Changing Nature of Psychological Expert Testimony in Child Custody Cases

• NCJ Number: 198638
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 86 Issue: 3 Dated: November-December 2002 Pages: 152-156,158,161
• Author(s): Carolyn R. Wah
• Date Published: November 2002
• Length: 9 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article explores the role of expert testimony in child custody cases where parental unfitness is not an overarching theme.

Abstract

The author explains that in our present day society, expert knowledge is suspect. No longer do we put faith in experts as the last word on any subject matter. In fact, there is a sense in our society that everyone is an expert, which means that no one person’s knowledge is privileged. This belief has implications in courtrooms where expert testimony is often called upon to help decide the fate of many people. This is especially true in child custody cases where the outcome is of paramount importance to the child and his or her guardians. This article focuses specifically on the role of clinical and forensic psychologists in child custody cases where there is no allegation of parental unfitness. The author draws upon the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Daubert and Kumho to illustrate points throughout this article. The author explains that since 1941, the use of expert testimony in child custody cases has become commonplace. However, judges are beginning to question the role of experts in such cases in so much as many experts simply become reporters, recalling what was said during interviews with the relevant parties. As such, it becomes a question for the judge to decide whether expert testimony is called for at all in many cases. Another issue under consideration is whether the expert properly applied professional standards to the investigation of child custody cases. In a society where many people have expert knowledge, it is important to distinguish relevant testimony from simple information. Furthermore, it has been suggested that neither mental health professionals nor judges have the ability to predict the effects on the child of either parent’s custody. In conclusion, the author cautions experts and judges alike to weigh the relevance of expert testimony and to have an understanding of the limitations of such testimony.