Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (대한소아청소년정신의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Concept and Historical Background of Custody Evaluation

  • Received : 2020.02.17
  • Accepted : 2020.02.26
  • Published : 2020.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article reviews a wide range of literature on the standards and process of child custody evaluation in the US, and proposes custody evaluation standards appropriate to Korea. Custody evaluation refers to the process of making psychiatric and psychological evaluations of each parent and the child during a custody dispute and presenting to the family court a report of custody evaluation with the aim of safeguarding the best interests of the child. In the past, it was thought that children arethe fathers' possessions or that younger children should be raised by the mother; however, currently, custody rights are evaluated in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the child. The principle is all-encompassing and vague and hence, the court makes increasingly more requests to mental health professionals for custody evaluation. Since the Seoul Family Court introduced the expert consultation system in 2017, the involvement of mental health professionals in child custody decisions has increased in Korea. Custody evaluators should try to be neutral and find the objective facts, keeping in mind that their role is to aid the court in making a custody decision.

Keywords

References

  1. Task Force for Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation, Martindale DA, Lorraine M, Austin WG, Drozd L, Gould-Saltman D, et al. Model standards of practicefor child custody evaluation. Fam Court Rev 2007;45:70-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.129_3.x
  2. American Psychological Association. Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. Am Psychol 2010;65:863-867. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021250
  3. Emery RE, Otto RK, O'Donohue WT. A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: limited science and a flawed system. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2005;6:1-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00020.x
  4. Maccoby EE, Mnookin RH. Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1992.
  5. Kraus LJ, Thomas CR, Bukstein OG, Walter HJ, Benson RS, Chrisman A, et al. Practice parameter for child and adolescent forensic evaluations. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2011;50:1299-1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2011.09.020
  6. Riggio HR. Parental marital conflict and divorce, parent-child relationships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young. Pers Relationships 2004;11:99-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00073.x
  7. Johnston JR. High-conflict divorce. Future Child 1994;4:165-182. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602483
  8. Goldstein J, Freud A, Solnit A. Beyond the best interests of the child. New York, NY: Free Press;1973.
  9. American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Child Custody Evaluation Standards. J Am Acad Matrimonial Law 2013;25:251-294.
  10. Wyer MM, Gaylord SJ, Grove ET. The legal context of child custody evaluations. In: Weithorn LA, editor. Psychology and child custody determinations: knowledge, roles, and expertise. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press;1987. p.4-22.
  11. JUSTIA US Law. Ex Parte Devine [cited 2020 Jan 31]. Available from URL: https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supremecourt/1981/398-so-2d-686-1.html.
  12. Lyman RD, Roberts MC. Mental health testimony in child custody litigation. Law Psychol Rev 1985;9:15-34.
  13. Mason MA. From father's property rights to children's rights: the history of child custody in the United States. New York, NY: Columbia University Press;1994.
  14. Hall AS, Pulver CA, Cooley MJ. Psychology of the best interest standard: fifty state statutes and their theoretical antecedents. Am J Fam Ther 1996;24:171-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926189608251029
  15. Mnookin RH. Child-custody adjudication: Judicial functions in the face of indeterminacy. Law Contemp Probl 1975;39:226-293. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191273
  16. Goldstein J, Freud A, Solnit AJ. Before the best interests of the child. New York, NY: Free Press;1979.
  17. Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, 9A Uniform Laws Annotated, Sec. 316 (1979).
  18. Feller JN, Davidson HA, Hardin M, Horowitz RM. Working with the courts in child protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;1992.
  19. Shuman DW. The role of mental health experts in custody decisions: science, psychological tests, and clinical judgment. Fam Law Q 2002;36:135-162.
  20. Wald M. State intervention on behalf of "neglected" children: a search for realistic standards. Stanford Law Review 1975:27:985-1040. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228197
  21. Garrison M. How do judges decide divorce cases?: an empirical analysis of discretionary decision making. North Carol Law Rev 1996;74:401-552.
  22. Chambers DL. Rethinking the substantive rules for custody disputes in divorce. Mich Law Rev 1984;83:477-569. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288561
  23. Scott ES. Pluralism, paternal preferences, and child custody. Calif Law Rev 1992;80:615-672. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480710
  24. Warshak RA. Punching the parenting time clock: the approximation rule, social science, and the baseball bat kids. Fam Court Rev 2007;45:600-619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00174.x
  25. Mckay J, Shaver-Hast L, Sharnoff W, Warren E, Wright H. A family approach to treatment of postpartum depression. Zero Three 2009;29:35-39.
  26. Jang CG. Child centered judgement in family court. Seoul: Joint Research Committee for Parental Education;2017.
  27. Seoul Family Court. Guidance to consultation on familial judgment, familial mediation;2017 [cited 2020 Feb 2]. Available from URL: http://yeslaw.com/lims/front/page/fulltext.html?pAct=view&pPromulgationNo=180178#nolink.
  28. Schwartz LL. A nightmare for King Solomon: the new reproductive technologies. J Fam Psychol 2003;17:229-237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.2.229
  29. Bernet W. Child custody evaluations. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2002;11:781-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1056-4993(02)00019-6