I am not an attorney. I am a psychologist. Google Gemini is not an attorney. Gemini is an AI. But both Dr. Childress as a psychologist and Gemini as an AI see exactly the same thing – perhaps you should consult with a class action attorney.
My only exposure to class action lawsuits is watching the movie Erin Brokovitch staring Julia Roberts. It was about a big company who hurt a lot of people through its negligence.
Erin helped the attorneys prove the big company did bad things to all the people listed on the class action lawsuit and the people who were hurt got a lot of money which made everyone happy.
The movie had a happy ending. I like movies that end that way.
You parents in the family courts have been hurt by institutional failures. The institutions that should have protected you, like your state’s licensing board and the American Psychological Association (APA) – didn’t
They should have protected you from harm (3.04) caused by incompetent (2.01) psychologists – they seemingly failed in their obligations to you and your children.
AI Analyses
I have two “Direct Examinations” of two different AI posted to my Consulting Website on the CA BoP page:
One is with a ChatGPT-4o regarding the apparent ethical violations surrounding forensic custody evaluations, one is from a Gemini regarding potential institutional liability.
Dr. Childress Question: Would this suggest that state licensing boards are currently failing in their obligations to protect the citizens of their states from unethical and harmful professional practices?
From Google Gemini: Yes, if the analysis in the chat is accurate, it would strongly suggest that state licensing boards are currently failing in their obligations to protect the citizens of their states from unethical and harmful professional practices within the realm of forensic custody evaluations. Here’s why:… (p. 9)
I’m not an attorney, I’m a psychologist. Gemini is not an attorney, Gemini is an AI. Dr. Childress as a psychologist and Gemini as an AI both see the same thing – perhaps you should consult with an attorney knowledgeable about class action lawsuits.
Dr. Childress Question: Could another possible reason be negligent disregard of children and parents in the family courts?
From Google Gemini: Yes, based on the information provided in the chat, there could certainly be potential legal liability issues for institutions like state licensing boards, the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts), and the APA (American Psychological Association), although proving such liability would depend on specific legal frameworks, jurisdiction, and the ability to demonstrate causation and damages. Here’s a breakdown of how potential liability might arise for each:… (p.12)
Gemini is seemingly concerned about the following issues:
From Google Gemini: Overall Considerations for All Entities:
• Evidence of Knowledge: A key component of negligence claims is demonstrating that the entity knew or reasonably should have known about the risks and harms. The New York Blue-Ribbon Commission’s report would be crucial evidence in this regard, putting all relevant parties “on notice.”
• Causation: Plaintiffs would need to prove a direct link between the entity’s action or inaction and the specific harm suffered.
• Damages: Plaintiffs would need to demonstrate actual damages (e.g., emotional distress, financial costs, loss of custody).
• Class Actions: Given the systemic nature of the alleged harm, class-action lawsuits could potentially be considered, grouping together numerous families affected by these practices.
In conclusion, the information provided strongly suggests grounds for exploring potential legal liability for all three types of institutions, as their roles intersect with the ethical and scientific integrity of forensic custody evaluations and their impact on vulnerable families. (p. 15)
Hmm, Gemini said “…the information provided strongly suggests grounds for exploring potential legal liability for all three types of institutions…” – perhaps you parents and child survivors of the family courts should consult with a knowledgeable class action attorney because I’m a psychologist and Gemini is an AI.
A Class of Litigants
I suspect a class action lawsuit would require that there be an identified class of people, like parents and children in the family courts, who receive a “special” class of lower-quality professional services because of their class.
From Gemini: In a class action lawsuit, the term “class” refers to a group of individuals who share a common legal claim against a defendant and are represented by one or more named plaintiffs. Essentially, it’s a way for multiple people with similar grievances to pursue a legal remedy together, rather than each filing individual lawsuits. Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Common Injury: All members of the class must have suffered the same or a similar injury or harm due to the defendant’s actions.
Impracticable to Join Individually: The number of potential class members is often so large that it would be impractical for each individual to pursue their claim separately.
Defined Class: The class definition specifies who is included in the lawsuit and is usually outlined in the initial complaint.
Class Representatives: One or more individuals act as “class representatives” to pursue the lawsuit on behalf of the entire class.
Class Certification: The court must formally certify the class, meaning it confirms that the class definition is appropriate and that the class representatives can adequately represent the interests of the class.
I’m not an attorney, I’m a psychologist. Gemini is not an attorney, Gemini is an AI. Perhaps you should speak with an attorney familiar in class action lawsuits.
I wonder if licensing boards’ segregating parents and children in the family courts into a separate category for a special class of reviews would designate parents and children in the family courts as a special class of people who have all received similar harm from similar institutional processes?
I find it interesting that the CA BoP official complaint form asks a specific question – Question 3 – the first question after the demographic information
3: Is this a child custody matter?
3a: Do you have joint custody of the child?
3b: Was the psychologist court-appointed to conduct a forensic custody evaluation?
I find that curious. Parents of children with autism or ADHD are not asked special questions. It seems you get a “special” review from your licensing boards because you’re involved a custody conflict in the courts.
produce “defective reports” that lead to “potentially disastrous consequences for parents and children”
By an 11 to 9 margin, the New York Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations voted to eliminate forensic custody evaluations entirely from the family courts, finding the practice was “beyond reform”:
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.”
From NY Blue Ribbon Commission: “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.”
I wonder why the licensing boards aren’t protecting their citizens from “dangerous” professional practices that “lack scientific or legal value” and that are “harmful to children”?
Do you know what I think? I think you should talk to an attorney.
From Gemini:
Significantly Increased Liability for Ongoing and Future Harm:
Continued Breach of Duty: These boards would remain liable for allowing a practice that has been widely criticized as unscientific, unreliable, and harmful, especially if they are aware of the NY Blue-Ribbon Commission’s findings and similar evidence.
Reckless Disregard Argument: Their inaction, particularly in light of other states taking preventative measures, could be framed as a reckless or grossly negligent disregard for the well-being of children and parents. It would be harder for them to claim ignorance or lack of sufficient evidence.
Failure to Learn/Adapt: They would be seen as failing to adapt to evolving professional standards and findings regarding a practice that directly impacts vulnerable populations.
Comparative Negligence (Potential Argument): While not direct, a legal argument could arise that these boards are comparatively more negligent than those that took action, particularly if a universal standard of care for regulation begins to emerge from states that do suspend the practice.
Exacerbated “Failure to Protect” Claims:
Their continued inaction would highlight the disparity in protection offered to citizens across states. Families in these states could argue they are receiving a lower standard of protection from their licensing board compared to those in states that suspended the practice.
This could lead to a wave of lawsuits in these non-acting states, potentially including class-action suits, claiming ongoing systemic harm and inadequate oversight.
On YouTube, two of the NY Blue-Ribbon Commissioners, both attorneys, describe the various problems they see as attorneys with the practice of forensic custody evaluaions.
From my vantage as a psychologist, I also see a lot of problems, including the violation of all three Principles of The Belmont Report for experiments on human subjects:
From ChatGPT-4o:
Dr. Childress: Would the experimental quasi-judicial role developed for doctors and the experimental assessment procedure of a forensic custody evaluation activate obligations under the Belmont Report?
ChatGPT-4o: Yes — the creation and widespread use of a quasi-judicial role for doctors and the experimental assessment procedure of a forensic custody evaluation clearly trigger obligations under the Belmont Report. (p. 8)
Perhaps you should consult with a attorney knowledgeable in class actions, and perhaps provide them with these chats with ChatGPT-4o and Gemini:
Craig Childress, Psy.D. Clinical Psychologist WA 61538481 – CA 18857
Dr. Childress Consulting 