Forensic custody evaluations are a failed experiment in service delivery to a vulnerable population.
Forensic custody evaluations are an experimental approach to service delivery developed in the 1980s from the imaginings of a few people. There is no history for this type of assessment in healthcare. Throughout healthcare, treatment decisions are based on diagnosis.
Forensic custody evaluations, however, left the field of healthcare to try something different – a child custody evaluation – it was an experimental new approach to service delivery that was not grounded in the principles of healthcare service delivery.
They did something different. Something from their imaginings, an experimental new approach they called forensic custody evaluations.
The foundational principle throughout all of healthcare, including all of mental health care, is that diagnosis guides treatment. The treatment for cancer is different than the treatment for diabetes, the treatment for autism is different than the treatment for an eating disorder.
Diagnosis guides treatment.
This guiding principle of healthcare, however, is NOT followed by the forensic psychologists in the family courts. They have given themselves permission to conduct an experiment on the children and families using a new assessment approach they developed that is NOT founded in the principles of healthcare.
From Simon & Stahl 2020: “The forensic role is a non-helper role. The evaluating FMHP [forensic mental health professional] is not involved in services that have as a goal the alleviation of suffering or discomfort…. The clinical MHP’s job is to directly assist the patient to alleviate discomfort, suffering, and distress. The FMHP [forensic mental health professional] is well advised to avoid being a helpful advocate, since this will create a dynamic problem in a court related evaluation.”1
Stahl & Simon 2013: “Clinical thinking and the clinical mindset are no longer thought to be an appropriate approach to forensic psychological work.”2
There is no historical or institutional support for an assessment procedure to determine child custody. Doctors diagnose and treat pathology, that is the role of doctors in the healthcare system. Forensic psychologists in the family courts do something different created from their own devising, an experimental new approach to service delivery to a vulnerable population. Something new that’s never been tried before.
Simon & Stahl 2020: “This illustrates the reality that as an organized field and as an organized, systematic approach to behavioral science, forensic psychology remains in its formative years.”
Forensic psychology remains in its “formative years” after 40 years. If in 40 years their experimental new approach to service delivery with children and parents has failed to solve the pathology in the family courts, then their new experimental approach to service delivery is a failed experiment.
Forensic psychology is a failed experiment.
And they don’t care.
“Harmful to Children”
An outside and independent review of the practice of forensic custody evaluations conducted by the New York Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations (2021)3 determined that forensic custody evaluations “lack scientific or legal value,” that they produce “defective reports” that are “dangerous” and “harmful to children”, leading to “potentially disastrous consequences.”
The conclusions from the New York Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations are that 1) the practice of forensic custody evaluations is “beyond reform”, and 2) that the practice of forensic custody evaluations should be entirely eliminated from the family courts.
From NY Blue Ribbon Commission: “Ultimately, the Commission members agree that some New York judges order forensic evaluations too frequently and often place undue reliance upon them. Judges order forensic evaluations to provide relevant information regarding the “best interest of the child(ren),” and some go far beyond an assessment of whether either party has a mental health condition that has affected their parental behavior. In their analysis, evaluators may rely on principles and methodologies of dubious validity. In some custody cases, because of lack of evidence or the inability of parties to pay for expensive challenges of an evaluation, defective reports can thus escape meaningful scrutiny and are often accepted by the court, with potentially disastrous consequences for the parents and children… As it currently exists, the process is fraught with bias, inequity, and a statewide lack of standards, and allows for discrimination and violations of due process.”
From NY Blue Ribbon Commission: “By an 11-9 margin, a majority of Commission members favor elimination of forensic custody evaluations entirely, arguing that these reports are biased and harmful to children and lack scientific or legal value. At worst, evaluations can be dangerous, particularly in situations of domestic violence or child abuse – there have been several cases of children in New York who were murdered by a parent who received custody following an evaluation. These members reached the conclusion that the practice is beyond reform and that no amount of training for courts, forensic evaluators and/or other court personnel will successfully fix the bias, inequity and conflict of interest issues that exist within the system.”
Forensic psychology in the family courts is a failed experiment in service delivery to a vulnerable population (NY Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations, 2022).
As a consequence of their failed experiment on children and families, the lives of thousands upon thousands of children and their parents were irrevocably destroyed.
