California Published online: 09 Jun 2014.

This article was downloaded by: [Mr Neil Ribner] On: 10 June 2014, At: 20:58 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Child Custody Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcc20 Custody Evaluations: Ethics in Training Evaluators Neil Ribner a & Stephanie Pennington a a California School of Professional Psychology San Diego, San Diego, California Published online: 09 Jun 2014. To cite this article: Neil Ribner & Stephanie Pennington (2014) Custody Evaluations: Ethics in Training Evaluators, Journal of Child Custody, 11:2, 101-106, DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2014.920246 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2014.920246 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Child Custody, 11:101 106, 2014 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1537-9418 print=1537-940x online DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2014.920246 Custody Evaluations: Ethics in Training Evaluators NEIL RIBNER and STEPHANIE PENNINGTON California School of Professional Psychology San Diego, San Diego, California Little has been written addressing ethical considerations in the training of custody evaluators and mediators. This article summarizes the ethical principles involved in training new evaluators and in providing ongoing training to experienced evaluators. Model programs for both types of training are presented. KEYWORDS custody evaluators, mediators, ethics, training Evaluating families in child custody hearings is an emerging specialty in the field of psychology. One issue that has only briefly been addressed in the literature is that of achieving minimal competency. Although a number of publications have addressed the actual competencies needed by evaluators, how the professional is trained to become competent is only briefly acknowledged. No research on the ethical training of custody evaluators can be found at the time of publication, which demonstrates the need to address such issues. Although many newer psychologists are avoiding court-related custody work, the fact remains that younger professionals need to be well trained in order to perform custody evaluations and participate in mediations in the future. Most jurisdictions keep lists of court-approved mental health professionals, and in San Diego, for example, the average age of those on the list is in the mid- to upper-50 s, making the need for preparing the current generation of evaluators and mediators very apparent. How to train them to do a highly competent job becomes an intriguing question. In 2006, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), a resource dedicated to the resolution of family conflict (AFCC, 2014), developed the Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation. The American Psychological Association (APA) developed similar guidelines Address correspondence to Neil Ribner, Ph.D., CSPP San Diego, 10455 Pomerado Road, San Diego, CA 92131. E-mail: nribner@alliant.edu 101

102 N. Ribner and S. Pennington in 2010: Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings (APA, 2010). Both sets of guidelines recommend the attainment of specialized knowledge, training, or competence. In fact, the AFCC model standards advocate in their first criterion that a child custody evaluator shall have specialized knowledge and training related to child custody work and shall keep abreast of the ever evolving research in the field (AFCC, 2006, p. 8). Specifically, the AFCC suggests that evaluators must have a minimum of a Master s degree in a mental health field that includes formal education and training in the legal, social, familial and cultural issues involved in custody and access decision (AFCC, 2006, p. 8). Similarly, the APA guidelines recommend that psychologists strive to gain and maintain specialized competence that includes a level of expertise that reflects contextual insight and forensic integration as well as testing and interview skills (APA, 2010, p. 864). Both sets of guidelines require expertise but do not specify a method of obtaining and maintaining proficiency. This article not only attempts to address what constitutes minimal competency in custody evaluation but how to maintain ethical standards during training. The research that is available suggests that although specialized training has been a concern in the field of custody evaluation work for some time, the issue remains unresolved. Weinstock and Markan (2008) suggest that specialized training must be defined, and they suggest the development of an advanced training protocol. Other researchers have attempted to identify the type of training that current custody evaluators have received to be declared competent by the courts. Most researchers who have sampled current custody evaluators have found that the majority have received their training by attending seminars and workshops. For example, Ackerman and Pritzl (2011) found that 95% of their sample had received their training in this manner, while Bow and Quinnell (2001) found that 86% of their sample had received training in this manner. Gourley and Stolberg (2000) found that almost 79% of their sample had received their training by reading books and journal articles on the topic. Far fewer custody evaluators had received any formal training through supervision, graduate classes, or through an internship according to these investigators. The most recent investigation found that only about 13% of their sample had received training through an internship or graduate coursework (Ackerman & Pritzl, 2011). It is clear that formal training in custody evaluation is lacking. In California, psychologists who want to do evaluations must meet course requirements as well as complete four evaluations under the supervision of a court-connected child custody evaluator (Appointment Requirements, 2013). The latter presents a problem for licensed professionals who have to find a supervisor who both has expertise in such evaluations and is also willing to supervise. Psychologists, then, who are themselves not trained in performing custody evaluations would be behaving unethically in supervising others who need the experience.

Ethics in Training Evaluators 103 Furthermore, evaluators and mediators must complete courses in interpartner violence as well as custody work, and they must be honest in testifying that they have covered 21 areas of child custody work in their courses as defined in the California Rules of Court (Appointment Requirements, 2013). They must also attend a 4-hour domestic violence update and an 8-hour custody workshop each year in order to conduct family court-related work. TRAINING INTERNS Doctoral students at the California School of Professional Psychology in San Diego may participate in an internship wherein they perform evaluations for the San Diego family court. These evaluations are welcomed by the court and attorneys since custody litigants pay for services on a sliding scale, making the evaluation affordable for those in need. Needless to say, the competence of interns doing such delicate work could be questioned; the following are several of the precautions considered: 1. All referrals are received through the supervisor, who is court-approved. The competence of the supervisor is supported by the fact that he or she has met all of the criteria specified in the California Rules of Court. 2. It is clearly explained both verbally and in the Informed Consent that much of the evaluation is done by doctoral interns under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. As a matter of fact, judges in family court make referrals specifically knowing the intern will do much of the work, and the evaluation does not begin without an order from the court. 3. Interns are carefully selected, and they must have attended training on domestic violence and a 45-hour course on Family Law offered by the school. They must also show excellent assessment, writing, and interpersonal skills, and they are bound by the same ethical standards as are licensed professionals. 4. Trainings follow an apprentice model, with the interns sitting in on evaluations performed by the supervisor; this necessitates that the supervisor receive authorization from the litigant to allow the intern to observe. The Informed Consent from the supervisor includes this provision, which is additionally discussed with the client prior to the intern attending the sessions. 5. Confidentiality is maintained by indicating in the Informed Consent that cases handled by interns will be discussed with supervisors and other interns at the school; as much as possible, identifying information is removed or disguised. 6. Supervision follows state requirements, and the supervisor is available by cell phone at all times. In California, this means that, at a minimum, 10% of the intern s time is spent in supervision.

104 N. Ribner and S. Pennington 7. Test Scoring and Reports are reviewed by the supervisor, who co-signs all reports. In addition, the supervisor becomes familiar with the case through reading case-related documents and observing semi-structured parent-child play sessions. 8. Dual roles or conflicts of interest are not allowed. For example, a litigant may not have been or become a therapy client of the intern, and a therapy client may not become a person evaluated for custody. 9. Interns are trained in the use of testing instruments that are designed for use in custody evaluations and in the use and limitations of making hypotheses based on traditional psychological tests. As per AFCC and APA guidelines, interns are trained in the use of multiple methods of gathering information, as well as in the integration of data gathered from all sources. 10. Interns are trained in record-keeping and release of information to the court, attorneys, and=or litigants. 11. Interns are trained and monitored in maintaining professional boundaries with litigants and court personnel. For example, for doctoral students and new professionals, there is a tendency to act like a therapist with litigants; however, they must learn to minimize therapeutic comments and focus on gaining information objectively. 12. Similarly, interns must learn to identify and bracket off emotions about the litigants so as to make recommendations based on the evidence only. ANNUAL TRAININGS As stated earlier, the California Rules of Court mandate an initial 40-hour training, an initial 12-hour training in domestic violence, and annual update trainings of eight and four hours, respectively. These are likely to be the only trainings that professionals in this line of work will attend each year; thus, the content and process of the trainings must be accurate and up-to-date. It would be unethical for the trainers to lack competence or to give information that goes beyond their competence. It would also be unethical for trainers to present information about specific cases that could be identified by members of the audience. As large a city as is San Diego, the community of evaluators and mediators is fairly small. It would not be unusual, for example, for various members of the audience to be evaluators, therapists, mediators, or expert witnesses on the same case! Maintaining ethical standards becomes an important consideration in these trainings. Here are some of the guidelines we use in organizing trainings: 1. Competence of Trainers. The presenters at these trainings must have credentials and experience, and they must be up-to-date in their area of

Ethics in Training Evaluators 105 expertise. For example, if a psychologist is brought in to train audience members in using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, & Tellegen, 1989) in evaluations, he or she must not only know the traditional MMPI-2, but must be familiar with how the instrument has been used to identify parenting capacities as well as recent court decisions concerning the use of the MMPI-2 in custody cases. 2. Workshop organizers and trainers must know the limits of their expertise. Psychologists, even forensic psychologists, have their own perspective on the law and on legal decisions, but they are not family law attorneys or judges! It would be unethical for such professionals to render legal opinions in trainings or in response to audience questions. Trainings need to include family attorneys, judges, mediators, and other court personnel who can provide accurate information and updated facts about legal cases which affect the way evaluators and private mediators do their job. 3. The confidentiality of the material being presented must be protected. Trainers and audience members are repeatedly told to disguise case details as much as possible, to give only enough information to make their point, and to talk about the implications of the case for evaluators and mediators, not for litigants. For instance, it may be important for audience members to hear about the cross-examination process of a specific case, what procedures of the evaluation were questioned, or how the evaluator handled subpoenas. The trainer should not inform the audience whether one of the parents had an affair or what one parent said about the other parent. Similarly, all conference attendees are asked to keep the case material confidential. This should be stated at the beginning of each training session to remind the attendees of the importance of confidentiality. 4. Issues of Risk Management often become a central part of training evaluators and mediators. This might include sharing of experience ( I was sued for... ), tips for avoiding lawsuits ( I added...to my informed consent ), or discussions of gray areas ( What would the rest of you do if... ). Needless to say, ethical principles are guidelines, unlike the law which is relatively clear about what one can and cannot do. Discussing past, present, and even future cases gives audience members a feel for community standards, important in a legal defense. 5. Psychologists from the community make themselves available as consultants to audience members during and after the annual training. As our ethical guidelines specify knowing one s own limitations, having peers serve as consultants normalizes this process, and it allows for work to be done that meets ethical and professional standards. Overall, the ethical work that must be done by evaluators and mediators starts with ethical training and role modeling. Preparing the next generation of evaluators through coursework, apprenticeship, role modeling, and close

106 N. Ribner and S. Pennington supervision has been a necessary and highly functional professional task, and it is hoped that other schools and jurisdictions establish such programs. Training current evaluators from community standards, risk management, and professional and up-to-date perspectives has allowed evaluators and mediators in San Diego to maintain an ethical practice. Again, we are hopeful that other jurisdictions and other states organize trainings based on these ethical standards. REFERENCES Ackerman, M. J., & Pritzl, T. B. (2011). Child custody evaluation practices: A 20-year follow-up. Family Court Review, 49(3), 618 628. doi:10.1111=j.1744-1617.2011. 01397.x American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. American Psychologist, 65(9), 863 867. doi:10.1037=a0021250 Appointment Requirements for Child Custody Evaluators, California Rules of Court, Rule 5.225. (2013). Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). (2014). About AFCC. Retrieved from http://www.afccnet.org/ Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), Task Force for Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation. (2006). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.afccnet. org/portals/0/modelstdschildcustodyevalsept2006.pdf Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2001). Psychologists current practices and procedures in child custody evaluations: Five years after American Psychological Association guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(3), 261 268. doi:10.1037==0735-7028.32.3-26i Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., & Tellegen, A. (1989). Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory 2 [Measurement instrument]. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson. Gourley, E. V., & Stolberg, A. L. (2000). An empirical investigation of psychologists custody evaluation procedures. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 33(1=2), 1 29. doi:10.1300=j087v33n01_01 Weinstock, D. K., & Markan, L. K. (2008). Training custody evaluators: Formalizing training to assert minimal competence. Journal of Child Custody, 3(2), 1 21. doi:10.1300=j190v03n02_01