Senate Bill S4149

                                 
BILL NUMBER: S4149

SPONSOR: PALUMBO
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act, in
relation to prohibiting forensic evaluations in a custody or visitation
proceeding; and to repeal certain provisions of the domestic relations
law relating thereto

 
PURPOSE:

To protect children by prohibiting forensic evaluations in child custody
and visitation proceedings.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1. Amends section 70 of the domestic relations law to prohibit
forensic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings.

Section 2. Amends section 240 of the domestic relations law to prohibit
forensic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings.
              

Section 3. Amends section 651 of the family court act to prohibit foren-
sic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings.

Section 4. Effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

The bill prohibits forensic evaluations in child custody and visitations
proceedings.

Forensic evaluators currently perform an outsized role in custody and
visitations proceeding, without accountability, standards, oversight or
transparency and often with tragic consequences.

The role of forensic evaluators in custody and visitation matters has
been the subject of empirical study which concludes that these evalu-
ations are ethically inappropriate and should be excluded from the fact
finding process.(1 )

In fact, Dr. Ira Daniel Turkat, a highly regarded clinical psychologist
concludes, "there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that child custo-
dy evaluations result in beneficial outcomes for children. (2)

There is no scientific evidence to support the use of forensic evalu-
ations. However, there are harmful sometimes, fatal consequences that
warrant their prohibition.

Judges need to render their decisions after considering all factors in
the case, paying particular attention to claims of domestic violence,
including emotional, physical and sexual abuse and the health and safety
of the child/children. Only then should judges make decisions regarding
the custody and visitation schedule for the child/children. For example,
during the years of custody hearings in Nassau County Family Court, Kyra
Franchetti's mother warned that Kyra's father was dangerous, had severe
anger management issues and was suicidal. During her case, multiple
forensic evaluators were involved at different stages. While Kyra's
mother repeatedly raised concerns, no one attempted to protect Kyra from
her murderous father. Worse, one forensic evaluator would have made it
difficult, if not impossible, for Jacqueline to secure sole custody of
Kyra. In July 2016, Kyra was on a court-sanctioned visit with her father
in Virginia when he shot Krya to death while she slept. He then set his
house on fire and killed himself. Kyra was only two years old. (3) This
is not an isolated incident. Dr. Turkat cites cases in Virginia, Mary-
land and California where custody and visitation decisions made the
recommendation of forensic evaluators ended tragically. (4)

In addition to those horrifying consequences, Dr. Turkat conducted the
first qualitative study on the harmful effects of child custody evalu-
ations. This 35 state study found other striking detrimental effects,
including emotional, physical and sexual abuse. (5)

There is also the issue of the financial cost. Litigants in child custo-
dy and visitation proceedings may spend tens of thousands, even hundreds
of thousands, for a forensic evaluation. (6) Further, these are replete
with inadmissible hearsay. Custody evaluations have been criticized as
"a modus operandi crafted by a professional community impacted by an
economic incentive to see its opinions accepted in the courtroom. (7).
It is time for this practice to end.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2022 S.7742/A.3503; 2020: A.10424

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Undetermined

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
On the 90th day after it shall have become law; provided that, effective
immediately, any rules necessary to implement the provisions for this
act may be promulgated.
(1) EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS; A Call
for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance; Timothy M. Tippins and
Jeffrey P. Wittman; 43 (2) FAMILY COURT REVIEW 193 (May 3, 2005)
(2) Psychological Recommendations in Custody Disputes Can Be Harmful,
Even Fatal; Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD, 32 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAILY LAW 5 (
Spring 2019)
(3) https://kyrafranchetti.org/kyras-story/
(4) Psychologist Recommendations in Custody disputes Can Be Harmful,
Even Fatal; Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD, 32 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY LAW,
pp 5-8 (Spring 2018)
(5) Turkat, After Children Die, New Study Questions Psychologists'
Recommendations in Custody Battles, https//www.prweb.com/releases/after
children die new study questions psychologists recommendations in custo-
dy battles/preweb15647980.
(6) Harmful Effects of Child-Custody Evaluations on Chi Idren=n, Ira
Daniel Turkat, PhD, 52 COURT REVIEW: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN JUDGE'S
ASSOCIATION 152 (2016)
(7) See also, The Custody Evaluator Meets Hearsay: A Star-Crossed
Romance; Timothy M. Tippins and Lauren K. DeLuca, 30 JOURNAL OF THE
AMERICAN ACEDEMY OF ATRIMONIAL LAWYERS 549 (May10, 2018), also citing
with approval, forensic psychologist Jeffery J. Wittman, Child Advocacy
and the Scientific Model in Family Court: A Theory for Pretrial Self-As-
sessment, 13 J. PSYCHIATRY & LAW, 61, 78 (1985) ("Our field is famous
for supporting conclusions during testimony simply on the basis of accu-
mulated clinical experience; a phrase which may mean nothing more than
accumulated personal bias")