APA GUIDELINES for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law

APA | Guidelines for the Optimal Use of Social Media in Professional Psychological Practice I

APA GUIDELINES

for Child Custody Evaluations

in Family Law Proceedings

WORKING GROUP TO REVISE THE GUIDELINES ON THE EVALUATION OF CHILD CUSTODY IN FAMILY

LAW PROCEEDINGS

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

ADOPTED AS ASSOCIATION POLICY IN FEBRUARY 2022

IIAMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

The Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings were revised by a Working Group established by the APA Committee on

Professional Practice and Standards (COPPS), that included current and former members of COPPS, subject matter experts (SMEs), and guidelines

development experts. They are Helen T. Brantley (Chair), Eric Y. Drogin, I. Bruce Frumkin, Giselle Aguilar Hass, Jemour A Maddux, and, Lisa D.

Piechowski. The developers gratefully acknowledge the leadership of and consultation with the Board of Professional Affairs (BPA) and COPPS, strong

input from APA boards and committees, and stakeholder groups internal and external to the Association, and members of the public. The developers

especially appreciate the substantive expertise and support from APA Practice Directorate staff, including Mary G Hardiman and Bethel Yeshiwas, and

other staff members across APA as this document moved through the review process in accordance with Association Rule 30-8.

acknowledgment is given to the American Psychological Association. This material may not be reprinted, translated, or distributed electronically without

prior permission in writing from the publisher. For permission, contact APA, Rights and Permissions, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

Suggested Citation

American Psychological Association (2022). Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/

practice/guidelines/child-custody-evaluations.pdf

APA GUIDELINES

for Child Custody Evaluations

in Family Law Proceedings

WORKING GROUP TO REVISE THE GUIDELINES ON THE EVALUATION OF CHILD CUSTODY IN

FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AND STANDARDS OF THE AMERICAN

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

ADOPTED AS ASSOCIATION POLICY IN FEBRUARY 2022

P oring roup on he aluaion o

Child Cusod in amil a Proceedings

-CC

Helen T. Brantley, PhD (Chair)

Eric Y. Drogin, JD, PhD, ABPP

I. Bruce Frumkin, PhD, ABPP

Giselle Aguilar Hass, PhD, ABAP

Jemour A Maddux, PhD, ABPP

Lisa D. Piechowski, PhD, ABPP

P Sa

Mary G. Hardiman, MS

Director of Practice Governance and Policy

Practice Transformation and Quality

APA Practice Directorate

Bethel Yeshiwas

Program Coordinator

Practice Transformation and Quality

APA Practice DirectorateName

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS1

Introduction

Purpose

The overarching purpose of these Guidelines is to promote evidence-based and

ethically informed practice concerning what are commonly termed child custody

evaluations, involving disputes over decision making, parenting time, and access

in the wake of relationship dissolution. These Guidelines endeavor to keep pace

with research and legal developments in an expanding range of evaluation ques-

tions. Some factors to consider in these determinations include relocation, inter-

ference with parenting time, undermining the quality of the child’s relationship

with a parent, allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and the child’s

own perspective. Psychologists strive to identify the presence and potential con-

sequences — using scientific evidence and ethical practices — of such phenom-

ena as child abuse, child neglect, intimate partner violence, and various pathogenic

parenting practices (including loyalty binding, enmeshment, role reversal, and

alienating behaviors). They also seek to recognize and to appropriately interpret

the effect of high-conflict divorces on both children and families. As assessment

techniques and the professional literature evolve, so do court decisions and leg-

islative mandates. In keeping with previous iterations (APA, 1994, 2010), these

Guidelines continue to acknowledge a clear distinction between the forensic

custody evaluations described in this document and the advice and support psy-

chologists provide to families, children, and adults in the normal course of psy-

chological treatment (e.g., psychotherapy and counseling).

Terminology

Relevant terminology may be defined and operationalized by state law, regula-

tions, and the courts, including tribal courts of separate jurisdiction(s). Some

states have begun to favor use of such terms as parenting plan or parental rights

and responsibilities instead of custody, in part to shift parties from a focus on “liti-

gating custody” (DiFonzo, 2014, p. 213) and “winning custody” (Langan, 2016, p.

437). These terms are neither fully synonymous nor mutually exclusive; a parent-

ing plan can be a central component of a custody arrangement that delineates

parental rights and responsibilities. The majority of legal authorities and scientiﬁc

2AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

treatises still refer to custody when addressing the resolu-

tion of the right to make decisions about custodial place-

ment and parenting time disputes regarding children. To

avoid confusion — and to ensure that these Guidelines are

accessed and utilized as widely as possible by evaluators,

judges, lawyers, guardians, parenting coordinators, treat-

ment providers, litigants, and members of the general public

— the current Guidelines apply the term custody generally

to these ideas, unless otherwise speciﬁed.

Child custody proceedings may involve parents who

were never married, grandparents, stepparents, guardians,

and other adult caregivers. These Guidelines apply the term

parents generically when referring to persons who seek legal

recognition as sole or shared custodian(s). Many states

recognize some form of joint or shared custody that afﬁrms

the decision-making and caregiving status of more than one

adult, so the previous paradigm of a sole custodian and a

visiting parent is no longer assumed. As noted above, the

legal system also recognizes that disputes in question are

not exclusively marital, and therefore may not involve

divorce. Some parents may never have been married, may

never have lived together, or may never have sustained any

long-term relationship with one another. Disagreements

regarding children may also occur after years of cooperative

parenting, potentially with changes in circumstances of the

children or of the parents.

Addressing parent–child contact problems can be a

controversial concept in child custody proceedings (Fidler &

Bala, 2020; Nielson, 2018). These problems may be

subsumed under such terms as resist–refusal dynamics,

alienating behaviors, domestic violence and/or child abuse,

restrictive gatekeeping, and parental alienation, among

others. While there is a large body of research and literature

on this topic, there are also many nonscientific-based texts.

The concept is a complex and multifactorial one (Johnston,

2003; Johnston & Sullivan, 2020; Judge & Deutsch, 2017)

and has occasionally been misinterpreted (See Guideline 5),

polarizing psychologists and other professionals, including

lawyers, judges, social workers, and parents. Psychological

science may help clarify these issues for other professionals

who work in this area of alienating behaviors. In the Guide-

lines, the terms alienating behaviors or parent–child contact

problems are used to denote these issues. Further informa-

tion may be obtained from the following sources, including

but not limited to: Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychol-

ogy (APA, 2013c); Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations

in Child Protection Matters (APA, 2013b), and Guidelines

for the Practice of Parenting Coordination (APA, 2012).

Many child custody evaluation court orders contain

specific referral questions, whereas others may designate

the scope or focus of the evaluation. Different jurisdictions

may prefer one set of terms over another, and psychologists

need to be aware of their local court preferences. For the

purposes of these Guidelines, the term referral question will

also include scope or focus as designated in the court order.

“Best Interests of the Child”

Parents may have numerous resources available to help

them resolve their conflict, including psychotherapy, coun-

seling, consultation, mediation, parenting coordination, and

other forms of conflict resolution. However, if parties are

unable to reach an agreement, courts must intervene to

allocate decision-making, physical residence of the children,

and parenting time, applying a best interests of the child legal

standard in determining this restructuring of rights and

responsibilities. Best interests of the child is defined in many

state statutes. The legal standard generally reflects criteria

“related to the child’s circumstances and the parent or care-

giver’s circumstances and capacity to parent, with the

child’s ultimate safety and well-being the paramount con-

cern” (Child Welfare Information Gateway, Department of

Health and Human Services, 2020, p. 2). A custody evalua-

tion typically involves relevant facets of the child’s needs as

well as the parenting qualities and capacities of each of the

adult parties.

Most child custody disputes, however, are settled

without the need for a court-ordered evaluation (Lund,

2015). In some situations, a “collaborative law” approach is

taken that explicitly favors consensus-based dispute resolu-

tion over traditionally adversarial strategies and tactics

(Schepard & Hoffman, 2010), often involving participation

by psychologists. Where disputes have not been resolved,

psychologists render a valuable service, as they provide

competent, impartial, and adequately supported opinions

with direct relevance to the best interests of the child (Symons,

2010).

Scope

These Guidelines provide general recommendations for

psychologists whom seek to increase awareness, knowl-

edge, and skills when performing their child custody evalu-

ations. Psychologists are sometimes asked to perform a

“brief focused evaluation” (Cavallero & Hanks 2012; Deutsch,

2008, p. 45) that targets well-defined, often narrowly tai-

lored questions, in family matters.

Although such evaluations often address issues relevant

to child custody, they are beyond the scope of these Guide-

lines. These Guidelines are not intended for psychologists

functioning either in a consultant role or as a non-evaluating

investigator in child custody litigation. Child protection

evaluations are separate and distinct from child custody

evaluations. For professional resources on child protection,-

see “Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations in Child

Protection Matters” (APA, 2013b).

Users

These Guidelines are intended for use by psychologists, and

to provide assistance to those with an interest in child cus-

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

tody evaluation services, such as other mental health pro-

viders, attorneys, judges, and consumers. These Guidelines

address ethical and aspirational aspects of child custody

evaluations and may be informative to anyone with a pro-

fessional or personal interest in such procedures.

Documentation of Need

Since the most recent prior iteration of the Guidelines (APA,

2010), there have been changes in state laws (e.g., regarding

same-sex marriage) as well as a growth in research relevant

to this field on such topics as the following: implicit bias,

subspecialty areas in child custody evaluation (e.g., child

maltreatment, relocation, abduction risk, parent-child con-

tact problems), culture, trauma-informed practice, and

psychological testing (Neal et al., 2020). Many training

programs offer limited forensic exposure to family law mat-

ters, and psychologists who are asked to perform child

custody evaluations have varying levels of supervised expe-

rience in this area. These Guidelines provide aspirational

direction to all psychologists asked to perform child custody

evaluations.

Development Process

The Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law

Proceeding (APA, 2010) were reviewed, found in need of

revision, and sent out for public comment to solicit further

evaluation of the 2010 Guidelines, all in accordance with

Association Rules 30.8 and APA policy on guidelines. In the

spring of 2018, a Working Group was formed under the

auspices of the Committee of Professional Practice and

Standards (COPPS), in consultation with the Board of

Professional Affairs, with the charge to revise the Guidelines

for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings

(APA, 2010). The six members of the Working Group were

selected with different areas of expertise and levels of expe-

rience in conducting child custody evaluations.

The Working Group began meeting the summer of 2018,

initially using approximately monthly conference calls as its

means of communication. In the spring of 2020, weekly and

biweekly calls were initiated, and two-day, face-to-face

meetings were conducted in April 2019 and January 2020.

Various suggestions were proffered by individual members,

after which the Working Group as a whole refined these

suggestions with an eye toward maintaining requisite guide-

lines format and content. The Office of Legal and Regulatory

Affairs of APA provided information regarding jurisdictional

differences in family laws.

