Abstract
Parenting plan evaluations (PPEs) help parents help their children by assisting judicial officers make orders in the best interests of the children. Part 1 of this chapter addresses methodological issues affecting the weight, admissibility, and usefulness of PPEs in court. Part 2 of this chapter discusses four fact patterns identified in a review of 226 PPEs conducted by James Husen and his team between 2018 and 2023 to illustrate how PPEs inform court orders promoting success and wellbeing.
TopPart 1: Methodology Of Parenting Plan Evaluation
Intractable conflict between parents following separation or divorce can seriously impact childhood development, undermining a child’s normal development in all domains of life. Parents who are unable to solve conflicts about the children among themselves or with the help of their immediate support systems, require court involvement. When this occurs, most cases are litigated without the need for a parenting plan evaluation. However, more complex, and contentious cases require the expertise and objective opinion of a parenting plan evaluator.
Courts appoint parenting plan evaluators (formerly known as child custody evaluators) to conduct parenting plan evaluations (PPEs). The new 2022 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) guidelines for conducting PPEs encourage using the word parenting rather than child custody to transition away from connotations of “ownership” of children toward an emphasis on “parental responsibilities” in custody evaluations (Stahl et al., 2023).
To qualify as a PPE in California, a mental health professional must learn technical and specialized information and procedures. First, one must have a valid state license as a physician, psychologist, marriage, and family therapist (LMFT), professional clinical counselor (LPCC), and/or clinical social worker (LCSW). In addition, the mental health professional must complete more than 60 hours of specialty training specified by the California Rules of Court. There is also an apprenticeship that must be completed where the mentee materially assists a currently qualified PPE with four evaluations. Thereafter, once qualified, a PPE must obtain 12 hours update training each year (California Rules of Court §§ 5.225 & 5.230).
PPEs generally carry great evidentiary value in any given case. Attorneys and judicial officers both express satisfaction with the information PPEs provide about children and their families (Axelson, 2023; Bow et al., 2011). PPEs settle most cases. Less than 10% of the 226 cases reviewed in connection with writing this chapter went to trial. Over 90% of all 226 PPEs performed between 2018 and 2023 materially helped resolve the parents’ custody disputes.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Parenting Plan Evaluation (PPE): A report provided to the court by qualified mental health professionals to assist the judicial officer make informed decisions for families in the best interests of the children. Preferred term after 2022.
Bias: Factors outside the facts of the case affecting perception and/or judgment.
Scientific Method: In parent plan evaluations the scientific method involves an open-minded assessment of the data supporting and not supporting all hypotheses material to the issues of the case.
Methodology: The structure and process used to conduct a research study.
Confirmation Bias: In parenting plan evaluations, confirmation bias involves a one-sided assessment of evidence supporting a hypothesis without adequately considering contradictory evidence or evidence supporting alternative hypotheses.
Domestic Violence: Statutorily defined in California as not just physical violence causing injury but other conduct in a domestic setting or relationship that disturbs the survivor’s peace.
Hypothesis Testing: A method of analysis used by parenting plan evaluators where alternative answers to an issue in the case are analyzed against the case data.
Child Custody Evaluation: Term for Parenting Plan Evaluations before 2022.