the parenting plan.
The study showed that what the evaluator brings to the case
has more influence on the family’s fate than the facts of the case.
There was little consistency across evaluators; therefore, it is logically
impossible that the best interests of the child are being
served in all cases. In particular, the evaluator’s knowledge of
ongoing risks to the mother and children was most likely to determine
custody and visitation outcomes. The researchers recommend
that evaluators be screened for knowledge of domestic violence
and that training of custody evaluators be required.
Lack of Available Training
The lack of training in domestic violence among custody evaluators
could be expected given the absence of required courses
on this topic in graduate programs and the dearth of such courses
in curricula (APA, 1996, p. 13; Pope & Feldman-Summers, 1992;
Zorza, 1996). Bow and Boxer (2003) found that almost 70% of
their survey respondents had taken no graduate courses covering
domestic violence. A mental health professional seeking training
in domestic violence would find few opportunities in New York.
The Appellate Divisions occasionally offer programs in domestic
violence to the mental health professionals on the panel. The
Forensic Division of the New York State Psychological Association
is attempting to contribute to the education of psychologists
about domestic violence, and offered programs on custody evaluations
in cases involving domestic violence in 2007 and 2010.
For someone who wishes to become truly knowledgeable in this
field, those programs can be only an introduction. Saunders
(2010) found, however, that professional consultations and reading
books and websites about domestic violence also had a
measurably positive effect on custody evaluators’ hypothetical
recommendations. Viewing films and videos did not.
Conclusion
Allegations of domestic violence are likely to be a component
of about half the cases for which courts order custody evaluations.
Consequently, it is incumbent on custody evaluators to learn
about domestic violence and its effects on victims and children. If
evaluation of California’s required training finds that participants
benefitted, New York should adopt such requirements. Meanwhile,
New York custody evaluators must take the initiative to
seek opportunities for learning about domestic violence. Otherwise,
the courts will continue to fail often in their mandate to make
custody and visitation orders that are in the “best interests of the
child.” The children of New York State deserve better – they deserve
the best we can give them.
REFERENCES:
Ackerman, M. J., & Pritzl, T. B. (2011). Child custody evaluation practices:
A 20-year follow up. Family Court Review, 29, 618-628.
American Psychological Association. (1996). Violence and the family:
Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task
Force on Violence and the Family. Washington, DC: Author.
Baerger, D., Galatzer-Levy, R., Gould, J., & Nye, S. (2002). A methodology
for reviewing the reliability and relevance of child custody evaluations.
Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 18,
35-73.
Bow, J. & Boxer, P. (2003). Assessing allegations of domestic violence in
child custody evaluations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(12),
1394-1410.
Brandt, L., & Ferrin, E. (2009). Charts [of family law in the fifty states].
Family Law Quarterly 42(4), 757-765.
Report of the Matrimonial Commission to the Chief Judge of New York
State (2006). Accessed 2/26/2010 from http://www.nycourts.gov/
reports/matrimonialcommissionreport.pdf
Craig, R. (2010). Use of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory in the psychological
assessment of domestic violence: A review. Aggression &
Violent Behavior, 8, 235-240.
Dallam, S. & Silberg, J. (2006). Myths that place children at risk during
custody disputes. Sexual Assault Report, 9(3), 33-34 & 42-47.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Davis, M. S., O’Sullivan, C. S., Susser, K., & Fields, M. D. (2011). Custody
Evaluations When There Are Allegations of Domestic Violence:
Practices, Beliefs, and Recommendations of Professional Evaluators.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234465.pdf.
Emery, R., Otto, R., & O’Donohue, W. (2005). A critical assessment of
child custody evaluations: Limited science and a flawed system. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 6, 1-29.
Erickson, N. (2005). Use of the MMPI-2 in custody evaluations involving
domestic violence. Family Law Quarterly, 39, 87-108.
Hardesty, J. L. (2010). The Effect of Domestic Violence Allegations on
Child Custody Evaluators’ Recommendations. National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence Annual Conference, August 2, Anaheim,
CA.
Page 11
Vol. XXIII No. 2 • Fall 2011 • NYS Psychologist