Legal 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 fate of the child. A lawyer involved in such a process faces unique ethical dilemmas where professional duty intersects with the need for special delicacy. The activities of a lawyer in this field are regulated not only by the Federal Law “On the Legal Profession and Advocacy” and the Code of Professional Ethics of Advocates, but also by international principles for the protection of children's rights, primarily the principle of ensuring the best interests of the child (Convention on the Rights of the Child). Key Ethical Principles: Between Client Defense and Child Interests The principle of legality and honesty (Article 8 of the Ethics Code) requires the lawyer to use only lawful means. In the context of expertise, this means: Unacceptability of pressure on the expert. The lawyer cannot directly or indirectly require a psychologist to reach a specific conclusion. However, he has the right 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 lawyer may include in the motion a question: “Are there signs of induced 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 lawyer 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 unfavorable conclusion. An interesting fact: Neuro-psychological studies show that children involved in prolonged parental litigation may exhibit symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress disorder, including increased levels of cortisol (the "stress hormone"), which affects the development of the prefrontal cortex responsible for emotion control and decision-making. The principle of maintaining professional confidentiality comes into conflict with the need to disclose information to the psychologist-expert. The lawyer must distinguish between information: provide the expert only with the information necessary for the research and directly related to the subject of the expertise, avoiding unnecessary details of private life that are not directly related to the case. Boundaries of permissible participation: from organization to intervention The lawyer can and should be active at the following stages, remaining within ethical boundaries: Formulating questions for the expert – this is the area of maximum permissible influence. Questions should be neutral, scientifically grounded, 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 lawyer is obliged to hand over all relevant materials to the expert, not just those beneficial to his side. Hiding, for example, positive character references from school or a doctor, is a breach of ethics. Critical analysis of the ready-made conclusion. The lawyer has the right and obligation to examine the conclusion for methodological errors: were valid methods for the child's age used, was there enough contact with the child to make 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 the competitiveness and comprehensiveness of the study. Ethical trap: “child lawyer” vs. “parent lawyer” In Russia, in civil proceedings over child custody, a lawyer 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 defeat of the child. If, during the case, the lawyer 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 lawyer is to explain the possible consequences to the client. This is a thin line between protecting interests and imposing one's own point of view. A practical example from the European Court of Human Rights: In the case of “Mat against Malta” (2019), the ECtHR stated that national courts are obliged to ensure that procedural actions by the parties (including initiating expertise) do not turn into a tool for pressuring the child or delaying the process, harming his psyche. Conclusion: Ethics as a guarantee of quality justice Thus, the boundaries of the lawyer's participation in psychological expertise in child custody cases are determined by a balance between active use of procedural rights to protect the client and the highest ethical responsibility before the child, whose interests de facto become the center of the process. The lawyer, remaining a “parent lawyer,” must have a systemic vision where a 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. Adhering to these ethical principles is not a limitation for protection, but a sign of the highest professionalism, enhancing trust in justice in the most delicate family disputes.
© elib.ng

Permanent link to this publication:

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