Attorney ethics and boundaries of participation in psychological expertise in child custody disputes Ethical challenges at the intersection of law and child psychology In disputes over child custody, psychological expertise often becomes a central piece of evidence, determining the fate of the child. An attorney involved in such a process faces unique ethical dilemmas where professional duty intersects with the need for special delicacy. The activities of an attorney in this field are regulated not only by the Federal Law "On Advocacy and the Bar" and the Code of Professional Ethics of Attorneys, but also by international principles of protecting the rights of the child, primarily the principle of the best interests of the child (Convention on the Rights of the Child). Key ethical principles: between the protection of the client and the interests of the child The principle of legality and good faith (Article 8 of the Code of Ethics) requires an attorney to use only lawful means. In the context of the expertise, this means: Unacceptability of pressure on the expert. An attorney cannot directly or indirectly require a psychologist to reach a specific conclusion. However, he is entitled to meticulously formulate questions to be put to the expert, based on the position of his client. For example, if the mother claims that the father manipulates the child, the attorney may include in the motion the question: "Are there any signs of suggested negative attitudes towards the mother in the behavior and statements of the child [Name]?" The principle of respect for honor and dignity extends not only to the participants in the process but also to the child. An attorney must remember that any of his actions, including initiating a repeat or additional expertise, means a new psychological burden on the minor. It is ethically justified to request a repeat examination only if there are serious doubts about the objectivity of the primary one, not just because of an adverse conclusion. An interesting fact: Neuro psychological studies show that children involved in long-term parental court proceedings may exhibit symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress disorder, including an increased level of cortisol ("stress hormone"), which affects the development of the prefrontal cortex responsible for emotional control and decision-making. The principle of confidentiality comes into conflict with the need to disclose information to the psychologist-expert. An attorney must differentiate information: provide the expert only with the information necessary for the conduct of the research and directly related to the subject of the expertise, avoiding excessive detail of private life not directly related to the case. Boundaries of permissible participation: from organization to intervention An attorney can and should be active at the following stages, remaining within ethical boundaries: Formulating questions for the expert is the area of maximum permissible influence. Questions should be neutral, scientifically justified, and not contain a ready-made answer. Incorrect: "Is it confirmed that the father inflicts psychological trauma on the child?" Correct: "What is the current psycho-emotional state of the child? What could be the possible causes of the identified characteristics (anxiety, fears, aggression)?" Providing materials. An attorney is obligated to provide the expert with all relevant materials, not just those favorable to his side. Withholding, for example, positive characteristics from the place of study or from a doctor, is a violation of ethics. Critical analysis of the completed conclusion. An attorney has the right and obligation to examine the conclusion for methodological errors: were valid methods for the age of the child used, was there enough contact with the child for the conclusions, were all submitted materials taken into account. Based on this, he prepares questions for the expert's cross-examination in court. This is not an attempt to discredit, but to ensure competitiveness and comprehensiveness of the research. Ethical trap: "child's attorney" vs. "parent's attorney" In Russia, in civil proceedings over child custody, an attorney represents the interests of one of the parents. However, his tactics should not be based on the principle of "victory at any cost." The victory of the parent should not mean the loss of the child. If during the case the attorney comes to the conclusion that the position of his client objectively contradicts the interests of the child (for example, the parent insists on isolating the child from the second parent without objective reasons), the ethical duty of the attorney is to explain the possible consequences to the client. This is a thin line between the protection of interests and imposing one's own point of view. A case example from the European Court of Human Rights: In the case "Mother v. Malta" (2019), the ECtHR pointed out that national courts are required to ensure that procedural actions of the parties (including the initiation of expertise) do not turn into an instrument of pressure on the child or delay the process, causing harm to his psyche. Conclusion: ethics as a guarantee of the quality of justice Thus, the boundaries of the attorney's participation in psychological expertise in child custody cases are determined by a balance between the active use of procedural rights to protect the client and the highest ethical responsibility to the child, whose interests become the center of the process. The attorney, remaining a "parent's attorney," must have a systemic vision where legal victory is not an end in itself, but a tool for building a life situation that is as favorable as possible for the development of the minor. Adherence to these ethical principles is not a limitation on protection, but a sign of the highest professionalism, enhancing trust in the judiciary in the most delicate family disputes.
© elib.pk

Permanent link to this publication:

https://elib.pk/m/articles/view/Attorney-ethics-and-the-boundaries-of-his-participation-in-psychological-expertise