In the summer of 2020, the proposed revision document

was submitted for legal review. Thereafter, the document

underwent review by APA Boards and Committees, and it

was submitted for a 60-day public comment period, in

accordance with policies and procedures per Association

Rules 30.8 and APA policy on guidelines. The document was

revised in response to comments received, and a final

revision was submitted for risk management review by APA

Board of Directors and a substantive review by the APA

Council Leadership Team and to Council of Representatives

for review and adoption as Association Policy. Once

approved, the document was submitted for posting on the

APA website and disseminated through official APA commu-

nications channels. The document was also submitted for

consideration for publication in the American Psychologist.

Selection of Evidence

The Working Group conducted a broad review of the litera-

ture through their own study and discussion of professional

and scholarly resources and via a review of results of the

public comment process. The literature then received sug-

gestions for additional citations and references from various

collegial sources throughout the development process. The

literature reviewed and cited in the text of these Guidelines

by the Working Group is as inclusive, representative, semi-

nal, relevant, empirically based, and current as feasible. The

introductory and guidelines sections are explicitly informed

by the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologist and Code of

Conduct (APA, 2017a) (hereafter referred to as the “APA

Ethics Code”; APA, 2017), as well as additional APA guide-

lines and reports.

Distinction between Standards and Guidelines /

Compatibility with APA Ethics Code

As noted above, these Guidelines are informed by the APA’s

Ethics Code. The term guidelines refer to statements that

suggest or recommend specific professional behavior,

endeavors, or conduct for psychologists (APA, 2015).

Guidelines differ from standards, in that standards are man-

datory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mech-

anism. Guidelines are aspirational in intent. They are

intended to facilitate the continued development of the

profession, and to facilitate a high level of practice by psy-

chologists. Guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or

exhaustive, and they may not be applicable to every profes-

sional situation. They are not definitive nor intended to take

precedence over the measured, independent judgment of

psychologists (APA, 2015).

It is not possible for these Guidelines to identify every

course of action that a child custody evaluator might be

encouraged to pursue or avoid. For these reasons, it would

not be accurate for legal and other advocates to assume that

these Guidelines offer a comprehensive and definitive

overview of all relevant issues. In addition, psychologists

should refrain from using these Guidelines as an exclusive

blueprint for conducting child custody evaluations; instead,

psychologists should acquire from other sources the requi-

4AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

site knowledge, skill, education, experience, and training for

doing so.

Conﬂict of Interest

The Guidelines developers did not receive external support

for this project. No funding was received to assist with the

preparation of these Guidelines or for conducting the under-

lying literature review. No funds, grants, or other support

was received in support of this project other than what was

allocated in support of APA boards and committees to meet

and develop guidance. The Guidelines developers complied

with APA’s policy on conflicts of interest.

Expiration

These Guidelines are scheduled to expire 10 years from

February 2022. After that date, users are encouraged to

contact the APA Practice Directorate to determine whether

this document remains in effect.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

I. Scope of the Child Custody Evaluation

GUIDELINE 1

The purpose of the child custody evaluation is to

assist in identifying the best interests of the child,

in recognition that the child’s welfare is paramount.

Rationale

Psychologists with appropriate clinical and forensic training

can investigate the needs, conditions, and capacities of all

family members. Courts rely on this input when crafting a

legal decision that identifies and promotes the best inter-

ests of the child (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2020).

Application

Psychologists are encouraged to weigh and incorporate

many factors that, in combination, are sufficient to identify

the best interests of the child. Parental factors may include

parenting style and practices; ability and willingness to

co-parent; family interactions; interpersonal support; cul-

tural and environmental variables (APA, 2019); relevant

challenges; and functioning and aptitudes of all examined

parties. Factors concerning children may include their

developmental, educational, physical, social, recreational,

cultural, and psychological needs, as well as the child’s

wishes. Psychologists are aware that considerations of the

children’s wishes are often regulated by law, and that chil-

dren’s expressed preferences may be influenced by several

factors, including age and developmental status, manipula-

tion and/or undue influence by a parent (Parkinson &

Cashmore, 2007), fear of consequences (Cashmore &

Parkinson, 2008), traumatic bonding with an abusive par-

ent (Reid et al., 2013), and coercion (Warshak, 2015).

Careful consideration of children’s perspectives is frequently

recognized as a valid component. Psychologists may include

assessment of the children’s vulnerabilities and special

needs, including any disabilities, as well as the strength of

the children’s healthy bond to the parents and other family

members, effects of separation, and the health of the par-

ent-child relationship. Psychologists strive to consider each

of the best interest factors described in state statutes.

In addition, foci of a child custody evaluation may

encompass, among other factors, threats to the child’s

safety and well-being, such as physical and emotional abuse,

neglect, coercion, and the presence of parental alienating

behaviors, as well as exposure to parental conflict, violence,

abuse, and antagonistic interactions between extended

family members. Psychologists endeavor to assess the risk

of physical, psychological, and/or sexual violence within the

family, and to understand child protection laws, research,

and guidelines in child protection matters (APA, 2013b).

Psychologists understand that custody evaluations may be

exploited by the parents as a tool for further control and

harassment after separation. Children may be affected

negatively by the child custody evaluation process, as well

as by the conflict it seeks to address. Parents who are under-

going an evaluation may advance their concerns in a forceful

and contentious manner, drawing children into their conflicts.

To protect children, psychologists strive to provide instruc-

tions to caregivers at the beginning of the evaluation as to

appropriate parent-child communications about interviews.

GUIDELINE 2

The evaluation focuses upon parenting abilities, the

children’s needs, and the resulting fit.

Rationale

From the court’s perspective, the most valuable contribu-

tions by psychologists reflect a clinically astute and scien-

tifically sound approach to legally relevant matters. Issues

that are central to the court’s ultimate decision-making

obligations in child custody matters include parenting abil-

ities, the child’s needs, and the resulting fit (Ackerman et al.,

2021).

Application

The most useful evaluations generally focus on assessment

of the needs of the children and on parenting dimensions to

compare parents between each other and with normative

groups. Comparatively little weight may be afforded to eval-

uations that are limited to a general personality assessment

that fails to address parenting capacities and the child’s

needs. Psychologists strive to address issues of central

importance to custody and to related psycho-legal con-

structs that are relevant to the matters before the court.

Psychologists aspire to contextualize the evaluation data

within relevant theory and to use scientific data to help the

court understand the best interests of the child. Psychologists

endeavor to provide the court with information specifically

germane to its role in apportioning decision-making, care-

giving, and parenting time. Similarly, psychologists strive to

6AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

educate the court about issues related to cultural sensitivity

(APA, 2019), child development, best practices, and theo-

retical developments in the understanding of human behav-

ior as they apply to families and parenting.

“Parent-child fit” refers to the nexus between the parent’s

characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses, and the child’s

developmental, emotional, physical, and psychological

needs. Psychologists seek to assess these needs through

observation of the children, developmentally appropriate

interviewing, psychological testing, record review, and

collateral interviewing (see Guideline 13). Psychologists

strive to identify each parent’s capacity and functioning

using an evidence-based, multitrait-multimethod matrix

(MTMM), assessment approach (see Guideline 10). Assess-

ment of the goodness of fit between the child’s needs and

parental capabilities is further enhanced by informed obser-

vation of parent-child interactions.

GUIDELINE 3

Psychologists endeavor to identify the child

custody evaluation’s stated purpose, anticipated

use, specific scope, and agreed-upon time frame

before accepting referrals.

Rationale

The scope, purpose, and anticipated use of the child custody

evaluation clarify what is expected and how psychologists

can assist the court, if at all. This understanding also helps

psychologists to decide when communication is needed

concerning continued services, new information, and the

evaluation’s status. It also confirms how and with whom

such communication will take place. Depending upon the

requirements of the child custody evaluation, the referral

could call for services that the psychologist is not competent

to provide or cannot deliver in a timely manner. For example,

the psychologist may lack suitable familiarity with the only

language spoken by members of the family in question, or

may have a schedule conflict that makes it impossible to

meet a court’s stated deadline.

Application

Child custody evaluation referrals may differ in scope, such

as when relocation questions, substance use disorder, child

abuse issues, and parent-child relationship problems are

specified (see Guideline 5). Before agreeing to conduct a

child custody evaluation, psychologists seek to clarify the

referral question, the specific scope of the evaluation, and

who will receive the final report. They also endeavor to

determine whether they are expected to provide recom-

mendations — and if they may potentially provide scientif-

ically-based opinions or recommendations — that are

accurate, impartial, fair, and independent in response to the

referral questions (APA, 2013c, Guideline 1.02). It may be

helpful to have the psychologist’s understanding of the spe-

cific scope of the evaluation confirmed in writing in a court

order, or by stipulation of all parties and their legal represen-

tatives. Psychologists strive to ensure that the time frame is

reasonable, considering both the evaluator’s and the parties’

schedules. Lengthy delays have the potential to increase

anxiety and exacerbate other mental health conditions in

ways harmful to adults and children alike. Should new infor-

mation arise, psychologists endeavor to communicate

promptly, to clarify, and to adhere to any revised agreements

governing the evaluation’s purpose, scope, or time frame.

Psychologists strive to remain alert not only to the original

referral questions, but also to emerging issues and unantic-

ipated developments during the evaluation. As these con-

cerns arise, psychologists may seek appropriate consultation

with counsel and the courts, as appropriate, for any neces-

sary modifications to the referral questions or to the course

of the evaluation.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

II. Competence

GUIDELINE 4

Psychologists aspire to obtain and maintain the

necessary competencies to provide child custody

evaluations consistent with the highest standards

of their profession.

Rationale

Child custody evaluations are a domain of forensic psychol-

ogy that requires skills, training, knowledge, and compe-

tence in the forensic assessment of children, adults, and

families. Child custody and other evaluations have a signif-

icant impact on people’s lives (APA, 2021), and involve

public scrutiny and trust

Application

Psychologists continuously strive to update and augment

their existing skills and abilities, consistent with a career-

long dedication to professional development. The child

custody evaluator seeks to maintain familiarity with the

empirical social science research regarding children’s psy-

chological and developmental needs, including health

impairments, educational needs, and cultural or linguistic

concerns (APA, 2020a), other case-specific issues, and

the child’s best interests. Psychologists strive to gain an

evolving and up-to-date understanding of the following:

parenting; family dynamics and the child’s place therein;

child and family psychopathology; separation and divorce

stress; impact of abuse, relationship conflict, and separa-

tion on children; adult development and pathology; foren-

sic psychological assessment; relevant laws and

regulations; and the specialized child custody literature

(as addressed in Guideline 5). In addition, when making

recommendations, psychologists endeavor to remain cur-

rent and knowledgeable about treatments, interventions,

and resources to address different dysfunctions that are

accessible for the evaluatees, as well as the types of cus-

tody arrangements that promote healthy patterns.

