{"title":"专家证人——家庭法庭的心理学家和司法看门人","authors":"Emily Schindeler","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 17th-century witch trials, the expert witness has been an intrinsic part of the operation of the legal system. This article builds on a prior analysis of Australian family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse, which revealed experts representing multiple agencies and disciplinary perspectives present conflicting risk assessments for the same case. This second stage of inductive research examined Family Court appeal cases involving psychologists as an expert witness in child custody disputes. It uncovered risks arising from the way in which determinative weight is ascribed by judges to such testimony and a lack of processes for identifying potential disciplinary or professional biases. This has led to a core finding that there is a need for more explicit agreement as to what counts as specialist knowledge, particularly in matters lacking intra-disciplinary consensus and how it is achieved. Equally, there is a need for enforcing compliance with existing Rules that require making clear the methods or practices, relevant facts, matters, and assumptions employed in forming opinions as well as acknowledging alternative opinions that may be relevant. This will support judicial practice associated with determining the reliability and weight ascribed to such advice. Many of the concerns raised here are relevant to other issues the family court considers and relies upon claims of expert knowledge.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court\",\"authors\":\"Emily Schindeler\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lawfam/ebad030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the 17th-century witch trials, the expert witness has been an intrinsic part of the operation of the legal system. This article builds on a prior analysis of Australian family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse, which revealed experts representing multiple agencies and disciplinary perspectives present conflicting risk assessments for the same case. This second stage of inductive research examined Family Court appeal cases involving psychologists as an expert witness in child custody disputes. It uncovered risks arising from the way in which determinative weight is ascribed by judges to such testimony and a lack of processes for identifying potential disciplinary or professional biases. This has led to a core finding that there is a need for more explicit agreement as to what counts as specialist knowledge, particularly in matters lacking intra-disciplinary consensus and how it is achieved. Equally, there is a need for enforcing compliance with existing Rules that require making clear the methods or practices, relevant facts, matters, and assumptions employed in forming opinions as well as acknowledging alternative opinions that may be relevant. This will support judicial practice associated with determining the reliability and weight ascribed to such advice. Many of the concerns raised here are relevant to other issues the family court considers and relies upon claims of expert knowledge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"volume\":\" 17\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad030\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court
Since the 17th-century witch trials, the expert witness has been an intrinsic part of the operation of the legal system. This article builds on a prior analysis of Australian family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse, which revealed experts representing multiple agencies and disciplinary perspectives present conflicting risk assessments for the same case. This second stage of inductive research examined Family Court appeal cases involving psychologists as an expert witness in child custody disputes. It uncovered risks arising from the way in which determinative weight is ascribed by judges to such testimony and a lack of processes for identifying potential disciplinary or professional biases. This has led to a core finding that there is a need for more explicit agreement as to what counts as specialist knowledge, particularly in matters lacking intra-disciplinary consensus and how it is achieved. Equally, there is a need for enforcing compliance with existing Rules that require making clear the methods or practices, relevant facts, matters, and assumptions employed in forming opinions as well as acknowledging alternative opinions that may be relevant. This will support judicial practice associated with determining the reliability and weight ascribed to such advice. Many of the concerns raised here are relevant to other issues the family court considers and relies upon claims of expert knowledge.
期刊介绍:
The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following: - Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature - Theoretical analyses of family law - Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy - Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family - Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family - Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.