afcc 10 th symposium on child custody evaluations operationalizing the best interest of the child...

AFCC 10th Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations

Operationalizing the Best Interest of the Child Standard (BICS):

Developing Empirically-Validated Assessment Procedures

for Child Custody EvaluatorsMarvin W. Acklin, PhD, ABAP, ABPP

Pacific Forensic Associates, Inc.Honolulu, Hawaii


Empirically-Validated Assessment Tools for Child Custody Evaluators

Material presented is available for download at www.dracklin.com.



Child custody evaluations (CCE) have been criticized because of dependency on the vague and complex BICS (Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005; Krauss & Sales, 2000). These authorities feel that psychologists have little to offer in Family Court due to the undeveloped state of child custody behavioral science and the lack of empirically-validated tools.



Tippins and Wittmann (2005) cautioned against the continued use of custody evaluations that may be lacking in professional knowledge base and are conducted despite a lack of consensus on a uniform methodological approach.



When practice loses its root in psychological science, CCE opinions and recommendations tend toward decisions that are more socio-moral and personal than clinical (Tippins & Wittmann, 2005).



O’Donohue and Bradley (1999) wonder if, given the current state of science in the field, it is reasonable to draw any empirically-based conclusions with some semblance of scientific certainty.



In contrast to other psycho-legal constructs (competency to stand trial, NGRI, etc.), the BICS poses significant challenges: it is broad-band, complex and multidimensional.

The Hawaii statute HRS 571-46 is a good example.

HRS 571-56

(1) Any history of sexual or physical abuse of a child by a parent;

(2) Any history of neglect or emotional abuse of a child by a parent;

(3) The overall quality of the parent-child relationship;

(4) The history of caregiving or parenting by each parent prior and subsequent to a marital or other type of separation;

HRS 571-56

(5) Each parent's cooperation in developing and implementing a plan to meet the child's ongoing needs, interests, and schedule; provided that this factor shall not be considered in any case where the court has determined that family violence has been committed by a parent;

(6) The physical health needs of the child;(7) The emotional needs of the child;(8) The safety needs of the child;

HRS 571-56

(9) The educational needs of the child;(10) The child's need for relationships

with siblings;(11) Each parent's actions

demonstrating that they allow the child to maintain family connections through family events and activities; provided that this factor shall not be considered in any case where the court has determined that family violence has been committed by a parent;

HRS 571-56

(12) Each parent's actions demonstrating that they separate the child's needs from the parent's needs;

(13) Any evidence of past or current drug or alcohol abuse by a parent;

(14) The mental health of each parent;

HRS 571-56

(15) The areas and levels of conflict present within the family; and

(16) A parent's prior willful misuse of the protection from abuse process under Chapter 586 to gain a tactical advantage in any proceeding involving the custody determination of a minor.

Tools for Child Custody Evaluations

A common criticism of child custody evaluations is the use of clinical instruments such as the MMPI-2, Rorschach, etc., which have little direct relevance to the ultimate issue.


Otto and Heilbrun (2002) distinguish between three types of psychological tests: a) forensic assessment instruments, b) forensically-relevant instruments, and c) clinical measures and assessment techniques.Forensic assessment instruments are measures that are directly relevant to a specific legal standard and reflect and focus on specific capacities, abilities, orknowledge that are embodied by the law.


Forensically relevant instruments can be distinguished from forensic assessment instruments in that they do not assess or focus on specific legal standards and the associated functional capacities of the examinee, but, rather, they address clinical constructs that are often pertinent to evaluating persons in the legal system.


Most commonly used in forensic evaluations are clinical measures and assessment techniques. These are the psychological tests and measures developed for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment planning with clinical populations in therapeutic contexts.


Examples include instruments used to assess psychopathology, intelligence, personality, and academic achievement.



Although the behavioral science foundation of the BICS is weak and poses complex challenges to the best practice assessment psychologist wishing to make research-based recommendations, it is the prevailing legal standard for child custody decision-making in all US jurisdictions.



