APPLYING CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

APPLYING CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY TO CHILD
CUSTODY EVALUATIONS
Frances M. Vertue1
The child custody evaluation (CCE) can play a critical role in the resolution of custody disputes in the Family Court. There have
been a number of significant methodological advances made in this field by various researchers over the past 20 years. It is
timely that a scientifically-based, integrative, methodological framework be developed within which existing methods might be
situated. In this paper, case study methodology is proposed as an appropriate methodological framework for CCEs. The
application of this methodology to CCEs is explicated with particular attention being paid to the methodological tasks of data
collection and data interpretation. An orienting model is proposed to guide the collection of data, and strategies are described
for applying population level research findings to individual cases in the form of risk and resilience models. Finally, coherence,
analogy, and making methodology explicit are proposed as evaluation criteria for the CCE process and reports, and suggestions
are made about outcome research.
Keywords: case study methodology; child custody evaluation; methodology; Family Court; risk and resilience; forensic
psychology
Judges in the Family Court make rulings in custody and access disputes based on the needs of the
children involved, and their caregivers’ capacity to meet those needs, and a scientifically informed
child custody evaluation (CCE) provides relevant and useful information to the Family Court (Gould
& Martindale, 2007). Importantly, there is no formal evaluation of the utility of CCEs in the court
system to date (Kelly & Ramsey, 2009), although Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) have found that, of
the nine percent of custody cases that were not settled by negotiation or mediation (n = 84), more than
50 percent (n = 49) settled after the custody evaluation. This suggests that the custody evaluation may
have been partly instrumental in facilitating settlement where negotiation and mediation had not
succeeded.fcre_1375 336..347
Over the past 20 years, experts have raised incisive criticisms of the science behind CCEs,
including the limits of custody-relevant psychological knowledge (Tippins & Wittmann, 2005), the
practice of focusing on adults rather than the child, the indiscriminate use of psychometric tests,
evaluators in dual roles (Bow & Quinnell, 2004; Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005), the limits of
mental health assessment practices (Trombetta, 1991), and the biases of evaluators (Pickar, 2008).
While these are valid criticisms of the empirical science of CCE, the demands of custody disputes
make CCEs necessary.
To address these concerns, practice standards have been introduced, such as the American Psy-
chological Association’s Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings2
and
the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Model Standards for Practice for Child
Custody Evaluations.3
Useful texts describe areas to explore and methods to interview and observe
parents and children, assess child development and parenting capacity, write the report, and deal with
cross-examination (e.g., Gould & Martindale, 2007; Rohrbaugh, 2008; Stahl, 1994). Workshops are
provided by professional organisations and academic institutions. However, “. . . there appears to be
a large amount of unwanted variability in the questions asked, the methods pursued, the way infor-
mation is processed, and the kinds of conclusions reached . . .” (O’Donohue, Beitz, & Tolle, 2009, p
300). Therefore, it seems timely for a scientifically validated methodological framework to integrate
existing methods and provide an evidence-based conceptualisation of “best practice” for CCEs. With
Correspondence: fran@childfamilypsyc.co.nz
FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 49 No. 2, April 2011 336–347
© 2011 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

a methodological framework based on scientific knowledge, CCE methods will be easier to evaluate
and teach. A methodological framework could specify constraints on the CCE process as well as
constraining the structure of the report itself, with a coherent and logical format to communicate
information to the court.
In this paper, case study methodology is presented as an appropriate methodological genre for
CCEs. Case study methodology involves collecting data, making inferences about the patterns in the
data, drawing tentative conclusions about those patterns, generating explanations for the patterns, and
making predictions about outcomes (Corcoran, Walker & Wals, 2004). There is a precedent for this
application of the methods of science to a professional endeavour (Vertue & Haig, 2008) in which
scientific method is applied to clinical reasoning. Just as that methodological framework is flexible
enough to be helpful to clinicians of differing theoretical orientations with clients who have many
different problems, so using case study methodology as a framework for CCEs provides the flexibility
required to accommodate the tremendous variability inherent in individual and family functioning.
THE ARGUMENT FOR CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY
The case study method has a long history in many disciplines, including medicine, clinical
psychology, sociology, social work, social anthropology, economics, business management and
organisation, and public administration (David, 2007; Gillham, 2000; Howard, 1993; Martin & Hull,
2007; Stake, 2003; Yin, 2008). In these disciplines, case studies are used to describe and explain
naturally occurring events in the world. They are often carried out so that a desirable course of action
can be implemented, or to remedy a problem. In the context of seeking a remedy for a problem (e.g.,
settling a social dispute), the practice of the law overlaps with the aforementioned disciplines.
Bromley (1990) makes a strong association between the case-study approach and judicial enquiries,
and names the case-study method “the quasi-judicial method.”
There are three major criticisms of case study methodology. The first is that the findings of a case
study provides little basis for generalisation (Stake, 2003). However, in the case of CCEs, there is no
attempt to generalise the findings of a CCE to the population, so the criticism is irrelevant. The second
is that the flexibility allowed to the researcher encourages biases about which data are collected, and
using self-reports introduces biases into the data that are collected (Stake, 2003;Yin, 2008). However,
case study methodology has recognised this threat and uses triangulation to counter bias. The third
criticism is that the absence of experimental controls introduces the possibility of confounding
variables. Case study methodology also recognises this problem and demands are made to entertain
alternative, competing explanations. These criticisms will be addressed as they arise.
CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY: GOODNESS OF FIT WITH CCES
Simply put, “. . . a psychological case study is an account of a person in a situation . . .” (Bromley,
1986, p. 1). Yin (2003) defines a case study as an empirical enquiry that: (1) investigates a contem-
porary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when (2) the boundaries between phenom-
enon and context are not clearly evident. The phenomenon of the child within the family system where
there is parental separation certainly matches these criteria.Yin (2003) suggests that the case study (1)
copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest
than data points, (2) relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a
triangulating fashion, and (3) benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide
data collection and analysis. The complexity of individual functioning, developmental processes, and
family and societal systems means that there will always be more variables than can be practically
included in a CCE. Therefore, there is a demand to pick the most relevant variables (e.g., the child’s
developmental needs and the caregivers’ capacity to meet those needs), and triangulate the data by
using multiple sources of data and multiple methods of data collection (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). This
Vertue/APPLYING CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS 337

