The emperor has no clothes: A systemic view of the status and future of child custody evaluation (CCE)

IF 0.7 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES
Benjamin D. Garber
{"title":"The emperor has no clothes: A systemic view of the status and future of child custody evaluation (CCE)","authors":"Benjamin D. Garber","doi":"10.1111/fcre.12752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>For all of the time, effort, and money invested in child custody evaluation (CCE) and for all of evaluators' emphases on collecting empirically sound data, CCE is not itself an empirically robust process. The reliability, validity, efficacy, and efficiency of CCE has never yet been adequately demonstrated. The science has yet even to define and measure the variables that constitute a healthy family, much less how one is to measure and recommend changes for conflicted systems in the midst of tectonic transitions. This article proposes five ways in which family law professionals and the culture at large should work to better serve the needs of our children: (1) the establishment of proactive parenting and co-parenting education intended to diminish the frequency and magnitude of family conflict and improve the quality of child and family functioning; (2) the introduction of organized incentives that motivate healthy parenting and co-parenting practices as opposed to negative consequences that do too-little, too-late; (3) a greater emphasis on social equity, cultural humility, and universal professional training; (4) the creation of ethical guidelines that disconnect continuing conflict from professional income; and (5) outcome research that feeds back into the evolution of these and related processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51627,"journal":{"name":"Family Court Review","volume":"61 4","pages":"747-761"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.12752","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For all of the time, effort, and money invested in child custody evaluation (CCE) and for all of evaluators' emphases on collecting empirically sound data, CCE is not itself an empirically robust process. The reliability, validity, efficacy, and efficiency of CCE has never yet been adequately demonstrated. The science has yet even to define and measure the variables that constitute a healthy family, much less how one is to measure and recommend changes for conflicted systems in the midst of tectonic transitions. This article proposes five ways in which family law professionals and the culture at large should work to better serve the needs of our children: (1) the establishment of proactive parenting and co-parenting education intended to diminish the frequency and magnitude of family conflict and improve the quality of child and family functioning; (2) the introduction of organized incentives that motivate healthy parenting and co-parenting practices as opposed to negative consequences that do too-little, too-late; (3) a greater emphasis on social equity, cultural humility, and universal professional training; (4) the creation of ethical guidelines that disconnect continuing conflict from professional income; and (5) outcome research that feeds back into the evolution of these and related processes.

皇帝没有衣服:对儿童监护权评估(CCE)现状和未来的系统看法
尽管在儿童监护权评估(CCE)上投入了大量的时间、精力和金钱,而且评估人员都强调收集经验上可靠的数据,但CCE本身并不是一个经验上稳健的过程。CCE的可靠性、有效性、有效性和效率从未得到充分证明。科学甚至还没有定义和衡量构成一个健康家庭的变量,更不用说如何衡量和建议在结构转型中对冲突系统进行变革了。本文提出了家庭法专业人员和整个文化应采取的五种方式,以更好地满足我们儿童的需求:(1)建立积极的育儿和共同育儿教育,旨在减少家庭冲突的频率和严重程度,提高儿童和家庭功能的质量;(2) 引入有组织的激励措施,鼓励健康的育儿和共同育儿做法,而不是做得太少、太迟的负面后果;(3) 更加重视社会公平、文化谦逊和普遍的专业培训;(4) 制定道德准则,将持续的冲突与职业收入脱钩;以及(5)对这些过程和相关过程的演变进行反馈的结果研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信