Determining the Suitable Parent on Children’s Custody Cases
The rate of divorce cases has projected an increasing number in recent years. In these cases, if couples have children and are demanding a divorce, a settlement should be done about which parent should have the custody of the children. A parent ought to carry out his/her parenting responsibilities so that the children would complete their developmental process in a healthy and sufficient environment. The level of fulfillment of parenting skills in long term “good enough” by parents is called parenthood capacity. One of the most important points to take into consideration while deciding on a custodian is the assessment of parenthood capacity. For an accurate assessment, judge might consult a referee. The aim here is to assist the judge to reach a verdict on custody assessing the reports run by the referee. This assessment demonstrates parents’ current situation rather than their eligibility to be custodian. Since parenthood assessment, regarding protection of child, is used during judicial process, it is a different notion from clinical examination of parents or parenthood education. There are various assessment tools on parenthood, which are actively used by professionals in the literature. These tools might slightly differ from each other. It is usually under the initiative of referee to choose the right tool for an assessment. However, it is essential to pay regard to the social norms of that particular society while choosing an assessment tool. This article will discuss the possible objective standards to use for assessing parenthood capacity. The features of two tools, which are claimed to be feasible for use in an assessment (Parenting Skills Assessment-10; Parenting Competence 3), will be studied.
2. Çocuk Haklarına Dair Sözleşme (http://www.unicef.org/turkey/pdf/_cr23.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 10.08.2015)
3. Çocuk Koruma Kanunu. 5395. Kabul Tarihi: 3.7.2005. Resmi Gazete yayınlanma tarihi: 15.7.2005; Resmi Gazete Sayısı: 25876
4. Ailenin Korunması ve Kadına Karşı Şiddetin Önlenmesine Dair Kanun 6284. Kabul Tarihi: 8.3.2012. Resmi Gazete yayınlanma tarihi: 20.3.2012; Resmi Gazete Sayısı: 28239
5. Portnoy SM. The psychology of divorce: A lawyer’s primer, part 2: The effects of divorce on children. American Journal of Family Law. 2008;21(4):126-134.
6. Gough D, Stanley N. Parenting capacity. Child Abuse Review. 2004;13(1):1–4.
7. Seden J. Creative connections: Parenting capacity, reading with children and practitioner assessment and intervention. Child & Family Social Work. 2008;13(2):133-143
8. Child Protection and Parenting Capacity Assessments; A Framework for Reducing Harm (http://www.childprotectionpartnership.org.uk/home/home.asp Erişim Tarihi: 17/08/2015)
9. Moran JA, Weinstock DK. Assessing parenting skills for family court. Journal of Child Custody. 2011;8(3):166-188
10. Eve PM, Byrne MK, Gagliardi CR. What is good parenting? The perspectives of different professionals. Family Court Review. 2014;52(1):114-127
11. White A. Assessment of parenting capacity, Literature review. Ashfield New South Wales Sydney Australia, 2005
12. Harnett PH. A procedure for assessing parents' capacity for change in child protection cases. Children and Youth Services Review. 2007;29(9):1179-1188
13. Emery RE, Otto RK, O'Donohue WT. A critical assessment of child custody evaluations limited science and a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2005; 6(1):1-29
14. Bala N. Assessments for postseparation parenting disputes in Canada. Family Court Review. 2004;42(3):485-510
15. Budd KS. Assessing parenting capacity in a child welfare context. Decision Making in Child Welfare, Children and Youth Services Review. 2005;27(4):429-444
16. Stahl PM, Martin L. An historical look at child custody evaluations and the influence of AFCC. Family Court Review. 2013;51(1):42-47
17. Patel SH, Jones KD. Assessment of family custody issues using mental health evaluations: Implications for mental health counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling. 2008;30(3):189-199
18. Schmidt F, Cuttress LJ, Lang J, Lewandowski MJ, Rawana JS. Assessing the parent–child relationship in parenting capacity evaluations: Clinical applications of attachment research. Family Court Review 2007;45(2):247-259
19. Azar ST, Lauretti AF, Loding BV. The Evaluation of parental fitness in termination of parental rights cases: A functional-contextual perspective. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review. 1998;1(2):77-100
20. Cyr F, Di Stefano G, Desjardins B. Family life, parental separation, and child custody in Canada: A focus on Quebec. Family Court Review 2013;51(4):522-541
21. Reed CS, Egeren LAV, McKelvey L. Psychometric Study of The Parenting Skills Assessment; A Practitioner Approach to Measuring Parenting Practices. Michigan State University Kellogg Center, Garden Level, East Lansing, Michigan, 2009
22. The protective capacity Assessment: Addressing Threats to Child Safety within the Case Plan (http://action4cp.org/documents/2005/pdf/Aug2005TheProtectiveCapacityAssessmentnowl.pdf Erişim Tarihi 17/08/2015)
23. Austin WG, Pruett MK, Kirkpatrick HD, Flens JR, Gould JW. Parental gatekeeping and child custody/child access evaluation: Part I: conceptual framework, research, and application. Family Court Review. 2013;51(3):485-501
24. Adshead G, Bluglass K. Attachment representations and factitious illness by proxy: relevance for assessment of parenting capacity in child maltreatment. Child Abuse Review 2001;10(6):398-410
25. Teubert D, Pinquart M. The association between coparenting and child adjustment: a meta-analysis. Parenting: Science & Practice. 2010;10(4):286-307
26. Demby S. Interparent hatred and its impact on parenting: assessment in forensic custody evaluations. Psychoanalytic Inquiry. 2009;29(6):477-490
The Bulletin of Legal Medicine is an open access scientific journal. Open access means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The Journal and content of this website is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License. This is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
The Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) allows users to copy, distribute and transmit an article, adapt the article and make commercial use of the article. The CC BY license permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open access article, as long as the author is properly attributed.
The Bulletin of Legal Medicine requires the author as the rights holder to sign and submit the journal's agreement form prior to acceptance. The authors retain copyright of their work and grant the Association for its publication. This ensures both that The Journal has the right to publish the article and that the author has confirmed various things including that it is their original work and that it is based on valid research.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
*Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
*Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
*Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.