[oajfp] two new
- From: "Gregory DeClue Ph. D. ABPP" <gregdeclue@xxxxxx>
- To: OAJFP@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:18:56 -0400
Click "CURRENT ISSUE" or "VOLUME 2: 2010" at http://www.forensicpsychologyunbound.ws/ Assessing Parental Risk in Parenting Plan (Child Custody) Phillip H. Witt, Associates in Psychological Services, P.A., Somerville, NJ Email: phwitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Corresponding author) Hannah L. Merdian, Psychology Department, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Mary Connell, Independent Practice, Fort Worth, TX Douglas P. Boer, Psychology Department, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Abstract: One type of claim in parenting assessment (child custody) cases is that one parent, typically the father, is alleged to be engaging in improper or compulsive sexual behavior via the Internet. The sexual behavior at issue can range from frequent sexually explicit chats with other adults to compulsive viewing of adult pornography. In more extreme cases, the problematic behavior may involve viewing child pornography, and in some cases, the parent faces actual criminal charges in this regard. The present article reviews the current scientific knowledge base for evaluation of risk in such parenting evaluation cases and provides some guidelines and recommendations for an evaluator in the assessment process.  The term “parenting-plan evaluation” or “parenting evaluation” is used instead of “custody evaluation” to reflect the current focus, in all states, on legal decision-making in contested parenting cases that seeks to maximize the capacities of each parent to contribute positively to meeting the child’s needs. “Custody” and “visitation” may have come to imply a “winner take all” notion that is no longer an accurate reflection of the understanding of what is in children’s best interests. Grisso, T. (2010). Guidance for improving forensic reports: A review of common errors. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 102-115. Abstract: This study employed a national sample of forensic reports that had been critiqued by a panel of advanced forensic mental-health practitioners serving as reviewers for the American Board of Forensic Psychology. The study describes all of the discrete types of faults that reviewers encountered in the reports, and then converts them to prescriptive statements to guide forensic report writing. The study also identifies the most frequent report-writing problems in this sample. The results were not intended to describe the quality of forensic reports in the U.S., but rather to offer guidance for improving the quality of forensic reports.
Other related posts:
- » [oajfp] two new - Gregory DeClue Ph. D. ABPP