Jelena Zumbachin esitysdiat 2.11.2020 pidetyssä Barnahus-hankkeen ja Turvassa-hankkeen yhteiswebinaarissa Kuka kuulee mua? Lapsen kuuleminen väkivaltaa tai sen uhkaa sisältävässä ero- tai huoltoriidassa.

1. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Listening and understanding children’s voices
in difficult custody disputes
Assisstant Professor of Family Law Psychology
Department of Forensic Psychology
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Germany
j.zumbach@phb.de
02.11.2020
Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach

2. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Forensic Psychology at Psychologische
Hochschule Berlin (PHB)
1

3. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Listening and understanding children in
contexts of difficult custody disputes
2
Outline
1. What are the (legal) grounds to give children a voice in matters affecting
them?
2. What are current procedures and examples to assess and consider
children’s voices in custody disputes?
3. Which empirical findings can we reference to?
4. How can research and theory contribute to accurately assess and
interpret children’s voices in custody disputes in practice?

4. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
What are the (legal) grounds to give children a
voice in matters affecting them?
3

5. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
United Nations Convention, Article 12 (1989):
“States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own
views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the
views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and
maturity of the child.
For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be
heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either
directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner
consistent with the procedural rules of national law.”
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
4

6. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
The best interests of the child maxim
5
 Since the creation of the UNCRC over thirty years ago, there has been a heightened
awareness of the importance of listening to children’s views and preferences when
decisions are made that affect them
 Giving the child a voice is closely aligned with the child’s best interest standard
 Historically, children’s voices were largely absent from legal decisions affecting their
lives
 In order to implement the demand for participation of children in meaningful life
decisions, the voice of the child must be considered in legal decisions affecting them
 However, we face significant problems in the definition and the assessment of this
construct

7. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
 If the voice of the child does not correspond to the child‘s best interest,
professionals have to deal with an imbalance between the objective needs and the
voice of the child
Child‘s best interest and the voice of the child
6
There is no best interest
decision against the
voice of the child.
Deciding upon the voice of the
child may put the child at risk for
harm and therefore be against
the best interest.
Conflicting positions on the relation between the child‘s best interests and the voice of the
child (c.f. Dettenborn & Walter, 2016, S. 93)

8. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
What are the (legal) grounds to give children a
voice in matters affecting them?
7
The UNCRC together with local legislations and guidelines provides
grounds to give children a voice in matters affecting them.
Giving the child a voice is closely aligned with the child’s best
interest standard, but a conflict may also exist.

9. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
What are current procedures and examples to
assess and consider children’s voices in custody
disputes?
8

10. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
8
Child custody evaluation practice in Germany?
Psychological evaluations
in family law proceedings
Recommendations
Family Courts
• Custody disputes after
separation and divorce (as
according to § 1626 and § 1671
German Civil Code)
• Visitation disputes (as
according to §§ 1684, 1685 German
Civil Code)
• Child protection
proceedings (as according to
§1666 German Civil Code)
Child‘s best interest decisions

11. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
10

12. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Core criteria for psychological evaluation in child custody
disputes
11
(cf. Dettenborn & Walter, 2016; Kindler et al. 2006)
The term Kindeswille is defined in the German literature as “interests described by
the child itself, meaning age-appropriate stable and autonomous orientations
towards desired, personally significant target states“. (Dettenborn & Walter, 2016)
Criteria related to children
 Personal dispositions; development;
mental and behavioral problems of the
child
 Relationship to caregiver (parents,
significant others) and siblings
 Attachment
 Continuity factors
 Child-related resources and risk factors
 Voice of the child, child‘s will-expression
[“Kindeswille”]
Criteria related to parents
 Parenting capacity
 Educational capacity
 Capacity to cooperate and communicate
 Capacity to support the child‘s
relationships to other significant
caregivers
 Parent-related resources and risk factors

13. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
(1) “Is a dissolution of the joint parental custody and the transfer of physical custody to
one of the parents in the best interests of the child?”
(2) “In particular the following criteria should be acknowledged: the highly conflictual
nature of the parents relationship; the resulting burden on the child, the relationship of
the child to its parent, the capacity to support the child‘s relationships to the other
parent, and the voice of the child.”
(3) “What is the declared will-expression of the child?”
(4) “Should the will-expression be taken into account?”
(5) “Does the child's will-expression contradict the child's best interest?”
(6) “Do the greater disadvantages arise from following or disregarding the child’s will-
expression?”
Example: Referral legal question
12

14. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Step 1: Assessment
The voice of the child is usually assessed by
• directly exploring the child
• indirectly by interviewing other people
• behavioral observations
 How can we objectively elicit reliable information from children in contested
custody cases?
Step 2: Interpretation
• It is not simply about offering children the right to contribute views and record what
they say
• It is about understanding children’s point of view in relation to their developmental
needs
 How can we interpret the information correctly?
Assessing the voice of the child
14
We need evidence based standards!

15. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Principles for child interviewing in custody cases
15
• Provide an age-appropriate, private environment with minimal distractions
• Prepare age-appropriate explanations of the purpose of the interview, the child’s role,
and the functions of the professionals
• Create an objective, non-judgmental atmosphere, demonstrate a willingness to hear all
sides, without pressuring children
• Match the demands of the interview to the child’s stage of development, use language
children comprehend and concepts children understand
• Use general open-ended, non-leading questions
• Avoid suggestive techniques (mislead, introduce bias, reinforce interviewer expectations,
invite children to pretend or speculate)
• Engage children in conversations on a wide range of topics to elicit information
• Distance from the task to a question of where children prefer to live
Saywitz, Camparo & Romanoff, 2010, Behavioral Sciences and the Law

16. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Example Case 1
16
Mike, 13 years, lives with his mother, diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, visitation dispute after parental
divorce, mother was seeking to suspend visitation, father was seeking weekly visitation
[…] Interview 1 "Tell me about your father“.
“I don’t really like to talk about my father, but I will do so now. I think it is "great" that I no longer have to go to
visit my father. My father can stay where he is at.
I wish for my father to change. If only he had taken a completely different path in life, it would not have turned
out this way. Then I would like to see him. But the path of life he has taken is absolutely terrible. He has made
his life hell for himself. He has problems with drinking, it just bothers me. If he feels that he wants to continue
on the path of life he has chosen, then he's welcome. Then he'll drink himself to death.
It's good that I don’t have to go there anymore. I didn't feel comfortable there. I wasn't afraid that something
specific would happen, but I just didn't feel comfortable. Before that, the main topic had been that I always
had to go to see my father. That bothered me, this constant back and forth and the constant arguing that came
along with it. Sometimes my father didn't come to pick me up, sometimes he came too late. Sometimes he
also did not show up at all without canceling.
But I also see it that way, too: I may not like my father, but he is my father, what should I do? It is not possible
to change that. He is just my father. The only thing I would like to say to him is that he should stop drinking.
And there is another point I would like to talk to my father about. He simply does not recognize my disability.
He just doesn't acknowledge me as I really am. He thinks I’m just a normal boy without a disability, but I am
not normal, I have a disability. My father should get that into his head. I just don’t understand why I deserve to
have a father like that. [starts to cry] He had a chance, a chance to get better. If he did get better, then I would
think about seeing him again. […]”

17. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Example Case 2
17
Patrick, 5 years, lives with mother, custody dispute after parental divorce, father was seeking a shared parenting arrangement,
mother was seeking sole custody
Interview 1. Do you know why you are here today?
“Because of my father. So: I don't want to go see him anymore, because he doesn't take care of me in the evening when I sleep,
because he always goes to work then. And he didn't pick me up at Christmas and New Year's Eve. The other reasons I forgot.”
When asked what happened on Christmas and New Year's Eve, Patrick said that he was a bit sad. His father had told him that
Patrick couldn't come to him the next day because he had to go somewhere. He forgot where his father had to go. But he found
out that his father had lied to him because he only wanted to drink alcohol. That's what his mom had told him. His mom knew
that his father was lying most of the time. Patrick also said "...because I don't like him anymore... and the only thing I want is not
to see him anymore. I don't want to have anything to do with him anymore."
As it was explained to Patrick later in the conversations that it would be possible to invite his father to the evaluator’s practice
another time and that Patrick could then decide whether he wanted to see his father in the presence of the evaluator, Patrick
looks up to the evaluator, expressing to be interested. He then shook his head again and said "...mhh, mhhh ... I don't want to
see him anymore. After a short silence, however, he said "...only if my Mom is present". He then explained that a meeting in the
practice was fine if his mother was also present in the practice and if he could bring her in at any time. He then asked the
evaluator to discuss this with his mother "today".
Patrick met his father at the evaluator's practice at a later date while his mother remained in the waiting room of the practice.
During the meeting Patrick says to his father: "...I don't like to see you anymore, because you always have so much trouble with
mom."
Interview 2: How did you feel meeting your father?
Patrick reported in a next appointment that he had found the meeting "medium". It was "medium" because "I didn't want to see
my dad and because we had fun. Patrick answered further questions on his feelings and thoughts about the meeting with a brief
“I forgot“ and changed the subject.

18. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Example Case 3
18
Johannes, 12 years, lives in foster family, child protection proceeding, mother was seeking a reinstatement
of maternal custoy and return of the child into her household
[…] Johannes was asked whether he wanted to state his own attitude or opinion regarding the question on
where to live in the future.
„This is difficult. I want to live a little bit more with my mother. But because of school and also because of
my foster parents it might be better there. I also think it would be a pity if my friends were no longer near
me if I moved to my mother. I don‘t have so many friends there.
The thing is that my mother wants one thing, namely that I move in with her, and my foster parents want
another thing, namely that I stay. I don‘t exactly know what I actually want. Either I want to move in with
my mother, or I want it to be okay for her if I stay with my foster parents. At my mother's house it is of
course better that I am allowed to do more what I want and that there are less strict rules. […]“
We need evidence based standards!

19. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
What are current procedures and examples to assess
and consider children’s voices in custody disputes?
19
Assessment is mainly based on child interviewing and/or
behavioral observation.
Children’s voices should be elicited while engaging them in
conversations on a wider range of topics that are important to the
child.

20. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Which empirical findings can we reference to?
20

21. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
• The child’s view and preference have are a significant predictor for
psychological evaluator’s recommendations to family courts (Kunin, Ebbesen
& Koneci, 1992; Zumbach, 2017; Zumbach, Wetzels & Koglin, 2018)
• Ursin and Haanpää (2018) indicate from a cross-sectional survey of
17.369 eight-year-old children that only a minority of children were
aware of children’s rights and knew about the rights they had
• Limited child-related data exists on if and how children express their
voice, most of which is based on case studies and qualitative analysis
(e.g. Birnbaum, 2017; Birnbaum & Saini, 2012; Brand, Howcroft & Hoelson, 2017; Cashmore & Parkinson,
2016; Heimer, Naesman & Palme, 2018)
Research on children‘s voices
21

22. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
• Birnbaum (2017) investigated the impact of children’s accounts in child
placement decisions in custody disputes
• direct experiences of 24 children (6–17 years): views and preferences
during family breakdown
• Qualitative analysis: children wanted to speak to a professional about their
views and preferences
• Children raised questions about accuracy of the reporting and the need for
protecting their confidentiality
Research on children‘s voices
22
BIrnbaum, 2017, Social Inclusion

23. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
• Cashmore & Parkinson (2009) explored the views about children’s involvement in
decision-making about post-separation parenting
• Interviews with 90 parents and 47 children (6 to 18 years)
• 91% of children said that they should be involved, though not necessarily in making
the decisions
• 70% indicated that being asked to choose directly between parents puts them in a
‘‘difficult position’’
• upset or hurt their parents (36%)
• cause children to be sad or worried (30%)
• scared of making the ‘‘wrong decision’’ (27%)
 The more weight that is given to children’s views, the greater the danger for pressure
from parents or loyalty conflicts
Research on children‘s voices
23
Cashmore & Parkinson, 2009, Family Matters

24. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
• Theory shows: children from the ages of 3-4 years develop a series of competency
enhancements relevant for decision-making and will-expression (Dettenborn, 2017; Kushnir
et al., 2015)
 a theory of mind
 cognitive abilities for structured perception
 the ability to remember and evaluate information about oneself and the social
environment
 the ability for action control
• children start developing intuitions about free will between ages four and six
(Kushnir, Gopnik, Chernyak, Seiver & Wellman, 2015)
 processes that determine what children want, why they want it, and if and how they
transfer it into verbal expressions or behavior are complex
Research on children‘s voices
24

25. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
• Analyze strategies young children themselves present in the context of
asserting their rights and have their voices heard
• We elicit first-hand accounts of five-year-old children's responses to rights-
based scenarios that would directly affect the child, presented to the children
in case vignettes
Explorative pilot study
25
The study aims at:
 identifying the kinds of problem-solving strategies that young
children use when asked to express their opinions
 assessing developmental factors potentially affecting a child's
capacity of will-expression (emotional competence, social
competence, IQ, and parenting style)
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

26. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
• N=113 five-year-old children (mean age = 5.45 years; SD = 0.43 years;
45.1% female)
• Convenience sample, recruited in 18 kindergartens in an suburban
area in Northern Germany
• Predominantly middle- and upper-middle-class with the majority of
the parents holding a higher educational degree
• 15% of the children in the sample have a migration background
• Parent’s questionnaires were mostly completed by mothers (69.9%),
or by both parents together (25.7%).
Sample
26
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

27. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Multimethod approach of data collection, consisting of:
• a standardized child interview including three case vignettes with a
structured answer format
• cognitive assessment of the child using the Wechsler Nonverbal
Scale of Ability (WNV), German short version (Petermann, 2014)
• socio-emotional assessment of the child using the Intelligence and
Development Scales (IDS), subscale Social-Emotional Competence,
German version (Grob, Meyer & Hagmann von Arx, 2009)
Data collection
27
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

28. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Case vignettes for child interview
28
Note. Version for girls.
Case vignette 1 There's a family who has a child. A girl, Lisa. She is five years old. Her parents want to
move. Lisa then has to go to another kindergarten and she won't be able to see her
friends very often. But Lisa does not want to move.
How do you think her parents will know that Lisa doesn't want to move?
Case vignette 2 There's a family who has a child. A girl, Sophie, she is five years old. Sophie met the dog
at her friend's house. Now she absolutely wants a dog.
How do you think her parents will know that Sophie wants a dog?
Case vignette 3 There's a family who has a child. A girl, Anne, she is five years old. Her mother wants
her to go to the children's gymnastics. Her father, however, wants her to go to
swimming classes.
How do you think her parents will know if Anne wants to go to children's gymnastics or
swimming classes?
Sequential
questions asked
for each case
1) The spontaneous answer of the child
2) What would the child say?
3) What would the child do?
4) What would the child feel?
5) Do you have any other idea on how her parents can tell what she wants?
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

29. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
29
Category Description
Negotiation/ Persuasion/ Bargaining open repeated asking; expressing opinion;
begging; justifying
Escape/ Withdrawal/ Behavioral
avoidance/ Wishful thinking
do nothing, because parents never do what child
wants; do nothing, because parents notice on
their own what child wants; stay in bed; hide; no
longer talk to parents
Instrumental action/ Strategizing/
Problem solving
be nice; help parents; clean up the room; get
what you want for yourself; find a compromise
between parents' wishes; get more information
Example of categories
Coding of children‘s responses
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

30. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
30
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
n (%) n (%) n (%)
What would the child do or say?
Negotiation/ Persuasion/ Bargaining 89 (78.76) 97 (85.84) - -
Escape/ Withdrawal/ Behavioral avoidance/
Wishful thinking
49 (43.36) 54 (47.79) 5 (4.42)
No answer/ Don’t know/ Don’t understand/
Nothing
43 (38.05) 46 (40.71) 51 (45.13)
Express negative emotion 34 (30.09) 6 (5.31) 4 (3.54)
Accommodation/ Acceptance 23 (20.35) 32 (28.32) - -
Social referencing/ Support seeking 10 (8.85) - - - -
Social withdrawal 10 (8.85) 3 (2.65) - -
Instrumental action/ Strategizing/ Problem
solving
8 (7.08) 11 (9.73) 93 (82.30)
Aggressive expressions 1 (0.88) - - 3 (2.65)
Express positive emotion - - 12 (10.62) - -
Helplessness/ Find limits of action - - - - 20 (17.70)
Delegation/ Limits of own resources - - - - 12 (10.62)
Frequencies of named strategies by case vignettes
Note. Multiple answers possible.
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

31. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
31
CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2
Case vignette 1 Case vignette 2 Case vignette 1 Case vignette 2
What would the child do or say? n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) p-value
Negotiation/ Persuasion/ Bargaining 48 (87.27) 54 (98.18) 38 (76.00) 38 (76.00) <.001
Withdrawal/ Wishful thinking 35 (63.64) 35 (63.64) 12 (24.00) 14 (28.00) <.001
No answer/ I don’t know 12 (21.82) 13 (23.64) 29 (58.00) 32 (64.00) <.001
Note. Cluster 1 N=55; Cluster 2 N=50.
Frequencies of strategies per cluster
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

32. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
32
CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2
Case vignette 3 Case vignette 3
n (%) n (%) p-value
What would the child do or say?
Withdrawal/ Wishful thinking 5 (9.09) - - -
No answer/ I don’t know 12 (21.82) 37 (74.00) <.001
Strategizing/ Problem solving 54 (98.18) 36 (72.00) <.001
How would the child feel?
No answer/ I don’t know 7 (12.73) 33 (66.00) <.001
Unspecific expression of negative feelings 20 (36.36) 9 (18.00) <.05
Note. Cluster 1 N=55; Cluster 2 N=50.
Frequencies of strategies per cluster
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

33. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
33
n.s.
**
***
Post cluster analysis: Developmental status
Figure 1. z-standardized means of the subscales. ** p<.01, *** p<.001.
Emotion Regulation (IDS)
Socially competent behavior (IDS)
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020,
Family Court Review

34. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
• Even though much younger than age thresholds usually set by law, five-year-
old children indicate a wide range of will-expression strategies
• Children express their views in a variety of ways, including both, verbal and
behavioral strategies (c.f. Lundy, 2007)
• Strategies the children presented showed similarities to coping mechanisms (c.f.
Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011)
• Children who were more flexible in naming will-expression strategies were
more advanced in their emotional and social development
Study‘s conclusions
34
Zumbach, Saini & Koglin, 2020, Family Court Review

35. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Current study
35
Presentation of three case vignettes
describing custody rights based
scenarios:
„Emma is eleven years old. Emma's
parents have separated and her
father now lives in another house.
Emma's father wants Emma to visit
him regularly. Her mother does not
want that.“
Assessment in three age groups:
5-7 years
10-12 years
14-16 years
Additional assessment of:
Family risk factors, emotional
competencies and relationships to
parents.
Uhle, Koglin & Zumbach, in data collection

36. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Children's strategies for will-expression show similarities to coping strategies.
Practical implications
36
 Potentially understand the will-expression of the child’s as his/her best
available strategy to reduce negative emotion and stress
 Not only consider the mere opinion of the child, but also what the child
associates with the chosen strategy and what outcomes he or she expects
 Recognize that decision-making processes are rarely static, opinions might
change when receiving additional information
Children with lower social and emotional development might have more limited
resources for will-expression.
 This should not mean that their voice is less important
 Collecting structured knowledge about the social and emotional state of
development of the child before interpreting their will-expression might be
indicated

37. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Which empirical findings can we reference to?
37
Empirical research on children’s voices is sparse.
Preliminary findings show that even young children express their views
in a variety of ways, including both, verbal and behavioral strategies.
Will-expression strategies in young children show similarities to coping
mechanisms.
Emotional and social development has an impact on will-expression in
young children.

38. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
How can research and theory contribute to
accurately assess and interpret children’s
voices in custody disputes in practice?
38

39. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
United Nations Convention, Article 12 (1989):
“States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the
right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child
being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
Consideration of developmental theroy
39
• Cognitive development: e.g. structured perception, causal thinking,
autobiographical memory, behavioral/action control, mental representations
and internal working models
• Language: e.g. receptive and expressive language, expressions with
reference to time, questions about social rules, mental expressions (want,
can)
• Socio-emotional development: e.g. a theory of mind, emotional knowledge
and empathy
 A number of developmental factors determine if a child is capable to form and
express a view.

40. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
40
If the child expresses a view, developmental theory can help to determine
which weight the view of the child should be given.
 Explain why the child expresses a certain opinion.
 Explain why the child doesn‘t want to express an opinion.
Consideration of developmental theory
United Nations Convention, Article 12 (1989):
“States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the
right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child
being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

41. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Example Case 1
41
Mike, 13 years, lives with his mother, diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, visitation dispute after parental
divorce, mother was seeking to stop visitation, father was seeking weekly visitation
[…] Interview 1 "Tell me about your father“.
I don’t really like to talk about my father, but I will do so now. I think it is "great" that I no longer have to go to
visit my father. My father can stay where he is at.
I wish for my father to change. If only he had taken a completely different path in life, it would not have turned
out this way. Then I would like to see him. But the path of life he has taken is absolutely terrible. He has made
his life hell for himself. He has problems with drinking, it just bothers me. If he feels that he wants to continue
on the path of life he has chosen, then he's welcome. Then he'll drink himself to death.
It's good that I don’t have to go there anymore. I didn't feel comfortable there. I wasn't afraid that something
specific would happen, but I just didn't feel comfortable. Before that, the main topic had been that I always
had to go to see my father. That bothered me, this constant back and forth and the constant arguing that came
along with it. Sometimes my father didn't come to pick me up, sometimes he came too late. Sometimes he
also did not show up at all without canceling.
But I also see it that way, too: I may not like my father, but he is my father, what should I do? It is not possible
to change that. He is just my father. The only thing I would like to say to him is that he should stop drinking.
And there is another point I would like to talk to my father about. He simply does not recognize my disability.
He just doesn't acknowledge me as I really am. He thinks I’m just a normal boy without a disability, but I am
not normal, I have a disability. My father should get that into his head. I just don’t understand why I deserve to
have a father like that. [starts to cry] He had a chance, a chance to get better. If he did get better, then I would
think about seeing him again. […]

42. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
42
Consideration of developmental theory
…
Voice of
the child
Adaption and
coping
Affect and
emotion
regulation
Cognition
and making
sense
Social skills
and
relationships
Autonomy
and self-
efficacy
Assessment criteria related to child
Assessment criteria related to parents
Child‘s needs and it‘s best fulfillment

43. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Example Case 2
43
Patrick, 5 years, lives with mother, custody dispute after parental divorce, father was seeking a shared parenting arrangement,
mother was seeking sole custody
Interview 1. Do you know why you are here today?
“Because of my father. So: I don't want to go see him anymore, because he doesn't take care of me in the evening when I sleep,
because he always goes to work then. And he didn't pick me up at Christmas and New Year's Eve. The other reasons I forgot.”
When asked what happened on Christmas and New Year's Eve, Patrick said that he was a bit sad. His father had told him that
Patrick couldn't come to him the next day because he had to go somewhere. He forgot where his father had to go. But he found
out that his father had lied to him because he only wanted to drink alcohol. That's what his mom had told him. His mom knew
that his father was lying most of the time. Patrick also said "...because I don't like him anymore... and the only thing I want is not
to see him anymore. I don't want to have anything to do with him anymore."
As it was explained to Patrick later in the conversations that it would be possible to invite his father to the evaluator’s practice
another time and that Patrick could then decide whether he wanted to see his father in the presence of the evaluator, Patrick
looks up to the evaluator, expressing to be interested. He then shook his head again and said "...mhh, mhhh ... I don't want to
see him anymore. After a short silence, however, he said "...only if my Mom is present". He then explained that a meeting in the
practice was fine if his mother was also present in the practice and if he could bring her in at any time. He then asked the
evaluator to discuss this with his mother "today".
Patrick met his father at the evaluator's practice at a later date while his mother remained in the waiting room of the practice.
During the meeting Eric says to his father: "...I don't like to see you anymore, because you always have so much trouble with
mom."
Interview 2: How did you feel meeting your father?
Eric reported in a next appointment that he had found the meeting "medium". It was "medium" because "I didn't want to see
my dad and because we had fun. Eric answered further questions on his feelings and thoughts about the meeting with a brief “I
forgot“ and changed the subject.

44. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
44
Consideration of developmental theory
…
Voice of
the child
Adaption and
coping
Affect and
emotion
regulation
Cognition
and making
sense
Social skills
and
relationships
Autonomy
and self-
efficacy
Assessment criteria related to child
Assessment criteria related to parents
Child‘s needs and it‘s best fulfillment

45. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Example Case 3
45
Johannes, 12 years, lives in foster family, child protection proceeding, mother was seeking a reinstatement
of maternal custoy and return of the child into her household
[…] Johannes was asked whether he wanted to state his own attitude or opinion regarding the question on
where to live in the future.
This is "difficult". I want to live "a little bit more" with my mother. But because of school and also because
of my foster parents it might be better there. I also think it would be a pity if my friends were no longer
near me if I moved to my mother. I don‘t have so many friends there.
The thing is that my mother wants one thing, namely that I move in with her, and my foster parents want
another thing, namely that I stay. I don‘t exactly know what I actually want. Either I want to move in with
my mother, or I want it to be okay for her if I stay with my foster parents. At my mother's house it is of
course better that I am allowed to do more what I want and that there are less strict rules. […]

46. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
How can research and theory contribute to
accurately assess and interpret children’s voices in
custody disputes in practice?
46
Developmental theory can help determine if
1) a child is capable to form and express a view and
2) which weight the expressed view of the child should be given.

47. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
 The UNCRC together with local legislations and guidelines provides grounds to give
children a voice in matters affecting them.
 It has become a current procedure to hear children in custody proceedings in many
countries.
 Assessment is mainly based on child interviewing by mental health and/or legal
professionals.
 Empirical research on children’s voices is sparse.
 Preliminary findings show that even young children express their views in a variety of
ways, including both, verbal and behavioral strategies.
 Will-expression strategies in young children show similarities to coping mechanisms.
 Emotional and social development has an impact on will-expression in young
children.
 Developmental theory can help determine if a child is capable to form and express a
view and which weight the expressed view of the child should be given.
Summary and conclusions
47

48. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
Thank you!
48

49. Prof. Dr. Jelena Zumbach – Juniorprofessur für Familienrechtspsychologie – j.zumbach@phb.de
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin – Am Köllnischen Park 2 – 10179 Berlin – www.psychologische-hochschule.de
• Birnbaum, R. (2017). Views of the child reports: Hearing directly from children involved in post-separation disputes. Social Inclusion, 5, 148-154.
• Birnbaum, R. & Saini, M. (2012). A scoping review of qualitative studies about children experiencing parental separation. Childhood, 0, 1-23.
• Brand, C., Howcroft, G. & Hoelson, C.N. (2017). The voice of the child in parental divorce: implications from clinical practice and mental health
practitioners. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 29, 169-178.
• Cashmore, J. & Parkinson, P. (2009). Children’s participation in family law disputes: The views of children, parents, lawyers, and consellors. Family
Matters, 82, 15-21.
• Cashmore, J. & Parkinson, P. (2016). Children’s wishes and feelings’ in relocation disputes. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 28, 151-173.
• Dettenborn, H. & Walter, E. (2016). Familienrechtspsychologie. München: Ernst Reinhardt.
• Grob, A., Meyer, C.S. & Hagmann von Arx, P. (2009). Intelligence and Development Scales (IDS). Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
• Heiß & Castellanos
• Kindler, H., Lillig, S., Blüml, H., Meysen, T. & Werner, A. (Hrsg.). (2006). Handbuch Kindeswohlgefährdung nach § 1666 BGB und Allgemeiner
Sozialer Dienst (ASD). München: Deutsches Jugendinstitut e. V.
• Kunin, C.C., Ebbesen, E.B. & Konecni, V.J. (1992). An archival study of decision-making in child-custody disputes. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48,
564-573.
• Kushnir, T., Gopnik, A., Chernyak, N., Seiver, E. & Wellman, H. (2015). Developing intuitions about free will between ages four and six. Cognition,
138, 79-101.
• Petermann, F. (2014). Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV). German Version of the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability by David Wechsler
and Jack A. Naglieri. Frankfurt a. M., Germany: Pearson.
• Saywitz, K., Camparo, L.B. & Romanoff, A. (2010). Interviewing Children in Custody Cases: Implications of Research and Policy for Practice.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 542-562.
• Ursin, P.-K. & Haanpää, L. (2018). A comparative study on children’s rights awareness in 16 countries. Child Indicators Research, 11, 1425-1443.
• Zimmer-Gembeck, M. & Skinner, E.A. (2011). The development of coping across childhood and adolescence: An integrative review and critique of
research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 1-17.
• Zumbach, J. (2017). Praediktoren psychologischer Empfehlungen in der familienrechtspsychologischen Begutachtung bei Verfahren zum Sorge-
und Umgangsrecht [Predictors of psychological evaluation recommendations in child custody and access proceedings]. Praxis der
Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 66, 121-143.
• Zumbach, J., Wetzels, P., & Koglin, U (2018). Predictors of psychological recommendations in child protection evaluation. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 84, 196-204.
• Zumbach, J., Saini, M. & Koglin, U. (2020). Children’s strategies for giving voice to needs consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC). Family Court Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12517
Literature
49