MODEL STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR CHILD CUSTODY

MARTINDALE/INTRODUCTION
FAMILY
JANUARY
1O
45RIGINAL
Blackwell
Malden,
Family
FCRE
©
1531-2445
January
riginal COURT
Association
Court
2007
Article
USA2007
ARTICLEREVIEW
Publishing
Review
of Family ANDCourts,
Incand Conciliation FOREWORD
2007

EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION TO THE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND

CONCILIATION COURTS’ MODEL STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION
David A. Martindale

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is an international and

interdisciplinary organization. In addition to custody evaluators from all the mental health
professions, AFCC’s membership includes mediators, parenting coordinators, parent edu-
cators, attorneys, judges, court commissioners, and researchers. One of AFCC’s strengths
lies in the fact that its members are drawn from various professions, but share a strong com-
mitment to programs of benefit to children. Previous AFCC task forces have developed
Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation (AFCC, 2000) and Guide-
lines for Parenting Coordination (2005).
The AFCC Task Force on Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation
was assembled in 2004 by Past President Leslye Hunter. The Task Force was charged with
developing a set of model standards that would guide the practice of evaluators with different
professional backgrounds and operating in different contexts and would also be useful to
attorneys, judges, and others involved in the adjudication of disputes concerning custody
and access. The Task Force included evaluators from the fields of social work and psychology,
employed in court-connected facilities and in private practice; a reviewer of evaluations,
consulting to evaluators, attorneys, and regulatory agencies; an attorney; and a judge.
Work on the Model Standards was begun in October 2004 during the Sixth International
Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations, conducted in Nashville, Tennessee, under the
auspices of AFCC. The Task Force developed eight drafts before writing the final document.
At two points during the development of the Model Standards, the current draft was pub-
licly posted and input from interested practitioners and groups was actively sought. These
Model Standards are the product of input by practitioners representing numerous profes-
sions. In developing the Model Standards, the Task Force received more than 600 written
comments on the two publicly posted drafts and more than 200 attendees also provided
feedback at one or more of three public meetings. The Task Force and the AFCC are very
appreciative of the time and effort that was expended by the many people who carefully
examined drafts and offered input.
Since the publication of the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines for Child
Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings (1994) and the previous version of the AFCC’s
Model Standards (1994), much has changed in the world of custody evaluation. More

Correspondence: david@damartindale.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 45 No. 1, January 2007 58–60

© 2007 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
 Martindale/INTRODUCTION 59

professionals, at all educational levels, are performing child custody evaluations—some

without having obtained formal training. Many practitioners are performing evaluations
that do not meet the needs of the courts that have appointed them. Judges who are members
of AFCC have expressed concern with the poor quality of the reports being submitted to
them by evaluators. In fact, problems with the custody evaluation process have become
the subject of front-page articles in newspapers as prestigious as The New York Times
(Eaton, 2004).
In New York State, in response to much publicly expressed discontent, in January 2004
Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye appointed a Matrimonial Commission “to examine every facet
of the divorce and custody determination process and recommend reforms to reduce trauma,
delay and cost to parents and children so personally impacted by the system” (Matrimonial
Commission, 2006).
Grisso (2005) observed that calls for reform have been heard for years but “[t]he real
world will not yield to logic until some practical dilemmas are faced and resolved” (p. 224).
Grisso pointed out that professional organizations representing specific disciplines are torn
by competing responsibilities—an obligation to the public and accountability to their mem-
bers. Practitioner-members seek protection from licensing board complaints and malprac-
tice actions and they do not want their income-generating capacity placed in jeopardy. In a
recent commentary on the APA’s new Ethics Code (APA, 2002), Barnett (2003) asserted:
“A main goal of the ECTF [(Ethics Code Task Force)] was to create a revised Ethics Code
that provides better protection for psychologists” (p. 9, emphasis added). Organizations that
represent specific disciplines are pressured by their own members not to create practice-
related documents that may complicate the lives of practitioner-members. Grisso opined
that documents such as the AFCC’s Model Standards “cannot have a serious impact on
practice until they can be developed through interdisciplinary collaboration” (p. 225,
emphasis added). Seeing past the needs of one’s own profession is facilitated by interdis-
ciplinary collaboration and it is such collaboration that made development of the Model
Standards possible.
When evaluators first began assisting judges in adjudicating custody and access disputes,
evaluator input was widely appreciated. In the last decade complaints against evaluators
have increased dramatically (Kirkland & Kirkland, 2001), as have malpractice actions
(Marine & Bogie, 2004); attorneys, often reinforced by mental health professionals, have
issued a call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance (Tippins & Wittmann, 2005; Gould
& Martindale, 2005); and our assessment methods have been criticized by experienced
professionals (Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005; Otto & Martindale, 2006). Most importantly,
judges, to whom evaluators’ reports are submitted and before whom evaluators testify, have
expressed their dissatisfaction with the quality of the evaluations being conducted. The
Honorable Stephen Hjelt, Administrative Law Judge for the California Office of Adminis-
trative Hearings in San Diego, has observed that “deference paid to poor testimony logically
creates poor judicial outcomes” (Hjelt, 2000, p. 9).
There can be little doubt that pressure on evaluators to improve the quality of their work
is already being felt and is likely to intensify. By making their input more valuable, evaluators
can again be perceived as helpful participants in the complex dynamics of custody dispute
resolution.
The AFCC Task Force rejected the notion that a main goal of a task force such as ours
should be to provide better protection for those offering professional services to families in
distress and to courts charged with the responsibility of adjudicating custody and access
disputes. The main goal of the AFCC Task Force was to create a document that would assist
60 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

