How Can I, as a Forensic Psychologist, Identify and Mitigate Bias in Child Custody Evaluations and Parenting Plans?

Cognitive biases arise from the brain's reliance on heuristics to process complex information efficiently. The adversarial nature of custody proceedings, combined with the inherently ambiguous and emotionally charged material evaluators must assess, creates fertile territory for bias activation.

Research has demonstrated that forensic mental health professionals are not immune to cognitive errors. Studies examining clinical judgment have shown that even experienced forensic psychologists can fall prey to systematic biases, and that clinical experience alone does not necessarily protect against such errors. This finding challenges the commonly held assumption that seasoned professionals can rely on their intuition and experience to render unbiased judgments.

Child custody evaluators must synthesize vast amounts of information from multiple sources, including interviews, psychological testing, collateral contacts, and document review, while navigating competing narratives from parents who may have dramatically different perspectives. Each decision point in this process represents an opportunity for bias to influence professional judgment.

Certain biases are particularly relevant to child custody and parenting plan evaluations, each with the potential to compromise the validity and reliability of forensic conclusions:

• Confirmation Bias involves the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities. In custody work, confirmation bias might manifest when an evaluator forms an early impression of a parent based on initial contact or referral information, then unconsciously seeks out evidence that supports this preliminary conclusion while discounting contradictory data.
• Anchoring Bias occurs when individuals rely too heavily on an initial piece of information, which  "anchors” subsequent judgments. Once an anchor is set, people make insufficient adjustments away from it, even when presented with relevant contradictory information or when the anchoring information is arbitrary or irrelevant. In child custody evaluations, anchoring might occur when a forensic psychologist reviews one parent's petition before gathering independent data, causing that initial frame to unduly influence subsequent assessments.
• Hindsight Bias, the tendency to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually are, poses unique challenges in custody cases involving allegations of past harm or risk assessment for future parenting. This bias is particularly problematic when evaluating parents who have experienced adverse outcomes with their children, such as accidents, behavioral problems, or involvement with child protective services.

Each of these biases can undermine the validity of custody evaluations by distorting data collection, interpretation, and ultimate recommendations. The reliability of these assessments is similarly compromised when biases lead different evaluators to reach vastly different conclusions based on the same family circumstances.

It is natural to assume that expertise confers protection against bias through superior knowledge organization, pattern recognition, and decision-making strategies. However, research has revealed a more nuanced picture: expertise can both protect against and increase susceptibility to bias, depending on the specific type of bias and the nature of the judgment task.

Experts are often better protected against bias when tasks align with their domain of expertise and involve structured, analytical reasoning. For forensic psychologists conducting child custody evaluations, this protective strategy might include tasks such as interpreting psychological test results or identifying developmental milestones in children.

However, experts may be more vulnerable to bias when making intuitive or holistic judgments that rely on "gut feelings" or pattern recognition. Research suggests that increased knowledge can sometimes lead to overconfidence and reduced self-scrutiny, making experts less likely to question their initial impressions or seek disconfirming evidence. This phenomenon, sometimes called the "expert trap," is particularly relevant to custody evaluations, which often require integrating ambiguous social and psychological information that doesn't fit neatly into diagnostic categories.

Some research indicates that experienced forensic psychologists are just as susceptible to hindsight bias as novices, while other studies suggest that expertise in structured risk assessment can reduce certain biases when proper decision-making frameworks are employed.

Expertise can also inflate overconfidence, which obscures the forensic psychologist’s awareness of their own biases and makes them more vulnerable to confirmation bias.

Forensic psychologists cannot assume their experience alone protects against bias. Instead, they must implement systematic safeguards throughout the evaluation process, regardless of their level of expertise. This includes using structured assessment protocols, generating and testing alternative hypotheses, and subjecting conclusions to systematic review before finalizing reports.

