These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [On the work of Austrian authorised experts on procedures in custodial and visiting rights--a survey of current practice from the parents and children view].
    Author: Vöelkl-Kernstock S, Bein N, Gutschner D, Klicpera C, Ponocny-Seliger E, Friedrich MH.
    Journal: Neuropsychiatr; 2008; 22(4):268-76. PubMed ID: 19080998.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Children who are involved in their parents' contentious separations, and about whom custody or visiting rights have become a matter of legal dispute, often demonstrate changes in behaviour, sometimes to the extent that these changes develop into noticeable psychological problems. Where custody and visiting rights are in dispute the expert child psychological/psychiatric evaluator appraises the family and recognises the suffering of the children involved, but is unable to intervene to treat the child for they have only been authorised to provide an appraisal. The goal of this study is to determine the extent to which an expert's evaluation provides the opportunity to intervene with the child's parents, and to what extent it offers a greater insight and understanding of the child's behaviour. The study also aims to record the children's own attitude to the expert evaluation. METHODS: With the support of each Austrian district court, 1200 parents involved in custodial proceedings were contacted by post. Likewise, 27 children aged between 6 and 14 years old who were referred to a forensic psychology outpatient's clinic as a result of their parent's highly contentious separations, were recruited as test persons. Parents as well as children were asked to complete an especially designed questionnaire in order to assess the work of the expert evaluator; this took place before the study began and was conducted by an expert who didn;t work at the forensic outpatient clinic of the department of child and adolescent psychiatry. RESULTS: Overall, the parents displayed a high level of dissatisfaction with the expert evaluation procedure. More than a third of those questioned highlighted the lack of information about the psychological and educational contents of the appraisal, and about the way the child is treated in terms of the provisions for custody and visiting rights. A key point of criticism turned out to be the brevity of the discussion with the expert evaluator, whilst the opportunity to hold a sympathetic and understanding discussion with the expert evaluator was commonly regarded as desirable. The children evaluate the appraisal experience and the evaluator more positively, but they believe themselves to be responsible for the outcome of the court decision and feel insecure about the statements they make regarding their father and mother. CONCLUSIONS: In order to provide greater relief for the affected children, and because of the demonstrable and overwhelming parental dissatisfaction with the evaluation process, a modification of the current form of evaluation to create a solution-oriented process approach should be considered in Austria. The feasibility of this proposal, and its adherence to methodological-theoretical and normative framework conditions, should be discussed amongst expert evaluators. This requires relevant legal input to ensure that a modified form of the expert evaluator's work is implemented in a manner which is legally compliant.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]