The Progressive Lawyer: Mandatory Audio-Recording of Forensic Interviews in Child Custody Cases

When questioned about their reluctance or refusal to conduct audio-taped custody and parenting time assessments, the experts' responses have been fairly typical, albeit falling far short of containing any sort of scientific validity. Objections based on the argument that the taping would have some sort of “chilling effect,” or that the interviewees would likely “perform for the tape” are frequently raised, often with the resistant expert adding that many of his or her “colleagues feel the same way.” This sort of facile, non-scientific “argument” should be summarily rejected in all of our jurisdictions.

Opponents to such objections have often speculated that the real motivation behind certain experts' resistance to audio-taping is their underlying desire to eliminate additional sources of impeachment evidence at trial. Without taping, we are forced to rely primarily upon the expert's notes and memories, both of which are typically flawed to various extents. Most psychologists, for that matter, do not even start writing until after the session is over. Attorneys are expected to trust in their methodology, how they carry it out in practice, and the accuracy of their data-gathering and reporting ' all this without the benefit of an objective quality-assurance mechanism. This is far too much to reasonably expect.