Legal standards, expertise, and experts in the resolution of contested child custody cases

The authors critically evaluate the roles of forensic practitioners and psychological researchers in determinations of the best-interest-of-the-child standard (BICS) in child custody disputes. The authors examine (a) the existing empirical research on the adjustment of children of divorce, (b) the current forensic practice of mental health practitioners, (c) the standardized forensic assessment instruments available, and (d) the ethical dilemmas faced by mental health practitioners who work in this area. On the basis of their analysis, the authors argue that current evidence does not support most of the "expert testimony" proffered by mental health practitioners to the court. As a consequence, they posit that the BICS does not reflect either the needs of the legal system or the expertise of the psychological profession, and that the least detrimental alternative to the child standard more accurately meets the needs of both fields.