process of triangulation protects the conclusions drawn from inaccuracies introduced by single
informants or single methods of data collection. As a result, this strategy is often recommended in
texts about case study methods and CCEs (e.g., Austin, 2001; Gould & Martindale, 2007; Kirkpatrick,
2004; Yin, 2003).
Case study methodology is acceptable in scientific research provided that it meets the aims of the
research (David, 2007). I suggest that the aims of the CCE are (a) to provide the court with valid and
reliable conclusions about the child’s development in the context of his or her care-giving environ-
ments, and (b) to make predictions about the possible outcomes of potential changes in those
environments. Edwards, Dattilio, and Bromley (2004) suggest that case studies are particularly useful
in the “context of discovery” to generate ideas and hypotheses to provide a preliminary conceptuali-
sation of phenomena. Generating hypotheses to develop a conceptualisation or formulation of the
custody issues is an intrinsic part of the CCE.
Finally, there is a demand for the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data
collection and analysis. Thus, evaluators should carefully develop a “design of research steps accord-
ing to some relationship to the literature, policy issues, or other substantive source” (Yin, 2003, p. 5).
The danger of having no research logic is that the evaluator can be drawn into: Areas that are irrelevant
to the evaluation (for example, the recriminations of estranged and bitter parties; historical events that
have no relevance to the current issues; and the competing agendas of the litigating parties, their
supporters, or the wider societal systems that are involved in the case); using reasoning strategies that
are flawed (for example, making claims with no evidence for those claims and no justification for the
link between the evidence and the claim); relying on biased data (for example, collecting information
from one party only); not entertaining alternative interpretations of the data (assuming that there is
only one plausible interpretation for the data); or allowing particularly salient issues (for example,
allegations of abuse) to overshadow other necessary issues.
The typical sections of the case study may be described as: observations, measurements and
recordings of behavior including self-reports and other-reports; and inferences drawn from these
observations, which are rooted in research findings and clinical experience (Bromley, 1990; Dattilio,
2006). As will be seen, these sections of the case study are consistent with the CCE.
CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY: TRANSLATING LEGAL CONCEPTS INTO
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
THE “WELFARE AND BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” CRITERION
An appropriate methodological framework for CCEs must fit the problem: What custody arrange-
ments will support the “welfare and best interests of the child?” However, the “welfare and best
interests of the child” criterion is a legal one. In this paper, the legal construct is interpreted as
“meeting the developmental needs of the child,” which is a psychological construct. The conceptu-
alisation of “meeting the developmental needs of the child” leads naturally to an assessment frame-
work that includes (a) the child’s developmental status and emergent developmental needs, and (b) the
capacity of the caregiver/s to meet those needs. These parameters are suggested by other authors as
being the core aspects of the child custody evaluation (e.g., Amundsen, Daya, & Gill, 2000; Bow &
Quinnell, 2002; Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005; Jameson, Ehrenberg, & Hunter, 1997; Otto,
Buffington-Vollum, & Edens, 2003).
THE COURT’S QUESTIONS
Stake (2003) nominates that a case study is usually organised around a small number of issues,
which he described as being “complex, situated, problematic relationships.” Issues such as a child’s
physical disability or anxious temperament, a parent’s mental illness or antisocial behavior, and
338 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

allegations of abuse provide foci within the conceptual framework of the CCE. The foci presented by
the court must be translated into constructs that are amenable to psychological exploration. For
example, a directive such as, “. . . assess the parent’s personality and lifestyle, and how these may
impact on the child’s best interests, both now and in the future” requires translation into constructs
that the evaluator has the skills to assess, and that have a direct impact on parenting capacity.
“Personality” may be recast as several constructs such as interpersonal style, stress management, and
work habits, all of which can have a direct impact on parenting capacity. Likewise, “lifestyle” may
include measurable constructs such as drug and alcohol use, daily routines, or work and recreation
schedules. The item “. . . assesses the child’s relationships with both parents and extended family
members” may relate to attachment relationships between children and their caregivers, and the
caregiving or bonding relationships between parents and their children. Attachment and bonding are
well-understood psychological constructs that can be assessed to some extent in CCEs. The classic
Strange Situation paradigm (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978) is not feasible in CCEs because
of the technical training and ethical demands involved, but the principles of attachment theory can be
used to explore the child’s relationship with the parent. For example, Garber (2009) concludes that
evaluators can assess two fundamental aspects of the attachment relationship by observation and
interviewing: The child’s use of the parent for reassurance and support, and the parent’s sensitivity to
the child’s developmental needs. Alternatively, Arredondo and Edwards (2000) propose that a single
dimension of reciprocal connectedness captures the bi-directional nature of the parent-child relation-
ship more accurately than the classic categories of secure or insecure attachment.
CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY: TWO MAJOR METHODOLOGICAL COMPONENTS
The two primary processes involved in the case study are the collection of empirical data or
evidence, and rational argument or reasoning, which imposes a pattern of meaning or interpretation
on the evidence. The reader of a case study must be able to determine the relationship between the
argument and the evidence (Bachor, 2002).
DATA COLLECTION
Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin (1993) note that a fundamental criticism of case studies is the lack of
rigour in the collection of empirical materials, especially the risk of confirmation bias. To counter this
bias, the case study benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data
collection and analysis, and structure the many variables of interest (Martindale & Gould, 2007;
Pickar, 2008; Yin, 2003). For example, the theoretical model depicted in Fig. 1 both guides and limits
data collection.
Such a model is based on empirical findings about child development, and how parents can best
maximise children’s strengths and support their vulnerabilities. The child’s developmental needs
emerge from an assessment of the child’s developmental status, and the fit between those needs and
the parent’s capacity to meet them is assessed. Constrained by the model, the evaluator is not tempted
to engage in matters that are not directly germane to the assessment. For example, parental mental
health or lifestyle is only relevant insofar as it relates to parenting capacity (with this particular child),
and interparental conflict relates to the parent’s capacity to meet the child’s need for protection from
anxiety-provoking adult concerns, rather than being of interest in and of itself.
The reliability and validity of the information collected can be compromised by: The personal
motivations of the parties, their legal counsel, the children, and the collateral informants (Voss,
Rothermund, & Brandtstadter, 2008), by the reconstructive mechanisms of memory (Burt, Kemp, &
Conway, 2008), by the highly emotionally-charged nature of the situation (Brainerd, Stein, Silveira,
Rohenkohl, & Reyna, 2008), and by the individual differences in different people’s perceptions of the
same situation. The risk of biases in data collection is often raised as a weakness of case study research

(Stake, 2003; Yin, 2008). To counter these biases, data triangulation involves collecting data from
multiple informants, such as parents, teachers, medical personnel, friends, or agency workers. Trian-
gulation also involves the use of multiple methods for data collection such as interviews, viewing of
archival material such as medical files and video or audio tape recordings, direct observations, and
psychometric testing. If most kinds of evidence agree, one obtains triangulation.
Verbatim reporting of speech and records of actual behaviors (rather than inferences made from the
behaviors) helps to provide accurate data for later analysis. So, for example, the evaluator records,
“The child picks up the doll and takes it to the mother. The mother smiles and strokes the child’s arm
as she watches the child dressing the doll.” This is preferable to “The mother responds warmly to the
child’s approach.” Also, it is only through the collection and analysis of a number of samples of
behavior that a pattern emerges. In addition, the use of reliable and valid psychometric instruments
helps to prevent the distortion of the data by the evaluator’s inherent biases, and the gathering of
reports from multiple sources serves to detect instances of bias by respondents.
Other strategies counter the methodological criticism of data bias. For example, time-sampling
provides a measure of behavior change over time. The immediacy and magnitude of the change speaks
to the impact of events that are seen to precipitate that change, and the stability or instability of
behavior over time informs predictions about future behavior. Continuous sampling (collecting
information from a number of time points rather than simply once or “before and after”) also helps to
strengthen the inferences made about the data (Howard, 1993; Kazdin, 1981).
Figure 1 Theoretical “bottom-up” model of child custody evaluation.

