For the Love of Kay

During child custody disputes, parents are often blind sighted by their own emotions and/or are incapable of providing for their children's needs. Therefore, the judicial system becomes responsible for the best interest of the children. That means these officials must render a decision based on the best possible facts. In difficult cases, forensic psychologists are called upon to assist. Therefore, this document will provide a detailed description, complete with examples, of how forensic psychology is related to child custody.

For The Love of Kay

Introduction

In this day and age, the bonds of matrimony often fail to endure the test of time. Divorce proceedings no longer grant all "possessions" including the children to the man, like they once did in the 1900's (Wrightsman, 2005). Nor do women automatically receive custody as in the 20^th century simply because they are believed to be the most nurturing choice of parents (Wrightsman, 2005). Actually, the fact is that child custody cases of today arise under many different occasions, and society has changed so much that we are now forced to focus on what is called the "best-interest-of-the-child" standards. In most cases, this means that the parent or individual capable of meeting the child's physical, emotional, educational, medical, and materialistic needs (Wrightsman, 2005) will become the primary caregiver (also known as a residential parent).

With this said, it is important that each individual involved in a custody case understands how the outcome of the custody arrangement will effect the children involved. Unfortunately, this isn't always a natural process. Sometimes it requires the assistance of a mediator, who is a neutral advocate of the court system. This person may be an attorney, a social worker, or a therapist. Who ever he or she is, with a little cooperation, they will be able to assist the parents in making a mutual decision concerning the custody of their children. Of course, it seems given that when parents and concerned parties work together, there is always be a greater chance of success.

Forensic Psychology Appears

But then, not all cases proceed with such ease, and for this 10% the system works a little different (APA, 1994). For these complicated child custody cases alternative measures require the use of outside sources. For example, some cases require the use of (forensic) psychologists who conduct psychological evaluations, and/or perform individual and/or family counseling, and then produce a written summary that can be used to assist in the decision making process (Wrightsman, 2005). These professionals have the ability to provide upper authority figures with the answers they need to make an otherwise uninformed decision more knowledgeable. However, their involvement comes with great responsibility, because there are American Psychological Association standards that must be followed (APA, 1994).

APA Standards

In order to assure that each client receives the utmost professional treatment from his or her therapist, the APA has established certain guidelines. These guidelines state that the primary purpose of a custodial evaluation is to assess which if any of the choices at hand are in the best interest of the child in question. Even though the results of such evaluation may reflect the attitudes or opinions of the caregivers, it should not hinder the over all content. In other words, the APA standards demand that each parent (or interested party) be assessed using their own personal attitudes, skills, abilities, personalities, and attributes as they relate to said child's needs. In other words, the goal is to establish that the parent can provide not only a safe, and happy home, but one that will help the child to thrive well into adulthood when they must take control of their own decision making processes (APA, 1994).

Of course, knowing the standards and knowing how to utilize them are two different issues. Therefore the APA has again come to the aid of the user. The first declaration it makes is that the professional must realize their place. In other words they need to understand that they are not meant to be anything other than a neutral party. They are neither attorney, judge, nor jury; therefore they must remain impartial at all times. This is why it is absolutely pertinent that the therapist is certain that they understand not only the process involved in administering these evaluations, but the laws, statues, and procedures governing the state in which they reside. This of course includes obtaining the proper signatures on informed consent forms, HIPPA agreements, record release forms (including the ones to release statements to the courts), along with the normal consent to treat and mandatory report forms that are a normal part of a new client package (APA, 1994).

Further more, the APA states that therapists should gather multiple forms of information. Such tasks could be carried out by using not only observations of the children with and without the prospective parents, but also through psychological assessments and interviews. These interviews may consist of talking to clients, caregivers, educational institutions, other agencies and healthcare providers, along with friends and family. However, important facts and opinions should be backed by a second source when the original is questionable; especially if the content is to be documented in the final report. That does not mean that the therapist cannot quote the individual, it simply means that they must be upfront about the limitations of any and all data presented. [SPECIAL NOTE: A copy of a client's entire file must be kept on premises (including the session notes) as directed by the APA Record Keeping Guidelines (APA, 1994).

Last but not least, when a therapist is asked to testify about an active client during a custody case, he or she should do so carefully, as not to project an inappropriate bias onto the case. He or she should also decline being used as an expert witness as well due to the negative impact that such actions might have on the relationship between the therapist and client. Of course, one cannot escape a direct order of the court (APA, 1994).

[SPECIAL NOTE: Dual relationships between client and psychologists are up to the professional, however it is not recommended by the American Psychological Association (APA, 1994).]

Psychological Tools

Now that the procedures are clear. It is time to discuss a couple of the psychological tools that a forensic psychologist might utilize during the testing process. For instance, there are many different tests that a psychologist can administer to the parents/interested parties who are involved in a custody battle. One of which is called the ASPECT or The Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody. This test evaluates whether a parent is effective, which parent is more effective, or if neither parent is effective at all. It will also stipulate the difference between the types of custody each parent should receive. Which, basically means that if one parent is better suited it might stipulate sole custody to that parent, and even more specific it could suggest "supervised" visitation for another (S.P.A.R.C., n.d.)!