This presentation presents a conceptual model of the CE process, based on basic psychological research that lends itself to the use of empirically-validated instrumentation.

The program efforts to develop empirically validated procedures and findings in CE investigations.



ObjectivesDeveloping a conceptual framework that is

amenable to empirical validation and organizing the CE process.

Make preliminary proposals for the use of easily accessible and user-friendly, empirically-validated assessment tools that are consistent with the AFCC Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations and Rules of Evidence.

Forensic psychological custody evaluations

Gould, Jonathan (1998). Conducting Scientifically Crafted Child Custody Evaluations. Sage Publications.

“integrate the multifaceted components of the behavioral science literature and the law into a unified approach to child custody evaluations.”



Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or

to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon

sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. (As

amended Apr. 17, 2000, eff. Dec. 1, 2000.)

Local Clinical Scientist Model

Stricker & Trierweiler. (1995). The local clinical scientist. A bridge between science and practice. American Psychologist, 50(12):995-1002.

The local clinical scientist is a critical investigator who uses scientific research and methods, general scholarship, and personal and professional experience to develop plausible and communicable formulations of local phenomena. This investigator draws on scientific theory and research, general world knowledge, acute observational skills, and an open, sceptical stance toward the problem to conduct this inquiry. (pp. 24–25)

Local Clinical Scientist Model

Trierweiler and Stricker (1995) emphasize both quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry, as well as critical thinking skills, all adapted to the local needs and culture of the particular agency within which the clinical psychologist is working. The local clinical scientist is anthropologist, detective, and experimentalist, all rolled into one. While this is clearly a tall order, it can be understood as an aspirational goal and provides a methodological framework.



Jameson, Ehrenberg, & Hunter (1997) used structural, developmental, and functional perspectives from family systems theory in developing a conceptual framework around which to organize the BIC evaluative criteria.



Eighty-eight qualified psychologists completed an exploratory survey, the Best Interests of the Child Questionnaire (BICQ), by rating the importance of 60 specific criteria in three areas of assessment relevant to custody and access evaluations:

(a)Structural (relational assessment)(b)Developmental (needs-of-the-child

assessment)(c)Functional (abilities-of-the-parents

assessment).



The model considered psychological factors affecting the best interests of the child, including parenting capacity of the prospective custodians in conjunction with the psychological and developmental needs of the child.



Their purpose was to develop an a priori assessment model that would organize specific criteria relevant to the BICS into three main areas of assessment.

Reviewing both the legal guidelines stipulating BICS and the psychological literature pertaining to the effects of divorce and of custody arrangements on child development they identified 60 specific items relevant to the BICS.



Using these three perspectives, the 60 criteria garnered from empirical research and various legal statutes were sorted a priori rational model into one of three areas of assessment.

Using factor analysis, they constructed three domains, or first-order factors, reflecting the higher order BICS construct.



--Structural- Relational Assessment---Parent–Parent

-Parent–Child relationships--Developmental-Needs-of-the-Child

Assessment---Developmental needs of the child

--Functional-Abilities-of-the-Parents Assessment ---Functional abilities of each

parent to meet the child's needs



--Structural--Relational Assessment—

Parent-Parent (assessment of parental relationship)

»Capacity for Shared Parenting»Conflict/Cooperation/Communication

A large body of research has consistently highlighted the role of interparental conflict in predicting children’s adjustment to divorce (Amato,1991)



• Our research—assessing the inter-parental relationship--

• Cross informant assessment of relationship compatibility—discrepancies in self and other appraisals on the Achenbach Self Report and Adult Behavior Checklst in divorcing parents reflect their level of incompatibility



Ehrenberg, M.F., Hunter, M.A., & Elterman, M.E. (1996). Shared parenting agreements after marital separation: The roles of empathy and Narcissism. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 64, 4, 808-818.

The ability of the parents to manage conflict is the single most robust factor for child adjustment post-divorce--“most consistent effect was found for the family conflict perspective” (Amato, 1991)



--Structural--Relational Assessment, con’t--

-Parent-Child (assessment of parent-child relationship)

»History & Quality of Relationship»Parental Commitment to Child»History of parent-child

involvement»Emery’s advocacy of the ALI rule



--Developmental--Needs of Child Assessment--

The psychosocial, academic functioning, and developmental needs of each child including wishes of each child where appropriate



--Developmental--Needs of Child Assessment, con’t--

• Medical-physical assessment of child’s development and status

• Developmental assessment of child’s psychosocial adaptation

• Academic assessment using collateral input

• Cross-informant assessment (CBCL, TRF)• Standard cognitive and achievement

measures



--Functional--Abilities of the Parent Assessment--

Assessment of the functional ability of each parent to meet these needs, including an evaluation of the interaction between each adult and child

–Emotional Stability–Parental History–Parenting Skills & Knowledge–History of Caregiving



Tools for Each Assessment Domain (Parent-Parent relationship and Parent Abilities domains) Cross-informant assessment using the

• Achenbach Adult Self Report and Adult Behavior Checklist

• Personality Adjective Checklist • Dyadic Adjustment Scale• Dwire Acklin Relationship Compatibility Scale• Self-Other Parenting Assessment Scale• Strong focus on how the parents view each other



The fartherest frontier—assessment of parenting

How to develop ecologically valid measures of parenting?

Method scepticism and paper and pencil measures of parenting

The in vivo character of real life parenting

.

Operationalizing the Best Interest of the Child Standard (BICS): Empirically-Validated Assessment

Tools for Child Custody Evaluators

Wilson, S., & Durbin, C. E. (2012, April 30). The Laboratory Parenting Assessment Battery: Development and Preliminary Validation of an Observational Parenting Rating System. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication.

Operationalizing the Best Interest of the Child Standard (BICS): Empirically-Validated Assessment

Tools for Child Custody Evaluators

• An alternative--Assessment of each parent’s appraisal of the other parent’s skills and conduct as a parent

• Can parents accurately assess each other as parents?The Self-Other Parenting Assessment

ScalesWhat exactly do we measure?



• Self-Other Parenting Assessment Scale--Knowledge and Conduct regarding Safety, Nutrition, Medical/Health, Discipline, Education, Social, Recreational, and Emotional Wellbeing

• Personal attributes: Moral, Self Control, Level of Hostility, Friendly Parent, and Co-parent Communication.

• Global Factors assessed are Global Knowledge, Global Behavior, and Global Competence.



KNOWLEDGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ACTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SAFETY ? ? ? ? ? ? ? SAFETY ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

NUTRITION ? ? ? ? ? ? ? NUTRITION ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

MEDICAL ? ? ? ? ? ? ? MEDICAL ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

DISCIPLINE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? DISCIPLINE ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

EDUCATION ? ? ? ? ? ? ? EDUCATION ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

SOCIALIZATION ? ? ? ? ? ? ? SOCIALIZATION ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

RECREATION ? ? ? ? ? ? ? RECREATION ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

EMOTION ? ? ? ? ? ? ? EMOTION ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

MORAL ? ? ? ? ? ? ? MORAL ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

SELF CONTROL ? ? ? ? ? ? ? SELF CONTROL ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

HOSTILITY ? ? ? ? ? ? ? HOSTILITY ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

FRIENDLY PARENT ? ? ? ? ? ? ? FRIENDLY PARENT ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

CO PARENT COM. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? CO PARENT COM. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

KNOWLEDGE SCORES ACTION SCORES

FACTORS BY DIMENSION



Methods for parent-child observation •Acklin & Cho-Stutler (2006). The Science and Art of Parent-Child Observations in Child Custody Evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6, 1, 51-62.•Eyberg, et al (2005). Manual for the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System, third edition). The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS) is a behavioral coding system that measures the quality of parent-child social interactions (Eyberg, Nelson, Duke, & Boggs, 2005). The DPICS was developed by Dr. Sheila Eyberg at the University of Florida.