Psychologists strive to update routinely their child custody

evaluation practices, in accordance with developments

in the peer-reviewed literature.

When the specifics of a case are such that the psychol-

ogist does not possess the requisite competency to conduct

the custody evaluation, psychologists generally decline

involvement and suggest a more suitable evaluator. Excep-

tions to this guidance may exist when the custody evalua-

tion takes place where no other more appropriate referral

source is available or when there are distinctive attributes

or qualities of an individual or family (APA, 2019; e.g., clini-

cal condition). In such situations, rather than withdrawing

from the case, the psychologist might consider obtaining

the appropriate consultation or supervision so that the

custody evaluation can proceed when otherwise it could not.

GUIDELINE 5

Psychologists endeavor to acquire and maintain

specialized competencies to address complex and

high-risk issues in child custody evaluations.

Rationale

Families requiring custody evaluations are complex, and are

often characterized by high-risk situations and difficult

experiences. Some specialized areas of child custody eval-

uations are well-grounded in scientific literature, while other

areas are not as well informed. For example, a child may

experience physical challenges requiring unique support

services; a parent may be diagnosed with a communication

disorder necessitating specialized assessment techniques;

or parent-child bonds may reflect a highly atypical interper-

sonal history.

Application

High-risk issues for families undergoing child custody eval-

uations may include, but are not limited to: relocation,

attachment, parent-child contact problems, determining

the presence of intimate partner violence versus situational

couple violence, or child maltreatment including alienating

behaviors (see Guideline 15), effects of substance use dis-

order (see Guideline 16), and mental health, including per-

sonality dysfunction. Psychologists strive to understand and

evaluate factors affecting the child’s adaptation to reloca-

tion that include, but are not limited to, loss of contact with

one parent, level of parental conflict, and difficulty of travel

(Austin et al., 2016; Stevenson et al., 2018).

Attachment of the child with each parent (Forslund et

al, 2022, Sroufe, Coffino, & Carlson, 2010)and with siblings

(Shumaker et al., 2011) are important assessment issues in

child custody evaluations. The quality of attachment and

caregiving patterns is significantly correlated with import-

ant developmental outcomes for children. Psychologists

8AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

strive to evaluate holistically the child’s emotional

attachment to each parent and how each parent meets

the child’s attachment needs (Issacs et al., 2009), and

to integrate this knowledge into the opinion and recom-

mendations with the goal of finding ways to optimize

those relationships when possible.

There is a plethora of reasons why, after separation,

children may resist contact with or reject one of the parents.

Factors found to influence the alignment of the child with

one parent and showing a negative reaction against the

other include having been abused, neglected, or poorly

parented by the rejected parent; having witnessed domestic

violence; responding to the high-conflict custody litigation;

reacting to the custody evaluation (Fidler & Bala, 2020;

Kelly & Johnston, 2001); or having a preexisting preference

for one parent over the other, among other reasons (Walters

& Friedlander, 2016). Resisting or rejecting contact with a

parent is not necessarily a byproduct of the malicious influ-

ence of a parent whom intends to undercut the parent-child

relationship (Fidler & Ward, 2020), but this dynamic can

occur. When there is verifiable evidence that a parent

purposely behaves with the intent of alienating the child

from the other parent, the evaluator is confronted with a

high-risk situation in which the parent may not be acting in

the child’s best interest. Children who are triangulated in the

couple’s conflict, or who are forced or manipulated to choose

a side, may suffer significant long-term emotional damage

that interferes with the ability to have a healthy relationship

with both parents. The anger, hatred, rejection, and fear

towards one parent and emotional alignment with the other

entail a significant loss that disrupts development (Baker &

Ben-Ami, 2011). Alienating behaviors are sometimes alleged

by one party in an attempt to deflect allegations of domestic

violence and/or child abuse made by another party. Psychol-

ogists seek to differentiate these types of allegations with

appropriate assessment methods, since continued exposure

to conflict has long-term detrimental effects on children, as

noted previously.

Psychologists strive to evaluate hypotheses when

assessing a case of resistance-refusal, including the possi-

bility that distressing experiences with the target parent,

and alienating behaviors from the other parent, are occur-

ring simultaneously. They also endeavor to understand and

identify the nuances of the resistant-refusal behavior and its

role in the family dynamic. Psychologists who work with

these cases will often consider engaging in frequent continu-

ing education regarding the state-of-the-art scientific

knowledge of this phenomenon. Competencies may be

enhanced by participation in case supervision, peer consul-

tation, and continuing education, particularly when complex

issues unexpectedly arise that are outside the psycholo-

gist’s scope of expertise.

GUIDELINE 6

Psychologists conducting child custody evaluations

strive to engage in culturally competent practice.

Rationale

Psychologists encounter unique issues and special consid-

erations when evaluating persons of diverse backgrounds.

These issues often reflect such overlapping elements

including (but not limited to) gender, gender identity, sexual

orientation, culture, racial and ethnic minority status, socio-

economic status, ability identity, immigration status, tribal

law, religion and spirituality, language diversity, relative

assimilation with the dominant culture, and age (APA,

2017b; APA, 2019; Howard & Renfrow, 2014; Weiss &

Rosenfeld, 2012).

Application

Psychologists consider how culture, broadly defined, influ-

ences children and parents as well as the evaluator’s own

values and expectations (APA, 2019; Gallardo, 2014). In

particular, psychologists strive to understand the challenges,

strengths, and diverse issues that impact co-parenting, fam-

ily dynamics, and child adjustment, and that are based in

frameworks different from an evaluator’s own background.

One approach to working with diverse individuals is to con-

sider that a person’s identity is shaped by multiple social

and cultural contexts or viewed in bio sociocultural contexts

(APA, 2017a and Principle E; APA, 2017b).

Psychologists aspire to assess and understand how

diversity issues impact the balance of status, power, and

equality between the parents in multiethnic families, families

with diverse identities (i.e., same-sex marriages, disability,

etc.) and families embedded in community networks (i.e.,

Indigenous, religious, etc.). Psychologists seek to recognize

evidence of structural racism, discrimination, lack of

resources, and other contextual considerations that impact

the family and are relevant to the child’s best interests to

contextualize the data gathered, and to offer appropriate

recommendations.

In particular, when conducting examinations (i.e.,

Lewis-Fernandez et al., 2016), interpreting data, and formu-

lating opinions, psychologists consider how the structure

and functions of diverse families may differ from cultural

stereotypes, especially in areas such as attachment, parent-

ing attitudes, child development, child and partner abuse,

family functioning, childrearing practices, gender role

including caregiving roles, and disability in children (Saini &

Ma, 2012). Psychologists remain aware of their need to

relate and work effectively across cultures, bearing in mind

how their own explicit and implicit biases might compro-

mise data collection, its interpretation, and the subsequent

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS9

development of valid opinions and recommendations (APA,

2017b; APA, 2019).

Cultural considerations may require changes in custom-

ary procedures, such as the use of interpreters and test

translations. When possible, psychologists strive to work

with interpreters whom are qualified, professionally trained,

and a good fit to the characteristics of the case (e.g., Maddux,

2010; Wagoner, 2017). Psychologists who work with inter-

preters are encouraged to seek training and consultation to

acquire the competence, communication style, and cultural

sensitivity required to conduct psychological evaluations in

a foreign language. Psychologists strive to consider the

extent to which evaluations with these changes may affect

the data they collect and the change in dynamics that the

presence of an interpreter may bring.

10AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

III. Preparing for the Child Custody

Evaluation

GUIDELINE 7

Psychologists strive to obtain informed consent

when this is both feasible and appropriate.

Rationale

Providing informed consent in written form as “an explana-

tion of the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees,

involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality”

and allowing the opportunity to “ask questions and receive

answers” (APA Ethics Code, Standard 9.03) enhances valid

participation and supports the shared legal and ethical goals

of fundamental fairness (APA, 2021).

Application

Psychologists endeavor to have all capable adults partici-

pating in the evaluation sign an informed consent form (APA

Ethics Code, Standard 3.10). If an adult is not capable of

giving consent, then consent is sought from that person’s

legal representative (APA Ethics Code, Standard 3.10). A full

explanation of procedures, specific referral questions, poli-

cies, expectations regarding parent-child communications

about interviews, timelines, interpretive sessions, fees,

release of records, and consideration of publicly available

social media activity enables persons to raise questions

before the evaluation is initiated. When a custody evalua-

tion is court ordered, informed consent may not be neces-

sary (APA Ethics Code, Standard 3.10; APA 2013c), although

seeking the assent of all parties is strongly encouraged.

Psychologists attempt to document all efforts to obtain

informed consent. If informed consent is not obtained (e.g.,

the parent does not understand the purpose of the evalua-

tion or is unwilling to consent to the parameters of the

custody evaluation), they strive to notify the referral source.

Psychologists seek to ensure that all parties understand

with whom information may be shared and any other limits

of confidentiality. There is likely no privileged information or

communication in a child custody evaluation.

In the process of obtaining informed consent consistent

with the law of that jurisdiction, psychologists seek to inform

the parties that written or oral communications germane to

the child custody evaluation will be sent to the court and to

counsel for each party. For example, court-appointed

psychologists may find it prudent to raise — directly with

the court — payment issues or potential withdrawal from an

evaluation due to personal conflicts; while, in some instances,

privately retained psychologists may appropriately raise

similar or other concerns directly with the attorneys who

hire them. It is worth bearing in mind that communications

intended to be confidential may subsequently be ordered by

the court to be disclosed to all parties and may sometimes

be shared by attorneys on their own initiative.

Explanations of how findings of the evaluation will be

communicated, and to whom, may be included in the

informed consent process. For example, the informed

consent may describe if and how the psychologist will

explain assessment findings to examinees. Psychologists

also consider how to make clear how communication will

take place regarding the status of the evaluation (APA,

2013c).

Clarification about who “owns” the report may be useful

to the litigants in the informed consent. For example,

court-ordered evaluations are controlled by the court that,

in addition to other sources of law, may monitor and/or

prevent further distribution. Non-court-ordered evaluations

may be controlled by the examinees. Psychologists seek to

include in the informed consent an explanation of manda-

tory obligations, such as those triggered by child abuse,

elder abuse, human rights abuses (APA, 2021), or other

legally defined circumstances.

Psychologists aspire to give children an age-appropri-

ate explanation of the purpose of the evaluation, consistent

with each child’s cognitive abilities and verbal skills, in order

that assent may be obtained (Calloway & Lee, 2017). Legal

guardian(s) may have the right to provide consent on

children’s behalf in the absence of a court order. Psycholo-

gists also aim to provide collateral sources, whether the

evaluation is court-ordered or not, with “information that

might reasonably be expected to inform their decisions

about participating” (APA, 2013c; p. 13). Such information

may include who has retained the psychologist, the nature,

purpose, and intended use of the information they provide,

and the limits of confidentiality and privacy regarding the

information they offer (APA, 2013c).

