"Finally, it seems apparent, in reviewing this record, that the ultimate decision as to the key issue in this case, i.e., whether to award custody to the father because of the mother’s attempts to undermine his relationship with the children, was made on the basis of the experts’ testimony. Courts should be ever mindful that, while the forensic expert may offer guidance and inform, the ultimate determination on any such issue is a judicial function, not one for the expert.

"In this regard, it should be noted that there is an ongoing debate in both the legal community and the mental health profession as to the implications of expert psychological opinion in custody litigation, especially when the opinion is a conclusion as to the ultimate determination as to where to award custody so as to serve the child’s best interest (Tippins, Matrimonial Practice, Custody Evaluations – Part IX: Babies, Bathwater and "Daubert," NYLJ, November 5, 2004, at 3; see also Tippins, Matrimonial Practice, Custody Evaluations – Part X: "Daubert" and Its Progeny Parsed, NYLJ, January 7, 2005, at 3; Caher, Experts Challenge Family Court’s "Best Interests of Child" Standard, NYLJ, February 22, 2005, at 1). Indeed, ‘the American Psychological Association . . . Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations expressly note [that] "the [mental health] profession has not reached consensus about whether psychologists ought to make recommendations about the final custody determination to the courts"’ (Tippins, Matrimonial Practice, Custody Evaluations – Part IX: Babies, Bathwater and "Daubert," NYLJ, November 5, 2004, at 3)."