Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Proposed APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations

By Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin
November 27, 2007

The American Psychological Association (APA) has now proposed new guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations to replace those promulgated in 1994, which set 'aspirational goals' for those psychologists engaging in evaluations of children for divorcing families going through custodial litigation. APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings (1994). Although the original guidelines called themselves 'aspirational goals,' many states required their use through case law or ethical standards for psychologists. See, e.g., Pennsylvania and Florida. Since 1994, when the guidelines were adopted, they have been used effectively to cross-examine these experts and their reports. The proposed guidelines would substantially weaken their obligations and protect them from the effective cross-examinations that have challenged their work product.

Background

The original guidelines, currently in place, required, for example, that the psychologist examine information for the best psychological interest of the child, a logical charge for those trained in psychology. No one who practices in this area of the law would dispute that there are many factors to be considered in the placement of a child, the psychological interest being only one of many. Moreover, no one can dispute that after gathering the evidence presented in court, the psychological evidence being only one piece of the case, it is up to the finder of fact to weigh the evidence and make the final decision. Since 1994, those of us who have been familiar with these guidelines and used them to challenge the recommendations of the testifying expert have found that psychologists have bristled at the idea that their charge restricted them only to psychological interests rather than being able to make a final decision. As such, the new proposed guidelines delete the word 'psychological' before the words 'best interests,' thereby broadening their scope of inquiry and further reducing the role of the judge.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?