GUIDELINE 8

Psychologists aspire to identify, request, and

review relevant records.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS11

Rationale

Background and historical information obtained from rele-

vant records improves psychologists’ ability to obtain a

fuller sense of the family’s functioning and dynamics.

Records also assist in understanding the chronology of the

challenges the family has encountered over the course of

their development. Information from children’s medical,

educational, mental health treatment, and other relevant

records is useful for understanding children’s challenges,

resilience, family relationships, and current and future

needs.

Application

Psychologists strive to identify in a timely manner which

records should be reviewed. To facilitate collection of par-

ticularly sensitive information, such as child protective

service documentation, psychologists may request that

permission to obtain particular records is incorporated into

a court order for the evaluation. Psychologists undertake to

consider the content of obtained records when organizing

interview questions and testing protocols, which can inform

efforts to gather further information regarding such issues

as school performance, as well as document review, parent

and child interviews, parent-child interactions, psychologi-

cal testing, collateral (e.g., teachers, physicians, and thera-

pists) interviews, substance use disorder and family violence

screenings, and legal histories (APA Ethics Code, Standard

9.01). When psychologists identify a potential delay in the

receipt of some records, they may find it prudent to begin

conducting initial examinations to ensure that the overall

evaluation is completed in a timely fashion.

GUIDELINE 9

Psychologists endeavor to structure child custody

evaluations in accordance with psychological

science and evolving practice standards.

Rationale

Each case presents its own set of demands. Codes and

guidelines are continually updated, and psychological tests

are periodically revised. Interview procedures, informed by

analyses reflected in the professional literature, improve

with the psychologist’s increased experience and with the

availability of ongoing peer supervision. Psychological sci-

ence contributes to the development and refinement of

each of these components and enriches the plan that would

guide the implementation of the evaluation and outcomes.

Child custody opinions that reflect the psychologist’s famil-

iarity with such considerations, and which best fit the case,

are the most valid, accurate, and appropriately persuasive.

Application

Psychologists seek to structure child custody evaluations in

case-specific ways, and to update templates regularly.

Psychologists consider including such components as con-

ducting parent interviews, observing parent-child and care-

giver-child interactions, reviewing documents, interviewing

and/or observing each child, administering psychological

testing to parents and children, interviewing cohabitating

partners, interviewing and obtaining materials from collat-

eral sources (e.g., teachers, physicians, and therapists), and

screening for substance use disorder, and family violence

(including intimate partner violence and child maltreat-

ment). The plan-direction inclusion of specific steps and

tasks provides structure that guides an evaluation to its final

product.

Psychologists aspire to make informed decisions that

enable the most appropriate and timely execution of the

evaluation. Relevant issues include time management,

compensation and financial arrangements, external consul-

tations that may be needed, choice and order of administra-

tion of assessment instruments, and methods to utilize,

collateral information to review, and necessary adaptations

considering the particulars of the family. Psychologists

consider that decisions about these issues are based on the

referral question, and that are consistent with psychological

science and evolving practice standards. Psychologists

attempt to anticipate challenges, reduce risks and obstacles,

and build reasonable flexibility into the structure of the

evaluation. Evaluation methodologies may change based on

the court order and the issues of the case. Psychologists

seek to understand how psychological science and practice

standards inform any procedural changes that may occur, as

well as the limitations that those changes may place on the

conclusions of the evaluation.

12AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

(Groth-Marnat & Wright, 2016). Additionally, psychologists

are aware that psychological tests are typically not used in

isolation, but are part of a comprehensive assessment.

Psychologists recognize the importance of utilizing

pertinent evidence-based frameworks when appropriate.

One example is to be mindful of possible etiologies for

behavior, including but not limited to neuropsychological

issues, substance use, cultural factors, characterological

traits, and trauma and attachment histories. When clinical

issues are present in any of the parties, psychologists are

encouraged to understand the unique etiologies that may

exist. There is no clinical condition or level of intellectual

functioning that would automatically render a parent unfit

to parent. A child custody evaluator aims to make a

functional assessment, integrating these mental health

issues with parenting capacity in the best interest of the

child. Likewise, a child who has special needs may be better

suited by a division of parenting time, based on the child’s

unique characteristics and the relative strengths and

weaknesses of each parent. Psychologists are also encour-

aged to access documentation from a variety of sources

(e.g., schools, health care providers, childcare providers

therapists, agencies, and other institutions) and to contact

members of the extended family, friends, acquaintances,

and other collateral sources when the resulting information

is likely to be relevant, while bearing in mind the potential

biases of such informants. Likewise, psychologists have in

some instances accessed publicly available social media

postings as a source of potentially relevant data in forensic

evaluation. Ongoing discussion exists about the utility and

ethical implications of such practices, concerning which

psychologists would best be advised to document informed

consent and the precise sources of such data with particular

care (Pirelli et al., 2016).

GUIDELINE 10

Psychologists strive to construct an evidence-

based, multimethod, and multitrait assessment

format that reflects valid and reliable methods of

data gathering.

Rationale

Evidence-based multimethod assessment practices include

the selection of assessment instruments with sound psy-

chometric properties that draw upon complementary data

sources (Mihura, 2012). Multitrait and multimethod assess-

ments help balance the limitations on reliability and validity

of single measures by deliberately selecting data sources

with contrasting strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, when

integrating data from different modalities, and when con-

vergences and divergences are assessed, multitrait assess-

ment allows relevant aspects of an examinee’s functioning

to be analyzed directly (Hopwood & Bornstein, 2014).

Unreliable, invalid, and scientifically unsupported or other-

wise poorly chosen methods may be harmful to the parties

as well as to the process in which these persons are engaged.

Application

Psychologists endeavor to create an assessment battery

that employs scientifically valid and reliable methods rele-

vant to the issues being assessed (Otto et al, 2010; King,

2013). Psychologists are mindful that the terms “reliability”

and “validity” may need clarification for the courts. When

addressing the sufficiency of forensic mental health assess-

ment techniques, it may be helpful for psychologists to

convey that “validity” refers to whether a test or other mea-

sure assesses what it is meant to measure, and that “reli-

ability” refers to the consistency of the obtained results. 

Multimethod assessment practices yield stronger,

more clinically useful data (Hopwood & Bornstein, 2014;

AERA et al., 2014). Psychologists attempt to develop an

assessment battery consisting of psychological tests, instru-

ments, techniques, and other data gathering sources that

are suited to the characteristics of the case, have demon-

strated validity evidence for its use, and are fair and appro-

priate to the characteristics and context of the evaluation

(APA Ethics Code, Standard 9.2; APA, 2020b, Guideline 6).

This battery considers specific family members’ cultural and

demographic characteristics and addresses the referral

questions (Council of National Psychology Associations for

the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests, 2016; Weiss

& Rosenfeld, 2012; King, 2013). Direct methods of data

gathering typically include psychological testing, forensic

interviews, and behavioral observations (Ackerman et al,

2021). Person-focused rather than test-focused evaluations

are described in the empirical literature as providing more

individualized, context-relevant, and reliable findings

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS1

IV. Conducting a Child Custody

Evaluation

RELATIONSHIPS

GUIDELINE 11

Psychologists strive to function as fair and

impartial evaluators.

Rationale

Child custody evaluations address complex and emotionally

charged disputes over highly personal matters, and the par-

ties are usually deeply invested in a specific outcome. The

volatility of this situation is often exacerbated by a growing

realization that there may be no resolution that will satisfy

every person involved. In this contentious atmosphere, cog-

nitive, confirmatory, implicit, or other biases may compro-

mise a custody evaluation (APA Ethics Code, Principles D

and E).

Application

Psychologists are encouraged to be skeptical of their own

objectivity and monitor actively their own values, percep-

tions, and reactions, and to seek peer consultation and

education (e.g., anti-bias education) in the face of threats to

impartiality, fairness, or integrity. Child custody evaluators

may have overt or unacknowledged opinions about some

topics such as alienation, gender, family dynamics, victim

credibility or behavior, or high-conflict families. Psychologists

strive to familiarize themselves with current scientific stud-

ies that dispel such bias, which may interfere with their

impartiality, such as assuming joint custody is better for

children than sole custody in all cases (Steinbach & Augustijn,

2022). In particular, psychologists are mindful about implicit

biases, which are unconscious attitudes and stereotypes

that are not accessible without sustained introspection or

external assistance. These biases influence decisions that

may not comport with the psychologist’s avowed or

endorsed beliefs or principles, and may signal impaired

neutrality. Implicit biases may predispose the psychologist

to make premature decisions and to construe the merits of

the data accordingly. Psychologists consider how the lan-

guage they employ in reports, testimony, and communica-

tions with counsel and others may inadvertently reflect and/

or encourage bias. For example, gratuitous criticism of one

of the parties, or sweeping baseless generalizations with

respect to such factors as single parenting, low-income

parents, consensual non-monogamy (also called ethical

non-monogamy), or parenting by fathers or grandparents

may erode credibility and undercut the weight otherwise

afforded a forensic psychological opinion. Psychologists

remain aware that perceptions of fairness and impartiality

can be enhanced when evaluators utilize the same assess-

ment techniques for all parties when both feasible and

reasonable, in terms of the selection of psychological tests,

the length and scope of interviews and observations, and

the pursuit of collateral sources of information.

GUIDELINE 12

Psychologists aspire to avoid conflicts of interest

and multiple relationships.

Rationale

The presence of real or apparent conflicts of interest may

increase the likelihood of unfairness, undermine the court’s

confidence in psychologists’ opinions and recommenda-

tions, and potentially harm all parties involved. Engaging in

roles other than evaluator with persons being examined or

consulted also has the potential to place psychologists in

conflict with ethical standards regarding multiple relation-

ships (APA Ethics Code, Standard 3.05).

Application

Psychologists refrain from serving as a child custody evalu-

ator “when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial,

or other interests or relationships could reasonably be

expected to result in (1) impaired objectivity, competence,

or effectiveness, or (2) expose the person or organization

with whom the relationship exists to harm or exploitation”

(APA Ethics Code, Standard 3.06). Multiple relationships,

which may or may not rise to the level of conflict of interest,

are subject to similar analysis. Multiple relationships exist

when “psychologists are in a professional role with some-

one and are (1) at the same time in another role with that

person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with another

individual closely associated with or related to that person…,

or (3) promises to enter into another future relationship

with the person or with another individual closely associ-

14AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

ated with or related to that person” (APA Ethics Code,

Standard 3.05). Conducting child custody evaluations with

one’s current or prior psychotherapy clients/patients and

conducting psychotherapy with one’s current or prior child

custody examinees are examples of multiple relationships.

