Free Custody Evaluation Standards and Procedures Memorandum - Hawaii

II. Table of Contents
I. II. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................2

III. PREREQUISITES FOR A COURT ORDERED EVALUATION AND CHOICE OF CUSTODY EVALUATOR ..............................................................................3

IV. MINIMUM PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ...................................................4 V. APPOINTMENT ORDER .......................................................................................6

VI. INVESTIGATION/EVALUATION PROCESS .........................................................6 A. B. BOTH PARTIES IN THIS STATE ................................................................................6 ONE PARTY OUT-OF-STATE ...................................................................................8

VII. REQUIRED REPORTS, TWO TIER REPORTING SYSTEM, AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES ................................................................................................8 A. B. C. D. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT ......................................................................8 CUSTODY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ....................................................................9 CUSTODY EVALUATION REPORT ...........................................................................10 PROCEDURE AND TIMETABLE ...............................................................................11

VIII. DISCOVERY AND TRIAL ...................................................................................12 IX. X. XI. COMPENSATION AND REQUIRED LOGS .......................................................13 "COMPLAINTS" ..................................................................................................13 MANDATORY TRAINING ...................................................................................14

XII. CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................15 XIII. PRO BONO ASSISTANCE .................................................................................15 XIV. GUIDING PRINCIPLES......................................................................................15 XV. RESOURCES.....................................................................................................16 A. B. GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................16 STANDARDS .......................................................................................................17 2

C. D. E. F.

ETHICS...............................................................................................................18 RULES OF COURT ...............................................................................................18 MISCELLANEOUS .................................................................................................20 ARTICLES ...........................................................................................................20

G. CASELAW ...........................................................................................................21 XVI. A. B. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................22 APPENDIX 1: CUSTODY EVALUATION APPOINTMENT ORDER ..................................22 APPENDIX 2: CUSTODY EVALUATOR'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF APPOINTMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ........................................................22 C. D. E. F. APPENDIX 3: NOTICE THAT CUSTODY EVALUATOR HAS DECLINED APPOINTMENT ....22 APPENDIX 4: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CUSTODY INVESTIGATION .......................22 APPENDIX 5: CUSTODY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT .................................22 APPENDIX 6: CUSTODY EVALUATION REPORT .......................................................22

G. APPENDIX 7: CUSTODY EVALUATOR'S ANNUAL TRAINING CERTIFICATION ...............22

III.

Prerequisites for a Court Ordered Evaluation and Choice of Custody Evaluator
The court, with the assistance of the Family Court's Custody Investigation Unit

("CIU"), will determine when a custody investigation and evaluation is necessary, either sua sponte or in response to a motion. The court will make a prima facie finding of at least one of the following before ordering an evaluation or before approving a stipulation of the parties: 1. The child has a specific physical, mental, or emotional disability. 2. A parent has a specific significant physical, mental, or emotional disability that could reasonably and foreseeably impact his/her parenting ability. 3. There is credible information regarding domestic violence, child abuse and/or neglect, or substance abuse. 4. The children are expressing significant fear of and/or anger against one or both parents and/or refusing contact with one or both parents.

3

5. The parties have developed or are likely to develop a pattern of adversarial conflict or a high level of acrimony and such conflict or acrimony will cause harm to the child, delays in the case processing, and/or result in a lack of credible and relevant evidence at trial. 6. In post-decree cases, there must be an additional finding of material change in circumstances. Anticipated or actual relocation out-of-state constitutes a material change in circumstances. Indigent parties will receive the services of the CIU. The court will appoint a private Custody Evaluator ("CE") in all other cases. (Appendix 1: Custody Evaluation Appointment Order). Selection of the CE is in the court's sole discretion, taking into account the parties' wishes and all other relevant factors. Upon accepting an

appointment, all CEs must submit a certification with the court regarding the minimum requirements set forth in the next section. (Appendix 2: Custody Evaluator's

Acknowledgment of Appointment and Certification of Minimum Requirements). A CE who declines the appointment will submit the attached Notice. that Custody Evaluator has Declined Appointment). (Appendix 3: Notice

IV.

