Review of expert reports

Initial situation

Since there are no legally binding quality requirements for experts on the one hand and no legally binding standards for the preparation of reports on the other hand, there is justified doubt as to the reliability of the experts’ results, which is supported by several studies (see in detail: Klüber, 1998; Salewski & Stürmer , 2014, pp. 27–28; Stürmer, Salewski, Meyer & Meyer, 2015, pp. 39–41; Terlinden-Arzt, 1998; Westhoff, Terlinden-Arzt & Klüber, 2000).

The “Act to amend the law on experts and to further amend the law on the procedure in family matters and in matters of voluntary jurisdiction as well as to amend the Social Court Act, the Administrative Court Code, the Financial Court Code and the Court Fees Act” of October 16, 2016 hardly changed anything.

So existiert aktuell ein selbstreferenzierendes System, in dem viele Richter auf die Inhalte der veröffentlichten Entscheidungen, die überwiegend auf Sachverständigengutachten begründet sind, für Kontrollzwecke zurückgreift, um der Individualgerechtigkeit „gerecht“ zu werden. This cycle of determining the best interests of the child in each individual case does not ensure at any point that the current and consensus-based findings of the human sciences on the child’s welfare and the criteria used to fulfill it are taken into account and incorporated into the decision-making process to ensure individual justice.

Review of expert reports in family law

The studies by Klüber (1998), Salewski and Stürmer (2014, pp. 27–28), Stürmer, Salewski, Meyer & Meyer (2015, pp. 39–41), Terlinden-Arzt (1998) were able to show that a large part of the expert reports in family law do not meet the requirements.

In the minimum requirements for the quality of expert reports in child law, published by the Working Group on Family Law Reports 2015 (2015, p. 3–4), these areas of expertise are specified: “If the court’s own expertise is insufficient, experts must be consulted. For this activity, psychological specialist knowledge (in particular from the areas of family psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, social psychology, communication psychology, clinical psychology, diagnostics and intervention) and, depending on the question and case structure, specialist knowledge of other child and parent-oriented disciplines such as child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy is required.“.

When reviewing expert reports in family law, we integrate the aforementioned knowledge of human sciences into the legal decision-making process. With the investigation presented the decision-maker should be able to regain the legal process and make rational decisions by better assessing the results of expert reports and, if necessary, changing them.

Questions:

Has the family court had an expert opinion drawn up in order to make a decision on custody and / or handling on the basis of the expert opinion?
From your point of view, is the report inadequate and did it not help the court to make a decision geared towards the best interests of the child?
In your opinion, is the expert wrong with his diagnosis and recommendation or “technically wrong”?
In your opinion, were the interrelationships “falsified” presented by the reviewer?

If you answer “yes” to one of the above questions, then a legal and human scientific review of such an expert report can be useful.

We are at your side at any time to review an expert opinion and, if necessary, to prepare a counter-opinion, if this is commanded from a legal and human-scientific point of view.

Literature

Klüber, A. (1998). Psychologische Gutachten für das Familiengericht. Eine empirische Untersuchung über Nachvollziehbarkeit und Verständlichkeit des diagnostischen Prozesses sowie ausgewählte Aspekte des Kindeswohls. Lengerich: Pabst.

Salewski, C. & Stürmer, S. (2014). Qualitätsmerkmale in der Familienpsychologischen Begutachtung. Untersuchungsbericht. Universität Hagen: Eigenverlag.

Schmidt, A. & Westhoff, K. (2020). Kindeswohl interdisziplinär: Empirische Ergebnisse für die juristische Praxis bei Trennung der Eltern. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Stürmer, S., Salewski, C., Meyer, A.-K. & Meyer, J. (2015). Methodische Qualität und Bindungsdiagnostik familienrechtspsychologischer Gutachten. Kindesmisshandlung und ‑vernachlässigung, 18, 26–43.

Terlinden-Arzt, P. (1998). Psychologische Gutachten für das Familiengericht. Eine empirische Untersuchung über diagnostische Strategien sowie ausgewählte Aspekte des Kindeswohls. Lengerich: Pabst.

Westhoff, K. & Kluck, M.-L. (2014). Psychologische Gutachten schreiben und beurteilen (6. vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage). Berlin: Springer.

Westhoff, K., Terlinden-Arzt, P. & Klüber, A. (2000). Entscheidungsorientierte psychologische Gutachten für das Familiengericht. Berlin: Springer.

Contact

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Karl-Josef Kluge

(University of Cologne, Faculty of Human Sciences, Department for Curative Education and Rehabilitation, Subject: Educational Aid and Social-Emotional Promotion)

Phone:

02162 24606

E‑Mail:

klugekajo@yahoo.de und kluge@euroges.de

Dr. Axel Schmidt

(Diploma in business administration, diploma psychologist)

Phone:

0171 307 39 48

E‑Mail:

axel.schmidt@familiengutachten.eu