Forensic Custody-Evaluation Assessment Tools — Reference¶

TL;DR. When a court-appointed psychologue / forensic evaluator assesses parents in a PA-context custody case, they typically deploy a structured battery of standardized instruments — not just clinical interviews. Understanding which tools are used, what they measure, and what their limitations are helps targeted parents + their counsel prepare for evaluation + understand the resulting report.

Maintained by Alan Markson · Last reviewed: 2026-05-17 · License: CC BY 4.0

The 4 categories of assessment tools¶

1. Personality + psychopathology¶

MMPI-2-RF — Most-used personality + psychopathology inventory in forensic evaluations. 338 true/false items. Yields scales on depression, anxiety, antisocial features, somatic complaints, validity (lying / faking). PA-relevance: evaluators look for alienator-typical profiles (elevated antisocial features, cluster-B traits). Limitation: general clinical instrument; not PA-specific.

PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory) — Alternative to MMPI-2-RF. 344 items, 4-point scale. Often paired with MMPI for cross-validation.

2. Custody-specific instruments¶

ASPECT (Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody) — 56-item questionnaire administered to each parent. Yields scales on Observational, Social, Cognitive-Emotional. Limitation: dated (1992); critiqued for limited normative data.

Bricklin Perceptual Scales (BPS) — Child-administered (ages 6+). Measures child's perceptions of each parent on 32 items. PA-relevance: can detect coaching when paired with collateral interviews. Limitation: child self-report; vulnerable to coaching unless cross-validated.

Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) — Parent self-report of relationship with child. 78 items, 7 scales. Useful for comparing parent reports against each other + against child's BPS.

3. Child-protection screening¶

CAPI (Child Abuse Potential Inventory) — 160 items, parent self-report. Screens for child-abuse risk factors. PA-relevance: rules in / rules out justified estrangement vs alienation. Used when abuse allegations are part of the case.

CTSPC (Conflict Tactics Scales Parent-Child Version) — Measures parent-child conflict + discipline tactics. Identifies physical / psychological aggression patterns.

4. PA-specific instruments (emerging)¶

Baker's 17 Strategies Scale — Adult retrospective measure of childhood alienation. 17 items based on Baker (2007) qualitative research.

Bernet-led PA Behaviors Indicator — Structured assessment of alienating behaviors per Bernet (2010) 5 essential criteria. Used by PA-specialist forensic evaluators.

PASS (Parental Alienation Scale and Strategies, Friedlander et al.) — Adapted from Baker's framework. Distinguishes 4-category typology (affinity / alignment / estrangement / alienation).

What targeted parents should know before evaluation¶

Honest self-presentation matters¶

MMPI-2-RF + PAI include validity scales that detect faking-good, faking-bad, inconsistent responding, defensiveness. Attempting to look perfect backfires — validity scales flag it. Honest disclosure of normal human struggles (anxiety, sadness, anger about the situation) scores better than scripted perfection.

The clinical interview is the heart¶

Standardized tools provide structure; the clinical interview is where most evaluator inferences are formed. Show up calm + emotionally regulated, with your evidence pack organized but not weaponized, honest about your own struggles + your child's, without disparaging the other parent, focused on the child's wellbeing.

Don't try to game the BPS through the child¶

If the child takes the BPS, the alienator will sometimes coach. Counter: ensure your relationship with the child during your custody time is genuine + positive — the BPS score reflects actual relationship quality more than coached answers when properly administered.

Collateral interviews matter¶

Evaluators interview teachers, doctors, family members, friends. The pre-existing relationships + their reports about you carry weight equivalent to or exceeding the formal instruments.

What courts should know¶

Test selection matters¶

Not all evaluations use the same battery. Court-appointed evaluators who don't use PA-specific instruments can miss the pattern. Sample motion language:

The court is respectfully asked to direct the appointed evaluator to include in the assessment battery: (a) MMPI-2-RF or PAI for both parents, (b) ASPECT, (c) Bricklin Perceptual Scales for the child(ren), (d) CAPI screening, and (e) PA-specific assessment per Bernet (2010) 5-criteria framework + Baker (2007) 8 indicators.

Daubert applicability¶

Standard psychometric instruments (MMPI-2-RF, PAI) survive Daubert. PA-specific instruments are newer + less well-validated; cite them as complementary to validated tools, not as sole basis.

Beware overreliance on any single tool¶

Best-practice forensic evaluations triangulate across multiple instruments + collateral interviews + observation. Single-tool reliance is a Daubert challenge vector.

Citing posts¶

#	Post
19	https://www.antialienate.com/blog/custody-evaluators-prepare
25	https://www.antialienate.com/blog/court-appointed-pa-expert
28	https://www.antialienate.com/blog/psych-report-defense

Primary references¶

Ackerman, M. J. (2010). Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment (3rd ed.)
Otto, R. K., & Edens, J. F. (2003). Parenting Capacity Assessment
Gould, J. W., & Martindale, D. A. (2007). The Art and Science of Child Custody Evaluations

Disclaimer¶

Wiki entry, not clinical or legal advice. Always engage qualified forensic psychologist for actual evaluation.

CC BY 4.0 · antialienate.com