Previous issue (2019. Vol. 9, no. 4)
Included in Web of Science СС (ESCI)
Current issues of experts' participation in child custody in the event of parents' separation 2115
Federal Budgetary Institution “V.Serbsky National Medical Research Centre for Psychiatry and Narcology” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Senior researcher and Associate Professor of the Chair of Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Department of Forensic Evaluation in Civil Procedure and Faculty of Legal and Forensic Psychology, Federal Budgetary Institution “V.Serbsky National Medical Research Centre for Psychiatry and Narcology” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and Moscow State University of Psychology and Education , Moscow, Russia
Doctor of Psychology, head of chair of clinical and forensic psychology, department of legal psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology & Education, Moscow, Russia
Professor, head of Forensic psychiatric expertise in civil cases department, Serbsky National Research Centre for Social and Forensic Psychiatry of Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia
The experts’ participation in child custody cases in the event of parents’ separation is analyzed in this article. The analysis of 68 civil cases shown that many experts’ conclusions did not meet the professional and ethic standards, were not based on any scientific methodology, did not correspond to juridical requests and exceed the limits of experts’ competence. A classification of experts’ conclusions typical mistakes is proposed: violation of the limits of legal and professional competence; ethnic mistakes (for example, linked to the expert’s «ambivalent role», the sympathy for one side of the conflict); methodological mistakes; breach of information collection procedure (insufficiency of used techniques, discrepancy between the used methods and the age of the subject; interpretations without argumentation etc.); inadequate evaluation of the mental state of the subject, underestimation of his/her mental disorder and social danger. It was emphasized that the recommendations concerning the reasonability of residence of a child with one of the parents and/or concerning the rules of communication with another parent are the rude excess of the competence in experts’ conclusions. These mistakes have legal consequences and do not correspond to the family legislation.
Vostroknutov N. A.,
Haritonova N. K., Safuanov F. S. Metodologicheskie
osnovy jekspertnogo podhoda k pravovoj zawite detej (sudebno-psihiatricheskij i
sudebno-psihologicheskij podhody): Metodicheskie rekomendacii. M., 2004.
Semejnyj kodeks Rossijskoj Federacii. M., 2006.
Haritonova N. K.,
Koroleva E. V. Sudebno-psihiatricheskaja jekspertiza v
grazhdanskom processe (klinicheskij i pravovoj aspekty). M., 2009.
Baerger D. R., Galatzer-Levy R.,
Gould J. W., Nye S. G. A Methodology for Reviewing the
Reliability and Relevance of Child Custody Evaluations/Journal of the American
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Child Custody Evaluations, 2002. V. 18.
Zimmerman J., Hess A. K.,
McGarrah N. A., Benjamin G. A., Ally G. A.,
Gollan J. K., Kaser-Boyd N. Ethical and Professional
Considerations in Divorce and Child Cases / Professional Psychology: Research
& Practice, 2010. V. 40.