To recommend or not recommend: That is still the question.

The boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision‐making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio‐moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case‐resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy. Key points for the family court community: The contours of what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports has been a controversial issue in both the legal and mental health fields.Both the desire by courts and attorneys to have access to helpful information about families and the limitations of the relevant research literature need to be carefully weighed by practitioners.Evaluators should carefully consider the arguments for and against making specific parenting plan recommendations for the courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]