Semi-structured interviews are reported to have a higher level of reliability than unstructured
interview formats (Cox, Rutter, & Holbrook, 1981; Hughes, Rintelmann, Mayes, Emslie, Pearson, &
Rush, 2000). Semi-structured interviews (preferably using both questionnaire and interview formats)
ensure that the same set of general questions are asked of each parent, and adaptations of these
questions can be used to gather information from other informants. A semi-structured interview also
keeps the evaluator close to the relevant issues, rather than being sidetracked by a personal agenda.
Having some structure to the interview combats the respondents’ desires to state their views about
topics that may be less relevant to the court, or their perseveration on a particular issue, beyond an
extent that is informative. Many areas of information are required in a generic interview such as the
child’s functioning in a number of domains across time; the parents’ parenting style and parenting
behaviors, parental relationship pre- and post-separation, and the parent-child relationship over time.
In addition, sections on topics such as drug and alcohol abuse or domestic violence can be added to
the generic protocol where necessary. Thus, the semi-structured interview allows for flexibility as
demanded by particular cases.
The conceptual framework also supports data interpretation, and the construction of that frame-
work is a first step towards valid interpretation (Ghesquiere, Maes, & Vandenberghe, 2004).
DATA INTERPRETATION
The evaluator’s inferential reasoning is plagued by the judgmental and cognitive biases resulting
from uncertain knowledge (Robb, 2006; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Heuristics (rules of thumb)
simplify inferential processes, but they are biased, given that they are “mental short cuts” taken when
information in incomplete. For example, people tend to overestimate the frequency of an easily
recalled event and underestimate the frequency of an ordinary or difficult to recall event; people tend
to seek evidence that confirms their initial hypothesis about a situation; and they neglect the base rates
of events in favour of how closely the exemplar is representative of the prototype of the situation. In
addition, the literature on decision making suggests that people develop hypotheses very early in the
assessment process and frequently become overly attached to them, often failing to revise their
thinking about them in the light of fresh data (Dumont, 1993). While these cognitive strategies can
result in accurate judgements in relatively simple judgement situations, their casual and uninformed
use potentiates serious errors in psychological work, including the real risk of inaccurate conclusions,
inappropriate intervention choices, stereotyping, and other prejudiced judgements.
Three kinds of inferences are drawn from the data collected in a CCE. The first is descriptive
inference, which involves making a statement about some recognisable pattern in the data. For
example, the statement “the child has a secure attachment relationship with the parent” is an infer-
ence based on a replicable pattern of the child’s behavior in different situations and across time. A
teacher might report that the child displays momentary distress when separated from the parent but
can be distracted with ease, and that the child greets the parent with smiles and immediate engage-
ment on reunion; the parent might report that the child’s distress may be alleviated by verbal
reassurances or physical contact; the evaluator may observe the child’s free exploration of an
unfamiliar environment when the parent is present, but restricted range of exploration when the
parent is absent; the evaluator may also observe the parent soothing the child effectively; and the
child himself may respond to a question such as “What does your mommy/daddy do when you are
sad?” with “She/he gives me cuddles” or other indications of comforting or nurturing behavior.
These data triangulate on the inference about the secure attachment relationship between the child
and the parent.
In another example, the statement “the parent demonstrates an authoritarian parenting style” will
be based on a triangulation of data from different sources and situations. The parent might make
statements such as “I expect my child to always do as he is told” or “I have a zero-tolerance policy for
back-chatting” and “I have very strict rules about watching TV;” the evaluator may observe the parent
send the child to timeout for a very minor behavioral infringement; a grandparent might report that the

