Exploring and enhancing the quality of Child Custody Evaluations (CCEs)

This thesis explores what constitutes a high-quality single expert report in family law proceedings (also known as child custody evaluations) using a mixed method approach. The findings are useful not only for research purposes, but also to guide and improve the quality and consistency of reports submitted to Courts, thereby helping psychologists to reduce complaints, lawyers to reach settlements, and judges to assist decision-making, all of which contribute to achieving the best interest of the child.

In complex family law proceedings, Expert Psychologists (EPs) are frequently asked to prepare Child Custody Evaluations (CCEs). Recommendations made often lead to settlement or shape judicial decisions. Across four studies, this thesis explores what constitutes a high-quality CCE and how they can be improved. Study One surveyed psychologists, lawyers, and judges (N = 65) about the importance and quality of various components of CCEs. Inter-professional congruence on importance ratings allowed ‘key components’ to be derived. Discrepancies between importance and quality highlighted components that need improvement. By interviewing psychologists, lawyers, and judges (N=11), Study Two identified four major themes that relate to quality of CCEs. The first three themes explain what components make for a high-quality report: (1) Thoroughness, (2) Transparency and (3) a Pathway Forward. The fourth theme suggested that if these three components were done to a high standard, the overall CCE could be given more weight, and would be of greater (4) Assistance to the Court. To assess the quality of actual CCEs submitted to the Court (N=21), Study Three developed an empirically derived Quality Measure (QM) and found variable quality of reports. Comparisons of these findings to the previous survey data raised concern about the accuracy of psychologists’ self-report. Lastly, Study Four refined the measure of quality to develop the 31 item QM-CCE and found promising psychometric properties, suggesting it may be a useful instrument not only for vi research purposes, but also for evaluators to improve the quality of their work and for legal professionals to decide the weight accorded to the CCE. Together, these four studies provide an understanding not only about what constitutes a high-quality CCE but how to improve quality control to better serve the needs of the Court and the families they serve.