The subspecialty of child forensic psychiatry has come into existence relatively recently. The first text on the subject was not published until 1980 [1]. The slow emergence of this field as a recognized subspecialty compared to that of general child psychiatry and adult forensic psychiatry is because of the fact that child forensic psychiatry could not exist until children gained legal rights, and courts needed to know the impact of a child's mental state on those rights. The first recognized interface between law and children was in the area of child abuse and neglect. For centuries, children were treated legally as chattel, property of their fathers. Because the father worked to support his children, he was free to do with them as he saw fit, without any rules or regulations from governmental sources. This treatment included the right to be abusive to them. It was not until the late nineteenth century that society deemed such behavior objectionable, as demonstrated by the first successful prosecution of a case of child abuse, which was based on a cruelty to animals statute because there was no such law relating to children. Subsequently, the federal government and every state enacted laws that proscribed child abuse and neglect. These governmental regulations created a need for child trained forensic mental health practitioners, both psychiatrists and social workers. The article by Leavitt and Armitage in this issue describes the function of the child forensic psychiatrist in assessing abuse. Similarly, in the area of criminal law, the need for psychiatric expertise arose once juveniles were given certain rights. The process began when the first juvenile court went into operation in Cook County, Illinois in 1899. Subsequently, every US jurisdiction enacted laws to give juveniles special handling. It was not until the 1960s that juveniles began to get any rights in court, however. In three landmark decisions, the US Supreme Court gave juveniles most of the due process rights accorded to adults [2-4]. In subsequent years, juveniles obtained the right to be competent before being tried [5] and, in some jurisdictions, the ability to use a not guilty by reason of insanity defense. The article by Quinn in this issue elaborates on these cases and details how the expertise of a child forensic psychiatrist has become essential at several phases of the court process. Youth who were found by the judge to be "involved" (which is the juvenile court equivalent of being found "guilty") were then given a sentence. In theory, the disposition should have been designed primarily to rehabilitate the offender rather than merely punish him or her. The treatment model did not work for at least two reasons, however. First, only limited (and inadequate) financial resources were committed to create treatment programs. Second, no knowledge existed as to what type of treatment would be beneficial. The monies that were available went into funding programs that turned out to be ineffective. When juvenile and adult violence began to escalate in the 1980s and 1990s, communities enacted "get tough on crime" statutes to prosecute juvenile offenders who were charged with felonies as though they were adults. This change meant being tried in adult courts and, if found guilty, being incarcerated in adult prisons. Such is an unfortunate occurrence because we know that simply incarcerating people does not deter future crime, and we have effective programs to treat youthful offenders through the juvenile court system. The articles by Thomas and O' Shaughnessy in this issue describe some of these therapeutic endeavors, which are achieving results with delinquent and sexual offender adolescent populations. Contested child custody in the context of divorce is another area in which child forensic psychiatry plays a role. Intervention was not possible until the twentieth century because children were considered chattel of their father. With the advent of women's rights came the concept of the "tender years" presumption. Laws were enacted that automatically gave custody of young children to their mothers on the assumption that mothers were more fit custodians than fathers. For a father to obtain custody, he had to overcome this maternal preference. Still, the child had no rights. In 1973, the seminal text "Beyond the best interest of the child" [6] was published. This work introduced the concept that custody should be determined using the criteria of what was in the "best interest of the child." Eventually, every jurisdiction changed its law so that this became the universal standard used in determining which parent should have custody. The enactment of such statutes created a need for mental health experts who could evaluate parents and children and the quality of their relationship and then present these findings as an expert witness at trial to assist the judge in resolving custody and visitation disputes. The article by Bernet in this issue describes the process of the forensic custody and visitation evaluation. In some contested custody situations, one parent may be prone to flee the jurisdiction, kidnapping the child in the process. The forensic examiner who performs a custody evaluation must be able to identify parents who are at risk for acting out in such a fashion and take steps to prevent this from occurring. The article by Johnson in this issue discusses the problem of parental kidnapping in detail, with recommendations as to what steps can be taken to forestall this destructive act by a parent. assessments has been difficult. For example, there are only 45 1-year forensic fellowship programs in North America that are devoted primarily to teaching adult forensic psychiatry. There is no formal fellowship program exclusively for child forensic psychiatry. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) recommends that all training programs include lectures on the various forensic topics. Further training can be obtained through mentoring, attending courses on forensic psychiatry at the annual meeting of AACAP, or attending lectures on child psychiatry at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL). Membership in AAPL includes their journal, which is published quarterly. It usually has one or more articles relevant to child psychiatry. By joining the National Association of Counsel for Children, one receives their quarterly publication, The Guardian. This publication gives updates on forensic case law and changes in federal policy. Finally, the American Bar Association's monthly publication, Child Law Practice, always has a lead article that covers some aspect of juvenile law. It also contains synopses of recent cases. In sum, the budding child forensic psychiatrist has had to look in several places to learn about the topic. This issue is designed to make the job easier.