parent is “too strict;” the teacher reports that the child displays very anxious behaviors when he is even
mildly reprimanded; and the child might say, “my dad tells me off lots.” These data triangulate on the
inference of an authoritarian parenting style.
The second kind of inference is explanatory inference, which involves answering the question
“Why does the parent-child dyad demonstrate this particular pattern of behavior?” Explanatory
inferences typically appeal to causal mechanisms such as attachment representations, skill levels, or
belief systems. Thus, the descriptive inference “the child has a secure attachment relationship with
the parent” may be explained by an appeal to the child’s easy temperament plus the parent’s
sensitive caregiving practices. The question “Why does the parent demonstrate an authoritarian
parenting style?” may be answered by appealing to causal mechanisms such as: The parent’s beliefs
about parenting (e.g., “I’m afraid that my child will go off the rails if I’m not strict” or “children
take advantage of you if you’re not strict”); the parent’s own experiences of being parented (e.g.,
“my parents were very strict with me and I turned out OK”); the parent’s skill levels (e.g., the
parent’s behavior management repertoire is limited); and the child’s intrapersonal characteristics
(e.g., “The child’s impulsivity and sensation-seeking temperament require close supervision and
firm management”).
A common criticism of the case study method is that, because there are no controls to exclude
alternative explanations, alternative explanations cannot be ruled out (Kazdin, 1981; Stake, 2003;Yin,
2008). In experimental science, one may control for unwanted or “nuisance” variables that might
contribute to the outcome in order to ensure that the experimental manipulation is the causal agent.
However, in the case study, many variables must be considered, and alternative explanations enter-
tained, in the development of the conclusions drawn. For example, consider a case in which a child
consistently refuses to have contact with the non-resident parent. The child’s intrapersonal charac-
teristics may be contributing to the refusal, because a child with an anxious temperament will easily
be put off by doing anything that makes him worry. The child’s lifestyle makes it difficult to manage
the demands of school, extramural, and social activities when at the non-resident parent’s home. He
may worry that his resident parent is very sad when he is away, and his anxiety may be aversive enough
to prevent him from visiting his non-resident parent. The child may have identified strongly with the
resident parent’s negative view of the other parent, may be anxious about being interrogated by the
resident parent about the other parent’s life, or feel pressured to align with the resident parent in order
to maintain that relationship.
The third kind of inference is predictive inference. Typically, predictions are made based on the
research findings in the area. Using the descriptive and explanatory inferences made in the examples
described earlier, the evaluator might say, “The child’s secure attachment relationship with the parent
is a resilience factor, which will buffer him against the effects of the parental conflict in the future, and
help to promote positive socio-emotional development.” Research literature must be cited to support
this prediction. In the second example, the evaluator might say, “[t]he parent’s authoritarian parenting
style may constitute a resilience factor for her parenting that might result in moderately good
academic performance and relatively little problem behavior for the child in the short term, but can
also be a risk factor for poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression as the
child gets older.” Again, research findings that show the predictive relationship between authoritarian
parenting and these outcomes must be cited.
In order for the court to arrive at a decision about the best course of action to take in a case, the CCE
needs to estimate the likelihood of achieving a desired outcome, and the costs and benefits of
implementing that course of action. It is sometimes said that the best single predictor of future
behavior is past behavior, that is, predictions based on historical baselines and trends. There are,
however, other ways of making predictive judgements. For example, Bromley (1986) suggests taking
each proposed solution to a problem and listing the possible outcomes for the child under two
headings, “positive” or “negative.” These advantages and disadvantages (or benefits and costs) should
be listed, where possible, in order of effect. The probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be
expressed in terms such as “likely” or “unlikely.” Thus, the evaluator might provide a number of
different scenarios to cover the possible judgements that might be made by the court, and present the

positive and negative outcomes for the child’s development that would accompany each decision. For
example, the case may revolve around whether or not the child should have supervised or unsuper-
vised contact with the mother. The report might lay out two scenarios: supervised contact and its
outcomes, and unsupervised contact and its outcomes. In each scenario, the evaluator would make
recommendations about how the costs might be minimised and the benefits maximised.
APPLYING POPULATION-LEVEL RESEARCH TO THE INDIVIDUAL CASE
The evaluator draws on relevant literatures to support the inferences made. However, major
difficulties exist with applying population-level (nomothetic) research findings to individual (idio-
graphic) cases, because there is a tension between the two (Barlow & Nock, 2009). While it might
seem intuitively plausible that findings at the population level apply to each individual subject in the
population, this application involves an unwarranted shift in level from interindividual variation to
intraindividual variation (Cervone, 2005; Molenaar & Campbell, 2009). This is nicely demonstrated
by the caricature of the man whose bare feet were in a bucket of ice while his head was stuck inside
a hot oven. When asked how he felt, he replied, “On average, I feel fine” (Cooper, Heron, & Heward,
1987).
However, a number of strategies are helpful when applying population-level research findings to an
individual case. The first is to critically understand the findings of research studies. For example, a
robust finding is that parental conflict predicts behavioral problems in children (Sarrazin & Cyr,
2007). However, reviewing the relative weight of parental conflict’s relationship to children’s out-
comes reveals other variables that may have larger effects than parental conflict. Cheng, Dunn,
O’Connor and Golding (2006) have found that maternal depression is a stronger predictor of chil-
dren’s behavioral and emotional problems after separation than parental conflict; and Pruett, Ebling,
and Insabella (2004) suggest that the parent-child relationship after divorce is a stronger predictor of
children’s problem behaviors than parental conflict. It is only when examining the interactions
between variables, and the moderating effects of some variables on others (for example, maternal
depression may be exaccerbated by parental conflict, and thus show up as the major factor in
children’s difficulties), that it is possible to understand which are the most significant risk factors for
children’s developmental outcomes. Moderating variables also alert the evaluator to intrapersonal and
environmental factors that ameliorate or exacerbate risk.
A second strategy for applying population-level research findings to individual cases is to build
models of risk and resilience. Science uses different kinds of models to represent empirical phenom-
ena and causal mechanisms (Haig, 2005). A schematic model provides a structure within which to
organise information, and even accord differential weightings to the information (e.g., Kelly &
Johnston, 2001). One way of using research literature to inform report writing is to develop a model
of risk and resilience factors to organise the data (e.g., Jameson, Ehrenberg, & Hunter, 1997). The
accumulation of risk factors has been associated with a linear increment in problem outcomes
(Appleyard, Egeland, van Dulmen, & Sroufe, 2005). However, risk and resilience factors not only have
main effects on outcomes, but also moderating effects. Thus, resilience factors may reduce the
negative effect of cumulative risk factors. For example, a number of risk factors, including unem-
ployment, poor physical or mental health, and low levels of social support, accumulate to negatively
influence non-resident paternal involvement with infants. The higher the cumulative index, the
stronger the influence. However, the nature of the father’s relationship with the child’s birth mother
moderates the relationship between that risk index and the father’s involvement with the infant. If a
father has a high risk index, a positive relationship with the child’s mother provides a moderating
effect by reducing the overall risk (Fagan & Palkovitz, 2007).
There is a range of well-established risk and resilience factors that are associated with better or
poorer outcomes for children with separated parents, and these may be divided into intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and situational factors. Table 1 provides examples.
Building a complex model of the various intrapersonal, interpersonal, and situational factors, and
their relative impact on the family system, helps to strengthen the conclusions drawn in a case.

CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY: EVALUATION OF THE CASE STUDY/CCE
EVALUATION OF THE CASE STUDY: CONTENT
One quality of good case studies is coherence. Coherence demands internal consistency (at least a
recognition of inconsistencies and an attempt to explain them), relevance, and completeness. Dattilio
(2006) suggests that coherence is achieved by focusing on a limited number of main points, giving
arguments for and/or against a particular assertion, providing examples to illustrate a point, offering
background information to bolster the points being made, resolving apparent contradictions in an
account, explaining omissions in the data, making evaluations of the validity or utility of the
information presented, and showing the connections between the different aspects of a case. Bromley
(1986) characterises coherence by referring to “a web, network or tissue of facts and relationships”
(p. 226). Bromley also argues that the traditional image of an argument as a “chain of reasoning” (e.g.,
Yin, 2003) is weak, because a chain-like sequence of argument can break apart if just one of its
statements is false. However, a network of interconnected statements can withstand the failure of one
part without destroying the whole argument. Thus, a strong argument is one which puts its conclusion
at the center of a large, strongly connected web of facts and relationships, which is firmly anchored
at its edges to solid evidence.
Another criterion used to judge theory-goodness in science is analogy. Explanations in science are
judged more credible if they are supported by analogy to theories that scientists already find credible.
If, for example, the construct of insecure attachment has been helpful in explaining the data in a
similar case, its inclusion in the current evaluation might count in its favour (Martin & Hull, 2007).
Experienced evaluators have a knowledge database of previous evaluations that may have similar
characteristics to the present one, and the consistency of the present case with those exemplars adds
support to the inferences made. In addition, the appropriate use of peer supervision broadens the
Table 1
Examples of risk and resilience factors
Intrapersonal factors Interpersonal factors Situational factors
CHILD
Dimensions of temperament Attachment relationships with caregivers Custody and access arrangements
Intelligence Sibling relationships School environment
Beliefs Relationships with extended family Club and community activities
Coping strategies Peer relationships Counselling services
Physical abilities Relationships with teachers or coaches Neighbourhood
Age
Developmental stage
Learning problems
Mental health
ADULT
Parenting style Bonding with the child Support services available
Parenting practices Co-parenting relationship Employment and financial status
Some aspects of mental health Personal supports Custody and access arrangements
Some aspects of personality Relationships with service providers Counselling services
Coping strategies Relationships with child’s teachers Employment opportunities
Physical health Work relationships
Intelligence
Interests and hobbies
Knowledge of child development
Temperament
Financial resources

