Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention Advance Access originally published online on January 3, 2008
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 2008 8(1):111-129; doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhm023
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence Base of Custody and Access Evaluations
From the Research Institute for Evidence-Based Social Work, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto
Contact author: Michael A. Saini, Research Associate, Research Institute for Evidence-Based Social Work, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada. E-mail: michael.saini{at}utoronto.ca.
Custody and access evaluations are routinely conducted by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals. The primary goal of the evaluation is to assist judges, lawyers, and families by providing expert opinions regarding the level of interparental conflict, parent functioning, child–parent relationships, and the children's developmental, social, emotional, and educational needs post separation and divorce. Custody and access evaluations are given considerable weight by the courts with the expectation that custody evaluators will report within the best available scientific evidence and they will use objective, reliable, and valid procedures within the evaluation process. Although there is a growing body of scientific literature that explores children's and parents' adjustment after separation and divorce, there remains less evidence regarding the efficacy of custody evaluations as a tool to assist the courts and families in this adjustment process. Best practice guidelines, surveys, and analytical discussions about what constitutes best practice remains the focal point of these discussions. This evidence-based review systematically draws on studies of custody evaluations to determine the current state of scientific knowledge. Multiple databases of peer-reviewed and unpublished literature were searched to critically review the existing evidence. Data from cross-sectional designs, content analysis methods, and outcome-based studies represent aggregate data of over 1,945 mental health professionals, 417 lawyers and judges, and 568 children and families involved in custody evaluations. Outcome-based studies reflect the dual focus of evaluations to provide the courts with the best evidence and to provide families with opportunities to step out of the litigation process. Data synthesis within the evidence-based approach provides the opportunity to evaluate the current empirical evidence, identify gaps, and highlight areas for further review and for future research work. Framing custody and access evaluations within the evidence-based movement has implications for the judicial system, custody evaluators, researchers, families, and children.
KEY WORDS: child custody, evaluation, divorce, family conflict, evidence-based practice