When a family goes through a highly conflictual separation, everything cannot simply be reduced to “parental conflict.”

We need to look beyond it.

Behind a situation labelled as “high conflict” there may be one parent systematically obstructing the other, interference with the child’s relationship with a parent, coercive dynamics, violence, trauma, psychological distress, developmental problems, or other conditions requiring specific assessment.

Not everything is reciprocal. Not all behaviours carry the same weight. And not every situation can be understood by simply placing both parents on the same level.

A model that automatically interprets separation as a conflict between two adults therefore risks failing to see what is actually happening to the child.

If everything is too quickly reduced to “parental conflict,” the very factors that should be identified may disappear from view.

There is a precise term for this: misclassification of risk.

And misclassifying risk also means mismanaging risk.

A child who needs a clinical assessment may instead be viewed only through the dynamics between the parents.

A sign of distress may be interpreted simply as a consequence of parental conflict.

A coercive dynamic may be mistaken for “mutual conflict.”

A problem requiring a specialist may be addressed through an assessment designed to answer a completely different question.

And the crisis may not improve.

It may get worse.

The Problem with Custody Evaluations

This is precisely one of the problems raised in the United States by the New York Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations, which radically questioned the model of forensic custody evaluations, highlighting concerns relating to scientific validity, bias, reliability and the use of these evaluations in judicial decision-making.

The Commission reached a particularly significant conclusion: a majority of its members voted in favour of eliminating forensic custody evaluations.

The point is not to say that every psychologist is wrong.

The point is much simpler:

An assessment of family dynamics cannot automatically become a clinical assessment of the child.

They are different questions.

They require different expertise.

And above all, professionals are not interchangeable.

When referral to the appropriate specialist does not happen

Good practice should work in the opposite direction.

When a problem goes beyond the competence of the professional observing it, the appropriate specialist should be brought in.

Psychologists, physicians, child and adolescent psychiatrists, paediatricians, psychotherapists, social workers and judicial authorities have different roles.

Effective child protection depends on recognising these differences and working across professional boundaries, rather than forcing every problem into the same interpretative model.

The risk of Professional Mismanagement arises precisely when this process fails: competencies are used beyond their proper scope, appropriate referrals do not take place, and warning signs are reinterpreted instead of properly investigated.

In a family crisis, this can become particularly dangerous.

Because misclassifying risk can lead to mismanaging protection.

“Educational failure — understood as Professional Mismanagement — can contribute to an increase in devastating situations of distress in the future.” Prof. Matteo Villanova

And What About the Children?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in Article 24, establishes the child’s right to the highest attainable standard of health and to access health-care services.

And in its review of Switzerland, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child also highlighted shortcomings in children’s access to mental-health services and the need for adequately qualified professionals.

So the issue is not simply having more assessments.

It is having the right assessment, carried out by the right professional, when it is needed.

Because continuing to interpret a crisis through the same model when that model cannot adequately explain what is happening can produce a perverse effect:

the assessment of the crisis becomes part of the crisis.

And this should concern everyone.

Not only parents involved in judicial proceedings.

Not only psychologists or physicians.

But above all those responsible for protecting children.

The fundamental question is therefore:

Are we really classifying the risk a child faces correctly, or are we simply placing everything under the superficial umbrella of parental conflict?

Sources

[1] New York Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations.
[2] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Switzerland, CRC/C/CHE/CO/5-6, 2021, in particular paragraphs 35–36.
[3] Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 24.

Francesco Ferzini — United Nations, Geneva