Clinical psychology (diagnosis and treatment) needs to return to court-involved custody conflict, and forensic psychology in the family courts needs to end.
Conflict of Interest
However, when the failure of forensic custody evaluations is acknowledged, and when the practice of forensic custody evaluations is ended, so are the careers of all the current forensic psychologists.
As a result, there exists strong personal and professional motivations within the forensic psychologists who currently hold positions of power and influence to cover-up their failure that resulted in the destruction of children’s lives and the lives of their parents over decades of their failure.
Forensic psychologists with names who occupy positions of power and influence are currently – intentionally – disabling the mental health system response to the pathology in the family courts for their own personal and career status gain.
The findings by the NY Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations noted the conflict of interest issues in forensic psychology in the Commission’s determination that “no amount of training for courts, forensic evaluators and/or other court personnel will successfully fix the bias, inequity and conflict of interest issues that exist within the system” (NY Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations, 2021).
Current conflict of interest issues in professional psychology surrounding the family courts are substantial. A cover-up of forensic psychology’s failure is currently underway within professional psychology (APA & AFCC) to hide the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations and the destructive consequences to the lives of children and parents.
Only One Choice
A deeply troubling professional practice by the forensic psychologists over the past 40 years of their failed experiment is that they restricted parents and the courts ONLY one choice, their experimental new forensic custody evaluations. Providing ONLY the one option of their experimental forensic custody evaluations was of substantial financial benefit to the forensic psychologists, but was of no benefit to the child, parents, or courts – and – actually harmed the child and parents by masking the child psychological abuse diagnosis within the family.
The forensic psychologist withheld from parents and the courts the alternative of a clinical diagnostic assessment to identify the pathology in the family. A clinical diagnostic assessment of the pathology would have been less expensive, would have accurately identified the pathology in the family at a professional level, and would have led directly to a treatment plan to fix the pathology based on the diagnosis.
The parents and the courts should have been informed of their choices, 1) the experimental new approach of a forensic custody evaluation, or 2) the traditional healthcare approach of a clinical diagnostic assessment and treatment plan based on the diagnosis.
As a result of the decision by the forensic psychologists to withhold information about alternatives from the general public and the courts, all the risks from the potential failure of their experimental new approach were borne entirely by the children and parents, while the forensic psychologists received all the financial gain and career-status benefits.
The informed consent process for their experimental new approach to service delivery, a forensic custody evaluation, should have included information on alternatives; i.e., a clinical diagnostic assessment of the pathology.
Their experimental new approach failed. The lives of children and parents were destroyed as a result.
Ethical Violations
Violation to Standard 2.01
Compliance with the ethics code of the American Psychological Association is mandatory for all psychologists. Ethical practice is not optional for psychologists, it is required.
Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence requires that all psychologists restrict their practice to ONLY those domains for which they are competent.
2.01 Boundaries of Competence
(a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience.
None of the forensic psychologists are competent in the diagnostic assessment of delusional thought disorders, and the pathology of concern in the family courts is a possible shared persecutory delusion (Walters and Friedlander, 2016; Family Court Review),4
From Walters & Friedlander: “In some RRD families [resist-refuse dynamic], a parent’s underlying encapsulated delusion about the other parent is at the root of the intractability (cf. Johnston & Campbell, 1988, p. 53ff; Childress, 2013). An encapsulated delusion is a fixed, circumscribed belief that persists over time and is not altered by evidence of the inaccuracy of the belief.” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)
From Walters & Friedlander: “When alienation is the predominant factor in the RRD [resist-refuse dynamic}, the theme of the favored parent’s fixed delusion often is that the rejected parent is sexually, physically, and/or emotionally abusing the child. The child may come to share the parent’s encapsulated delusion and to regard the beliefs as his/her own (cf. Childress, 2013).” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)
The assessment for a possible delusional thought disorder is a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception, as described by Martin (1990),5
From Martin: “Thought and Perception. The inability to process information correctly is part of the definition of psychotic thinking. How the patient perceives and responds to stimuli is therefore a critical psychiatric assessment. Does the patient harbor realistic concerns, or are these concerns elevated to the level of irrational fear? Is the patient responding in exaggerated fashion to actual events, or is there no discernible basis in reality for the patient’s beliefs or behavior?”