--Tools for Assessment of Child Needs—

Cognitive, personality assessment, projective techniques (Rorschach and drawings, for KFD); Achenbach Scales (CBCL); collateral input (Achenbach TRF); review of school progress reports; behavioral observation (interview, parent-child interactions)



The Communication of Findings

Levels of Empirical Support and CE Inferences

Tippins & Wittmann--Stratification and level of inferences in custody evaluations



Level I—What the clinician observes: Basic level of observation and information reporting; fact intensive/investigative focus

Examples:– Behavioral observations – parent-child interactional factors – facts related to home location, features– descriptions of parent’s daily schedule; involvement in child

care activities– simple psychological test findings (mother’s IQ is average)

• Conclusion: Level I facts is at the lowest level of inference; no higher level abstractions of inferences. Factual observations reported without inferences



Level II—What the clinician concludes about the psychology of a parent, child or family, based on Level I findings.

Examples: • Father has a substance abuse problem• Father’s parenting style appears to be disorganized • The child appears to be securely attached to his

mother• Mother appears to be depressed and her level of

supervision and monitoring weak• Conclusion: Level II facts are based on a higher level

of inference using Level I facts without reference to best interest/custody constructs.



Level III—Level III findings are what the psychologist concludes about the implications of Level III conclusion for custody-specific variables. Inferences drawn about custody-relevant constructs.

Examples: – Mother’s attitude appears to pose some risks to the child’s

unconflicted relation to father– Father’s parenting capacity falls within normal limits– The child appears to have educational needs that require careful

parental supervision (e.g., daily completion of homework assignments)

• Conclusion: At this point the psychologist is still not making overt comments about what should happen in the family but the inferences begin to have clear connections to the ultimate issues before the court.



Level IV—the psychologist’s conclusions about the custody-related “shoulds” in the case. Directly addresses the ultimate issue. Recommendations regarding ultimate “best interest” issue.

Examples:– It is recommended that the child should live with his mother as

his primary custodian– Father should be permitted to relocate with the child to his home

town

• Conclusion: These comments represent the highest level of inference and are considered controversial for several reasons: lack of empirical foundation, incursion into domain of judicial discretion, representing value judgments on the evaluator’s part.



References• Acklin & Cho-Stutler (2006). The Science and Art of

Parent-Child Observations in Child Custody Evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6, 1, 51-62.

• Amato, P. (1991). Parental divorce and the Well-Being of Children, Psychological Bulletin, 110, 1, 26-46.

• Association for Family and Conciliation Courts (2006). Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation.

• Dwire, J., & Acklin, M.W. (manuscript in preparation). Cross-informant assessment of relationship compatibility.

• Ehrenberg, M.F., Hunter, M.A., & Elterman, M.E. (1996). Shared parenting agreements after marital separation: The roles of empathy and Narcissism. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 64, 4, 808-818.



• Emery, R.E., Otto, R. K., & W. T. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations. Psychological Science, 6, 1, 1- 29.

• Jameson, B.J., Ehrenberg, M.F., and Hunter, M.A. (1997). Psychologists’ Rating of the Best Interest of the Child Custody and Access Criterion: A Family Systems Assessment Model, Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 28, 3, 253-262.

• Senno, N., Acklin, M.W. (research in progress). Cross-informant assessment of parental capacity in child custody evaluations.



• Tippins, T.M., & Wittman, J.P. (2005) Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43(2), 193-222.

afcc 10 th symposium on child custody evaluations operationalizing the best interest of the child...

Documents

child slide

child standard bics

parentchild relationship

validated tools

validated assessment

hawaii slide

complex bics emery

type of separation slide