A02750 Summary:

BILL NOA02750
 
SAME ASSAME AS S04149
 
SPONSORHevesi
 
COSPNSREpstein, Fahy, Sillitti, Seawright, Dinowitz, Stirpe
 
MLTSPNSR
 
Amd §§70 & 240, rpld §240 sub 1 ¶(a-3), Dom Rel L; amd §651, Fam Ct Act
 
Prohibits courts from ordering an evaluation of a party or child or allowing into evidence a forensic report created by a forensic evaluator on a party or child to assist such court in a child custody or visitation determination.
Go to top    

A02750 Actions:

BILL NOA02750
 
01/27/2023referred to judiciary
01/03/2024referred to judiciary
Go to top

A02750 Committee Votes:

Go to top

A02750 Floor Votes:

There are no votes for this bill in this legislative session.
Go to top

A02750 Memo:

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
 
BILL NUMBER: A2750
 
SPONSOR: Hevesi
  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 OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To protect children by prohibiting forensic evaluations in child custody and visitation proceedings.   SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section 1 of the bill amends section 70 of the domestic relations law to prohibit forensic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings. Section 2 of the bill amends section 240 of the domestic relations law to prohibit forensic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings. Section 3 of the bill amends section 651 of the family court act to prohibit forensic evaluations in child custody or visitation proceedings. Section 4 is the effective date.   JUSTIFICATION: The bill prohibits forensic evaluations in child custody and visitations 'proceeding. 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, has concluded that "there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that child custody 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 safe- ty of the child(ren). Only then should judges make decisions regarding the custody and visitation schedule for the child(ren). 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 problems, and was suicidal. During her case, multiple forensic evaluators were involved at different stages. While Kyra's mother repeatedly raised concerns, not one made an attempt 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 Kyra 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, Maryland and California where custody and visitation decisions made at 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.   PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2021-2022: A.3503; 2019-2020: A.10424   FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: Undetermined.   EFFECTIVE DATE: On the 90th day after it shall have become law; provided that, effective immediately, any rules necessary to implement the provisions of 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. Wittmann; 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 FAMILY LAW 5 (Spring 2018) (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 re commendations in custody battles/prweb15647980. htm?fbelid=IwAROtprlXdlIpKBZrGN5ifbgsTL j-GWox3jzx3dN9kgPsoQeeVeCpCZB74s (6) Harmful Effects of Child-Custody Evaluations on Children, Ira Daniel Turkat, PHD, 52 COURT REVIEW: JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN JUDGE'S ASSOCI- ATION 152 (2016) (7) See also, The Custody Evaluator Meets Hearsay: A Star-Crossed Romance; Timothy M. Tippins and Lauren K. DeLuca, 3o JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS 549 (May 10, 2018), also citing-with approval, forensic psychologist Jeffery J. Wittmann, Child Advocacy and the Scientific Model in Family Court: A theory for Pretrial Self-Assessment, 13 J. PSYCHIATRY & LAW, 61, 78 (1985) ("Our field is famous for supporting conclusions during testimony simply on the basis of 'accumulated clinical experience; a phrase which may mean nothing more than accumulated personal bias.")
Go to top

A02750 Text:



 
                STATE OF NEW YORK
        ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                          2750
 
                               2023-2024 Regular Sessions
 
                   IN ASSEMBLY
 
                                    January 27, 2023
                                       ___________
 
        Introduced  by  M.  of  A.  HEVESI,  EPSTEIN, FAHY, SILLITTI, SEAWRIGHT,
          DINOWITZ -- read once and referred to the Committee on Judiciary
 
        AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act,  in
          relation  to  prohibiting forensic evaluations in a custody or visita-
          tion proceeding; and to repeal  certain  provisions  of  the  domestic
          relations law relating thereto
 
          The  People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
        bly, do enact as follows:
 
     1    Section 1. Section 70 of the domestic  relations  law  is  amended  by
     2  adding a new subdivision (c) to read as follows:
     3    (c)  (1) No court shall order or allow into evidence a forensic report
     4  in the context of a custody or visitation proceeding.
     5    (2) For the purposes of this subdivision:
     6    (i) "forensic report" shall mean any report or evaluation prepared  by
     7  a  forensic  evaluator  which includes such evaluator's recommendations,
     8  opinions or conclusions as to child custody or visitation; and
     9    (ii) "forensic evaluator" shall mean a forensic mental health  profes-
    10  sional, a probation service employee, a child protective service employ-
    11  ee  or  any other person authorized by statute or the court to perform a
    12  forensic evaluation relating to a party or a child in  order  to  assist
    13  the court in a child custody or visitation determination.
    14    §  2.  Paragraph (a-3) of subdivision 1 of section 240 of the domestic
    15  relations law is REPEALED and a new paragraph (a-3) is added to read  as
    16  follows:
    17    (a-3)  (1)  No  court  shall  order  or allow into evidence a forensic
    18  report in the context of a custody or visitation proceeding.
    19    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph:
    20    (i) "forensic report" shall mean any report or evaluation prepared  by
    21  a  forensic  evaluator  which includes such evaluator's recommendations,
    22  opinions or conclusions as to child custody or visitation; and
 
         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                   LBD05025-01-3

        A. 2750                             2
 
     1    (ii) "forensic evaluator" shall mean a forensic mental health  profes-
     2  sional, a probation service employee, a child protective service employ-
     3  ee  or  any other person authorized by statute or the court to perform a
     4  forensic evaluation relating to a party or a child in  order  to  assist
     5  the court in a child custody or visitation determination.
     6    §  3.  Section  651 of the family court act is amended by adding a new
     7  subdivision (g) to read as follows:
     8    (g) (1) No court shall order or allow into evidence a forensic  report
     9  in the context of a custody or visitation proceeding.
    10    (2) For the purposes of this subdivision:
    11    (i)  "forensic report" shall mean any report or evaluation prepared by
    12  a forensic evaluator which includes  such  evaluator's  recommendations,
    13  opinions or conclusions as to child custody or visitation; and
    14    (ii)  "forensic evaluator" shall mean a forensic mental health profes-
    15  sional, a probation service employee, a child protective service employ-
    16  ee or any other person authorized by statute or the court to  perform  a
    17  forensic  evaluation  relating  to a party or a child in order to assist
    18  the court in a child custody or visitation determination.
    19    § 4. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day  after  it  shall
    20  have become a law.
Go to top

A02750 LFIN:

 NO LFIN
Go to top