Hot off the press: New child custody text

The Art and Science of Child Custody Evaluations

by Jonathan W. Gould and David A. Martindale

Back in the dark ages, a psychologist hired by one parent or the other in a child custody case could waltz into court and give a subjective clinical opinion about which parent was more fit and what would be in the children's best interests. Thankfully, that is no longer the case. Such a psychologist might be legally barred due to inadequate training or experience, or might face legal action by the other parent. Back in 1998 (with a revised edition published last year), Jonathan Gould wrote a really helpful manual called Conducting Scientifically Crafted Child Custody Evaluations. The guide was aimed at helping custody evaluators avoid the many pitfalls and landmines in this litigious subfield of forensic psychology. Now, he has teamed up with fellow expert David A. Martindale to bring us even more of the latest information and advice in this rapidly evolving area.

The authors focus both on the law and on the clinical practicalities. Clear and well-written chapters explore ethics and bias, child interviewing, child development research, assessing parents, child sexual abuse allegations, domestic violence, and child alienation. The authors carefully explain the primary legal standard in child custody work, "The Best Interests of the Child" standard. Of special use to the practitioner, the appendix contains sample letters and statements of understanding, all with permission to freely photocopy.

The overall messages here are ones worth repeating: Know the law, know the science, remain unbiased, and be humble. This updated reference book will be useful not only to child custody evaluators but also to attorneys and to students of forensic psychology.

Circumcision: Sexual abuse or religious freedom?

Circumcision is a hot topic this week. It's made its way in front of its highest court ever, in oral arguments before the Oregon Supreme Court.

In one corner, a father who recently converted to Judaism and wants to circumcise his 12-year-old son, over whom he has custody.

In the other corner, a mother who contends the religious rite is dangerous and amounts to sexual abuse.

It's not clear what the boy wants. According to an affidavit by the mother, the boy told her he did not want to be circumcised but was afraid of contradicting the father. (How many 12-year-old boys relish the prospect of a knife to the genitals?) But anyway, the father maintained in response to a question from one of the high court justices, the child's wishes are not legally relevant.

Do custodial parents have the right to impose genital mutilation or a nose job "on children whose faces are just fine," another justice asked the father. Yes, the father responded during this week's oral arguments; parents may do anything to their children that is not illegal, except perhaps tattoo "a swastika on the forehead."

The original trial court had ruled in favor of the husband, and an appellate court upheld that ruling.

Anti-circumcision groups and Jewish groups are weighing in with opposing amicus briefs in the case, which has a colorful history. According to court papers in a 1998 dispute over a restraining order, the wife - a Russian bride - was whipped by her husband while playing the role of "slave girl" to her "god" and "master."

With this week's hearing before a state high court, the ex-slave girl has certainly found her voice. Although if I had to bet, I'd wager that her ex-master will win this battle; courts do not like to interfere with custodial parents.

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, the New York Sun, and the Concurring Opinions blog have interesting coverage and commentary.

Thanks to subscriber Kirk Witherspoon for sending me the cool bear photo.