1. Social Investigations and Parenting Plan Evaluations
Miguel Firpi, PhD

2. Social Investigations and Parenting Plan Evaluations are mechanisms by which the Court seeks information to assist the Judge in addressing the factors it must consider in determining issues related to parenting plans such as timesharing or parental responsibility.
The SI or PPE may be broad in scope but may contain requests to address specific issues.
A SI and a PPE have similar components as well as some differences.

3. Both contain recommendations to the Court regarding parenting plans ands/or specific issues.
Both include an investigation of collateral sources such as teachers, physicians, therapists, caretakers and other witnesses who can address relevant parenting issues.
Both may include home, neighborhood visits which describe the child home life, interactions with parents and quality of living environment.
A social investigation can be performed by a licensed mental health professional or and agency. It does not typically involve psychological testing, although it may be part of the order in which case it must be performed by a licensed psychologist.

4. Parenting plan evaluations usually involve a psychological assessment of all parties including the potential impact of psychological functioning on parenting plan recommendations. PPEs also include extensive review of collateral information such as interviews of witnesses, records reviews and documentation. The PPE must include an observation of parent –child interaction. Typically the PPE makes some comment or recommendation regarding the or factors (or if a relocation case) that are amenable to psychological inquiry.
Please note that makes reference that a social investigation will not be precluded to come in as evidence through the hearsay objection.

5. So what should the Court expect?
An opinion but not just an opinion, an expert opinion, otherwise what is the use to the Court?
A neutral process in which the method of gathering information is fair for both parties. The conclusion clearly may favor one side or the other as long as it was the product of a neutral, reliable process.
A method of gathering information that is transparent, structured and based on science. Investigators at any level should be acquainted with the scientific literature on high conflict divorce, timesharing arrangements, child development, parental alienation, sexual and physical abuse, the impact of alcohol and drugs and other issues that routinely come up in family cases. This cannot be overemphasized.

6. If psychological tests are used then they must be valid and reliable with a body of literature supporting such. They must have a standardized method of administration and scoring and well established norms. Projective tests or controversial tests are to be avoided. They mislead the Court.
The use of research needs to be transparent and avoid cherry picking. Research must be honestly reported.
The investigator/evaluator must guard against biases, particularly confirmatory bias. Multiple hypotheses must be considered and excluded. There must be a clear demonstration of evidence converging on one conclusion or another. In essence the conclusion must be consistent with the evidence presented.

7. It is essential that Judges be able to rely on the Court’s experts as to the integrity of the data, the reliability and validity of the methods, the consideration of multiple hypothesis, and the convergence of the evidence on a set of conclusions. Then and only then is a SI or PPE of service to the trier or fact and to the best interest of the children.