The psychology of family law, written by Eve M. Brank, is an informative read for those who are interested in understanding the often obscure relationship between legal codes and the scientific facts, principles, and logical considerations upon which they rely. Under the category “facts”, the author offers a thoughtful and thorough examination of the evidence that has been used to either justify existing codes or to make alterations after enactment. In her deliberate attempt to clarify the nature of existing codes, she considers not only contributing sources, but also neglected or discounted scientific evidence of research on human subjects.

The author describes family law “as a uniquely personal and psychologically relevant area of the law” (p. 4), which involves not only clients who need to be aided, but also two sets of professional agents who speak their own unique language and subscribe to their own professional culture made of distinct parameters, aims, and practices. Brank identifies as well as clarifies key principles of cognition, affect and conduct that underlie legal parameters in a language that makes them transparent to those in the legal profession who may find them unfamiliar. Here, her goal is to highlight the rationale that defines some legal codes and practices by looking at research evidence. Brank also makes explicit legal issues and their implications, including those resulting from the absence of a national-level doctrine as well as from the application of state-level codes, to render rules and regulations transparent to those in the clinical and research professions who may find them cryptic.

The theme of two fields that do not understand each other well is reiterated by the author throughout the entire book. The behavioral and brain sciences have an ambitious plan. They strive to describe, explain and predict human cognition and action, seeking either commonalities or individual differences. The law, which is prescriptive, exhibits a narrower pragmatic approach to information about human cognition and action. It emphasizes gathering an unequivocal understanding of specific events and people so that sensible decisions can be made regarding accountability and adjudication. Gray areas, which are inherent to the probabilistic nature of scientific findings and their interpretation, are not appreciated by the law, which puts a premium on certainty. In this context, both Type I error (e.g., a false positive, such as finding an innocent person guilty) and Type II error (e.g., a false negative, such as failing to find a guilty person culpable) are dire outcomes to avoid at all costs. 

To ensure reading comprehension across a diverse readership, Brank skillfully examines the motives and practices that guide professionals in the legal and psychological fields, thereby highlighting key differences. For instance, she notes that legal professionals, including attorneys and judges, seek justice, which can be achieved, in principle, if all parties’ viewpoints are considered and addressed fairly. Of course, attorneys may be focused on a narrower view of justice than judges, as they are obliged to act in the best interests of their clients, but all are required to follow the same set of rules. In the psychological field, two sets of actors are present: researchers and clinicians. Researchers seek unbiased evidence of the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that have led to a certain dispute or crime and of those that may foster or hinder a resolution. When causality cannot be investigated, relationships or mere descriptions are put forth as research aims. Researchers rely on the scientific method to seek unbiased evidence. Yet, the evidence is probabilistic and thus distant from the certainties that lawyers, jurors, and judges in a courtroom need to decide a case. Furthermore, good intentions do not automatically lead to findings that are applicable to the events presented and discussed in a courtroom. Efforts to control extraneous variables, use of convenience sampling, exaggerated reliance on college students as participants, and other practical shortcomings of research applications question the utility of the findings collected for the legal arena. On the other hand, clinicians, such as psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, primarily seek to help clients to overcome their existential issues. In their daily practice, they rely on research findings, but they do so to identify effective treatment solutions for their clients. Although the goal of legal professionals, such as attorneys, and clinicians, is to help their clients, helping means different things to each occupation. Clinicians’ activities focus on their clients’ mental health with the explicit aim of promoting resilience and long-lasting change.

In The psychology of family law, the reader can appreciate the dissonance produced by the conflicting demands and practices of the legal, research and mental health fields. Most importantly, the reader is given a front seat to the scholarly controversies surrounding key legal concepts of family law. The author reminds us that, although controversies may spill into a variety of textbooks, legal documents, and courtrooms, they are the reflection of societies undergoing generational changes. For instance, it is undeniable that a family is a “fundamental unit of society” (p. 10), but a legal definition of family may not fit the current views of what a family is, as well as the actual practices regarding this social entity, held by the different constituencies of a given society. The same argument may apply to interrelated concepts which either are critical properties of a family, such as the meaning of marriage, or define its boundaries of applicability, such as the meaning of incest or age of consent.

All in all, the book makes an engaging and informative read for a diverse readership, including scholars who want to better understand other field(s), readers who are curious about how laws may relate to research findings on human cognition, affect, and conduct, and students who are considering a career in law or applied psychology. The book can also be an excellent source for debates and term papers in psychology and law courses, as well as in seminars discussing the extent to which the motives and actions of individual agents and collectives shape policies and societal change at different times. The only glaring weakness of Brank’s book is that her examination of family law and its relationship with human research findings is limited to the USA. If indeed family law channels people into socially desirable practices and discourages alternative practices, as the author suggests, the infusion of cultural relativism is likely to be a desirable option for her future research endeavors.

© 2019 Maura Pilotti

Maura Pilotti, Ph.D.