knowledge database of cases with which to compare, as well as generating alternative hypotheses
(Stake, 1995).
Finally, the suggestion that this work make explicit its methodology could result in reports
including methodological information such as, “The attachment relationship between a child and
caregiver is characterized by two constructs: safe haven and secure base” (Bretherton, 1985; Collins
& Feeney, 2000). The report could then provide explanations of these constructs and how the
constructs were assessed in the evaluation. The value of including such a methodological description
is that the reader is able to make the links between the conclusions drawn in the report, the evidence
provided to justify those conclusions, and the reasoning process used to move from the evidence to the
conclusions.
EVALUATION OF THE CASE STUDY: OUTCOME
In addition to having criteria for evaluating the content of the case study, there is a need for
outcome studies to evaluate the effectiveness of specialist reports in reducing conflict between parents
and providing useful opinions to the court (Kelly & Ramsey, 2009). In this regard, Austin (2009) has
proposed a research programme for this work, and adopting the proposed criteria for evaluating the
CCE would be an important first step in the evaluation process.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper argues for case study methodology as an appropriate methodological framework for
CCEs because CCEs require a conceptual methodological framework that can integrate and advance
existing methods and strengthen their scientific status. Case study methodology provides this frame-
work by meeting the goals of the CCE while having much in common with judicial inquiry. First,
the case study is an investigation of a real world phenomenon with all of its complexities and
uncertainties, and its essential components of evidence and reasoning. Second, legal constructs can be
operationalised in terms of psychological constructs amenable to assessment. Third, the two major
methodological components of the case study, data collection and data interpretation, are consistent
with the tasks of the CCE. Fourth, this paper presents a model to constrain the data collection process,
and a risk and resilience model to apply population-level research to individual cases. Finally, three
desiderata are considered for the evaluation of the case study, namely, coherence, analogy, and an
explicit methodology.
More needs to be done on the development of standardised protocols for interviewing, observation,
and psychometric measurement in the field of CCE. These protocols will help to coordinate assess-
ment in domains that affect child development and parenting capacity, promoting the relevance,
reliability, and validity of the opinions presented to the court. However, CCEs must be evaluated in
terms of their effectiveness in reducing the damaging conflict inherent in disputed child care cases.
Without feedback from evaluation studies about what methods produce the most valid and helpful
CCEs, the development of this methodology will falter. There is too much at stake to allow the work
to continue without rigorous development of the methods employed by child custody evaluators.
NOTES
1. The author would like to thank Professor Brian Haig for his invaluable input in the preparation of this paper.
2. Available on the American Psychological Association website http://www.apapracticecentral.org/news/guidelines.pdf.
3. Available on the AFCC website http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/Model%20Stds%20Child%20Custody%20Eval%20
Sept%202006.pdf.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange
situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Amundsen, J. K., Daya, R., & Gill, E. (2000). A minimalist approach to child custody evaluation. American Journal of Forensic
Psychology, 18, 63–87.
Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., van Dulmen, M. H. M., & Sroufe, L. A. (2005). When more is not better: The role of cumulative
risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 235–245.
Arredondo, D. E., & Edwards, L. P. (2000). Attachment, bonding, and reciprocal connectedness: Limitations of attachment
theory in the juvenile and family court. Journal of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 2, 109–129.
Austin, W. G. (2001). Partner violence and risk assessment in child custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 39, 483–496.
Austin, W. G. (2009). Responding to the call for child custody evaluators to justify the reason for their professional existence:
Some thoughts on Kelly and Ramsay (2009). Family Court Review, 47, 544–551.
Bachor, D. G. (2002). Increasing the believability of case study reports. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48, 20–28.
Barlow, D. H., & Nock, M. K. (2009). Why can’t we be more idiographic in our research? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 4, 19–21.
Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2002). A focus on child custody evaluations: A critical review of child custody evaluation reports.
Family Court Review, 40, 164–176.
Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2004). Critique of child custody evaluations by the legal profession. Family Court Review, 42(1),
115–127.
Brainerd, C. J., Stein, L. M., Silveira, R. A., Rohenkohl, G., & Reyna, V
. F. (2008). How does negative emotion cause false
memories? Psychological Science, 19, 919–925.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 50(1–2), 3–35.
Bromley, D. B. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related disciplines. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Bromley, D. B. (1990). Academic contributions to psychological counselling: 1. A philosophy of science for the study of
individual cases. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 3, 299–308.
Burt, C. D. B., Kemp, S., & Conway, M. (2008). Ordering the components of autobiographical events. Acta Psychologica, 127,
36–45.
Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,
423–452.
Cheng, H., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., & Golding, J. (2006). Factors moderating children’s adjustment to parental separation:
Findings from a community study in England. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 239–250.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in
intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
Corcoran, P. B., Walker, K. E., & Wals, A. E. J. (2004). Case studies, make-your-case studies, and case stories: A critique of
case-study methodology in sustainability in higher education. Environmental Education Research, 10, 7–21.
Cox, A., Rutter, M., & Holbrook, D. (1981). Psychiatric interviewing techniques: V. Experimental study: Eliciting factual
information. British Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 29–37.
Dattilio, F. M. (2006). Does the case study have a future in the psychiatric literature? International Journal of Psychiatry in
Clinical Practice, 10, 195–203.
David, D. (2007). Case study methodology: Fundamentals and critical analysis. Cognition, Brain, & Behavior, XI, 299–317.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dumont, F. (1993). Inferential heuristics in clinical problem formulation: Selective review of their strengths and weaknesses.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 196–205.
Edwards, D. J. A., Dattilio, F. M., & Bromley, D. B. (2004). Developing evidence-based practice: The role of case-based
research. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 589–597.
Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and
a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 1–29.
Fagan, J., & Palkovitz, R. (2007). Unmarried, non-resident fathers’ involvement with their infants: A risk and resilience
perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 479–489.
Garber, B. D. (2009). Attachment methodology in custody evaluation: Four hurdles standing between developmental theory and
forensic application. Journal of Child Custody, 6, 38–61.
Ghesquiere, P., Maes, B., & Vandenberghe, R. (2004). The usefulness of qualitative case studies in research on special needs
education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 171–184.
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum.
Gould, J. W., & Martindale, D. A. (2007). The art and science of child custody evaluations. New York: The Guilford Press.
Haig, B. (2005). An abductive theory of scientific method. Psychological Methods, 10, 371–388.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. London: Sage Publications.
Howard, G. S. (1993). I think I can! I think I can! Reconsidering the place for practice methodologies in psychological research.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 237–244.
Hughes, C. W., Rintelmann, J., Mayes, T., Emslie, G. J., Pearson, G., & Rush, A. J. (2000). Structured interview and uniform
assessment improves diagnostic reliability. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 10, 119–131.
Jameson, B. J., Ehrenberg, M. F., & Hunter, M. A. (1997). Psychologists ratings of the best-interests-of-the-child custody and
access criteria: A family systems assessment model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 253–262.

Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Drawing valid inferences from case studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 183–
192.
Kelly, J., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review.
39, 249–266.
Kelly, R. F., & Ramsey, S. H. (2009). Child custody evaluations: The need for systems-level outcome assessments. Family
Court Review, 47, 286–303.
Kirkpatrick, H. D. (2004). A floor, not a ceiling: Beyond guidelines—an argument for minimum standards of practice in
conducting child custody and visitation evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 1, 61–75.
Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Martin, R., & Hull, R. (2007). The case study perspective on psychological research. In R. J. Strenberg, H. L. Roediger, & D.
F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 90–109). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martindale, D. A., & Gould, J. W. (2007). Custody evaluation reports: The case for empirically-derived information. Journal of
Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 87–99.
Molenaar, P. C. M., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18, 112–117.
O’Donohue, W. T., Beitz, K., & Tolle, L. (2009). Controversies in child custody evaluations. In J. L. Skeem, K. S. Douglas, &
S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversies (pp. 284–308). New York:
Guilford Press.
Otto, R. K., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., & Edens, J. F. (2003). Child custody evaluation. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of
Psychology, Vol. 11, Forensic Psychology, (pp. 179–208). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Pickar, D. B. (2008). Countertransference bias in the child custody evaluator. Journal of Child Custody, 4, 45–68.
Pruett, M. K., Ebling, R., & Insabella, G. (2004). Critical aspects of parenting plans for young children: Interjecting data into
the debate about overnights. Family Court Review, 42, 39–59.
Robb, A. (2006). Strategies to address clinical bias in the child custody evaluation process. Journal of Child Custody, 3, 45–69.
Rohrbaugh, J. B. (2008). A comprehensive guide to child custody evaluations: Mental health and legal perspectives. NewYork:
Springer.
Sarrazin, J., & Cyr, F. (2007). Parental conflicts and their damaging effects on children. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,
47, 77–93.
Stahl, P. M. (1994). Conducting child custody evaluations: A comprehensive guide. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.) (pp.
134–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tippins, T. M., & Wittmann, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations. Family Court Review,
43, 193–222.
Trombetta, D. A. (1991). Custody evaluations: A realistic view. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 29, 45–55.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
Vertue, F. M., & Haig, B. D. (2008). An abductive perspective on clinical reasoning and case formulation. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 64, 1046–1068.
Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Brandtstadter, J. (2008). Interpreting ambiguous stimuli: Separating perceptual and judgemental
biases. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1048–1056.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd
ed.): Applied social research methods series, Vol. 34. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
DrVertue is a clinical psychologist with a half-time appointment as a lecturer at the University of Canterbury where she
teaches Child and Adolescent Development, Family Psychology, and Couples and Family Therapy. The remainder of her
time is spent in a private clinical practice where she sees children, adolescents, couples, and families for a range of
difficulties. She also writes child custody evaluations for the Family Court. Dr Vertue’s research interests are related to
child development, separation and divorce, and methodological issues.

Copyright of Family Court Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

APPLYING CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to APPLYING CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Similar to APPLYING CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS (16)

More from Angelina Johnson

More from Angelina Johnson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

APPLYING CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS