Mental health evidence is a hotly contested area these days. Much of debate centers around two areas: what are behavioral health experts qualified to opine on and how good are their opinions. My colleagues and I have published two papers in this month's issue of Family Court Review on the limits of common psychological tests in family court matters. Although these tests are used most frequently in civil matters such as custody and visitation, they are also used in potential criminal matters such as allegations of abuse or neglect. Our first study concludes that many of the tests used by psychologists for family court evaluations lack scientific rigor to be used ethically in deciding issues such as custody and childhood attachment. Our second paper responds to our critics. Of particular concern are the numerous projective measures (e.g., inkblots) that are often used with children. Most of these tests have no demonstrative validity or reliability in ascertaining important psychological constructs at issue in these cases. Similar to a previous study (.pdf) I published in the New York Bar Journal years ago, inkblot tests are of a particular concern because of the extensive problems surrounding their psychometric properties. One wonders when the American Psychological Association will finally call for their prohibition (I'm not holding my breath)...