From Martin: “Of all portions of the mental status examination, the evaluation of a potential thought disorder is one of the most difficult and requires considerable experience. The primary-care physician will frequently desire formal psychiatric consultation in patients exhibiting such disorders.”
Despite the clear understanding within forensic psychology that the pathology of concern is a possible shared (induced) persecutory delusion (Walters and Friedlander, 2016; Family Court Review), none of the forensic psychologists are competent in the diagnostic assessment of delusional thought disorders based on their education, training, and experience, in violation to Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence.
And they don’t care.
Violation to Standard 2.04
Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code requires – mandatory – the application of the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” as the bases for professional judgments.
2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.
The established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline required for application with court-involved custody conflict is:
- Attachment pathology – Bowlby & others
- Family systems therapy – Minuchin & others
- Child abuse and complex trauma – van der Kolk & others
- Personality disorder pathology – Beck & others
- Child development – Tronick & others
- Psychological control – Barber & others
- DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association
Instead of relying on the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” as the bases for their professional judgments (as required by Standard 2.04), the forensic psychologists use “principles and methodologies of dubious validity” (NY Blue Ribbon Commission) that have no foundation in established professional knowledge (e.g., “parental alienation”, “Resist-Refuse Dynamic”, “Parent-Child Contact Problems”).
Forensic psychologists are routinely and consistently in violation of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.
And they don’t care.
Application of DSM-5
When the established scientific and professional knowledge of the DSM-5 diagnostic system is applied to the attachment pathology that arises in high-conflict custody litigation in the family courts, the pathology of concern is a shared (induced) persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology being imposed on the child by the pathogenic parenting of an allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent, for secondary gain to the pathological parent of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the pathological parent’s own emotional and psychological needs – DSM-5 diagnoses of 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another and V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.
Violation of Standard 9.01
Because forensic psychologists in the family courts do not know the relevant established knowledge from professional psychology (a violation to Standard 2.01), and do not apply the established knowledge of professional psychology as the bases for their professional judgments (Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, van der Kolk, Tronick, Barber, American Psychiatric Association – attachment, family systems, personality disorders, complex trauma, child development, psychological control, DSM-5), in violation of Standard 2.04, the opinions of the forensic psychologists as “contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements” are NOT based on “information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings,” in violation of Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment of the APA ethics code.
9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)
The forensic psychologists in the family courts are routinely and consistently in violation of three ethical Standards of the American Psychological Association – Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence – Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments – Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment.
And they don’t care.
Violation to Principle D: Justice
Principle D: Justice requires that psychologists provide equal access to and equal quality in professional services delivered to the public,
Principle D: Justice
Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists. Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of their competence, and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices.
The exorbitant financial cost of a typical forensic custody evaluation (typically between $20,000 to $40,000) violates the requirement of Principle D for equal access to services by limiting access to only the most affluent of clients. Parents of lesser financial means who cannot afford a full forensic custody evaluation must then settle for evaluations of dubious validity and variable quality, sometimes from professionals who are only dabbling in providing custody evaluations for the court.
From Stahl & Simons 2013: “The American Board of Forensic Psychology is a subspecialty board of the ABPP. In the fall of 2011, there were approximately 250-300 ABPP board certified forensic psychologists in the United States and an unknown number of psychologists who specialize in forensic work but are not board certified. On top of that, there are many psychologists who dabble in forensic practice, occasionally performing child custody or other types of forensic evaluations, and who find themselves called to testify in court on occasion. While we recognize that there is a range of quality in their work, it is clear that forensic psychology is a growing area of specialization.” (Stahl & Simons, 2013, p. 9)
There is also no inter-rater reliability for forensic custody evaluations, meaning that two different evaluators can reach entirely different conclusions and recommendations based on exactly the same data. The absence of inter-rater reliability and the acknowledged high variability in the quality of forensic custody evaluations violates the equal quality requirements of Principle D: Justice of the APA ethics code.
Forensic custody evaluations are in violation of Principle D: Justice on both the equal access and equal quality grounds of a fundamental Principle of ethical practice – Justice.
And they don’t care.
Cover-Up
The pathology of concern in the family courts is the psychological abuse of the child by a pathological narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent (DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse).
The forensic psychologists in the family courts have never diagnosed child psychological abuse and never informed the court regarding the psychological child abuse occurring in the family – a failure in their duty to protect obligations.
