Guest editors' introduction to the 2023 special issue on parenting plan evaluations

We are honored to be the special issue editors of this October 2023 Family Court Review publication, and it has been our privilege to work with the contributors to prepare this special issue. This is the 71st Special Issue of the journal, with more on the way. AFCC has been at the forefront of scholarship regarding parenting plan evaluations, formerly known as child custody evaluations, since the early 1990s. AFCC published their first Model Standards for the Practice of Child Custody Evaluation in 1994, and their first Child Custody Evaluation Symposium was held that same year. The first special issue on child custody evaluations was published in 2000, when the journal was known as Family and Conciliation Courts Review. In 2005, there was a symposium issue of Family Court Review focusing on the issue of custody evaluators and the basis for them to make recommendations. The Model Standards was revised in 2006, and in 2012, the AFCC Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessments was published. The new and current AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations in Family Law Cases was approved in 2022, and this special issue follows. Along with this, Family Court Review has published a multitude of articles over the decades related to parenting plan evaluations, focusing on a wide array of issues, including complex issues such as relocation, domestic violence, and parent–child contact problems. Family Court Review (FCR) has published articles about the use of psychological testing in parenting plan evaluations, observations with parents and children, child development, and so on. The list is exhaustive and comprehensive, and the scholarship demonstrated in the pages of FCR is world class. In the earlier years, while parenting plan evaluations were in their infancy, there was a need to guide practitioners in how to conduct evaluations and learn about the above mentioned challenging topics. Now that the field is in its adulthood, there is a need to consider where we are and how to move the field forward. In considering what content would be useful to readers in this current special issue, and what topics would help move the field forward, we approached this special issue with this 30-year history in mind, and a desire to address the critical issues of our times with an eye toward the future. Our hope is that this special issue will provide guidance that will be helpful to the field over the next 10 years. We hope you, the readers, find this approach a smart one. With AFCC's recently revised Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluation, we are changing the language in the articles to be consistent with those guidelines. Whereas in the past, evaluations were consistently referred to as “child custody evaluations”, we are now thinking of them as “parenting plan evaluations” and are using this label in referring to them. We do this for two reasons. First, we want to be consistent with the nomenclature in the new AFCC Guidelines. Second, and perhaps more importantly, many jurisdictions have shifted away from thinking in terms of custody and the “ownership” this term implies toward thinking of parenting plans for children, and the parental responsibilities that this implies. Whether your jurisdiction calls these evaluations Parenting Plan Evaluations, Child Custody Evaluations, or some other term, we are speaking to the same process in this special issue. The articles in this special issue focus on numerous important challenges in the field. McNamara and Lund write about the current landscape of parenting plan evaluations, including the dwindling pool of qualified evaluators and shortfall of newcomers to the field. Along with three other experienced parenting plan evaluators from different regions of the U.S., they discuss the rewards and challenges of being a parenting plan evaluator, and their outlook on the future. They propose a number of systemic changes to attract and support a new contingent of qualified evaluators to meet demand. Along the same lines, Robb focuses on the demand for affordable evaluations, the benefits and considerations of lower-cost evaluations, and how to maintain high quality evaluation services while keeping costs down. He argues that cost-effective models of parenting plan evaluations exist, and all families should be able to access a good, affordable evaluation. Robb proposes that evaluators can comply with the AFCC Parenting Plan Guidelines while providing cost-effective evaluations. He points to government subsidized and family court services evaluations and useful strategies being used in Canada, Texas, and Israel as successful examples, while also pointing out models being used elsewhere which pose serious ethical concerns with respect to methods and quality of assessment. Another challenge in parenting plan evaluations is the aging and potentially burnt-out work force, working hard and under intense scrutiny. In their article, Kaufman, Deutsch, and Harris-Britt offer helpful suggestions for the recruitment, training, and mentoring of new evaluators. They point out that new professionals cannot be expected to be attracted to a field that is not hospitable. Professionalism, respect, collegiality, and balance in judging the work of evaluators should be the norm. The work is complex and demanding; this is especially challenging in an atmosphere of litigation and challenge. We believe that critiques need to be about the work product and not the evaluator, and need to