Children, psychiatrists and the courts: understanding the ambivalence of the legal profession. Part II--Applied principles

Communication between courts and expert witnesses in legal proceedings concerning child sexual abuse in Sweden: a case review

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to explore the communication between courts and expert witnesses in legal proceedings concerning child sexual abuse in Sweden.

METHOD

A cross professional research team performed a qualitative text analysis of files covering 20 court cases (court report and expert witness statement) from 4 different years (1985, 1989, 1992, and 1997).

RESULTS

Expert witnesses applied a wide variety of assessment procedures. Several patterns of communicative difficulties were identified, categorized as "mismatch," "misunderstanding," "misuse," and "missing pieces." Experts and courts sometimes used similar words (e.g., "credibility") but seemed to apply different meanings to them, indicating a lack of a mutual conceptual framework.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of brief expert assignments and diverse assessment procedures turned out to be a specific risk factor for communicative impairment. Alternate strategies for improved communication are discussed.

Judicial case management and the custody and access assessment: melding the approaches

BACKGROUND

The presence of the Unified Family Court, with procedures emphasizing judicial case management and settlement in custody disputes, provided an opportunity to combine these practices with those of a university hospital-based family court clinic experienced in the provision of custody assessments. Specifically, a process integrating the clinical custody assessment with the work of counsel and court procedures was developed. This format, incorporating the preparation of a clinical settlement conference brief, was then evaluated with emphasis on time management, outcome in relation to settlement or trial, and the effect of clinical assessment at critical points in the combined endeavour.

METHOD

Seventy-two judicial referrals conducted using this format were reviewed. To assess efficiency, we determined time intervals to various points in the process and compared them to previous local practice. Settlement rates, recorded incrementally to mark each component's contribution, were compared with rates noted in the literature. Assessment functions were identified according to the point of resolution of the dispute and in a manner to facilitate comparison with previously published work.

RESULTS

The format resulted in 50% of cases settling without trial in under 5 months, a minimum settlement rate of 50%, and confirmed the ability of clinical assessment to contribute flexibly to dispute resolution in several conciliation venues and at trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining legal and mental health efforts can results in more efficient use of resources and a substantial diversion of cases from continuing litigation. While altering the process of clinical assessments enhances such findings, further work is required to assure appropriate selection criteria for various intervention formats.