If the forensic psychologists now acknowledge the Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51) diagnosis in the family courts, they also acknowledge their prior misdiagnosis of the child abuse and they become vulnerable to malpractice suits and licensing board complaints for failure in their duty to protect obligations.
They failed in their duty to protect as a result of their multiple ethical violations regarding practice beyond the boundaries of their competence.
Google negligence: failure to take proper care in doing something.
The forensic psychologists failed to conduct a proper risk assessment for child abuse to the appropriate differential diagnoses of concern for each parent.
The forensic psychologists who are currently in positions of authority and influence cannot now admit their prior unethical malpractice and negligent failure in their duty to protect obligations for both personal financial interests (loss of career role) and professional malpractice reasons. There exists a prominent conflict of interest.
As a result of the conflict of interests within forensic psychology, there is and will be a cover-up by the forensic psychologists of their prior unethical malpractice and failure in their duty to protect obligations.
The current forensic psychologists in the family courts who occupy positions of authority and influence – psychologists with names – are intentionally disabling the mental health system response to the pathology in the family courts for their own personal financial gain and career status benefit.
An outside and independent review of forensic custody evaluations is needed. An outside and independent review was conducted by the NY Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations.
When this outside and independent review was conducted, the NY Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations found that forensic custody evaluations produce “defective reports” that “lack scientific or legal value,” are “dangerous” and “harmful to children,” and that they lead to “potentially disastrous consequences for parents and children.”
From NY Blue Ribbon Commission: “By an 11-9 margin, a majority of Commission members favor elimination of forensic custody evaluations entirely.”
Accountability
The forensic psychologists who created their experimental new approach of forensic custody evaluations received all the financial and career status benefits from their experiment. They should also bear responsibility for their failure.
The children and their parents bore all the risks, and as a result, the lives of thousands of children and their parents were irrevocably destroyed by the unethical malpractice and professional failure of the forensic custody evaluators.
Their experiment failed. They benefited financially and in career status gains. They bear responsibility for their failure – and the consequences.
Participation in Child Abuse
If you believe a shared delusion, you become part of the shared delusion, you become part of the pathology. When that pathology is the psychological abuse of the child by a pathological parent, you become part of the child abuse.
When that pathology is the psychological abuse of the targeted parent by the allied parent using the child as the weapon, you become part of the spousal abuse.
The forensic psychologists routinely fail to diagnose the child psychological abuse in the family courts, many times believing the shared delusion as if it was true… because of their negligent misdiagnosis.
Someone will need to explain to me why all forensic custody evaluators should not lose their licenses to practice for violations to multiple ethical standards of practice, and for collusive participation in child abuse and spousal abuse of the targeted parent using the child as the weapon, as a result of their negligent malpractice and failure in their duty to protect.
Where are the licensing boards enforcing ethical standards of practice in the family courts?
Nowhere to be seen. Why is that?
Summary
Forensic custody evaluations are a failed experiment in service delivery to a vulnerable population.
As a result of the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations, the lives of thousands upon thousands of children and their parents were irrevocably destroyed.
Forensic custody evaluators are routinely in violation of multiple ethical standards of practice, Standards 2.01, 2.04, and 9.01, and they don’t care.
There exists prominent conflict of interests within forensic psychology which is strongly motivating them to cover-up the failure of forensic psychology in the family courts, and to continue to disable the mental health system response to the pathology in the family courts for their own personal financial gain and career status benefits.
The practice of forensic custody evaluations needs to end, and clinical psychology (diagnosis and treatment) needs to return to court-involved custody conflict.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857
- Simon & Stahl (2020): Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation, and Expert Testimony (2nd edition). American Bar Association.
↩︎ - Stahl & Simon (2013). Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation, and Expert Testimony, Chicago; American Bar Association
↩︎ - The Report of the New York Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations:
Retrieved from the Internet: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjqoIfZ8ZmBAxUnAjQIHf-TDlUQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fopdv.ny.gov%2Fblue-ribbon-commission-forensic-custody-evaluations&usg=AOvVaw1Y_JEEyH4zlHjdm9i-xw9t&opi=89978449
↩︎ - Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.
↩︎ - Martin DC. The Mental Status Examination. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW, editors. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. 3rd edition. Boston: Butterworths; 1990. Chapter 207. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK320/
↩︎
Dr. Childress Consulting 