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.
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.")
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.
