The Functions of Psychiatric Evaluation in Contested Child Custody and Visitation Cases

Abstract

The process of the resolution of 200 disputed custody and visitation cases referred for court-ordered evaluation was studied. Although the function of such evaluations is often seen as providing evidence for judicial consideration, in the study sample this was an unusual result, as judges made decisions in only 11% of cases. Highly adversarial parents reached agreement during or at the end of the evaluation in 18% of cases, and the experts' recommendations functioned as a bargaining chip which promoted resolution in 71% of cases. The authors propose a model in which psychiatric evaluation in these cases functions in the legal system as an alternative method of dispute resolution, gaining much of its effect from the shadow of judicial power which looms in the background. The implications of this model for the conduct of psychiatric custody/visitation evaluations are discussed.