A comparative study of custody evaluation institution: a ‎scientific and interdisciplinary approach in custody ‎litigation

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Women's Studies, Faculty of Humanities Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran‎

Abstract

Custodian law and the judicial proceeding in child custody determination as is practiced today is reformed while public view has changed about childhood and how to treat children. Reforming Civil Law (1169) Act, however, was a new approach to social demands but family law judges have faced challenges because of the best interests concept remains an ambiguous one. Many legal systems designed custody evaluation as an interdisciplinary approach to help family law judges, lawyers and other professionals to settle child custody disputes. Custody evaluation helps parties who are unable to resolve their dispute to reach an agreement about child-related issues. The article first will present a literature review with a critical view to articulate the history and necessity of custody evaluation. The goal of this research is to explain custody evaluation in a comparative study to assess the capacity of Iranian legal system to apply it. The findings show divorcing families with special issues facing such as domestic violence, child abuse need comprehensive evaluation and forensic recommendation.  Instead of the family law judge's emphasis and Iranian law capacity to apply some counseling centers to aid the judicial system in determining child custody dispute, there is still no such centers.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1.  

    1. Ackerman, M. J. (2006). Clinician’s Guide to Child Custody Evaluations. Published by John Wiley & Sons, inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
    2. Al-Sharif, M and Araei, H (2016). "Pluralism of legal reasoning in the light of conflicting interpretations", Comparative Law, Volume 13, Number 1 (107 series), pp. 26-3 (In Persian).
    3. Ansaripour, M (2019) "Does custody end with maturity or maturity and growth?", Private Law Studies Quarterly, Volume 50, Number 4, pp. 663-647 (In Persian).
    4. Azari, H and Tabatabai-Hissari, N (2016). "Challenges of Iran's legal system in joining human rights treaties from the perspective of international law", Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 8, Number 1, pp. 1-24 (In Persian).
    5. Babb, B. A., Danziger, G., Moran, J. D., & Mack, W. A. (2009). Child Custody Evaluations : Review of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography. Available at SSRN 2496930
    6. Bailey, R., Dana, D., Bailey, E., & Davis, F. (2020). The Application of the Polyvagal Theory to High Conflict Co-Parenting Cases. Family Court Review, 58(2), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12485
    7. Bandarchi, M (2004). "Custody in jurisprudence and law - a discussion on Article 1169 of the Civil Code", Ahl al-Bayt Fiqh Journal, No. 37, Spring, pp. 131-146 (In Persian).
    8. Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2002). a Critical Review of Child Custody Evaluation Reports. Family Court Review, 40(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2002.tb00827.x
    9. Donohue, W. O., & Bradley, A. R. (1999). Conceptual and Empirical Issues in Child Custody Evaluations, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,V6, N3, Fall.
    10. Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & Donohue, W. T. O. (2005). Psychologicals Science in the Public Interesr. A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations Limited Science and a Flawed System. 6(1), 1–29. DOI: 1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00020.x
    11. Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2020). Guest Editors’ Introduction to the 2020 Special Issue on Parent–Child Contact Problems: Concepts, Controversies & Conundrums. Family Court Review, 58(2), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12471
    12. Fischel-wolovick, L. (2020). Battered mothers and children in the courts : A lawyer’s view, 246–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1669
    13. Garber, B. D. (2020). Special Issue : Parent-Child Contact Problems : Concepts, Controversies, & Conundrums Case Evaluation and Response Sherlock Holmes and the Case Of Resist / Refuse Dynamics : Confirmatory Bias and Abductive Inference In Child Custody Evaluations, 58(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12478
    14. Gardner, R. A. (2004). Articles Commentary On Kelly And Johnston's “The Alienated Child : A Refomulation Of Prental Alienation Syndrome”, Family Court Review , 39 (3), July 2001. 42(4).
