{2:00 minutes to read} In this article, we continue our examination of research findings (see part one). As a reminder, there are many potentially moderating variables involved in this research, and one should not extrapolate causation from the findings given that the findings are correlational in nature (i.e., no causality implied). 

Read the rest of this entry »

{4:50 minutes to read} When examining the plethora of research that has been conducted on divorce and its impact on children, one should keep in mind that the results are correlational in nature and, therefore, causality should not be attributed to them.

Furthermore, among studies that looked at children of divorced parents over time, there are many variables at play which cannot be monitored. With those caveats in mind, we can examine some of the findings:

Read the rest of this entry »

{4:50 minutes to read} Child-parent observations are a cornerstone of the custody evaluation. A good parenting assessment cannot be made without an observation of the parent and child who will live together.

Read the rest of this entry »

{2:15 minutes to read} In this article, we conclude our discussion (see Part I) about the use of collateral sources in forensic evaluation by examining five problems that can limit the accuracy of collateral interviews—and ways for the evaluator to manage those problems.

1. Reluctance: The collateral source (the person being interviewed) is reluctant to participate or has concerns about personal consequences for his or her participation.

Management of problem: Explain the purpose of the evaluation and discuss the voluntary nature of participation.

Read the rest of this entry »

{4:00 minutes to read} In our last article, we discussed psychological testing as a tool that forensic evaluators can utilize for the purpose of combating the bias inherent in the interview of the parties who present with their own agenda (e.g., in child custody evaluation, the overt agenda is proving that one is the better parent).

In this article, we look at another way to minimize the negative effects of biased parties’ presentation through the use of collateral data. Like psychological testing, collateral data is designed to provide evidence of convergent validity.

Read the rest of this entry »

{3:25 minutes to read} In this article, we continue our discussion of the issues involved with psychological testing in forensic evaluation. 

First, the evaluator must be certain that the measures have enough specificity, that is, that they directly tap into the construct of interest. In custody, for example, the construct of interest is parenting, and ideally, whatever instruments the evaluators choose to administer should bear on the parenting construct. 

Read the rest of this entry »

{4:00 minutes to read} The Methodology of Forensic Evaluations.

Forensic evaluations differ with respect to the focus of the questions they seek to answer. For instance, in a custody evaluation, the focus is to assess the fit between a particular parent and a child. In contrast, in evaluations designed to assess competency to stand trial, the focus is to assess whether a party is able to understand the nature of the proceedings against him/her and his/her ability to assist the attorney.  

Read the rest of this entry »

{3:00 minutes to read} In our two previous articles, we began to discuss custody evaluations and relocation. Read part 1 or part 2.

In 2007, Dr. Joanna Bunker Rohrbaugh compiled a list of relocation risk factors and protective factors for children of divorcing parents¹ based on her review of the literature. The risk factors suggest a substantially greater potential for negative outcomes for relocating with children who are: 

• under 10 years of age,
• considered special-needs or not emotionally mature,
• adjusting poorly to the divorce,
• very attached to the left-behind parent or that parent’s extended family,
• involved in the home community,
• not close to, or have a poor relationship with, the relocating parent.

Read the rest of this entry »

{5:30 minutes to read} In our previous article, we began to discuss custody evaluations and relocation. In this issue, we continue to explore this topic.

In New York State the landmark case on relocation has been Tropea v. Tropea (1996). In this case, handled by the New York State Court of Appeals, the court ruled that each relocation request should be handled on its own merits with an emphasis on what is likely to be the child’s best interest. The factors that the court considered critical in relocation cases in New York are as follows:

Read the rest of this entry »

{4:25 minutes to read} Relocation evaluations are difficult because they tend to be “black and white” cases by nature (the relocation is permitted or denied) and thus offer little opportunity for compromise.

Relocation, in the context of child custody proceedings, refers to a situation in which the custodial parent chooses to geographically move to a new location far enough from the non-custodial parent to potentially impact on his or her relationship with the child. Historically, the parent who wanted to relocate was required to show good cause for the move.

Read the rest of this entry »