Child custody and access, the views and practices of psychologists and lawyers

This study examined the views and professional practices of 52 psychologists, 26 from
\nAlberta and 26 from British Columbia, and 53 family lawyers, 21 from Alberta and 32 from British
\nColumbia, who have current or past experience in the area of child custody and access. Participants
\ncompleted a survey designed to explore issues in custody and access (CA) practice that were relevant
\nfor each professional group. The survey also asked respondents to complete the revised Best
\nInterests of the Child Questionnaire (BICQ-R) in which participants rated the extent to which 77
\nspecific Best Interests of the Child criteria should be considered in determining custody. These
\nitems were presented in three areas of assessment relevant to custody and access evaluations: (a)
\nrelational assessment, (b) needs of the child assessment, and (c) abilities of the parents assessment.
\nWith regards to practice issues, differences for psychologists between the two provinces
\ntended to appear on those questions regarding issues of training and competency rather than in
\nquestions that delved into the actual CA evaluation process. There were few differences for lawyers
\nbetween the two provinces. Forty-nine of the lawyers answered four optional questions regarding
\nethical dilemmas in their child custody and access practice. On average, these lawyers reported
\nfeeling caught 23% of the time between their professional responsibility to their client and their
\npersonal beliefs about what would be in the best interests of the children involved in the custody
\ndispute.
\nThe majority of psychologists and lawyers agreed that psychologists should continue to
\ngather information and make recommendations in their role as CA evaluators. Psychologists tended
\nto believe that lawyers' provided more litigation support to their clients than lawyers reported
\nproviding. Psychologists also believed that case conferences should be held significantly more often
\nthan lawyers would prefer. Psychologists and lawyers generally agreed on the main ways in which
\neach profession was helpful or harmful to the resolution of child custody and access disputes, and
\nthere was also some consensus regarding the stresses and rewards of practicing in this area. The
\neffects of personal child custody and access experience on professionals practicing in this area was
\nalso explored, and a personal CA experience by professional group interaction was revealed for male
\npractitioners.
\nThe data for the BICQ-R were transformed to correct for potential response biases from the
\npsychologists and the lawyers. Results indicated that the means for the three assessment areas were
\nsignificantly different: both psychologists and lawyers rated the relational assessment area the
\nhighest, followed by the needs of the child assessment area, followed by the abilities of the parents
\nassessment area. There was a significant gender difference for the needs of the child assessment
\narea mean.
\nMultivariate analyses of variance with number of years of experience as a covariate revealed
\nsignificant professional group differences for the relational and needs of the child assessment areas.
\nA significant gender difference on the abilities of the parents assessment area was also found with
\nmale practitioners rating the items as being relatively more important. Significant differences
\nbetween psychologists and lawyers on various specific BIC criteria are reviewed, and the
\nimplications of these findings in the context of current empirical research are discussed.
\nThe study concluded that, in general, psychologists and lawyers rated the relative importance
\nof various aspects of the BIC criterion in a similar manner, and that this consensus could form the
\nfoundation for developing a consistent and uniform understanding of the BIC criterion across
\nprofessional boundaries. The limitations of the current study are outlined, and future research
\ndirections are suggested.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.