reflect both the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation. Recognizing that many jurisdictions have few guidelines regarding the appointment of evaluators, Martindale and Shear identify the key ingredients necessary in an appointment order, and the important protocols to set up a successful evaluation. They advise that a wise and comprehensive appointment order facilitates and sets the stage for a higher quality evaluation and helps assure that all involved (attorneys, the parties, and the evaluator) know what their lane of traffic is and how to remain in that lane. They provide useful guidance in the development of appointment orders. While acknowledging the complexities of the rights of parents, Garber's article advocates for early interventions and keeping the focus on the best interests of the child that might drive litigation. Despite the provocative title, Garber identifies the challenges inherent in problem-solving the myriad issues in families while keeping the focus on formulating parenting plan recommendations serving the children's needs. Recognizing the challenge between evaluating individuals within a system or a system under intense pressure, he wonders if it is even valid to draw generalizations about families seen in the worst of times. In his very insightful way, Garber outlines several key considerations to clarify future directions and promote the well-being of children, suggests novel ways to share costs in future evaluations, and addresses building outcome research into the process. One of the biggest challenges in parenting plan evaluations is meeting the important goal of gathering sufficient family data while ensuring reliability of the process. A myriad of biases exists which may influence the process, inferences, and conclusions of parenting evaluators. Davis and Stahl identify such biases, including many related to the way the brain works (cognitive biases) and biases based on differences between people (such as gender, ethnicity, personal histories, implicit biases, etc.). Relying on the research in debiasing strategies that identifies that just being mindful of the risks of bias is not enough, Davis and Stahl guide the reader into actively taking steps to minimize the risks of being influenced by biases. These steps include developing and considering multiple hypotheses throughout the data gathering and analysis of data; seeking depth and breadth of family information; and staying curious among others. Revisiting another conundrum, Braunstein and Wittman have a unique approach to the question of evaluators making recommendations in their parenting plan evaluations. In their article, they revisit the 2005 Tippins and Wittmann article on levels of inferences in parenting plan evaluations, and the argument that parenting plan evaluators should not opine on the ultimate issues. In a lively conversational format, they discuss whether the advice of Tippins and Wittmann has been heeded over the past 18 years, and they debate whether evaluators should make recommendations and the implications of doing so and not doing so. Wittman argues that psychological research is not complete enough to allow for reliable recommendations, especially considering the effect on people's rights and the nebulous concept of best interests. Along the way they discuss numerous facets of the issue, such as the limits of what current research can tell us, and the distinction between a valid expert opinion and a subjective, socio-moral opinion. An issue that has rarely been discussed in the past is if, how, and when evaluators can assist in settlement after the completion of an evaluation. Evaluators want to be helpful to families and helpful to the court. Traditionally, evaluators have been trained that their role is not a settlement role or a role that actively attempts to “help” the family in a direct manner. Simon and Shienvold take this issue head on focusing on hybrid processes in parenting plan evaluations. Explaining the critical step of outlining the potential hybrid role before starting the evaluation and giving full disclosure/informed consent, they explain how evaluators can manage the hybrid process ethically. They also address the often-advanced ethical concern related to whether a parenting plan evaluator also participating in dispute resolution constitutes an impermissible multiple relationship/role. They argue that in so doing, they may be able to assist families in resolving their disputes, re-empowering the family, and helping the family to adopt an attitude that they can solve their own problems on their own terms. Moreover, the authors argue that the hybrid process is assistive to the Court because it has the potential to assist the parties in resolving their dispute(s), thereby helping to clear the Court's jammed calendar and placing the responsibility for the well-being of the children where it belongs–in the hands of the parents. In another area rarely tackled in Family Court Review, Fernandez and O'Donnell inform readers of the many challenges of parenting capacity assessments in child protection courts. Fernandez and O'Donnell point out that many of the risk and protective factors which need to be assessed are not clearly defined in the literature. Factors such as denial and minimization of risk factors, a parent's ability to protect children from future maltreatment, a parent's potential for change, and best interest considerations are hard to assess. Fernandez and O'Donnell provide tips for managing these areas while highlighting directions for the future. Leaving the