Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41169902›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Court-appointed expert consultation in Italy: an ethnographic study of parents' beliefs, expectations, and experiences.

Antonio Iudici, Francesca Rainieri, Tania Fiorini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Antonio IudiciDepartment of Philosophy, Education, Sociology and Applied Psychology of Padua (FISPPA), University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Francesca RainieriInstitute of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Padova/Milano, Italy.
Tania FioriniInstitute of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Padova/Milano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study focuses on the process of Court-Appointed Expert Consultation (Consulenza Tecnica d'Ufficio, CTU) that parents involved in high-conflict separations must undergo. The CTU is an expert psychological assessment commissioned by the court to assist legal proceedings, aimed at providing judges with essential information for well-founded decisions. Given that this is a relatively new but rapidly growing field in Italy, also considering the increasing divorce rates, specific scientific literature on the subject is still limited. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to examine in greater depth how separated parents perceive and experience this process, considering the psychological aspects involved, their expectations, their evaluation of the investigation's utility, and the motivations underlying their request. Through qualitative research based on semi-structured interviews, the results highlight that participants view the CTU as a useful decision-making tool for the judge, but also as a mediator and guardian of minors. However, parents often confuse the role of the CTU with that of a mediator. Many parents expect a "corrective" CTU for the other parent, based on the idea that the problem lies with the other party. Indeed, while the request primarily arises to protect the children, it is also aimed at countering the other parent. Parents described the process as a demanding but ultimately useful, offering opportunities for reflection and new insights. The CTU is ultimately seen as a "validation" of parental suitability and a tool for vindication, but also as not always resolving family conflicts. We believe these findings can be highly useful for the Courts that initiate the investigation, as well as for all professionals involved, including psychologists, lawyers, and juvenile judges.

Indexed as

conflictcourtcourt-appointed expert consultationdisputeethnopsychologyexpertiseparty-appointed expert consultation

Identifiers

PMID41169902
PMCPMC12568022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.