Mark L. Goldstein, Ph.D., Kenneth Kessler, Ph.D. and Rodney Equi, J.D.
Evaluators in custody cases are asked to make recommendations on a number of issues, including residential custody, visitation and joint vs. sole custody. In regards to the later, each state delineates legislative and judicial standards. In Illinois, the statute focuses on the ability of the parents to cooperate “effectively and consistently” in matters that directly affect the joint parenting of the child. The statute also comments that the Court shall not consider the inability of the parents to cooperate in matters that do not directly affect the joint parenting of the child. The statute also notes that the residential circumstance of each parent and all other factors, which may be relevant to the best interest of the child, needs to be considered. Finally, the statute states that there is no presumption in favor of or against joint custody.
Evaluators typically utilize a number of strategies in conducting evaluations, including observations, interviews of adult, children and collateral resources and psychological testing.
Although conjoint interviews would appear on the surface to be the ideal tool to assess the parent’s ability to compromise and work cooperatively, in fact it may be the least productive and most open to manipulation. If one parent is seeking sole custody, the conjoint interview is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate conflict. In some instances, family lawyers rehearse their clients. If a conflict occurs, the evaluator then finds it difficult to make a recommendation other than sole custody in some instances. Certainly there are many cases where there has been on-going conflict and/or domestic violence. However, there are also numerous cases where the conflict is relatively new and the primary result of the uncoupling.
Individual interviews with each parent are usually more effective at yielding data on similarities and/or differences between parents in values about education, religion, medical care, extracurricular activities and discipline. Follow-up interviews with each parent are often useful, particularly to address issues and concerns raised by the other parent.
Interviews with children may or may not reveal the level of conflict, history of conflict and parent differences, but are often worthwhile (with the exception of very young children or those with mental disorders or intellectual handicaps). Children typically provide their perceptions of the conflict or lack of conflict. There are numerous instances where one parent has claimed significant conflict and therefore the need for sole custody, yet the children report only recent conflict since the inception of the divorce. It is equally helpful to have the children describe their parent’s behavior and personality and then ask additional questions regarding each parent’s use of discipline, expression of anger, involvement in school, as well as religious and extracurricular activities.
Observation of each parent with the children may also provide data on parental use of discipline, attitudes and values and communication. Using a structured interactive technique such as joint story-telling to apperceptive cards or observation of a game being played (Gardner’s Talking, Feeling and Doing game is particularly useful) may reveal excellent information.
Psychological testing is an essential tool in helping determine the capacity for cooperation. However, relying on one test is dangerous. The MMPI-II, the MCMI-III and the Rorschach Inkblot Test can all be fruitful in providing information on psychological disorders, as well as dynamics and characteristics that could contribute to or interfere with cooperation. For example, a high degree of narcissism might make it difficult for one parent to consider the other parent. A high degree of compulsiveness might result in such rigidity as to understand another perspective. Specific findings from a test may be useful as well. For example, on the Rorschach, a number of COP responses might suggest a proclivity towards a collaborative perspective in relationships, while a number of AG responses might suggest negative, hostile attitudes, particularly when coupled with high S.
Finally, collateral interviews may be useful, particularly when a marital therapist is available. Data on communication, conflict, values and morals can often be gleaned. Interviews with individual therapists, and other neutral parties, such as teachers, pediatricians and neighbors at times can also be helpful at times.