Similarly, moving from a custody evaluator to a parenting

coordinator may also be a conflict of interest and an exam-

ple of multiple relationships. When serving in more than

one role is unavoidable, psychologists endeavor to disclose

their dual roles, clarify role expectations, and explain how

confidentiality may be affected (APA Ethics Code, Standard

3.05)

METHODOLOGY OF CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS

GUIDELINE 13

When evaluating children, psychologists strive to

select and utilize developmentally appropriate and

empirically supported evaluation techniques, and

to interpret the results in a way that facilitates

understanding of the best interests of the child.

Rationale

The purpose of the child custody evaluation is to assist the

court’s determination of the child’s best interests. Children

typically mature with age, so it is critically important that

psychologists employ a developmentally appropriate, mul-

timethod approach to assessment. The most effective and

persuasive evaluations reliably and validly ascertain not

only children’s individual needs but also the best fit between

the parents and children (see Guideline 2). Children’s par-

ticipation in evaluations may also reduce the negative

impact of separation and divorce conflict on them (Gal &

Duramy, 2015).

Application

Methods of child assessment are likely to include, but are

not limited to, observation of the child, observation of par-

ent-child interactions (see Guideline 18), developmentally

appropriate interviewing, psychological testing (see

Guideline 17), record review (see Guideline 20), and collat-

eral interviewing. Each of these approaches depends on

such factors as the age and maturity of the child, and on the

defined scope of the evaluation.

Psychologists remain aware that interviewing children

requires specific knowledge and skills. They strive to utilize

approaches consistent with each child’s age, language

ability, and developmental level. Psychologists seek to be

aware of the concerns that may be engendered by such

factors as repeated questioning or subtle suggestibility that

may influence children’s responses. Psychologists seek to

avoid exacerbating a child’s distress during this process, and

they aim to remain sensitive to any inadvertent risk of harm

that may be occasioned by the evaluation process itself.

Psychologists consider that the use of psychological

tests with children in child custody evaluations may not be

necessary or appropriate if such testing does not help eluci-

date the best interests of the child (see Guideline 17). When

using psychological tests with children, psychologists

remain aware of such test-specific factors as reliability,

validity, potential admissibility as a witness in court or in an

affidavit, and overall appropriateness for child custody

evaluations, as well as such child-specific factors as age,

developmental level, and reading ability.

Psychologists seek to identify and interview collateral

sources who can best help them understand the child’s

needs. Such sources may include teachers, pediatricians,

extended family members, childcare providers, and other

adults with whom the child interacts on a regular basis.

When conducting these interviews, psychologists under-

take effort to focus on the collateral source’s direct obser-

vations and the factual basis for any opinions expressed.

When there are special issues, including but not limited

to domestic violence, parent-child access, parenting time,

mental health, physical health, developmental concerns,

mixed religious or immigration statuses (APA, 2021), and

high conflict, psychologists aspire to augment their evalua-

tions with pertinent assessment techniques, informed by

the most current scientific studies relevant to these concerns.

Psychologists remain aware of children’s mental and physi-

cal health concerns, the potential need for clinical interven-

tions, and the impact of these issues on children’s welfare.

GUIDELINE 14

When interviewing parents, psychologists strive to

collect and assess information relevant to

parenting strengths and weaknesses, to ascertain

the best interests of the child.

Rationale

Parent interviews are sources of information for under-

standing parents’ concerns, self-perceptions, and experi-

ence for enhancing their parental competence. The

information obtained from these interviews provides a

context for the overall evaluation data collected. Such inter-

views assist in identifying best interest factors with regards

to the child and the co-parenting relationship, both during

the relationship and after relationship conflict and separa-

tion. The quality of the co-parenting relationship has been

found to be a contributor to children’s well-being, their

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS1

adjustment to the new circumstances, and their parent-child

relationships (Emery, 2011; McHale & Lindahl, 2011).

Application

Psychologists strive to interview the parents to assess func-

tional parenting strengths, weaknesses, skills, and other

information relevant to the best interest of the child. While

the approach may be structured or unstructured, psycholo-

gists aim to avoid pursuing irrelevant information. They also

seek to establish more than just a cursory assessment of

issues that are relevant (e.g., domestic violence and prob-

lematic substance use, among other factors). Psychologists

undertake to address several specific issues. Such issues

may include, but need not be limited to, the parent’s child-

hood experiences, culture (APA, 2019), educational history,

social life, vocational/financial history, recreational inter-

ests, legal history, child protection history, support system,

substance use history, risk of abduction, current health

status and medical history, mental health history and cur-

rent functioning. In addition, relationship history, parenting

history, parenting competencies (Johnson et al., 2014),

psychological functioning, and the parent’s view of their

child’s needs and functioning are part of an overarching

multimethod approach. The assessment of the parents’

ability, willingness, and practice of co-parenting or parallel

parenting is also of concern. Psychologists seek to under-

stand the parents’ struggle to resolve disagreements and

their commitment to facilitating the child’s relationship with

the other parent. Psychologists try to be aware of parental

impression management during interviews, which may

require confirmation of their perceptions by other sources

of information. Psychologists consider recency versus pri-

macy effects when assessing parents (Drozd et al, 2013;

Neal & Grisso,2014).

Contextual complexities (e.g., military families, reloca-

tion cases) may make in-person interviewing impractical or

even impossible. Psychologists may seek alternatives to

in-person interviewing if a participant would otherwise be

unable to participate or when participation is unduly burden-

some (APA Ethics Code, Principle D). Whether necessitated

by crisis conditions, financial constraints, looming deadlines,

or insurmountable distances, telepsychology is an increas-

ingly common mode for interviewing that can make a signif-

icant contribution when utilized responsibly (Daffern et al,

2021; APA 2013c). Psychologists strive to consider how the

use of this technology may affect the reliability of obtained

results, and to explain any resulting limitations on their

professional opinions, just as they would when departing

from established child custody evaluation practices (APA

2013c). If permissible, use of videoconferencing in these

evaluations needs to be considered carefully and with

thought given to numerous factors (Dale & Smith, 2020;

APA, 2013a). These factors include, among others, the

ability to establish a working alliance with evaluatees, to

ensure privacy of family members, and to ensure safety for

parents and children.

GUIDELINE 15

Psychologists endeavor to conduct appropriate

screening for family violence, child maltreatment,

intimate partner violence, and resultant trauma.

Rationale

Separation, custody disputes, and renewed parent-child

contact may generate or increase risks of violence, alienat-

ing behaviors, and child abuse. Parenting skills may become

compromised in an environment of intimidation and fear. An

extensive literature links violence and other forms of mal-

treatment to relationship conflict and separation and to

problems with custody and post-separation co-parenting

(e.g., Ellis et al., 2015; Zeoli et al., 2013).

Application

With respect to the screening process, psychologists are

endeavoring to preserve, protect, and promote safe, healthy

and functional relationships and living arrangements.

Psychologists strive to identify potential physical or sexual

abuse, child abuse including alienating behaviors, intimate

partner abuse, power imbalance or coercion and control

behaviors on the part of family members or caregivers, and

to utilize these findings, as appropriate, in their assessment

processes and recommendations. A rigorous multimethod

and multitrait approach seeks to anticipate lack of disclo-

sure and other challenges associated with investigating

these risk factors.

Psychologists strive to maintain an in-depth knowledge

of abuse dynamics to screen appropriately for abuse and

coercive behaviors, including their nature, impact, and

known indicators of risk and danger (such as lethality,

stalking, and abduction) (Walker, 2017). Psychologists

consider that a thorough screening would optimally include

both parents as well as any other individuals (such as

stepparents, partners, grandparents, siblings, and extended

family members) whom have significant contact with the

children. Such screening contributes to the identification of

information, behaviors, or disclosures indicating that

violence, abuse, coercion, or intimidation is or may become

an issue. Screening is ideally an ongoing process throughout

the custody evaluation, rather than a one-time event.

Psychologists strive to implement screening across all types

of cases, including those in which no allegations or judicial

findings of intimate partner violence have been made.

16AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

Psychologists consider how the methods of assess-

ment and communication to the parties may impact safety

to the parties, and they are prepared to seek court guidance

as needed. When making parenting recommendations

concerning parental decision-making and child parenting

time, psychologists endeavor to ensure that these recom-

mendations explicitly link and account for the effect of

intimate partner violence, if any, on children, parenting, and

co-parenting (Austin & Drozd, 2012, Silberg & Dallam,

2019). Psychologists inform the appropriate authorities of

newly uncovered incidents that invoke mandatory reporting

obligations, which may vary by jurisdiction. These obliga-

tions to report typically remain in place regardless of the

forensic nature of the evaluation.

GUIDELINE 16

Psychologists endeavor to screen examinees for

substance use.

Rationale

Excessive use of alcohol, cannabis, opioids, prescription

medications, and other substances may impact parenting

capacity, including the ability to ensure the safety of the

child and to engage effectively in co-parenting. The stress of

relationship conflict, separation, and custody disputes may

trigger problem substance use.

Application

Psychologists endeavor to address the potential effects of

various forms of substance use. When assessing substance

use, psychologists remain aware that some allegations

made by one party against another may be false or exagger-

ated. Psychologists are encouraged to consider whether

inquiries into substance use might extend beyond adults to

children, given the recognized potential for such difficulties

across the lifespan (Bracken et al., 2013; Tucker et al., 2013).

Numerous instruments exist to support this type of screen-

ing (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2018; Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, n.d.). In

some cases, it may be appropriate to inform the court or

retaining counsel that referral for a separate, more special-

ized evaluation of these issues may be indicated.

When substance use appears to be present in one or

more family members, psychologists strive to determine

how this abuse may impair parenting and co-parenting

capacity in a variety of ways that could include, but would

not necessarily be limited to:

1. The physical safety of children (e.g., driving while

intoxicated)

2. The ability to attend to the children’s emotional,

physical, and cognitive needs

3. The ability to interact appropriately with the other

parent

4. The ability to fulfill responsibilities and obligations on

a consistent basis;

5. The ability to abstain from substance use while caring

for children at home;

6. The risk of engaging in interpersonal violence

7. The effect of parent’s modeling of substance use on

children.

GUIDELINE 17

Psychologists strive to utilize robust and

informative psychological assessment measures

that are administered in a standardized and

methodologically sound fashion.

Rationale

Due to the scientifically informed, robust, and evidence-based

nature of their development and the seeming objectivity of

their results when properly applied, psychological tests may

be weighted heavily in child custody proceedings both by

the legal and psychological professionals. Psychological

testing is typically recognized as the purview of appropri-

ately trained, duly licensed psychologists.

