If we knew what happened, we would know better what to do: A commentary on Kleinman and Kaplan's “Relaxation of rules for science detrimental to children”

ABSTRACT

Allegations of child abuse and domestic violence present family courts with numerous dilemmas. Difficult decisions must be made about what did or may have happened with a minimal amount of information beyond the reports of the victims. The state’s parens patriae obligations to protect can clash with prevailing family court reforms designed to encourage joint parental decision-making and continuing frequent contact between the child and both parents. Advocates in family court frequently press for believing one side or the other and often proffer “science” serving their positions. Kleinman and Kaplan would have us believe the victims because, they claim, the victims are almost always telling the truth. But neither the law nor science can accept such a simple solution. We need to do our very best to find out what happened in order to better know what to do.

KEYWORDS:

• Bias
• child abuse
• child custody evaluations
• child interviews
• cognitive errors
• domestic violence
• intimate partner violence