Advocacy Ethics and the Boundaries of Participation in Psychological Expertise in Child Custody Cases Ethical Challenges at the Intersection of Law and Child Psychology In disputes over child custody, psychological expertise often becomes central evidence determining the child's fate. An attorney involved in such a process faces unique ethical dilemmas where professional duty intersects with the need for special delicacy. The attorney's activities in this field are regulated not only by the Federal Law "On Advocacy and Advocacy" and the Code of Professional Ethics of Advocates, but also by international principles of child rights protection, primarily the principle of the best interests of the child (Convention on the Rights of the Child). Key Ethical Principles: Between Client Protection and Child Interests The principle of legality and honesty (Article 8 of the Ethics Code of Advocates) requires an attorney to use only lawful means. In the context of 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 his client's position. For example, if the mother claims that the father manipulates the child, the attorney may include in the motion a 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. The 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 due to 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 elevated levels of cortisol ("stress hormone"), affecting the development of the prefrontal cortex responsible for emotional control and decision-making. The principle of maintaining professional confidentiality is confronted with the need to disclose information to the psychologist-expert. The 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 reasons for the identified characteristics (anxiety, fears, aggression)?" Providing materials. The attorney is obligated to provide the expert with all relevant materials, not just those beneficial to his side. Withholding, for example, positive character references from school or a doctor, is a violation of ethics. Critical analysis of the completed conclusion. The attorney has the right and obligation to examine the conclusion for methodological errors: were valid age-appropriate methods used, was there enough time spent with the child for conclusions, were all provided 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 the competitiveness and comprehensiveness of the research. Ethical trap: "child advocate" vs. "parent advocate" 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 his client's position 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 fine line between protecting interests and imposing one's own point of view. A case example from the European Court of Human Rights: In the case "Mat against Malta" (2019), the ECtHR pointed out that national courts are obligated to ensure that procedural actions of the parties (including initiating expertise) do not become a tool of pressure on the child or of dragging out 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 active use of procedural rights for the protection of the client and the highest ethical responsibility before the child, whose interests become the center of the process. The attorney, remaining a "parent advocate," 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.
© libmonster.com

Permanent link to this publication:

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