Application

Psychologists strive to obtain competency with respect to

the psychological tests they employ, and to understand the

particular strengths and weaknesses of each of those tests

for custody cases. Psychological tests are developed for a

variety of applications beyond child custody evaluations. As

a result, it should be considered how the tests functionally

inform the pertinent psycho-legal constructs to be consid-

ered, such as parenting capacities or the best interests of

the child. Psychologists aspire to maintain familiarity with

current research that augments the information contained

in the test manual. As uniformity in assessment measures

across parties is usually the custom, when parties are

administered different tests due to accessibility issues or

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS1

court questions, such decisions should be ethically, clini-

cally, and empirically supportable. If a test needs to be

adapted in some fashion, such as with language translations

or special accommodations in test administration, psychol-

ogists endeavor to take into consideration the impact on the

reliability and validity of the data obtained through such

adaptations (APA Task Force on Psychological Assessment

and Evaluation Guidelines, 2020).

Before administration, psychologists seek to analyze

critically the tests that may be employed, in terms of the

potential admissibility of results, and with due attention to

such factors as a test’s general acceptance in the field,

history of peer review, cultural relevance, and known error

rates. Proper attention to these factors may augment the

court’s ability to arrive at a scientifically informed legal

opinion. Psychologists strive to be aware of normative data

for divorced parents, and they endeavor to base their test

data interpretations upon standardized scoring where

indicated, and to consider the context of the evaluation as

well as the characteristics of individual family members. For

instance, it is important to consider how test results may be

influenced by such factors as, but not limited to, religion,

ethnicity, country of origin, age, gender, sexual orientation,

language, acculturation, and the like (APA, 2020b).

When appropriately delegating others (e.g., assistants,

students) within the boundaries of applicable law and ethics

to administer and/or score psychological tests, psycholo-

gists seek to ensure that these persons are adequately

trained and supervised. Psychologists delegate testing only

to those persons who can competently perform these

services either independently or with the level of supervi-

sion available and provided (APA Ethics Code, Standard

2.05; 9.97).

Psychologists consider the benefits and challenges

associated with the presence of recording devices or third-

party observers (APA, 2013a; APA, 2007) and the impact

these circumstances may have on the reliability and validity

of assessment results. For example, benefits of recordings

or observers may include increased transparency and,

perhaps, increased reliability and validity of assessment

results or they may alter the evaluatees’ responses, reduc-

ing reliability and validity of the evaluation. Both effects are

possible. In addition, recording may be governed by law. The

explicit discouragement of surreptitious recording by

examinees, counsel, and others can be a useful component

and important consideration of the informed consent

process. Psychologists strive to be aware of the distinction

between computerized scoring of tests and computer-gen-

erated, interpretive reports. Computerized scoring of a test

may be a useful tool for reducing scoring errors and produc-

ing a richer set of interpretive data. While computer-gener-

ated interpretive reports may generate helpful hypotheses,

they need to be evaluated regarding their relative potential

contributions to supplement the psychologist’s interpretive

process, and are not meant to supplant the psychologist’s

clinical and forensic judgment. Psychologists who make use

of any computer-generated interpretive statement strive to

understand its empirical and/or theoretical bases and how

its interpretive statements apply to the specific person

evaluated (APA Ethics Code, Standard 9.09).

Several specialized forensic tests, instruments, and

procedures have been developed specifically for use in child

custody evaluations. As with any form of testing, psycholo-

gists endeavor to remain aware of the normative groups on

which these tests were standardized, as well as whether

tests are appropriately reliable and valid for their intended

use. Psychologists prefer to avoid employing assessment

measures that introduce, perpetuate, or otherwise contrib-

ute to bias of any sort. Psychologists strive to report test

results in a full, accurate, and fair fashion, and to afford test

data and test materials alike the protections described in

the APA’s Ethics Code (2017), Specialty Guidelines for

Forensic Psychology (APA, 2013c), and Record Keeping

Guidelines (APA, 2007), consistent with applicable tribal,

state, and federal laws.

GUIDELINE 18

Psychologists strive to include an observation of

parent-child interactions when conducting child

custody evaluations.

Rationale

Observing parent-child interactions often provides highly

relevant information for determining the best interests of

the child, and can increase the ecological validity and scien-

tific rigor of the overall assessment process (Saini & Polak,

2014). This approach may also offer a valuable opportunity

to assess the statements that were made by parents and

children when those parties were interviewed separately,

and to assist in the formulation of questions for follow-up

interviews.

Application

Psychologists endeavor to understand the importance of

prioritizing the child’s safety and well-being when gauging

the appropriateness of observing parent-child interactions.

In child custody evaluations, observation techniques gener-

ally focus on developmentally and scientifically informed

parent and child variables that may have particular meaning

to the court and that can serve to clarify the fit between a

child’s needs and an adult’s parenting attributes.

Observations may occur in a variety of settings, such as the

home or clinical office. When observations are slated to

occur in public or quasi-public settings—such as airports,

18AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

schools, or waiting rooms—psychologists strive to consider

with special care the confidentiality and informed consent

ramifications (see Guideline 7) of these arrangements, as

well as the impression management inherent in public social

encounters.

When observing parent-child interactions, psycholo-

gists seek to focus on elements that may include (but need

not be limited to) the nature of the parent’s guidance, limit

setting reflected in the parent’s attempts to redirect the

child, the supportive aspect of the parent’s role in collabo-

rative undertakings, the parent’s evident affection for and

sensitivity to the child, the extent to which the child heeds

the parent’s guidance and redirection, the child’s willingness

to collaborate affirmatively with the parent, the child’s

subtle ways of demonstrating the quality of connection to

the parents and the child’s evident affection for, and search

for reassurance by, the parent.

Psychologists take into consideration cultural factors

that may influence the way parents demonstrate these

aspects (APA, 2019). Psychologists strive to report these

interactions as behavioral observations, and to take care

that methods of documenting these interactions are both

valid and reliable. Psychologists remain aware that some

behaviors may reflect an acute awareness of being observed

(Henry et al., 2015; Goodwin, et al., 2017).

Familiar with professional literature on different

approaches to observation, psychologists endeavor to

explain why parent-child interactions were arranged in a

particular manner for the evaluation (e.g., structured,

unstructured, with siblings present, with both parents

present, with the psychologist physically in the room).

Psychologists may postpone or opt against observing

parent-child interactions to protect the child’s safety, based

upon such factors as the parent’s problematic presentation,

the child’s expressed wishes, or situations in which the child

has never met or has no recollection of the parent. Psychol-

ogists strive to understand the impact of such factors on the

resulting opinions.

Observations of parent-child interactions are not in and

of themselves “attachment” evaluations (as the latter

concern the quality of the organization of the parent-child

relationship), which require special training and settings

(Issacs et al., 2009). When the situation requires a formal

attachment evaluation, psychologists endeavor to make a

referral for this type of procedure if they do not have the

formal training to conduct one themselves.

GUIDELINE 19

Psychologists strive to collect sufficient data to

address the scope of the evaluation and to support

their conclusions with an appropriate combination

of examinations.

Rationale

Poorly conceived and cursory examinations erode the con-

fidence of courts and other concerned parties in the evalu-

ation process and its results. Child custody opinions are

most valid and effective when they reflect thorough exam-

inations of each parent and child, to address parenting

abilities, children’s needs, and the resulting fit.

Application

Psychologists strive to remain aware that opinions regard-

ing the best interests of the child are optimally based on an

appropriate evaluation of all relevant parties, including the

parents, the children, and other persons (e.g., stepparents,

stepsiblings, grandparents) whom reside in the home.

Psychologists may consider obtaining a court order to

encourage relevant parties to participate in the child cus-

tody evaluation process. If a desired examination cannot be

arranged, due to unwillingness to participate, scheduling

problems, or financial concerns, psychologists endeavor to

notify the referring party of the limitations imposed by such

circumstances. If the evaluation proceeds, psychologists

strive to document their reasonable efforts and the result of

those efforts, and then to clarify the probable impact on the

reliability and validity of their opinions, limiting their conclu-

sions and recommendations appropriately (APA Ethics

Code, Standard 9.01). They provide opinions about individ-

uals’ psychological characteristics only after they have

conducted an examination adequate to support their state-

ments and conclusions (APA Ethics Code, Standard 9.01(b)).

Although the court may ultimately be required to render an

opinion regarding persons who are unable or unwilling to

participate, psychologists have no corresponding obligation.

Psychologists strive to remain aware of the scope and

limitations of the specialized roles to which they may

occasionally be assigned. For example, psychologists may

be asked to evaluate only one parent, or to evaluate only the

children. In such cases, psychologists endeavor to refrain

from comparing the parents and offering recommendations

on decision-making, caregiving, or parenting time. In other

cases, courts may ask psychologists to share their general

expertise on issues relevant to child custody, but not to

conduct a child custody evaluation per se (testifying instead,

for example, on child development, family dynamics, effects

of various parenting arrangements, relevant parenting and

co-parenting issues pertaining to culture or diversity). In the

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS19

latter circumstance, psychologists strive to refrain from

relating their conclusions to specific parties in the case at

hand (APA, 2013c, 9.03). Finally, treating psychologists,

whose roles differ from those of custody evaluators,

endeavor to refrain from offering recommendations regard-

ing child custody, parenting time, or decision making.

GUIDELINE 20

Psychologists strive to create, develop, maintain,

convey, and dispose of records in accordance with

legal, regulatory, institutional, and ethical

obligations.

Rationale

Psychologists have a professional and ethical responsibility

to develop and maintain records (e.g., paper, video, and

electronic) for several reasons, including to facilitate provi-

sion of services and to ensure compliance with the law (APA

Ethics Code, Standard 6.01). Given the breadth and com-

plexity of child custody evaluations, thorough documenta-

tion allows the psychologist to better organize and interpret

the data obtained, thereby ensuring greater accuracy of and

support for the psychologist’s opinions. In addition, the doc-

umentation created during the evaluation process may be

used as evidence in legal proceedings and, as such, is sub-

ject to legal requirements regarding the preservation of

evidence.

Application

Psychologists strive to maintain records developed or

obtained during child custody evaluations with appropriate

awareness of applicable legal mandates, with the APA’s

“Record Keeping Guidelines” (APA, 2007), and with other

relevant sources of professional guidance. Psychologists

attempt to identify optimal procedures for respecting the

privacy and confidentiality of all parties (APA, 2007), in

compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding

security and retention of records, including copyrighted

tests materials. Such records—preserved in either paper or

electronic formats—may include, but are not limited to, test

data, interview notes, interview recordings, correspondence,

legal records, clinical records, occupational records, and

educational records. Psychologists are encouraged to

remain aware of the complex and evolving nature of records

created and preserved in electronic form. They aspire to

present an accurate and complete description of the data

upon which they rely that can be facilitated by monitoring

trends and adopting professional practices concerning

technological recording (APA, 2013a). Psychologists are

encouraged to follow legal, ethical, and licensing board guid-

ance regarding how long they are expected and/or required

to retain records, and are advised to develop a uniform and

readily trackable system for managing retention.