evaluators in performing their tasks more effectively and, in doing so, address the needs and
rights of those to whom evaluator services are provided.
While recognizing the need for a reasonable amount of carefully placed ambiguity, the
Task Force favored clarity and specificity. The dangers created for professionals by speci-
ficity pale in comparison to the dangers created by ambiguity. When expectations (or obli-
gations) are clear, everyone wins. Evaluators improve themselves professionally when they
read and digest documents in which good practice procedures are outlined. Those to whom
evaluators offer their services are provided with a better description of what constitutes
good practice. When complaints are filed, those who sit in judgment of their colleagues are
better able to ascertain what is and what is not a violation of the articulated standards.
Where evaluator actions have been in conformity with the standards, complaints can be dis-
missed more rapidly. Where evaluators have deviated from the standards, those deviations
can be more reliably identified and appropriate disciplinary action can be taken.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings.
American Psychologist, 49, 677– 680.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American
Psychologist, 57, 1060 –1073.
Barnett, J. E. (2003). APA’s revised ethics code: Implications for professional practice. The Register Report, 29/
Spring, 9–11.
Eaton, L. (2004, May 23). For arbiters in custody battles, wide power and little scrutiny. The New York Times,
pp. 1, 30.
Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Lim-
ited science and a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 1–29.
Gould, J. W., & Martindale, D. A. (2005). A second call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance: Comments
on Tippins and Wittmann. Family Court Review, 43, 253 –259.
Grisso, T. (2005). Commentary on “empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations:” What now?
Family Court Review, 43, 223 –228.
Hjelt, S. (2000). Professional psychology: A view from the bench. Register Report, 26(1), 8–13.
Kirkland, K., & Kirkland, K. L. (2001). Frequency of child custody evaluation complaints and related disciplinary
action: A survey of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 32(2), 171–174.
Marine, E. C., & Bogie, M. A. (2002). Professional liability claims: Processes and outcomes. Retrieved Sept. 24,
2006, from http://www.athealthce.com (online CE course).
Matrimonial Commission. (2006). Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York. Retrieved Sept. 24, 2006,
from http://www.nycourts.gov/reports/matrimonialcommissionreport.pdf.
Otto, R. K., & Martindale, D. A. (2006). The law, process, and science of child custody evaluation. In M. Costanzo,
D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 251–275). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tippins, T. M., & Wittmann, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call
for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43, 193–222.

David Martindale is Board-certified in forensic psychology by the American Board of Professional

Psychology. Prior to moving to New Jersey, he practiced psychology in New York for 33 years. Between
1986 and 2000, he performed court-ordered custody evaluations for the courts of Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. Since moving to New Jersey in 2000, he has limited his practice to providing consultation to
lawyers and psychologists.