One of the most challenging aspects of custody decisions is the issue of domestic violence. About 20% of divorces require judges to appoint a custody evaluator to assist in the determination of custody arrangements. There are a wide range of estimates (50% - 90%) of the extent to which these divorce cases involve aggression and violence. One of the central questions that the custody evaluator must decide is whether the domestic violence is likely to continue and how to handle custody arrangements in a way that does not put family members at-risk of further violence. At present there are no universal standards for conducting custody evaluations and most custody evaluators have little training in domestic violence.
In a recent study Megan Haselschwerdt, Jennifer Hardesty and Jason Hans (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2011) examined how custody evaluators think about domestic violence in their decisions regarding custody. They conducted in-depth interviews with a small sample (N=23) of custody evaluators that had on average about 14 years of experience conducting evaluations.
Even among behavioral scientists there has been much debate about the nature of domestic violence. Professor Michael Johnson at the University of Michigan has clarified the dispute by explaining that there are two major types of domestic violence. On the one hand, some violence is the result of stressful situations in which husbands or wives lash out in physical or verbal aggression. He called this "situational violence." On the other hand, some domestic violence involves the use of extreme forms of control that forces a partner to do something she does not want to do. Johnson labeled this form of violence as "intimate terrorism." He also notes that in addition to physical violence, intimate terrorists use psychological abuse, isolation and intimidation to control their partners.
Custody evaluators are likely to encounter couples who are engaged in both types of violent situations. How custody evaluators assess violence can influence their recommendations about custody outcomes. These researchers found that custody evaluators tended to hold a view that either viewed violence as situational violence or intimate terrorism.
The custody evaluators whose views tended towards viewing aggression as situational violence reported less training in domestic violence. This group generally viewed domestic violence as stress induced, normative and mutual. As a result, these evaluators minimized spouse abuse as relevant to child custody decisions. They also thought that false allegations of violence were common. In terms of custody and parenting plans, they prioritized coparenting and father-child relationships.
On the other hand, custody evaluators who characterized domestic violence as intimate terrorism took a different view of custody. They were more likely to report extensive training in domestic violence. These evaluators viewed spouse abuse as a significant factor in determining child custody. They thought that false allegations of abuse were rare. This group of evaluators distinguished between types of violence and expressed strong views that custody and parenting plans should be different for each of these types of violence. In the case of intimate terrorism, they prioritized victim safety over ongoing contact with fathers.
Although based on a small sample of custody evaluators, these findings raise important questions about the degree to which domestic violence is being thoughtfully considered in custody decisions. It is important for the legal system to develop training and policies such that custody evaluators can appropriately consider custody arrangements in domestic violence situations.
"damaged" evaluator with their own issues and prejudices , to judge me ??????
Children born into strife , forgive us we know not what we do .
Thank you for the clarification.
As you seem to have some knowledge, If I may, I'd like to better understand a couple points.
First, what is the arguement as to why the courts should have no ability to discipline evaluators if they violate the standing orders from the court regarding evaluator conduct but not on the Fee Generating List.
Secondly, in a case involving division of labor, who is ultimately responsible. From my first question, and other answers I've received, perhaps the true answer is no-one. That said, within any other "organization" the phrase "the buck stops here" applies typically to those at the top. In an instance where, for example, an evaluator framed out work to a psych evaluator, an SAE, another GAL, etc, it seems there is no responsibility for those at the top to ensure the farmed out work is performed in a quality manner. In prior questions, the President of MAGAL stated he didnt know who held repsonsibility, but it was "a good question" and referred to the Chief Justice's office. The Lead attorney in the Chief Justices office had no idea either.
May I ask, who does know whats going on?
As far as labor division, the Court Order is the document used to clarify roles and jobs. Good ones lay this out in detail. Poorly written ones leave a lot of room for the problems you are pointing out.
