Document type
ArticleVersion
Published versionPublication date
Publication license
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2445/220817
Child custody assessment: a field survey of Spanish forensic psychologists' practices
Journal Title
Director/Tutor
Additional contribution
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Abstract
The participation of forensic psychologists has become common practice in proceedings involving families in dispute over child custody, and also to assess the suitability of joint custody. In order to know the practice, methodology, and decision-making criteria of Spanish forensic psychologists experienced in family cases, 66 Spanish forensic psychologists (error margin ±.06) responded to a Spanish adaptation of the questionnaire for the assessment of child custody evaluation
practices by Keilin and Bloom (1986) and Ackerman and Ackerman (1997). The results showed that it was indifferent for the respondents to be retained by the court or one of the parties, and that the evaluation included a document review,
each parent’s individual interview, each child’s individual interview, psychological tests run to parents and children, observation of parent-child interaction, and reports by other professionals. As regards the custody type, most of them chose sole custody. As for decision-making criteria for sole custody, the results showed that Spanish forensic psychologists follow a hierarchical decision-making model
that begins, firstly, with the application of criteria concerning the child’s protection (e.g. cruelty, abuse, negligence), then moving on to parental abilities. The decision over joint custody also follows a hierarchical decision-making model, where suitability is assessed initially and, if applicable, a decision is made based on its possible success or failure.
Related resource
Subject (English)
Citation
Citation
ARCH MARÍN, Mila, et al. Child custody assessment: a field survey of Spanish forensic psychologists' practices. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context. 2011. Vol. 3, num. 2, pags. 107-128. ISSN 1889-1861. [consulted: 10 of October of 2026]. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/2445/220817