final word to judicial officers, Justices Altobelli and Smith from Australia identify what judges are looking for from evaluations. Acknowledging that parenting plan evaluators do not need to know the legal complexity of admissibility and the law, they advise that evaluators should be equipped to understand criteria the court uses to test their expert opinions for admissibility and reliability. A key piece of their focus is on accountability and persuasiveness. Persuasiveness is about substance and form of the written and oral presentation of evidence. They also identify accountability and appropriately managing bias as key features to consider when determining if a given parenting plan evaluation is going to be useful to the court. If we had unlimited pages, we could have had unlimited articles. The work we do is highly complex and the longer one does the work, the more one is able to identify issues and areas in the work that can be considered, studied, and pondered. The truth is that we do the work we do without a great deal of knowledge about family outcomes or research from the parenting plan evaluations we have. There is a critical need for such research despite the pragmatic and methodological complexities of such research. There is a need for the field to increase education on what constitutes good evaluations and when evaluations are problematic. We understand that among the necessary traits for a parenting plan evaluator is that of a problem-solver. We must remember that while we are evaluating the family, we are guests in their lives. As a field, we need to recognize and embrace that it is a privilege and an honor to do this work. We are not “large and in charge” in our roles. We are highly responsible, and we serve the family. We encourage all evaluators to have humility instead of hubris, to manage the complex evaluation tasks carefully, and to stay in our lane, only doing what the family and the court order authorizes. We hope that the articles in this special issue will help evaluators to understand these issues more deeply and support all family law professionals in understanding the most important issues in parenting plan evaluations. Although the creation of a special issue is an arduous task, we believe that you will enjoy and be informed by these contributions. Parenting plan evaluations in family court and parenting capacity assessments in child protection courts are critical issues in the family justice world. We have enjoyed curating these articles, working with these professional authors, and we are grateful for the opportunity to bring this special issue to Family Court Review. We found editing this special issue to be a joy, a truly collaborative effort and one in which we, the editors and the authors, were cooperative, enthusiastic, and extremely collegial even when there were matters about which we disagreed. We hope you enjoy reading them as much as we enjoyed curating them. Reflecting on the process and the rewarding journey of putting this special issue together, we are reminded how this reflects the culture of AFCC, the collegial, collaborative, and deeply warm manner in which AFCC functions and in which its members interact. Hats off to AFCC! Dr. Philip M. Stahl is a Board-certified forensic psychologist in private practice, who provides consultation and expert witness testimony in child custody litigation throughout the United States, North America, and Australia. He conducts workshops throughout the United States and internationally for lawyers, parenting evaluators, and others working with high-conflict families of divorce. He is a former member of the Board of Directors of AFCC and is on the faculty of the National Judicial College. Along with his teaching, Dr. Stahl has written extensively on high-conflict divorce and custody evaluations for over 30 years. He is the co-author of the book “Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation and Expert Testimony”. Dr. Stahl can be reached at: [email protected], www.parentingafterdivorce.com Robert A. Simon, Ph.D. is a leader in forensic psychology consulting in the field of family law. Based in San Diego, CA, and Maui, HI, Dr. Simon is retained by attorneys throughout the country as well as internationally to consult on custody cases and provide expert witness testimony. He is a former member of the Board of Directors of AFCC and an active member of AFCC. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the International Commission on Couple and Family Relations, and an immediate past member of the Board of Directors of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. He is the co-author of the book “Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation and Expert Testimony”. Dr. Simon has also published numerous articles in scholarly journals and is a frequent lecturer and presenter at professional conferences. Dr. Simon can be reached at: [email protected], https://www.dr-simon.com Kathleen McNamara is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Fort Collins, Colorado. She has specialized in counseling and forensic psychological services for court-involved families since 1997. She has conducted hundreds of parenting plan evaluations. Prior to full-time private practice, she was a tenured Associate Professor of Psychology at Colorado State University. She was the reporter for the 2022 AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Plan Evaluations in Family Law Cases. Dr. McNamara can be at: [email protected], www.KathleenMcNamaraPhD.com

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.