Psychologists remain suitably aware of the legal obligations

and restrictions regarding the release of records (APA,

2007).

20AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

V. Interpreting and Communicating the

Results of the Child Custody Evaluation

GUIDELINE 21

Psychologists strive to integrate and analyze

evaluation data in a contextually informed fashion

that is based on psychological science and referral

questions.

Rationale

Integration and analysis of evaluation data are guided by

identified referral questions and incorporate case-specific

factors, as well as information derived from psychological

science. Evaluation data reflect the evolving contexts and

situational factors that are unique to each family. The use of

psychological science may be helpful in identifying potential

risk factors and other relevant variables. Integration and

analysis that incorporate these factors are demonstrably

more fair, accurate, and useful.

Application

When integrating and analyzing data, psychologists strive

to consider the importance of situational factors, such as

the ways in which involvement in a child custody dispute

may impact the behavior of persons from whom evaluation

data are collected. Psychologists endeavor to remain aware,

for example, that relationship conflict and separation as well

as the evaluation process itself can be exceptionally stress-

ful for one or more of the parties. These issues may lead to

assessment results that reflect temporary, situationally-de-

termined states. Disasters, public health emergencies, or a

pandemic environment will likely diminish safety, security,

and resources, and pose threats to child and family health

and well-being, having detrimental impacts upon persons,

families and communities well into the future. As such, they

should be considered in the custody evaluation process,

particularly in the assessment of trauma, traumatic losses,

and bereavement, such as a loss of a grandparent or mem-

ber of the extended family, or assessment of risks and, in

some cases, heightened risks of abuse.

Psychologists remain mindful of contextual and cultural

issues (Guideline 6) when integrating and analyzing the

evaluation data. As part of this process, psychologists

endeavor to consider the likely effects of any changes that

were made to such customary evaluation procedures as

conducting interviews (Guideline 14), administering testing

(Guideline 17), or observing parent-child interactions

(Guideline 18). Psychologists strive to account for the impli-

cations of these circumstances when attempting to under-

stand and describe family members and family dynamics.

Psychologists aspire to manage their own biases when

integrating and analyzing evaluation data (Zappala et al.,

2018).

Psychologists endeavor to remain current with devel-

opments in psychological science (Guideline 4) and are

encouraged to consider such information when integrating

and analyzing evaluation data. Awareness of current devel-

opments can be particularly important when attempting to

identify potential risk factors, and when responding to

specific and complex referral questions that address

compound issues (e.g., as relocation, parent-child access

problems, and domestic violence).

GUIDELINE 22

Psychologists endeavor to ensure that their

recommendations address and support the best

interests of the child.

Rationale

Courts and retaining counsel may or may not solicit recom-

mendations when commissioning child custody evaluations.

Several factors determine the usefulness of recommenda-

tions, such as the analyses from which they are derived, the

availability of empirical support, and the psychologist’s

objectivity, evaluation data, and methods. Such recommen-

dations, if provided, commonly address physical custody,

legal custody, parenting time, parenting resources, clinical

services, and other custody-related matters. Maintaining a

primary focus on the best interests of the child enables psy-

chologists to support the court’s essential function, while

minimizing allegations of partisanship and avoiding

enmeshment in secondary, competitive disputes between

the parties.

Application

If offering recommendations, psychologists strive to ensure

that these opinions reflect an identified referral question, a

careful review of evaluation data, a solid grasp of relevant

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS1

psychological science, a focus on feasibility and practicality,

and a keenness to avoid foreseeable harm. Psychologists

endeavor to refrain from providing recommendations that

have not been requested, as well as recommendations that

are not adequately supported by case-specific assessment

results and psychological science (Amundson & Lux, 2019).

Psychologists attempt to convey their recommenda-

tions in a respectful and logical fashion, reflecting articu-

lated assumptions, detailed interpretations, and

acknowledged inferences that are consistent with estab-

lished professional and scientific standards. Although the

profession has not reached consensus about whether

psychologists should make “ultimate issue” recommenda-

tions concerning the final child custody determination,

psychologists seek to remain aware of the arguments on

both sides of this issue (Melton et al., 2018; Tippins &

Wittman, 2005), and are prepared to substantiate their

own perspectives in this regard.

Psychologists endeavor to anticipate and address the

viability of potential recommendations that might differ

from their own. When formulating recommendations,

psychologists strive to employ a systematic approach that

is designed to avoid biased and inadequately supported

decision making, and they attempt to become familiar with

approaches already described in the specialized child

custody evaluation literature (e.g., Davis, 2015; Austin et al.,

2016), particularly when such literature is suitably attuned

to matters of equity, diversity, and inclusion (APA, 2020a).

GUIDELINE 23

When generating written reports and testifying

about child custody evaluations, psychologists

strive to convey their findings in a manner that is

clear, concise, accurate, and objective.

Rationale

Written reports are likely to be entered into evidence during

child custody proceedings, and testimony may occur during

hearings and trials. Reports and testimony are the most

tangible documentation of the custody evaluation, and of

the information and recommendations received by referral

sources.

Application

Psychologists remain mindful of the weight that may be

placed on their reports and testimony, and they endeavor to

provide a transparent, fair, and accurate depiction of each

aspect of the evaluation. Psychologists strive to ensure that

their written reports and testimony accurately depict the

complete evaluation by attempting to identify data sources,

tests, and procedures, to present data in a complete fashion

and with appreciation of cultural context, and to include

data necessary to support the opinions expressed.

Psychologists remain aware of the importance of including

relevant data—even data that could be perceived as contra-

dicting their opinions—and strive to explain the contribu-

tions of that data to the final opinion. Psychologists endeavor

to avoid choosing data to confirm a particular position while

ignoring contradictory information. Psychologists strive to

acknowledge significant limitations to the available data

(e.g., missing or uncorroborated information or adaptations

related to contextual or situational factors).

Psychologists attempt to create written reports that are

well-organized, easy to follow, appropriately succinct, and

readable, with appropriate grammar and spelling. They

endeavor to avoid the use of jargon that may confuse the

reader and lead to misunderstanding or eventual misrepre-

sentation of their opinions. Psychologists remain aware that

readability, and thus understanding, may be enhanced when

data and opinions are described in separate sections of a

written report, and they strive to note when data obtained

from one source could not be corroborated by other sources.

Psychologists aspire to present their findings in a transpar-

ent manner that allows others to understand how they

arrived at the opinions in question.

Psychologists attempt to ensure that their reports and

testimony are objective and unbiased with respect to all

parties. They endeavor to describe persons who have been

evaluated or consulted, and the work of other professionals,

in a respectful and appropriate manner. Psychologists are

aware of the critical importance of respecting the privacy of

individuals being evaluated or consulted, and they strive to

include in their written reports “only information germane

to the purpose” of the evaluation [APA Ethics Code, 2010,

Standard 4.04].

22AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

References

Ackerman, M. J., Bow, J. N., & Mathy, N. (2021). Child custody

evaluation practices: Where we were, where we are, and

where we are going.Professional Psychology: Research

and Practice, 52(4), 406–417.https://doi.org/10.1037/

pro0000380

American Educational Research Association, American

Psychological Association, & National Council of

Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational

and psychological testing. AERA.

American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for

child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American

Psychologist, 49, 677-680.

American Psychological Association. (2007). Record keeping

guidelines. American Psychologist, 68, 993-1004.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child

custody evaluations in family law proceedings. American

Psychologist, 65, 8, 63-867.

American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for the

practice of parenting coordination. American Psychologist, 67,

63-71.

American Psychological Association. (2013a). Guidelines for

practice of telepsychology. American Psychologist, 68, 791-800.

American Psychological Association. (2013b). Guidelines

for psychological evaluations in child protection matters.

American Psychologist, 68, 20-31.

American Psychological Association. (2013c). Specialty

guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68,

7-19.

American Psychological Association. (2015). Professional

practice guidelines: Guidance for developers and users.

American Psychologist, 70, 823-831.

American Psychological Association (2017a). Ethical principles

of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1,

2010, and January 1, 2017). https:/www.apa.org/ethics/code/

index.aspx

American Psychological Association (2017b).Multicultural

guidelines: An ecological approach to context, identity, and

intersectionality. http://www.apa.org/about/policy/

multicultural-guidelines.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2019).APA guidelines on

race and ethnicity in psychology: Promoting responsiveness and

equity. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-race-

ethnicity.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2020a). Equity, diversity,

and inclusion in APA journals. https://www.apa.org/pubs/

authors/equity-diversity-inclusion

American Psychological Association (2020b). Guidelines for

psychological assessment and evaluation. https://www.apa.

org/about/policy/guidelines-psychological-assessment-

evaluation.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2021). APA resolution

on APA, psychology, and human rights. https://www.apa.org/

about/policy/resolution-psychology-human-rights.pdf

Amundson, J. & Lux, G. (2019). Tippins and Wittman revisited:

Law, social science, and the role of the child custody expert 14

years later. Family Court Review, 57, 88-106.

Austin, W. G., & Drozd, L. M. (2012). Intimate partner violence

and child custody evaluation, part 1: Theoretical framework,

forensic model, and assessment issues.Journal of Child

Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 9(4), 250–309. https://

doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2012.749717

Austin, W., Bow, J. N., Knoll, A., & Ellens, R. (2016). Relocation

issues in child custody evaluations: A survey of professionals.

Family Court Review, 54, 477-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/

fcre.12224

Baker, A. J. L, & Ben-Ami, N. (2011). To turn a child against a

parent is to turn a child against himself: The direct and

indirect effects of exposure to parental alienation strategies

on self-esteem and well-being. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,

52 (7), 472-489. https://dio.org/10.1030/1050255

6l2011.609424

Bracken, B. K., Rodolico, J., & Hill, K. P. (2013). Sex, age, and

progression of drug use in adolescents admitted for

substance abuse disorder treatment in the northeastern

United States: Comparison with a national survey. Substance

Abuse, 34, 263-272.

Cafferky, B. M., Mendez, M., Anderson, J. R., & Stith, S. M. (2018)

Substance use and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic

review. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 110-131. https://psycnet.

apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fvio0000074

Calloway, G. C., & Lee, M. (2017). Using research to assess

children and “hear” their voices in court proceedings.

American Journal of Family Law, 31, 140-157.

Cashmore, J. & Parkinson P. (2008). Children’s and parents’

perceptions on children’s participation in decision making

after parental separation and divorce. Family Court Review,

46(1), 91-104.

Cavallero, L. & Hanks, S. (2012). Guidelines for brief-focused

assessment: AFCC Task Force on Brief Focused Assessments.

Family Court Review, 50(4), 558-569.

