Reviewed by

To enhance my professional breadth, I often contract with a local psychologist who performs comprehensive custody evaluations for regional family court judges. My training and professional experiences as a clinical child psychologist help me perform reasoned home study observations and conduct focused interviews with collateral contacts reporting about the involved children. I am more than happy to accept my limited role in such evaluations, not only because many aspects are outside my professional expertise (e.g., interpretation of certain tests, clinical and substance abuse interviewing with adults, thorough knowledge of legal proceedings) but also because I find the whole enterprise more than a bit frightening. In the video Child Custody, G. Andrew H. Benjamin corroborates my unease as he summarizes psychologists ' roles in child custody evaluations as “fraught with hazards. ” Indeed, numerous ethical complaints pertain to psychologists in the context of child custody litigation. A psychologist and family lawyer, Benjamin suggests that psychologists ' risk may be minimized by the adoption of careful strategies, such as videotaping parent interviews and amassing supporting documentation and evidence (see Benjamin & Gollan, 2003). The function of this video's illustrative vignette and related discussion is not to train the clinician to perform a competent, comprehensive custody evaluation. This is indeed a vast undertaking. Although guidelines and recommended methodologies exist, best practices based on sound empirical underpinnings are wanting in this field (Emery, Otto, & O'Donohue, 2005). The validity of assessing core constructs relating to child custody is itself questioned. In accordance with literature-based recommendations to first explore nonadversary avenues in resolving disputed custody (e.g., collaborative law, mediation; Emery et al., 2005), Benjamin describes the firs