To recommend or not recommend: That is still the question

IF 0.7 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES
Lawrence Jay Braunstein, Jeffrey P. Wittmann
{"title":"To recommend or not recommend: That is still the question","authors":"Lawrence Jay Braunstein,&nbsp;Jeffrey P. Wittmann","doi":"10.1111/fcre.12751","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision-making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio-moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case-resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51627,"journal":{"name":"Family Court Review","volume":"61 4","pages":"782-800"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","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.12751","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

The boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision-making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio-moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case-resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy.

推荐还是不推荐:这仍然是个问题
几十年来,心理健康和法律界一直在争论育儿计划评估者在向法院提交的报告中应该说什么和不应该说什么的界限。关于育儿计划评估人员是否应就访问计划和决策权向法院提出具体建议的争议,围绕着对心理健康专业人员对此类问题的知识范围的不同看法,无论这些问题是社会道德还是心理性质的,以及促进案件解决对儿童和社会的好处。在下面的对话中,一位经验丰富的家庭法律师和一位经常批评提出具体建议的心理学家就这一争议领域展开了辩论。
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