Child custody practice has evolved over the past 35 years. The present article will review the past history, current status, and future of this practice area. A thorough review of child custody survey research will be presented, as well as applicable ethical standards and forensic/child custody guidelines. This suggests the field has advanced with established forensic procedures and methods. It is further proposed that a standard of practice has been established through child custody and forensic guidelines, the APA Ethics Code, scholarly publications, survey research findings, and evaluators' increased understanding of forensic issues (i.e., psycho-legal basis for the evaluation and admissibility criteria), which should benefit the profession, legal community, and families.

This article is written as a response to the Martindale et al. critique of the Ackerman and Pritzl (2011) child custody evaluation practices article. The Martindale et al. critique focuses on a small portion of the overall results regarding test usage and suggests that the entire article is “flawed and deficient.” However, their critique engages in confirmatory bias and exaggerated statements and ignores the overall value of the article in general. A more broad‐based explanation of the results is provided herein.

As the area of specialization of forensic psychology broadens its horizons, it will become increasingly more difficult for clinical psychologists to avoid participating in the forensic arena. As a result, clinical psychologists may be asked to write reports about therapeutic intervention or evaluations in divorce, personal injury, competency, abuse, or criminal proceedings. In this article, the author addresses the issues that the clinical psychologist needs to understand in writing reports that may be utilized in forensic settings. How these reports are affected by the American Psychological Association Ethics Code (APA; 2002), the audience receiving the report, the subject matter of the report, and dissemination of the information are all discussed in this article.

Three recent studies have explored the practices of psychologists (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997), family law judges' expectations (Ackerman & Steffen, 2001), and family law attorneys' expectations (Ackerman & Kelley-Poulos, 2001) in child custody cases. This study compares psychologists' practices with judges' and attorneys' expectations as previously reported in the above studies. Similarities and differences among the groups are analyzed and discussed. Psychologists, judges, and attorneys are more alike than different in their practices, with notable exceptions reported. Implications for interpretation and recommendations in child custody cases are discussed. Key Words: Custodypsychologistsjudgeslawyers

W. G. Keilin and L. J. Bloom (1986) explored 70 issues related to child custody evaluation practices. The current study replicates Keilin and Bloom's study and looks at an additional 42 items. Two hundred and one psychologists from 39 states were surveyed about 112 aspects of child custody evaluation practices. The analysis was divided into evaluation practices, sole-joint custody decision making, and recommendations. Comparisons between the findings of this study and those of Keilin and Bloom are made. The current practice of child custody evaluations is reported.