Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2007). Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1-29.

Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2007). Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1-29.

Theoretically, the law guides and controls child custody evaluations, but the prevailing custody standard (the ''best interests of the child'' test) is a vague rule that directs judges to make decisions unique to individual cases according to what will be in children's future (and undefined) best interests. Furthermore, state statutes typically offer only vague guidelines as to how judges (and evaluators) are to assess parents and the merits of their cases, and how they should ultimately decide what custody arrangements will be in a child's best interests. In this vacuum, custody evaluators typically administer to parents and children an array of tests and assess them through less formal means including interviews and observation. Sadly, we find that (a) tests specifically developed to assess questions relevant to custody are completely inadequate on scientific grounds; (b) the claims of some anointed experts about their favorite constructs (e.g., ''parent alienation syndrome'') are equally hollow when subjected to scientific scrutiny; (c) evaluators should question the use even of well-established psychological measures (e.g., measures of intelligence, personality, psychopathology, and academic achievement) because of their often limited relevance to the questions before the court; and (d) little empirical data exist regarding other important and controversial issues (e.g., whether evaluators should solicit children's wishes about custody; whether infants and toddlers are harmed or helped by overnight visits), suggesting a need for further scientific investigation.

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/dv.html