While understanding biases is essential, forensic psychologists must also possess concrete skills to actively mitigate bias at every stage of the assessment. Effective bias mitigation begins with recognizing that cognitive bias operates at a subconscious level and cannot be controlled solely through conscious effort or willpower. Instead, evaluators must implement structured procedural safeguards that create external checks on judgment.

Implementing Core Mitigation Methodologies

Key strategies include sequential unmasking, where evaluators access information progressively rather than all at once, and limiting exposure to potentially biasing contextual information until after forming independent clinical impressions. Research demonstrates that structuring tasks to increase consideration of a wider range of possibilities can significantly reduce bias and improve judgment calibration. This includes formally generating and documenting alternative hypotheses before reaching conclusions, actively seeking disconfirming evidence for initial impressions, and using structured decision-making frameworks rather than relying solely on clinical intuition.

Forensic psychology can also borrow methodologies from open science and judgment research. Documenting the specific data that supports each conclusion and the alternative hypotheses considered creates accountability that reduces bias. Consultation with colleagues using blinded case information can provide an independent check on conclusions. Adopting these structured approaches helps evaluators function as transparent, integrative professionals who balance scientific rigor with ethical obligations.

Minimizing Bias in Clinical Interviews

Interviews with parents, children, and collateral sources represent the primary data collection method in custody evaluations, making them a critical point for bias intervention. Evaluators must distinguish between clinical interviewing approaches, which prioritize rapport and therapeutic alliance, and forensic interviewing techniques that emphasize neutrality and systematic data gathering.

Confirmation bias poses particular risks during interviews, as evaluators may unconsciously ask leading questions that elicit responses supporting preexisting hypotheses while failing to probe for contradictory information. To counter this, forensic interviewers should use standardized interview protocols that ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant domains, employ open-ended questions that allow parents to provide information without leading, and actively probe for information that contradicts emerging impressions.

Preemptive influence—where the evaluator's expectations shape the interview content through verbal and nonverbal cues—represents another critical concern. Evaluators must monitor their own reactions, maintain consistent interview approaches across parties, and avoid signaling approval or disapproval of responses. Recording and reviewing interviews can help identify subtle biasing behaviors that might otherwise go unnoticed.

The cognitive and attitudinal biases evaluators bring to interviews—shaped by personal values, cultural background, and prior experiences—require ongoing self-awareness. Regular consultation, cultural competence training, and systematic reflection on how personal characteristics might influence interview dynamics are essential components of bias-conscious practice.

The foundational knowledge required for effective bias mitigation in child custody evaluations extends far beyond merely being aware that bias exists. It requires a deep understanding of how cognitive biases operate in forensic contexts, recognition of the specific biases most likely to compromise custody work, appreciation for the complex relationship between expertise and bias vulnerability, and honest reckoning with the limits of one's own objectivity. For forensic psychologists, it is essential to develop the knowledge base, practices, and procedures that actively guard against bias at every stage of the evaluation process. 

For therapists, the integration of these methods invites a flexible, stage-sensitive approach: guiding clients to think ahead when possible, and to stay present when necessary. Ultimately, effective craving management is less about extinguishing desire than about transforming the relationship to it — from one of helpless compulsion to one of awareness, endurance, and choice.

• Child Custody Evaluation Certificate
• AAFP: Reducing Bias and Error in Forensic Judgment
• Interviewing, Report Writing, and Testifying in Child Custody Cases
• Introduction to Using the MMPI-3 in Psychological Practice
• Incorporating the MMPI-2-RF in Family Court Evaluations
• AAFP: Parenting Capacity Assessments in Child Protection Court

Blog Posts

• Cognitive bias: A cause for concern
• Bias in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations
• Evaluators' Unprocessed Emotions as a Form of Bias
• Writing Without Bias: Ethics In Forensic Reports
• Are forensic judgments susceptible to biases derived from social stereotypes?
• How Child Custody Evaluations Can Benefit Children
• What Works and What Doesn’t – Bias Awareness and Correction Strategies Among Forensic Evaluators