On July 2, 2014, a decision by Justice John Colangelo was handed down in E.V. v. R.V.,1 a Westchester County custody case that has already received significant attention.2 Colangelo’s 42-page detailed decision carries important lessons for lawyers and mental health professionals (MHPs) who engage in custody practice. This article addresses issues that attend litigant preparation by MHPs and the tactical problems and opportunities such preparation presents, as well as the ethical obligations of MHPs who offer such services.
Facts of the Case
E.V. v. R.V. was a post-judgment modification proceeding brought in Westchester Supreme Court. (Co-author David Martindale, a forensic psychologist, was retained by counsel for E.V. as a potential witness, but did not testify.) The parties had been divorced by a judgment issued in January 2009. Concerning custody of the parties’ son, then age 3, the court, over the mother’s objection, granted an equal access time-sharing schedule and conferred final decision-making power upon the mother. In November of that year, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the equal access schedule and modified the decision-making provision to require the mother to consult with the father prior to making decisions.
