儿童监护权评估者信念与意见的质性研究

Q1 Social Sciences
L. Sanders, R. Geffner, S. Bucky, Neil G. Ribner, Angela J. Patino
{"title":"儿童监护权评估者信念与意见的质性研究","authors":"L. Sanders, R. Geffner, S. Bucky, Neil G. Ribner, Angela J. Patino","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2015.1120476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practices in child custody evaluations have created controversy and debate among professionals. Semi-structured interviews of 10 highly experienced child custody evaluators were analyzed to gain an understanding of the evaluation process, changes in the field, and evaluators’ opinions and beliefs, especially concerning intimate partner violence (IPV) and parental alienation. Although a small qualitative sample, multiple evaluators had extreme beliefs and opinions about the prevalence of IPV in child custody cases, the belief that there is no such thing as parental alienation syndrome (PAS), and the need to differentiate between alienation and estrangement. Evaluators continue to value the ability of parents to co-parent as a top variable for making custody recommendations, seemingly regardless of alleged or substantiated IPV. Other concerning themes were identified and theoretical problem areas are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Qualitative Study of Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs and Opinions\",\"authors\":\"L. Sanders, R. Geffner, S. Bucky, Neil G. Ribner, Angela J. Patino\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15379418.2015.1120476\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Practices in child custody evaluations have created controversy and debate among professionals. Semi-structured interviews of 10 highly experienced child custody evaluators were analyzed to gain an understanding of the evaluation process, changes in the field, and evaluators’ opinions and beliefs, especially concerning intimate partner violence (IPV) and parental alienation. Although a small qualitative sample, multiple evaluators had extreme beliefs and opinions about the prevalence of IPV in child custody cases, the belief that there is no such thing as parental alienation syndrome (PAS), and the need to differentiate between alienation and estrangement. Evaluators continue to value the ability of parents to co-parent as a top variable for making custody recommendations, seemingly regardless of alleged or substantiated IPV. Other concerning themes were identified and theoretical problem areas are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Child Custody\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Child Custody\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1120476\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Custody","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1120476","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

儿童监护评估的实践在专业人士中引起了争议和辩论。对10位经验丰富的儿童监护评估人员的半结构化访谈进行了分析,以了解评估过程、该领域的变化以及评估人员的观点和信念,特别是在亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)和父母疏远方面。虽然是一个小的定性样本,但许多评估者对儿童监护案件中IPV的流行有极端的信念和观点,认为没有父母异化综合征(PAS)这样的东西,并且需要区分异化和疏远。评估人员继续将父母共同抚养子女的能力作为提出监护建议的首要变量,似乎不顾所谓的或证实的IPV。确定了其他有关主题,并讨论了理论问题领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Qualitative Study of Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs and Opinions
Practices in child custody evaluations have created controversy and debate among professionals. Semi-structured interviews of 10 highly experienced child custody evaluators were analyzed to gain an understanding of the evaluation process, changes in the field, and evaluators’ opinions and beliefs, especially concerning intimate partner violence (IPV) and parental alienation. Although a small qualitative sample, multiple evaluators had extreme beliefs and opinions about the prevalence of IPV in child custody cases, the belief that there is no such thing as parental alienation syndrome (PAS), and the need to differentiate between alienation and estrangement. Evaluators continue to value the ability of parents to co-parent as a top variable for making custody recommendations, seemingly regardless of alleged or substantiated IPV. Other concerning themes were identified and theoretical problem areas are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Child Custody
Journal of Child Custody FAMILY STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Since the days of Solomon, child custody issues have demanded extraordinary wisdom and insight. The Journal of Child Custody gives you access to the ideas, opinions, and experiences of leading experts in the field and keeps you up-to-date with the latest developments in the field as well as discussions elucidating complex legal and psychological issues. While it will not shy away from controversial topics and ideas, the Journal of Child Custody is committed to publishing accurate, balanced, and scholarly articles as well as insightful reviews of relevant books and literature.
×
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