Then there is the most popular and widely used forensic tool for evaluating children during child custody proceedings. This widely used test is called the BPS or Bricklin Perceptual is Standard. This instrument measures the child's opinion of his or her parents by using a stylus and rating card (Emery, n.d.). The questions are then broken down into groups that describe each of the four categories (competence, supportiveness, follow-up consistency, and admirable traits of the child's parents) (Emery, n.d.). As the therapist administers the test questions, the child answers first by voice, then by action. Little does the child know the vocal answer goes un-scored (Emery, n.d.). You see, it is the non-verbal response that is measured, because it is believed that this response reflects the child's true feelings. Needless to say, in the end, the parent who receives the highest rating is considered to be the most favored by the child between the two (Emery, n.d.).

Interviews

Therapists learn about their clients through conversation. They want to know their names, about their family history, their home life and about medical problems. They want to know about their hopes, fears, ambitions, strengths, weaknesses, and behavior. They want to know what makes them happy, sad, excited, and angry. But above all, they want to know what will help their client succeed in life and when it comes to child custody suits the tactics don't sway far from the norm (PLHP, 2004). You see, they still have tons of different questioners that they can use to ask the famous 101 questions no matter what type of client they are working with. They can use the boring type that we as adults are use to, or the fun and interesting game style story telling type that allow child clients to open up and freely associate all the built up information that they often have locked away just waiting to explode. Whatever method the therapist chooses to use, the key to unlocking this chamber is that the therapist remain as calm, and interested as possible. Not to mention that it doesn't hurt for the therapist to assure the party that they are non-judgmental.

Sample Case History

[SPECIAL NOTE: This section provides a sample case history. While it may not reflect everything that might be in an actual case, it should provide information that is similar to what a flawed case study might look like.]

Client Physical/Medical History:

Kay, age 6, Monroe County, Ohio was born on 11/2002, approximately three weeks early, without complication to MR. XXXXX and MRS. XXXXX (unmarried). Since then, despite typical allergies, she has been a normal healthy child. She has endured no illnesses, or accidents and does not require any routine medicine. However, it is noted that Kay suffers from hearing loss in her right ear, and receives in-school speech therapy because she tends to speak rather fast.

Psychological History

Kay's mother MRS. XXXXX says, "Kay [once] shoved her middle brother into the microwave stand and split his eye open." She often bullies her oldest of 3 brothers by not allowing him to walk through her room to go to the bathroom. Which, in return, forces him to "pees his pants." Kay has had various violent fits where she has been known to hit and kick her mother, grandmother, and father. She even hit a preschool teacher once. Recently, Kay was sent home from school for fighting three third-grade girls. Then on another occasion she was disciplined for trying to put another girls head in the girl's toilet and trying to flush it. More recently, she told the Department of Children's Services that her father had told her to lie (make false allegation against her mother) about how she received her black eye. (See below)

In the past, the Headstart program recommended that Kay's mother seek psychological consultation for Kay in 2008. However, MRS. XXXXX chose to follow the courts recommendations and seek to get Kay's father more involved. This lead to the father's visitation being increased, but consultation was never scheduled. In 2009, as Kay's behavior deteriorated even more, her mother asked Woodsfield Elementary School's counselor if she would begin working with Kay. She felt this would provide Kay with someone who was outside the home to talk to. But again the behavior got worse. AGAIN, MRS. XXXXX asked for increased therapy with the counselor. Now Kay receives special care 2-3 times a week. But no improvement is in site. As of today, MRS. XXXXX states that she has contacted a mental health group.

Family History:

MR. XXXXX and MRS. XXXXX spent two years off and on together before deciding that their relationship was beyond reconciliation. MRS. XXXXX and MR. both earned their High School Diplomas, and MRS. XXXXX states that she has finished some of her upper education. Together the two produced one daughter, Kay. Since the separation, MRS. XXXXX has given birth to three additional children. Each of these children has a different father and neither father is currently involved. Actually, MRS. XXXXX states that her most current divorce resulted from domestic violence and that her former husband is in prison. When asked about her personal life, she readily admits to having met her current boyfriend on the popular Internet site Myspace.

Further more, MRS. XXXXX's home is currently under a case management plan through the Department of Child and Family Services. Their involvement began in late 2007 when MRS. XXXXX's Family Doctor called in and reported that MRS. XXXXX was having suicidal thoughts and that her son was not gaining weight. MRS. XXXXX states that her current pediatrician has since diagnosed her son with Failure to Thrive Syndrome, a condition that was brought on by a natural allergic reaction to milk, and was complicated by the unwillingness of the physician to listen. She says that this syndrome may cause her son to remain smaller than the average child indefinitely. As far as the suicidal thoughts, MRS. XXXXX states she contributes such thoughts the prescription Paxil that her family doctor had given her. She says that when she told him about her thoughts, that she was only doing what the paperwork told her to do. Of course, she is correct in saying that Paxil has many side effects and the paperwork that is provided does say to "Tell the doctor immediately if you notice worsening depression/other psychiatric conditions, unusual behavior changes (including possible suicidal thoughts/attempts)" (WebMD, 2009).