Minimum Professional Requirements
The court will no longer maintain an approved list of CEs. This policy will be

modified in the future should there be sufficient resources given to the court to provide meaningful recruitment, selection, training, and oversight. All court appointed CEs must file the attached Custody Evaluator's

Acknowledgment of Appointment and Certification of Minimum Requirements with the court if the CE wishes to accept an appointment in a specific case. This

acknowledgment/certification must be filed in every case that the CE accepts. (Appendix 2: Custody Evaluator's Acknowledgment of Appointment and Certification of Minimum Requirements). The following is a list of CE minimum professional requirements: 1. Licensed by the State of Hawaii as a social worker, marriage and family counselor, psychologist, psychiatrist, or attorney; and,

4

2. One year experience as a custody evaluator or at least 4 different custody reports filed in any divorce or paternity case in any jurisdiction in the United States within the past 3 years. If this requirement is lacking, the CE may nevertheless be appointed upon a showing that s/he has procured a mentor/supervisor/consultant in the State of Hawaii that possesses all of these minimum requirements. Any compensation to the mentor CE will not be charged to the case or the parties; and, 3. Either formal education or the equivalent work experience in: a. child development; b. family dynamics in the context of divorce, separation and paternity, including healthy parenting after separation; c. interviewing techniques with children and adults; d. avoiding conflicts of interest, maintaining neutrality and objectivity; e. gathering and evaluating information from collateral sources and assessing credible and relevant data; and, 4. Working knowledge of and/or ability to recognize: a. physical, mental, and emotional disabilities (infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult); b. legal issues and applicable statutes, case law, and court rules in divorce, separation, and paternity and the related areas of domestic violence, child abuse, and mandatory reporting requirements; c. psychological and emotional issues in divorce, separation, and paternity including--grief, loss, trauma and other theories regarding crisis and transition for children and families; d. safety issues relevant to divorce, separation, paternity and particular safety issues during the investigation/evaluation process; e. assessment of parenting abilities and construction of effective parenting plans; f. clear report writing, including recommendations supported by the report and referrals to appropriate available community resources; g. the need for specialized knowledge regarding domestic violence (including safety plans), sexual abuse, child abuse/neglect, substance abuse, and/or

5

physical or mental illness is required; and, if the CE does not possess this specialized knowledge, how to obtain the necessary assistance in the investigation; h. effects of culture, religion, and different family dynamics (including extended and/or blended families) on children and parenting; i. the trial process and testifying in court; j. resources to assist parents to reach appropriate agreements.

5. If the CE does not possess specialized knowledge, training, or experience in items g and h (noted above), the CE will know whom to consult who has the requisite knowledge, training, or experience. 6. After 2008, the CE meets the annual continuing specialized training requirements (noted below). 7. There are no outstanding complaints filed/lodged against the CE with the CE's licensing authority and no pending criminal charges.

V.

Appointment Order
The court will use the attached order to appoint the CE. The court will note the

specific issues to be explored by the CE. The Petitioner or the Respondent (as directed by the court) shall serve a copy of the Order to the CE within five (5) calendar days of filing. If the CE requires clarification of the appointment order, the CE will ask the court for clarification by sending a letter to the presiding judge, with copies to counsel and pro se parties. (Appendix 1: Custody Evaluation Appointment Order).

VI.

Investigation/Evaluation Process
A. Both Parties in this State
Good decision making requires objective data. The CE should use multiple

methods of data gathering. corroboration.

If reliability is at issue, the CE should attempt to find

Significant information from third parties should be appropriately

corroborated and documented if used as a basis of the CE's evaluation and recommendations. If collateral source information is not available, the CE's reports

6

should reflect this. If they were available but not examined, the CE should provide an explanation. Collateral information sources include but are not limited to: · · · · records of school, medical, mental health, employment, social service, law enforcement; computer files; financial information; oral or written reports from collateral sources. CEs should be aware of and acknowledge unconfirmed information and should exercise caution in reliance upon such information. Reports should clearly identify such information and give some guidance regarding the appropriate weight to assign to the information and the CE's own evaluation and recommendations, if based on such data. The CE shall interview the child/ren, each parent, observe the child/ren with each parent (consistent with safety considerations), and shall consider interviewing and/or observing the child/ren with other adults with a significant caretaking role in the child/ren's lives and/or who live in a parent's household. The CE's evaluation and recommendations must be based on the investigation and the relevant data reported by the CE. If the CE concludes that the court's decision making process should include an interview with the child/ren, the CE should state this in the Custody Settlement Conference Report. (Appendix 5). This recommendation should include specific

information that the judge may need in order to interview the child/ren appropriately (including any verbal, intellectual, and/or developmental concerns) and should suggest areas of inquiry. A CE may recommend that parents and/or the child/ren should be subject to screening, assessment, evaluation, or testing by other professionals, including certified substance abuse counselors, mental health professionals and domestic violence counselors. The CE will first attempt to obtain a stipulation by the parties concerning these recommendations. Failing that, the CE will communicate these recommendations in a letter to the court with copies to all counsel and pro se parties. The court may thereafter set the matter for hearing or a party can file a motion in response to said

7

letter. The CE will not incur any fees and costs in this regard without a prior written court order or stipulation. No discussions with the CE will be deemed confidential. Generally, direct quotes of a child should not be included in any report. There is a consensus among

professionals that children should not be directly asked which parent s/he prefers or wishes to live with. The CE may submit a separate confidential letter to the court that contains a child's statements and/or specific safety concerns. The court will decide whether to seal a portion of or the entire letter. However, the court must, in an order, indicate the reasons for said sealing and will further specify who will have access to the sealed record. The court will also indicate what actions will be taken as a result of said letter. Due process requires that parties receive adequate notice of the contents of any sealed information. The court must fashion a remedy consistent with the child's safety and best interest as well as the parties' due process rights.

B. One Party Out-of-State
The preceding section regarding in-state parents apply except that the court may appoint two individual CEs. The CE from Hawaii will be the primary CE. Selection of the out-of-state CE is in the court's sole discretion, taking into account the parties' wishes, input from the primary CE, and all other relevant factors. The two CEs must confer prior to the commencement of the investigation by either one in order to agree to one set of guidelines and parameters and will submit one Custody Settlement Conference Report and, if needed, one Custody Evaluation Report. Only the Hawaii based CE needs to appear at the Custody Settlement Conference although the out-ofstate CE may be involved by telephone or any other "real time" technology.

VII. Required Reports, Two Tier Reporting System, and Settlement Conferences
A. Settlement Conference Report
After the CE has completed the investigation, the CE shall file a Settlement Conference Report in the form attached to this memorandum (Appendix 5), no later than 14 days before the Custody Settlement Conference (conference date noted in the 8

Custody Evaluation Appointment Order, Appendix 1). The sole purpose of this report is to empower the parties to reach their own agreement regarding their children. The form is designed to be factual and succinct and will be used by the court, parties, and counsel at the Custody Settlement Conference. Generally, this Report should not

exceed 5 pages and must follow the form provided. (Appendix 5: Custody Settlement Conference Report). The CE will submit the original for filing and will give copies to counsel and pro se parties and provide a courtesy copy to the judge. The original report will be sealed upon filing and will be accessible only to the parties and counsel. CEs, with the parents' cooperation, are encouraged to complete their work on a timely basis. No continuances will be made without prior a written court order--the CE and the parties should not assume or expect that a continuance will be granted simply because the work and/or report has not yet been completed. CEs, with the parents' cooperation, are encouraged to complete their work ahead of time in appropriate cases. If the investigation is completed within the first 45 days, the CE will file the attached Notice of Completion of Custody Investigation (Appendix 4) and the court will attempt to schedule an earlier Custody Settlement Conference.

B. Custody Settlement Conference
A custody settlement conference date will be included in the Custody Evaluation Appointment Order. The purposes of this conference are to: · · assist the parents to fashion their own appropriate plans for their children; collaboratively fashion interim agreements and/or orders to promote a more likely settlement (including, for example, parenting counseling, therapy, parenting education, an interim arrangement for a trial period); · · disclose the results of the CE's investigation in a manner which may be less divisive; avoid the time and expense of preparing a full report if the parents are able to agree. At this conference, the court may set further conferences before him/herself, another judge, or an appropriate neutral (including but not limited to a mediator or a 9

Volunteer Settlement Master). The CE must appear at the first conference before the court. Any subsequent appearances will be at the discretion of the court or the neutral. All appearances will be compensated according to the CE's customary charges. The court, but not the neutral, may ask for the CE's probable recommendations in the event that a Custody Evaluation Report is required. However, the CE shall inform the court if stating recommendations at the time of the conference may be premature and/or counterproductive to settlement (for example, the parties need to hear specific recommendations in a more private setting or the CE needs an opportunity to explain the recommendations in a setting which allows one-to-one dialogue with each parent individually). The role of the CE is not to mediate or advocate but to provide objective input to the participants in order to enable the parents to make sound and appropriate decisions about their child/ren. In the event that the CE believes that a particular agreement reached is not in the child/ren's best interest or is unsafe, the CE shall succinctly inform the judge either in person at the Custody Settlement Conference or in a letter, with copies to all counsel and pro se parties. The judge and the parties will then decide whether a guardian ad litem or an attorney should be appointed for the child/ren, with costs apportioned to the parties. As noted below, a Custody Evaluation Report will be completed if settlement attempts fail.

C. Custody Evaluation Report
Upon receiving notice (timetable noted below) that the parties have been unable to reach agreement about how to raise their children and must go to trial, the CE will complete a Custody Evaluation Report. The report can be in a format of the CE's choosing; however, the first portion of the report and the Table of Contents must follow the form established by the court. (Appendix 6: Custody Evaluation Report). The CE will submit the original for filing and will give copies to counsel and pro se parties and provide a courtesy copy to the judge. The original report will be sealed upon filing and will be accessible only to the parties and counsel.

10

D. Procedure and Timetable
1. Proposed CE receives an appointment order. 2. If the Proposed CE declines the appointment, s/he shall return the form attached to the order for this purpose to the court clerk within 10 days of receiving the appointment order. Appointment). 3. If the Proposed CE accepts the appointment, s/he shall submit the acknowledgement/certification form within 10 days of receiving the appointment order. (Appendix 2: Custody Evaluator's Acknowledgment of Appointment and Certification of Minimum Requirements). 4. If the CE completes the investigation within the first 45 days, the CE will so inform the court and all counsel and pro se parties. (Appendix 4: Notice of Completion of Custody Investigation). 5. No later than 14 days before the scheduled Custody Settlement Conference, the CE will submit her/his Settlement Conference Report to the court and all counsel and pro se parties. (Appendix 5: Settlement Conference Report). 6. The CE and the parties (and their counsel) must participate in the Custody Settlement Conference (phone participation is acceptable but prior written permission must be received from the court). Children will not be allowed to participate. The CE will clarify statements and findings in the Settlement Conference Report and may offer tentative recommendations at the request of the court. The CE will not be required to remain for the entire conference unless requested by the court. Compensation of the CE will be at the CE's customary charges. 7. At the conclusion of the conference, the court will decide on the next steps, in consultation with the parties and counsel. The possible next steps include: · The parties reach an agreement. Within one business day after the (Appendix 3: Notice that Custody Evaluator has Declined

agreement has been placed on record, the court clerk shall inform the CE of the outcome and that a Custody Evaluation Report will not be necessary. · The parties did not reach an agreement and the matter is set for trial (no sooner than 60 days). The resulting written court order will include the 11

trial date and a court-ordered additional advance (to be apportioned in the court's discretion, taking into account time to prepare the report, possible discovery, and testimony at trial) to be paid to the CE within 10 days. Within one business day, counsel (or the court clerk if both parties are pro se) shall fax a copy of the order to the CE. The CE shall complete a Custody Evaluation Report within 30 days of receiving the faxed order and shall submit the original Report to the court for filing, with copies to all counsel and pro se parties and a courtesy copy to be delivered to the judge assigned to preside over the trial. · The parties did not reach agreement but the court orders continued conferences either before a judge or with a neutral. Counsel will inform the CE of every new conference date prior to that date. If the conferences continue before a neutral (including Mediation Center of the Pacific, Volunteer Settlement Master, or a privately retained mediator) and the parties reach a perceived impasse, the parties must, within 10 days of the last conference, file a Motion to Set. After hearing on that Motion, the court will either set the matter for further conference or for trial. The court clerk will inform the CE of the outcome of the hearing.

VIII. Discovery and Trial
CEs will be subject to discovery subsequent to filing the Custody Evaluation Report. CEs will be entitled to compensation according to their customary charges and such fees and costs will be apportioned by the court. Generally, the party requesting the deposition will bear its cost. However, for good cause shown, the court will

apportion said costs. The court will consider factors such as the parties' relative ability to pay and the usefulness of the deposition. The CE or a party may move for a protective order pursuant to the Hawai`i Family Court Rules. The court will consider factors such as harm to the child/ren, harassment by litigious parties, and depletion of the marital estate.

12

The CE will be deemed an expert at trial except that parties may voir dire the CE regarding said expertise. The CE will be subject to cross-examination at trial based on the written report.

IX.