    15. Ghanizadeh Bafghi, M (2018). "Relativity of the situation of children with disabilities with the best interests of the child in the light of Iranian laws and international documents", Comparative Law Studies, Volume 10, Number 2 (In Persian).
    16. Gould, J. W. (1999). Part lbo : A Paradigm for Forensic Evaluation of Child Custody Determination, 37(2), 159–178.
    17. Hartenstein, J. L. (2016). Tender Years Doctrine. Encyclopedia of Family Studies, October, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs449.
    18. Hedayat-Niya, Faraj-Allah (2015) "A plan to combine arbitration and counseling in the family court", Specialized Quarterly Journal of Religion and Law, No. 13, Autumn (In Persian).
    19. Hysjulien, C., & Benjamin, G. A. H. (1994). Child Custody Evaluation A Review of Methods Used in Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution. 32(4), 466–489.
    20. Jaffe, G., P., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2009). A Framework for Addressing Allegations of Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes. July, https://doi.org/10.1080/15379410903084517
    21. Kelly, J. B. (2010). Commentary on “Family Bridges: Using Insights From Social Science To Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children”, (Warshak, 2010). Family Court Review, 48(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01289.x.
    22. Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differenti Among Types OF Intimate Partner Violence : Research Update AND Implications For Internentions. 46(3), 476–499.
    23. Kelly, R. F., & Ramsey, S. H. (2009). Child Custody Evaluations : Social Science Child Custody Evaluations : The Need For Systems- Level Outcome Assessments,*. 47(2), 286–303.
    24. (1994). The determination of child custody, The Future of Children / Center for the Future of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 4(1), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602481.
    25. Massimillo Webster, A. (2022). Specific Factors Influencing Child Custody Evaluations,(Vol. 7, Issue 2).
    26. Max Werner. (1987). A C0mprehensive Child Custody Evaluation Protocool By Max Werner *. 25(21), 1–7.
    27. Mohseni, M (2016) "The role of arbitration and family counseling centers in the divorce process with an emphasis on judicial decisions", Master's thesis, Naraq Branch Azad University (In Persian).
    28. Quinnell, F. A., & Bow, J. N. (2001). Psychological Tests Used In The Child-Custody-Evaluations, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19: 491-501.
    29. Rešetar, B., & Emery, R. E. (2008). Children’S Rights in European Legal Proceedings: Why Are Family Practices So Different From Legal Theories?, Family Court Review, 46(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00193.x.
    30. Roshan, Mand Hamdi, H (2018) "The rights of the child in Iranian law and judicial procedure and the Convention on the Rights of the Child", Children's Rights Quarterly, 1st year, 1st issue, Spring (In Persian).
    31. Safai, H; Iraqi, S; Emami, A,; Sadeghi, M; Barzoui, Abbas; Hamidzadeh, Ahmad and Ahani, Betul (2007). omparative study of family law, Publishing and Printing Institute of Tehran University, second edition (In Persian).
    32. Saidi-Graghani R and Kikha M (2017) "Jurisprudential and legal review of the element of expediency in the family support law approved in 2018", Islamic Jurisprudence and Law Research Quarterly, 14th year, number 52, summer, pages 9-110 (In Persian).
    33. Saidi-Graghani R and Kikha M (2017) "Jurisprudential and legal review of the element of expediency in the family support law approved in 2018", Islamic Jurisprudence and Law Research Quarterly, 14th year, number 52, summer, pages 9-110 (In Persian).
    34. Simon, R. A., & Stahl, P. M. (2014). Analysis in Child-Custody-Evaluation Reports : A Crucial Component Analysis in Child-Custody-Evaluation Reports : A Crucial Component", September.
    35. Stark, D., Choplin, J., & Wellard, S. (2019). Properly Accounting for Domestic Violence in Child Custody Cases: An Evidence-Based Analysis and Reform Proposal. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 26(26.1), 1. https://doi.org/10.36641/mjgl.26.1.properly.
    36. Tahidi, A and Keikhosravi, M (2017). "Achieving children's human rights through a detailed review of the concept of the best interest of the child in the teachings of international lawyers", Treaty Legal Research Quarterly, No. 3 (In Persian).
    37. Virtue, Frances. M. (2011). Applying Case Study Methodology To Child Custody Evaluations. Family Court Review, Vol. 49,(2), 336-347.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 14, Issue 1
Spring & Summer 2023
July 2023
Pages 85-120

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics