Suchergebnisse

This authoritative reference brings together leading experts for up-to-date theory, findings, and guidelines on the core aspects of child custody evaluations. Contributors offer steps for gathering more accurate family data through home observations, interviews, and collateral information. Chapters examine psychological assessment tools commonly used in evaluations, including measures relating to parenting competencies, mental illness, domestic violence, and substance abuse, and consider increasingly salient issues such as relocation and families in therapy. The section on case studies shows best practices applied in real-life custody situations, and a chapter authored by a family court judge offers rarely-seen perspective from the bench. Featured in the Handbook: · A survey of ethical and professional issues. · Observing and interviewing children, adolescents, and adults. · Psychological assessment and personality testing. · A detailed review of the Bricklin scales. · Specialized issues, including parental alienation, attachment, cults, and more. · Illustrative case studies and psychological reports.Mental health professionals who conduct child custody evaluations, including psychiatrists, clinical psychologists clinical social workers, family and marriage counselors, and licensed clinical professional counselors, will appreciate the Handbook of Child Custody. Family law attorneys will also find the Handbook useful in assisting them in child custody litigation. Its thorough coverage will aid evaluators in making recommendations that are professional, ethical, and impartial, and family lawyers in understanding the evaluation process and preparing for expert testimony. Mark L. Goldstein is a licensed clinical psychologist in Illinois since 1976. Dr. Goldstein received his Ph.D. from the University of Florida in 1976 and has been director of a group practice since 1981, with offices in Buffalo Grove, Northbrook and Hinsdale, Illinois. In addition to his private practice in child custody, child abuse, and other forensic evaluations, he provides counseling services to children, adolescents and families. He is also a consultant to several suburban school systems. In addition, he has served as a professor and/or adjunct professor at several institutions including the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Roosevelt University, the Illinois School of Professional Psychology, the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology and the Chicago School of Professional Psychology. Dr. Goldstein has conducted approximately 1200 custody evaluations and testified almost 100 times in Champaign, Cook, DuPage, Grundy, McHenry, Kane, Lake and Will counties, as well as in several other states. He is on the approved list of custody evaluators in a number of Chicago area counties. In addition, he served on the child custody committee of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, as well as the Psychology board of the American College of Forensic Examiners. He is also a diplomate of the Professional Academy of Custody Evaluators, and editorial board member of the American Journal of Forensic Psychology. He has presented numerous workshops, papers and lectures at both national and international conferences, and has several publications on child custody, particularly in the areas of relocation and parental alienation. Furthermore, Dr. Goldstein is the co-author of Chronic Disorders in Children and Adolescents (Springer, 2011) and Aging and Chronic Disorders (Springer, 2007). He is also co-editor of the Handbook of Forensic Sociology and Psychology (Springer, 2013).

For gay and lesbian parents, child custody decisions have progressed considerably since the time it was generally accepted by courts that homosexual parents were per se unfit for custody. Most states now employ an orientation blind standard or nexus test, meaning that the court will not take a parent's orientation into account unless there is evidence of harm to the child. Although this is a step in a positive direction, there are unforeseen costs. Orientation blindness may seem neutral on the surface because nexus tests usually employ the term "sexual orientation," but the question of harm is applied only to homosexual parents and not heterosexual parents. Gay and lesbian parents who wish to raise sexual orientation claims about the positive aspects of role‐modeling and community inclusion may be discouraged from doing so because parent‐child role‐modeling has traditionally been seen as recruitment, predation or the disruption of "normal" sexual development when the parent is gay or lesbian.Key Points for the Family Court Community:
Gay and Lesbian parents have strong incentives to argue against parent‐child imitation.
Heterosexual parents are not similarly constrained about positive modeling for their children.
Orientation‐blind standards may not be neutral in the application because of the strong social belief in parent‐child imitation.
If courts are aware of the disincentives that lesbian and gay parents have against arguing for positive modeling, they can more neutrally apply the orientation standards.

This article explores the history and implications of a two-tiered system for adjudicating matrimonial-as opposed to nonmatrimonial- custody matters. As the author uncovered by calling every clerk's office in every major city in the country, matrimonial matters are under a different jurisdiction or part of court in nine states.' This differential treatment has implications for the outcome of private custody cases. It also reflects a bias in the administration of justice, based on race and socioeconomic class. Perhaps most importantly, it causes the government and other outside parties (such as court appointed guardians ad litem) to be more involved in the private lives of poor families and families of color than they are with middle and upper-middle class families. Part I of the article discusses the demographics of marriage rates, showing that the majority of unmarried parents with custody disputes are poor and/or are people of color. This is in contrast to married parents with custody disputes, who are more likely to be white and middle or upper middle class. Part II starts by exploring the history behind the two-tiered system for adjudicating matrimonial versus non-matrimonial custody matters, and then describes the current lay of the land. Part II also paints a picture of the culture of Family Courts throughout the country. Part III is an overview of the substantive nature of private child custody cases, including the best interest standard and the use of guardians ad litem. Part IV takes two states, New York and Virginia, to show how jurisdictional difference manifests itself in practice in private child custody cases. Part V concludes that our country's family law "system" is reflective of bias against poor families and families of color. The jurisdictional differences between matrimonial and non-matrimonial custody cases are not based on the best interests of the child and should be eliminated. All custody matters in every state should be heard by the same level of state court.

I develop a model of marriage in which spouses decide on investments in child quality during marriage, and on the allocation of child custody should they divorce. The custodial allocation determines the share of the marital surplus each spouse appropriates, which in turn influences spouses' investment incentives. The custodial allocation therefore has both distributional and efficiency consequences. I derive the equilibrium investments and optimal custodial allocation, and identify three channels through which making divorce easier affects child welfare: investments in child quality during marriage, the likelihood of divorce, and the allocation of custody if divorce occurs.

AbstractMany earlier studies of Canadian child custody determinations have been written from ideological and feminist viewpoints. This study attempts to look at this subject from an empirical and sociological stance, within its historical context. Several related issues are considered, including the central issue of sexism, and the effects of legislation and case law on these determinations. Models of how custody cases settled by trial affect those negotiated outside the courtroom are explored. This study analyzes decades of Canadian child custody orders and other evidence to shed light on trends in judicial decision making and their causes.