Compensation and Required Logs
Compensation will be based on rates reasonably and customarily charged by the

CE.

A minimum advance of $1,000, covering the period up to and including the

Settlement Summary Report and Conference, will be required. If the parties are unable to reach agreement about their parenting responsibilities and must proceed to trial on those issues, an additional advance will be required subsequent to the Custody Settlement Conference. As with other costs, the court will determine the allocation between the parties. CEs must retain contracts/agreements between the CE and the parties and all billing records. The court does not have the resources to provide meaningful oversight over CE costs and will not be a guarantor for payment. Although CE fees will not be

"capped," the court will not order or apportion exorbitant fees and costs. Besides billing records and contracts/agreements, the CE will retain: 1. a log of all contacts related to the case, including but not limited to, email, text messaging, instant messaging, web postings, phone, mail; 2. all notes and interview information; 3. copies of consent/waiver forms; 4. correspondence; 5. all other records and documentation regarding the investigation, evaluation, and recommendations.

X.

"Complaints"
The court does not have the resources to maintain an approved list of CEs, to

institute and maintain a court certification program, or to receive and meaningfully act on complaints. Parties and counsel who object to actions taken by a specific CE should take timely and appropriate action in their cases. Even if copies are given to the other party, 13

letters written to judges are impermissible ex parte communications. Motions and other prayers for relief in accordance with the Hawai`i Family Court Rules are appropriate.

XI.

Mandatory Training
Effective 2008, all persons accepting CE appointments are required to take two

continuing education specialized trainings per calendar year. Annual certifications of this must be submitted to the CIU by January 31st of the subsequent year. (Appendix 7: Custody Evaluator's Annual Training Certification). Therefore, the first Training

Certification will be due by January 31, 2009, to cover the calendar year of 2008. One required training will be in the CE's profession but must be relevant to custody evaluations (see below). The other training can be any course or program that receives prior approval from the CIU. The annual course conducted by the Family Law Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association at the annual bar convention always will be an approved choice. From time to time, as resources become available, the court will sponsor specialized training related to this area. The court sponsored training may be deemed mandatory. As noted in the section on "Minimum Professional Requirements," CEs are encouraged to focus on the following areas (as relevant to the area of child custody and access): 1. 2. 3. 4. child and family development; child and family mental health or psychopathology; family systems/family dynamics; parenting (including assessment of parenting ability, constructing appropriate and successful parenting plans); 5. effects of divorce, separation (or parents who never married/never lived together), and/or remarriage/blended families on children; 6. 7. family law; family/domestic violence, including: impact on children, impact of

witnessing such violence, safety planning; 8. 9. child abuse and neglect, child sex abuse; substance abuse; 14

10. safety issues that arise during the legal and evaluation processes; 11. legal, psychological, mental health research regarding "high conflict" couples or "toxic litigants" (with or without domestic violence dynamics) 12. cultural and religious diversity; 13. formal and informal community resources; 14. information/data collection, assessment, and evaluation; 15. interview techniques; 16. evaluator bias, observer effects, and maintaining neutrality and objectivity; 17. ethical considerations in the CE's respective profession, particularly in the context of custody evaluations; 18. other topics relevant to the area of child custody and access.

XII. Certification
At this time, the Family Court does not have sufficient resources to establish and monitor a certification program for CEs. Although certification and close monitoring of CEs are national "best practices," we are unable to meaningfully perform these functions without the required resources.

XIII. Pro Bono Assistance
Effective 2008, all CEs who have received a minimum of 10 custody evaluation court appointments in the past 5 years shall assist the community by offering pro bono services as requested by the court and the CIU. Such opportunities will include either one annual free evaluation report for an indigent family or 20 hours (per year) of consultation to the CIU on selected cases and/or issues.

XIV. Guiding Principles
The child's best interest standard is paramount and will take precedence over notions of parents' "rights" and convenience.

