At least half of the witnesses had information regarding custody of the minor son. The recommendations of the experts as to schedule were similar but not identical and included generous time for the father. The parties had differed over joint versus sole physical custody for nearly two years. Equally desperate 4 for some way to avoid a never-ending trial, the lawyers and the author borrowed an approach from arbitration practice. Along with the two psychologists, we found a way to try the custody dispute with four hours of testimony and argument followed by about four hours of deliberation by the experts and the judge.
Most lawyers are familiar with the arbitration approach that a three person panel to decide.
By analogy, in this case, each had a custody evaluator favoring their respective views, and the neutral would the author, the assigned trial judge. Received in evidence were all three custody studies and the psychological evaluations of the parties and the child, along with the collateral reports relied on by those experts The parties were free to put in documents from the files of the evaluators and to argue their meaning. Each party had two hours to spend in presenting testimony, cross-examining the other party, and arguing their positions. 6 Each party presented one collateral witness, and the parties were encouraged to testify in narrative form, from notes or script if they wished. None of the experts testified or were cross-examined.