Perícia psicológica em varas de família : caracterização e operacionalização

• Autor(a) principal: Schütz, Daiana Meregalli
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS
• Texto Completo: http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/8935
• topic: Psicologia Jurídica; Perícia Psicológica; Vara de Família; Laudo Psicológico; Disputa de Guarda; CIENCIAS HUMANAS::PSICOLOGIA

Introduction: Juridical Psychology shows a current expansion in the Brazilian scenario. The present study had as main objective to characterize the process of psychological forensic in cases of custody disputes, in Family Courts. In addition, it tried to verify the psychological techniques applied, the constructs evaluated and the sociodemographic characteristics described in the psychological reports in custody dispute cases. It was also investigated the reason for psychological forensic requested, ascertaining the conclusions and recommendations made in the psychological reports and verifying if there was a relationship between the psychological investigation conclusions and the conclusions of the custody dispute processes. Method: the final sample was composed of 45 custody dispute processes with the analysis of 54 psychological reports. For this study, it was developed a Protocol for data collection of Guard Dispute Processes. The data were analyzed in the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Mean, frequency and standard deviation analyzes were performed for the quantitative data. For qualitative data, content categorization was performed. Results: It was verified 88.88% of the evaluated psychological reports were not in agreement with the CFP Resolution nº 007/2003. In the majority of the analyzed reports (40.7%) the indicated custody determination was maternal unilateral. The use of only interviews was verified in 74% of the assessments. The average time from the beginning of the process until the appointment of the forensic psychologist was M = 605.64 (SD = 472.57) days, that is, from 50 to 1782 days after receipt of the initial. In 50% of the cases the parties, the author, the defendant, and the minor, were evaluated. However, in 9.25% of the evaluations the author was not evaluated and in 18.51% the defendant was not evaluated. Regarding process configurations in 27 (50%) of the psychological reports was composed of three individuals as parties (author, defendant and a minor). Ten experts (18.51%) had four people evaluated, two children. In six (11.11%) evaluations we obtained two authors in the action, in 5.55% (n=3) two defendants and in 3.70% (n=2) three authors and in 3.70% (n=2) three infants evaluated. Conclusion: From the analyzed data, it can be concluded that the psychological forensic is operationalized in different ways, not presenting a defined sequence for its accomplishment. In addition, it was verified that most of the psychological documents, resulting from psychological forensic evaluations, were not in agreement with the CFP Resolution nº 007/2003. The most used technique for collecting data in psychological skills is the interview, without psychological tests application. When tests are used, HTP is the most used.