I wonder if you are familiar with the following 2005 critique of custody evaluations by Robert Emery, Randy K. Otto, and William T. O'Donohue, "A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System", Psychological Science in the Public Interest, July 2005, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-29?
http://psi.sagepub.com/content/6/1/1.abstract
Emery decries the lack of consensus on using the measures that are available. Of the APA and AFCC standards Emery writes:
"Despite broad agreement about factors that should be assessed,
there is little agreement about how to assess them. For
example, the AFCC guidelines (which are currently undergoing
revision) do not provide assessment guidelines, while APA and
AACAP both generally advocate a multimethod approach
combining clinical interviews, direct observation, and psychological
tests. Guidelines promulgated by AACAP question the
value of psychological testing, while suggesting that collateral
information be obtained from school personnel, healthcare
providers, childcare providers, family, friends, and other individuals
who may provide information germane to child custody
placement. The lack of consensus begs the question: What accounts
for the variability in recommendations? We conclude that
much of the variability is the result of a lack of requisite
knowledge. There is not enough scientific evidence (and legal
guidance) about how evaluations should be conducted and about
what type of evaluation is most helpful.
informatioÂn be obtained from school personnel, healthcare
providers, childcare providers, family, friends, and other individualÂs
who may provide informatioÂn germane to child custody
placement" would be a valuable resource of information, but to be honest, I don't see evaluators who have enough "fire in the belly" to work that hard.
As always, Kudos to you on your knowledge of the literature.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-mandarano/the-worst-thing-a-woman-c_b_837636.html
I'll be one party and you be the other. My opening offer to you for a parenting plan is you get "visitation" every other weekend.
I'll await your response.
Thanks
So again, learn how to act right and leave the courts out of it.
In the weeks following her death I was pressured into an early marriage, still grieving I did not recognize the NPD in my ex until nearly 2 years into the marriage. I stayed married until my children were grown, to protect them, not trusting him or the legal system. My ex used occasional violence & the terrorism described to keep me in the relationship.
There was a time I helped others & still supported myself, but a series of circumstances in this economy have destroyed me...
I do understand how vindictive women can be & I do truly believe, women can lie about violence or abuse. I have seen in both my situation & my BF's where the misbehavior was so outrageous, but the perpetrators were believed by the "experts". His ex is the worse loon, but not violent. With his career, she would lose her meal ticket if she lied about violence, but the economic games are extreme.
It is only my experience with these Personality Disordered freaks which gives me the certainty I can spot them! It takes having that gut feeling, combined with full circle follow through over a period of years.
Wayne
http://DivorceMinistry4Kids.com
I agree, but I'd also point out that this is not the only area in which custody evaluators come up short. The court's ability to determine the best interest of the child is limited. See Robert Emery's review of custody evaluatorsÂ. He is particularÂly damning:
"There is essentiallÂy no psychologiÂcal science to support the measures and constructs designed specificalÂly for the assessment of child custody arrangemenÂts for individual children"
http://psiÂ.sagepub.cÂom/contentÂ/6/1/1.fulÂl
Whoever commits acts of abuse, regardless of gender, ought to face serious consequences,
and
Whoever makes false accusations of abuse, regardless of gender, ought to face serious consequences.
(or is such not controversial enough to generate responses)
Ocheco - It's called corroborating evidence. If you make an accusation you should have it; or understand that an accusation made without it may be established to be false.
Divorce should not be a "no rules" brawl.
Your ex's attorney got the medical records suppressed against your will;
The guardian testified to the medical records anyway at the trial. So if the guardian is misinformed why can't you ask the court to un-suppressed the medical records to refute the guardian’s court testimony? Maybe you need a better attorney, or did the guardian actually have it right all along?
"Custody Evaluators" are indeed interesting.
Some of the earlier writings on false allegations were by Dr. Warshak on SAID Syndrome in 1983. Over the following 28 years, both the Psychiatric and judicial communities have determined a standard as to if the abuse happened, but neither has yet determined a standard if the allegations are false and malicious in nature. They state multiple "reasons", but they havent gotten the job done. Leaders, by definition, get the job done without excuses. Are their leaders in this group? One would question if Leaders would be drawn to such a field.
In my state, the legal penalty for "knowingly" making false accusations of abuse is "a fine not to exceed $2,000." If I made false allegations against you, what would it cost you in legal fee's to defend yourself and would the cloud of question over you ever be removed in a custody decision? Actually, my State is on the cutting edge for such as a multitude still have no penalty.
Again, in my state, this group operates without any fear of penalty. While the court does have a standing order regarding conduct, the court is literally powerless to penalize those who violate such if they are not on "the fee generating list." As such, the possibility exists evaluators can make decisions based on gender, race, religion, etc. with any fear of punishment. Any group, operating with no oversight, will be followed by moral and ethical violations.
This is what is destroying the credibility of those who claim abuse.