This study investigated the content and legal relevance of clinical evaluations of parents conducted in child abuse and neglect cases. Caseworkers, attorneys, and judges use these evaluations of parents to assist in the often intertwined tasks of service planning and legal decision-making regarding the children. This study is part of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary project with a goal of understanding and improving the way clinical information is used in legal decision making on children and families. The study consisted of 190 mental health assessment reports, randomly selected, that had been completed on parents involved in a large, urban juvenile court system. The evaluations were coded on 170 objective and qualitative characteristics in order to assess for criteria recommended in the forensic literature. The evaluations were compared across groups categorized by type (e.g., psychological, psychiatric, bonding and parenting, substance abuse) and where the assessments were performed (outside or inside the court). The study found numerous substantive failures to meet those criteria for forensic relevance. Evaluations of parents typically were completed in a single session, rarely included a home visit, used few if any sources of information other than the parent, often cited no previous written reports, rarely used behavioral methods, stated purposes in general rather than specific terms, emphasized weaknesses over strengths in reporting results, and often neglected to describe the parent’s care giving qualities or the child’s relationship with the parent. The limitations of the study are acknowledged. The findings are based on mental health assessments from a single judicial system, which may not reflect professional practice elsewhere, and data were based only on coding written clinician reports, which may not give a complete picture of the assessment process. References