However, this does not explain the multiple phone calls that the department has received since December 2007. There have been numberous reports about unfit living conditions, physical neglect, and physical abuse. While most of these allegations have been unfounded, it has been established that MRS. XXXXX's housekeeping skills are at times less than satisfactory. For instance, on several occasions, CPS workers report that they have entered the home, finding food and trash scattered all over the floor, choking hazards where small children could easily swollow, and other unsanitary conditions. However, in a October 2008, court hearing it was reported that her home had been reasonable for several months. Thus meaning that change might be possible.On the other hand, there have been four new and most recent calls concerning the XXXXX household that cannot be overlooked. While this examiner cannot be certain, they seem to be the product of revenge.

On 01-21-2009 CPS received a call and investigated a complaint that MRS. XXXXX threw Kay off the roof and that Kay has had a continual case of headlice for 6-weeks. Later that same day, they returned because they received another call that alledged that MRS. XXXXX threw a bottle at Kay and that the 2 year old hit Kay with a baby doll. While CPS was in the home the second time, a friend of the family went to pick up Kay from her father's house. Kay had no contact with either party until after speaking to CPS at which time she was asked who hit her. She told the worker that her brother hit her with the baby doll (which was the truth). When the worker asked her about the lie she told, she bluntly looked the worker in the eye and said, "Because my Daddy told me to!"

On 01-22-2009 Kay's father took her to the hospital. He had been told that Kay's brothers were diagnosed with Scarlet Fever. He said he wanted to get her checked to make sure she hadn't been infected. However, while at the hospital, Kay told them that her mommy had punched her and that her little brother had hit her with the bottle and that's how she got the black eye. This initiated another CPS call, along with a call to the local police department. MRS. XXXXX was called down to the CPS office, and again had to deal with the same issue all over. This time MR. came in as well. MRS. XXXXX states that she received a referal to obtain counseling for Kay.

On 1-23-2009 CPS recieves yet another call. This time the allegation is that MRS. XXXXX locks the boys in their bedroom and that they have kicked multiple holes in the wall trying to get out.

As of this time, Kay's father, MR., has been unavailable for interview.

Conclusion

As a Forensic psychologist examining this case, one would not be able to testify as an expert witness. First of all, the case history lacks much of the necessary information that would be needed conduct a custodial evaluation. According to APA standards, it lacks multiple sources of information. It lacks tests. For instance, it lacks extremely important that could come from primary parties such as the father, the Child Service worker, the Pediatrician, the child's teachers and the attending school counselor. It lacks any of the tests that could have been used to describe the child's personality and/or relationship with her parents. Which, to say the least, makes it impossible to know what is really going on in this child's mind as she is acting out. Therefore, as a forensic psychologist, my recommendations would be as followed:

1. Individual & Family counseling to be conducted by the same therapist with both mother and father alternating and together. (Therapist to provide summary upon next hearing date)

2. Continued therapeutic counseling services through the public school system. (Therapist to provide summary upon next hearing date)

3. Complete Psychological Evaluation on Kay (Therapist to provide summary upon next hearing date)

4. Complete Psychological Evaluation on MRS. XXXXX (Therapist to provide summary upon next hearing date)

5. Complete Psychological Evaluation on MR. XXXXX (Therapist to provide summary upon next hearing date)

It is through such services and intervention that I believe Kay may be best served, so that she can begin to function again as a normal healthy 6-year-old child.

Resources

American Psychological Association (APA). (1994). Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in

Divorce Proceedings. July 1994 Vol. 49, No. 7, 677-680

http://www.apa.org/practice/childcustody.html

Emery, R., Otto, R., O'Donohue, W.. (n.d.) Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations.

Retrieved on January 25, 2009 from the Association for Psychological Science website:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi6_1_7-12.pdf

Pennsylvania Law Health Project. (2004) The Psychological Evaluation. Retrieved on January 23, 2009

from the Pennsylvania Law Health Project website

http://www.phlp.org/Website/Mental%20Health/The%20Psych%20Eval.pdf

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center (n.d.) ASPECT Test Information. Retrieved on

January 23, 2009 from the Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center Website:

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/aspect.php

WebMD. (2008). Drugs & Medications - Paxil Oral .Retrieved on January 23, 2009 from the

WEBMD website:

http://www.webmd.com/drugs/mono-9095-PAROXETINE+-+ORAL.aspx?drugid=6968&drugname=Paxil+Oral

Wrightsman, L., & Fulero, S. (2005). Forensic Psychology. 2^nd Edition. Thomsom Wadsworth

Publishing. Belmont CA.