Typical Mistakes in Forensic Examinations on Disputes Related to Child-Rearing

Author:

Vaske E. V.1ORCID,Safuanov F. S.2ORCID,Sekerazh T. N.3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod – National Research University; Centre of Legal Psychology and Forensic Psychological Expertise

2. V.P. Serbsky Federal Medical Research Center for Psychiatry and Narcology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; Moscow State University of Psychology & Education

3. The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation

Abstract

The article analyses errors when appointing and conducting a forensic examination of disputes related to children’s upbringing. When summarizing expert practice in this category of civil cases (based on the study of 97 expert opinions on forensic psychological examination), the most significant errors were identified: incorrect determination of the type of expertise (including the appointment of psychological and pedagogical expertise which does not have a methodological basis as forensic examination), non-compliance with the qualification requirements to a forensic expert and, as a result, the introduction of an improper subject of forensic expert activity into the judicial process, an expert’s going beyond the limits of specialized knowledge and procedural powers, the incompleteness of research, the use of invalid research methods and techniques, and other methodological violations, associated with the incorrect assessment of the results of psychological diagnostics, inaccurate phenomenological analysis of essential phenomena of child-parent relations.Considering that due to the facts to be proved are essential for deciding on a case, the expert’s opinion is of particular importance and can significantly affect the formation of the court’s inner conviction, which means that expert errors significantly increase the risk of judicial errors. The article substantiates the urgent necessity of the early enactment of a legal act regulating experts’ responsibility for the level of their qualifications and setting professional requirements to experts.

Publisher

Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice (RFCFS)

Reference31 articles.

1. Rusakovskaya O.A., Safuanov F.S., Kharitonova N.K. Current Issues of Experts’ Participation in Child Custody Disputes in the Event of Parents’ Separation. Psychology and Law. 2011. Vol. 1. No. 1. (In Russ.). https://psyjournals.ru/psyandlaw/2011/n1/39325.shtml

2. Rossinskaya E.R. (ed). Forensic Expertise: Typical Mistakes. Moscow: Prospekt, 2012. 544 p. (In Russ.)

3. Safuanov F.S. Forensic Psychological Examination in Criminal Proceedings. Moscow: Gardarika, Smysl, 1998. 192 p. (In Russ.)

4. Terekhina S.A., Oshevskii D.S. The Problem of Using Psychological Knowledge in Family Disputes over Children in Civil Legal Proceedings. Psychology and Law. 2018. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 152–163. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2018080212

5. Smirnova S.A. Challenges of the Time and Expert Technologies of Law Enforcement. Multimodal Issue “Forensic Expertise: Reboot”. Part I. Moscow: Ekom, 2012. 656 p. (In Russ.)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3