15

The Family Court of the First Circuit has adopted Clare Dalton et al., National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge's Guide (2006). All CEs are expected to be cognizant of this tool, which can be downloaded from the internet at http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/BenchGuide.pdf or purchased online or by calling

1/800/527-3223 (first copy free, $4.00 each additional copy, free shipping). All CEs will actively support the policies of the Family Court, encouraging settlement agreements consistent with the child's best interest and safety. However, this does not mean that an evaluator should also take on the role of "mediator." Care must be taken to avoid conflicts that may occur when a CE attempts to assume multiple roles such as "mediator," "guardian ad litem," "advocate," or "therapist." CEs are

appointed for the primary reason of providing the court with objective data and reasoned evaluations and recommendations based on that data and the CE's relevant training, experience, and expertise. All CEs are subject to the Hawai`i Family Court Rules, Hawai`i Rules of Evidence and all relevant pretrial orders. All parties, counsel, CEs, and experts hired by parties shall treat children kindly, civilly, and in a manner consistent with each child's developmental level and cognitive and emotional vulnerabilities. Upon a finding that a CE or an expert violated this

principle, the court may strike evidence and/or testimony. If such conduct is shown by a privately retained expert, the party and/or the party's counsel may be sanctioned in addition to having the evidence stricken. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation as we continue to improve our systems.

XV. Resources
These resources were particularly relied upon or were specifically used as a basis for language and concepts in this memorandum.

A. Guidelines
1. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Practice Parameters for Child Custody Evaluation (1997), 16

http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/Custody.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007). 2. American Psychological Association, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceeding, 49 American Psychologist 677-80 (July 1994), http://www.apa.org/practice/childcustody.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2007). 3. William Bernet, The Psychiatrist's Role in Divorce Custody Battles, 21 Psychiatric Times (Dec. 2004), http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=59100084 (last visited Mar. 7, 2007). 4. Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 15 Law and Human Behavior 655-65 (1991), http://www.ap-ls.org/links/currentforensicguidelines.pdf (visited Mar. 5, 2007). 5. Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners, Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations, http://www.labswe.org/child.htm (last visited Mar. 6, 2007).

B. Standards
1. Association of Family & Conciliation Courts, Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation May 2006, http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/Model%20Standards%20of%20Practice%20for%20C hild%20Custody%20Evaluation%20May%202006.pdf (last visited Mar. 1, 2007). 2. Florida Dept. of Health, Board of Psychology Rules, Rule 64B19-18.007: Requirements for Forensic Psychological Evaluations of Minors for the Purpose of Addressing Custody, Residence or Visitation Disputes (Effective Sept. 30, 2004), http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/psychology/rule64B19-17-18.pdf (last

visited 3/5/07). 3. Oregon National Association of Social Workers, Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (2005), http://www.nasworegon.org/documents/FinalChildCust.doc (last visited Mar. 2, 2007). 4. Richard J. Williams, New Jersey's Administrator Director of the Courts, Family-- Standards for Child Custody and Parenting Time Investigation Reports (Apr. 2, 17

2002), http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/directive/family/dir_01_02.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007).

C. Ethics
1. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Ethics Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry (adopted May 2005), http://www.aapl.org/pdf/ETHICSGDLNS.pdf (last visited Mar. 6, 2007). 2. American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002), http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007). 3. National Association of Social Workers, Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999), http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp?print=1 (last visited Mar. 6, 2007). 4. Aviva Orenstein, The Ethics of Child Custody Evaluation: Advocacy, Respect for Parents, and the Right to an Open Future (Dec. 2006), http://poynter.indiana.edu/publications/m-orenstein.pdf (last visited Mar. 1, 2007).

D. Rules of Court
1. 2007 California Rules of Court Rule 5.220: Court-Ordered Child Custody Evaluations; Rule 5.225: Appointment Requirements for Child Custody Evaluators; Rule 5.230: Domestic Violence Training Standards for Court-Appointed Child Custody Investigators and Evaluators; Rule 5.235: Ex Parte Communication in Child Custody Proceedings; http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linked=5_220 (last visited Mar. 7, 2007). 2. Forms Adopted for Mandatory Use by the Judicial Council of California: a. FL-325: Declaration of Court-Connected Child Custody Evaluator Regarding Qualifications, http://www.accesslaw.com/jcforms/forms_by_number.html (last visited

18

Mar. 2, 2007); b. FL-326: Declaration of Private Child Custody Evaluator Regarding Qualifications; http://www.accesslaw.com/jcforms/forms_by_number.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2007); c. FL-327: Order Appointing Child Custody Evaluator,

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/fl327.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007); d. FL009: San Luis Obispo's Order Appointing Child Custody Evaluator Attachment http://www.slocourts.net/civil/docs/fl009.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007); e. Partial Evaluation/Investigation Report, http://courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/counpe99.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007); f. Evaluation/Investigation Report, http://courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/couns_fi.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007). 3. Sonoma County Superior Court Rules Rule 9.15: Custody Evaluation, Settlement Conference, and Trial in Child Custody Only Cases, http://sonomasuperiorcourt.com/rules/rule9.pdf#9.15 (last visited Mar. 2, 2007). 4. Illinois' 19th Judicial Circuit Court Rules Rule 11.05 Family Court Referral List: Qualifications; Approval of

membership on the Family Referral List; Selection of Provider; Conditions of Membership; Fees; Acceptance of Appointment; Psychological Tests; Prohibition Against Counseling, Therapy or Legal Representation; and Statistical Information, http://www.19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/rules/rules11.htm#1105 (last visited Mar. 5, 2007). 5. New York's Order Appointing Forensic Evaluator for Custody Proceedings, http://www.nycourts.gov/forms/matrimonial/forensicorder.pdf (last visited

19

Mar. 2, 2007). 6. Utah's New Custody Evaluation Procedures, Memorandum from Alicia Davis, Staff, Standing Committee on Children & Family Law, Administrative Office of the Courts, to Judges, Commissioners, Attorneys, and Custody Evaluators (Mar. 31, 2003), http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/forms/custodyeval/memo.pdf (last visited Mar. 1, 2007); Includes forms re: Format (Subject Topics) for Child Custody Evaluation Reports, http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/forms/custodyeval/toc.pdf (last visited Mar. 1, 2007); Child Custody Settlement Conference Report,
http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/forms/custodyeval/settlementreport.pdf (last

visited Mar. 1, 2007).

E. Miscellaneous
1. Memorandum re Recruitment of Child Custody Evaluators for Florida's 5th Judicial Circuit from David M. Trammell, Trial Court Administrator, to Licensed Psychologists, Clinical Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists, or Licensed Mental Health Counselors, including a. Court-Appointed Child Custody Evaluator Application b. Fee Schedule per evaluation; http://www.circuit5.org/Employment/CustodyEvaluatorPacket.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007).

F. Articles
1. Dana Royce Baerger et al., A Methodology for Reviewing the Reliability and Relevance of Child Custody Evaluations, 18 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer 35-73 (2002).
http://www.aaml.org/files/public/Journal_vol_18-1-3_Child_Custody_Evaluations.pdf

(last visited Mar. 5, 2007). 2. R. Lundy Bancroft, Understanding the Batterer in Custody and Visitation Disputes (Jan.1, 1998).

20

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/understanding-the-batterer-in-visitation-andcustody-disputes.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2007). 3. Robert E. Emery et al, A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations, 6 Psychological Science in the Public Interest 1-29 (American Psychological Society, 2005). http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi6_1.pdf (last visited Mar. 6, 2007). 4. S. Margaret Lee and Nancy W. Olesen, Assessing for Alienation in Child Custody and Access Evaluations, 39 Fam. Ct. Rev. 282-298 (2001), http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.174-1617.2001.tb00611.x (last visited Jun. 1, 2007). 5. Mary Johanna McCurley et al., Protecting Children From Incompetent Forensic Evaluations and Expert Testimony, 19 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 277-319 (2005), http://www.aaml.org/files/public/Journal_vol_19-25_Protecting_Children_from_Incompetent_Evals_and_Tesitmony.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 2007). (Note: "Tesitmony" appears in the original. You must input the typographical error as shown.) 6. Larry Wright, Interviewing Children in Child Custody Cases, 18 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 295-309 (2002), http://www.aaml.org/files/public/Journal_vol_18-1-11_Interviewing_Kids_in_ Custody_Cases.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 2007).

G. Caselaw
1. S.C. v. H.B., 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 51484(U) (July 1, 2005) (unpublished), http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_51484.htm (last visited Mar. 5, 2007). 2. Brown v. Newberger, USCA1 Opinion 01-2410 (1st Cir., May 30, 2002), http://vlex.com/vid/20199807 (last visited May 3, 2007).

21

XVI. Appendices
A. Appendix 1: Custody Evaluation Appointment Order B. Appendix 2: Custody Evaluator's Acknowledgment of Appointment and Certification of Minimum Requirements C. Appendix 3: Notice that Custody Evaluator has Declined Appointment D. Appendix 4: Notice of Completion of Custody Investigation E. Appendix 5: Custody Settlement Conference Report F. Appendix 6: Custody Evaluation Report G. Appendix 7: Custody Evaluator's Annual Training Certification

22