Child Welfare Information Gateway (2020). Determining the best

interest of the child. U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s

Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/best_interest.

pdf

Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment, American

Psychological Association. (2007). Statement on

third party observers in psychological testing and assessment: A

framework for decision making. https://www.apa.org/science/

programs/testing/third-party-observers.pdf

Council of National Psychology Associations for the

Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests. (2016). Testing and

assessment with persons and communities of color. https://www.

apa.org/pi/oema/resources/testing-assessment-monograph.

pdf

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

Dale, M, D. & Smith, D. (2020). Making the case for video

conferencing and remote child custody evaluations (RCCES):

The empirical ethical and evidentiary arguments for accepting

new technology. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 27, 30-44.

Daffern, M., Shea, D. E., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2021). Remote forensic

evaluations and treatment in the time of COVID-19: An

international survey of psychologists and psychiatrists.

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Advance online publication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000308

Davis, G. (2015). A systematic approach to domestic abuse–

informed child custody decision making in family law cases.

Family Court Review, 53(4), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/

fcre.12173

Deutsch, R. M. (2008). Divorce in the 21st century:

Multidisciplinary family interventions. The Journal of Psychiatry

& Law, 36, 41-66.

DiFonzo, J. H. (2014). From the rule of one to shared parenting:

Custody presumptions in law and parenting. Family Court

Review, 52, 213-228.

Drozd, L. M., Olesen, N. W., & Saini, M. A. (2013). Parenting plan

& child custody evaluations: Using decision trees to increase

evaluator competence & avoid preventable errors. Professional

Resource Press.

Drozd, L., Saini, M., & Oleson, N. (Eds.). (2016). Parenting plan

evaluations: Applied research for the family court. Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, D., Stuckless, N., & Smith, C. E. (2015). Marital separation

and lethal domestic violence. Routledge.

Emery, R. E. (2011). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child

custody, and mediation. Guilford.

Fidler B. J. & Bala, N. (2020). Concepts, controversies and

conundrums of “Alienation”: Lessons learned in a decade and

reflections on challenges ahead. Family Court Review, 58(2),

576-603.

Fidler, B. J. & Ward, P. (2020). Clinical decision-making in parent-

child contact problem cases. In: A. M. Judge & R. M. Deutsch

(Eds.), Overcoming parent-child contact problems: Family based

interventions for resistance, rejection and alienation. Pp 13-62.

Oxford.XX

Forslund, Granquvist et al. Attachment goes to court: child protection

and custody issues, Attachment & Human Development, 24:1,

1-52, DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2020.1840762

Friedlander, S., & Walters, M. G. (2010). When a child rejects a

parent: Tailoring the intervention to fit the problem.Family

Court Review, 48(1), 98–111.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-

1617.2009.01291.x

Gal, T. & Duramy, B.F. (2015). International perspectives and

empirical findings on child participation. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Gallardo, M. E. (2014). Developing cultural humility: Embracing race,

privilege and power. Sage.

Goodwin, M. A., Stange, K. C., Zyzanski, S. J., Crabtree, B. F.,

Borawski, E. A., & Flocke, S. A. (2017). The Hawthorne effect

in direct observation research with physicians and patients.

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 23, 1322-1328

Groth-Marnat, G., & Wright, A. J. (2016). Handbook of

psychological assessment (7th ed.). Wiley.

Henry, S. G., Jerant, A. J., Iosif, A., Feldman, M. D., Cipri, C., &

Kravitz, R. L. (2015). Analysis of threats to research validity

introduced by audio recording clinic visits: Hawthorne effect,

both, or neither? Patient Education and Counseling, 98, 849-

856.

Hopwood, C. J., & Bornstein, R. F. (2014). Multimethod clinical

assessment. Guilford Press.

Howard, J. A., & Renfrow, D. G. (2014). Intersectionality. In J. D.

McLeod, E. J. Lawler, & M. Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the

social psychology of inequality (pp. 95-121). Springer.

Issacs, M. B., George, C. & Marvin, R. S. (2009). Utilizing

attachment measures in child custody evaluations:

Incremental validity, Journal of Child Custody, 6, 1-24.

Johnson, B. D., Berdahl, L. D., Horne, M., Richter, E. A., & Walter,

M. G. (2014). A parenting competency model. Parenting:

Science and Practice. 14(2), 92-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15

295192.2014.914361

Johnston, J. R. (2003). Parental alignments and rejection: An

empirical study of alienation in children of divorce. Journal of

the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 31, 58-170.

Johnston, J. & Sullivan, M. (2020). Parental alienation: In search

of common ground for a more differentiated theory. Family

Court Review, 58(2),270-293.

Judge, A., & Deutsch, R. (2017). Overcoming parent-child contact

problems. Oxford.

Kelly, J., & Johnston, J. (2001). The alienated child: A

reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court

Review, 39, 249-266.

King, H. E. (2013). Assessment in custody hearings: Child

custody evaluations. In K.F. Geisinger, B.A., Bracken, J.F.,

Carlson, J. -I.C., N. R. Kuncel, S. P. Reise, & M. C. Rodriguez

(Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology,

Vol. 2 Testing and assessment in clinical and counseling

psychology (pp. 587-605). American Psychological

Association.

Langan, E. B. (2016). The elimination of child “custody” litigation:

Using business branding techniques to transform social

behavior. Pace Law Review, 36, 375-437.

Lewis-Fernandez, R., Aggarwal, N., Hingon, L., Hindon, D., &

Kirmayer, L. (Eds.). (2016). DSM-5 handbook on the cultural

formulation interview. American Psychiatric Publishing.

Lund, M. E. (2015). The place for child custody evaluations in

family peacemaking. Family Court Review, 53, 407-417.

Maddux, J. (2010). Recommendations for forensic evaluators

conducting interpreter-mediated interviews. International

Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9, 55-62.

Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K.,

Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2018). Child custody in divorce.

In Psychological evaluations for the courts (4th ed., pp. 530 –

555). Guilford.

McHale, J. P. & Lindahl, K. M. (Eds). (2011). Coparenting: A

conceptual and clinical examination of family systems, pp.

61-79. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

https://doi.org/10.1037/12328-003

Mihura, J. L. (2012). The necessity of multiple test methods in

conducting assessments: The role of the Rorschach and self-

report. Psychological Injury and Law, 5, 97–106.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018). Screening and

assessment tools chart. https://tinyurl.com/nida-screening

24AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS

Neal, T.M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014. The cognitive underpinnings

of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology,

Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 200-211. http://dx.doi.

org/10/1037/10035824

Neal, T. M. S., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger,

K. F. (2020). Psychological assessments in legal contexts:

Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom?

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20, 135–164. https://

doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860

Neilson, L. (2018). Parental alienation empirical analysis: Child

best interests or parental rights. Fredericton: Muriel McQueen

Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research.

http://www.fredacentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/

Parental-Alienation-Linda-Neilson.pdf

Otto, R., Edens, J., & Barcus, E. (2010). The use of psychological

testing in child custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation

Courts Review, 38, 312-340.

Parkinson, P., & Cashmore, J. (2007). Judicial conversations with

children in parenting disputes: The views of Australian judges.

International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 21, 160-189.

Pirelli, G., Otto, R. K., & Estoup A. (2016). Using internet and

social media data as collateral sources of information in

forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 47(1), 12-17.

Reid, J. A., Haskell, R. A., Dillahunt-Aspillaga, C., and Thor, J. A.

(2013). Contemporary review of empirical and clinical studies

of trauma bonding in violent or exploitative relationships.

International Journal of Psychology Research, 8, 37-73.

Saini, M., & Ma, J. (2012). Cultural dynamics of divorce and

parenting. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drodz (Eds.), Parenting plan

evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 514-539).

Oxford.

Saini, M., & Polak, S. (2014). The ecological validity of parent-

child observations: A review of empirical evidence related to

custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 11, 181-201.

Schepard, A., & Hoffman, D. A. (2010). Regulating collaborative

law: The Uniform Collaborative Law Act takes shape. Dispute

Resolution, 17(1), 26-30.

Shumaker, D. M., Miller, C., Ortiz, C., & Deutsch, R. (2011). The

forgotten bonds: The assessment and contemplation of

sibling attachment in divorce and parental separation. Family

Court Review, 49, 46-58. https://doi.org/10, 111/j.1744-

1617.2010.01352x

Silberg, J., & Dallam, S. (2019). Abusers gaining custody in family

courts: A case series of overturned decisions. Journal of Child

Custody, 16(2), 140-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379

418.2019.1613204

Sroufe, L. A., Coffino, B., and Carlson, E. A. (2010)

Conceptualizing the role of early experience: Lessons from the

Minnesota Longitudinal Study. Developmental Review, 30, 36-

51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.dr.2009.12.002

Steinbach, Anja; Augustijn, Lara (2022). Children’s well-being

in sole and joint custody families. Journal of Family Psychology.

36, 2, (Mar 2022): 301-311. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/

fam0000875

Stevenson, M. M., Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., & Cookston, J. T.

(2018) Associations between parental relocation following

separation in childhood and maladjustment in adolescence

and young adulthood. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24,

365-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000172

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

(n.d.). Screening tools. https://tinyurl.com/samsha-screening

Symons, D. K. (2010). A review of the practice and science of

child custody and access assessment in the United States

and Canada. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41,

267-273.

Tippins, T. M., & Wittman, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical

problems with custody recommendations. Family Court Review,

43, 193-222.

Tucker, J. S., Miles, J. N., D’Amico, E. J., Zhou, A. J., Green, H. D.,

& Shih, R. A. (2013). Temporal associations of popularity

and alcohol use among middle school students. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 52, 108-115.

Wagoner, Ryan (2017). The use of an interpreter during a

forensic interview: Challenges and consideration. Psychiatric

Services, 2017 May 1 (68(5): 507-511

Walker, L.E.A. (2017). Battered woman syndrome 4th Ed. New York:

Springer.

Walters, M. G. & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a

parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic.

Family Court Review, 54 (3), 424-445.

Warshak, R. (2015). Ten parental alienation fallacies that

compromise decisions in court and in therapy. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 46, 235-249. https://doi.

org/10.1037/pro0000031

Weiss, R. & Rosenfeld, B. (2012), Navigating cross-cultural

issues in forensic assessment: Recommendations for practice.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43, 234-240.

Zappala, M., Reed, A.L., Beltrani, A., Zapf, P. A., & Otto, R. K.

(2018). Anything you can do, I can do better: Bias awareness

in forensic evaluators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research

and Practice, 18(1), 45-56.

Zeoli, A. M., Rivera, E. A. Sullivan, C. M. & Kubiak, S. (2013). Post-

separation abuse of women and their children: Boundary-

setting and family court utilization among victimized mothers.

Journal of Family Violence. 28 (6), 547-560. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s10896-013-9528-7

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONGUIDELINES FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS IN FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS