Running head

9 downloads 0 Views 309KB Size Report
neuropsychology and is board certified in couple and family psychology. Paloma Pegolo .... respected credentials, including diplomates in different areas of psychology, or esteemed positions in ...... Chicago, IL: National Committee to Prevent.
Potential Ethical Violations 1

Ethical Violations: What Can and Does Go Wrong in Child Custody Evaluations?

M. Brianna Pepiton, Brittany R. Zelgowski, Robert A. Geffner, and Paloma Pegolo de Albuquerque Institute on Violence, Abuse & Trauma Alliant International University, San Diego, CA

M. Brianna Pepiton, Psy.D., is a forensic contractor at the Institute on Violence, Abuse & Trauma at Alliant International University in San Diego, California. She also works as the Supervising Clinical Psychologist at Alpine Special Treatment Center, Inc. in Alpine, California. Her current research interests focus on offenders, psychological assessment, and trauma. She received her Psy.D. from Alliant International University in San Diego, California. Brittany Zelgowski, Psy.D., is a licensed clinical psychologist conducting clinical and forensic evaluations in Western Massachusetts. Her current research interests focus on forensic evaluation and trauma. She received her Psy.D. from Argosy University in Washington, DC. Robert Geffner, Ph.D., ABPP, ABN, is the President of the Institute on Violence, Abuse & Trauma at Alliant International University in San Diego, CA and is also a Distinguished Research Professor of Psychology there. His research and practice interests focus on all aspects of interpersonal aggression and abuse, trauma, forensic psychology, and neuropsychology. He

Potential Ethical Violations 2 has been a licensed psychologist for over 30 years. He has a diplomate in clinical neuropsychology and is board certified in couple and family psychology. Paloma Pegolo de Albuquerque, Ph.D., is a Postdoctoral Student in the Department of Psychology at Federal University of Sao Carlos, Brazil. Her current research interests focus on the long-term effects of school violence. She received her Master Degree and Ph.D. from the Federal University of Sao Carlos, Brazil. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Brianna Pepiton, P.O. Box 1582, La Mesa, CA 91944. E-mail: [email protected]

Potential Ethical Violations 3 Abstract Child custody evaluations can have a significant impact on the adjustment and overall long-term well-being of involved children and family members. As a result, it is vital that all child custody evaluators are highly qualified and held to the highest professional standards. The authors of this article regularly review child custody evaluations, and unfortunately, too often witness inadequate and unprofessional evaluations and recommendations. In this article, we highlight some of the ethical mistakes that we see regularly, listed by order of when they may occur in the custody evaluation process. Many of the flaws occur when the cases are complex and include allegations of child maltreatment or intimate partner violence. Therefore, is important that child custody evaluators be trained in family and child psychology, attachment dynamics, psychological assessment, child abuse, and intimate partner violence. It is our hope that this article will bring more awareness to some of these ethical concerns. We believe that child custody work needs to be monitored more closely to ensure that such mistakes can be eliminated in order to avoid unnecessary harm to children and families. Keywords: family dynamics, parenting issues, risk management, divorce, standards of care, child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, family court

Potential Ethical Violations 4 Ethical Violations: What Can and Does Go Wrong in Child Custody Evaluations? Changes in a family’s structure, such as a modification in living or custodial arrangements, can have a significant impact on a child’s emotional, economic, and physical wellbeing, leading to various short- and long-term negative effects. One of the potential protective (or risk) factors for a stressor such as divorce could be the custodial arrangement. With estimates that 20-40% of children will have to adjust to a divorce (Bahr, Howe, Mann, & Bahr, 1994; Johnson & O’Brien-Strain, 2000), there is a need to make this process as judicious and professional as possible for the welfare of all involved parties, especially the children. In most cases, parents are able to resolve and decide custody arrangements on their own. However, there are still about 10% of divorces where custody is contested (which could be an aggravating factor to the child’s well-being), and decisions are placed in the hands of the court (Melton et al., 2007). To help the court make decisions in custodial cases, judges often rely on mental health professionals who serve as child custody evaluators. These evaluators are expected to have extensive training and expertise in both child and adult psychopathology and psychological assessment as well as such special topics as child development, attachment, family systems, impact of divorce, intimate partner violence (IPV) or abuse, child maltreatment, forensic interviewing of children, safety issues, and relevant legal standards and procedures (Geffner, Geis, & Aranda, 2006). In addition, most evaluators need to have obtained graduate education at the minimum of a Master’s degree (or its regionally-recognized equivalent) in a mental health field (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts [AFCC], 2006). However, it is important to note that there are significant variations in the education, training, experience, and credentials of evaluators across states. This leads to discrepancies in the caliber and expectations of

Potential Ethical Violations 5 practitioners as well as wide variability in evaluators’ qualifications, especially when dealing with cases that have allegations of child abuse, IPV, or substance abuse. Child custody evaluations are often complex and time-intensive as they involve the need to review all relevant documents (e.g., any police or child protective reports, medical records, school records, mental health treatment records), contact collateral sources, use proper interviewing techniques with both parents (and step-parents if applicable) and children, and administer psychological assessments and conduct home studies. From this compilation of data, evaluators are to draw conclusions about each parent’s attributes, parenting strengths and weaknesses, bonding and attachment of child to each parent, the child’s needs and each parent’s ability to meet them, possible safety concerns (child abuse and/or IPV), and the resulting most beneficial fit in the best interests of the child (American Psychological Association [APA], 2010). Therefore, child custody evaluators hold an important role where they often have a significant impact on the adjustment and overall long-term well-being of children and family members. Child custody evaluators hold an ethical and moral obligation to do no harm. In order to ensure clinicians are practicing appropriately and ethically, there are various governing bodies that have devised standards. The foremost guideline is that of the APA’s (2002) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct as well as the APA’s (2010) Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings. The APA also has been instrumental in other practice guidelines that are pertinent to child custody evaluators, such as the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 2011) and Guidelines for Psychological Evaluation in Child Protection Matters (APA, 1999). Furthermore, other organizations have authored important guidelines, including

Potential Ethical Violations 6 the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children’s (APSAC) Guidelines for Psychosocial Evaluation of Suspected Sexual Abuse in Young Children (1990), the AFCC’s Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (2006), and the American Academy of Childhood and Adolescent Psychiatry’s (AACAP) Practice Parameters for Child Custody Evaluation (1997). Although these guidelines provide useful information that can help clinicians and consumers comprehend what is appropriate within the child custody field, they are not often exhaustive, formally standardized, or adequately regulated. The lack of regulation in the child custody field has led to increasingly varied degrees of custody evaluations, which result in some being of poor quality and therefore unacceptable. As such, custody evaluators critiquing the work of other evaluators are becoming increasingly common within the forensic field and particularly within child custody litigations (Kirkpatrick, Austin, & Flens, 2011). As Gould (2004) has noted, the child custody evaluation should be a scientific work product, and as a result, the scientific process (i.e., data gathering, analysis, and interpretation) should be scrutinized through peer review to determine its reliability and validity. If an evaluator does not follow standard procedures, the evaluation could have a detrimental rather than beneficial effect on each family member. All authors of this article are currently affiliated with or have trained with the Institute on Violence, Abuse & Trauma in San Diego, California. The authors of this article regularly review child custody evaluations, and unfortunately, too often see inadequate evaluations, with multiple blatant ethical violations and concerns. Some of those committing these violations hold respected credentials, including diplomates in different areas of psychology, or esteemed positions in the field, such as being a professional member of a state licensing board. Others do not possess the required education, training, or experience required to conduct child custody

Potential Ethical Violations 7 evaluations. These ethical violations have varied in severity from minor negligence to much more serious offenses such as being blatantly biased toward one party, dismissing claims of abuse without a thorough investigation, or completely distorting test data and interview information. The outcomes of these errors do vary based on the degree of the violation; however, we hope to bring awareness to both serious and minor ethical violations in hopes to decrease overall harm and to better police ourselves and the profession. It is our hope to maintain credibility within the profession of forensic family psychology. In this article, some of the more common ethical mistakes (listed by order of when they may occur in the custody evaluation process) are discussed. By no means is this an exhaustive list but instead meant to highlight ethical concerns that we see most often through our clinical and forensic practice. Finally, we will conclude with a discussion about how to improve evaluations and when ethical complaints should be filed. Ethical Concerns Boundaries of Competence As noted above, it is important for clinicians involved in child custody evaluations to have “an evolving and up-to-date understanding” of important child custody topics (APA, 2010, p. 864). In some of the cases reviewed, evaluators are taking cases that they simply are not ethically prepared for because they either lack experience, are not properly trained, or they have not been keeping current with best practices in the child custody literature. Prior to child custody evaluators accepting a case, they need to conduct an initial screen or obtain the necessary information to assess whether they are competent to complete the evaluation (AFCC, 2006; APA, 2002, 2010). For example, if a case has a foreseeable high level of cultural concerns, it would be important for the evaluator to make sure he/she has access to an

Potential Ethical Violations 8 interpreter, knowledge of that culture, and the ability to consult with experts from that culture. Likewise, if an evaluator surmises that a certain case would benefit from the use of extensive psychological testing and he/she is not qualified or equipped to do so, then at the minimum, he/she would need to refer that part of the evaluation to a competent professional and consult in detail with the psychologist who completes the testing to understand the outcomes and how to incorporate them into the overall findings. Otherwise, they may just need to refer the case. One area where we see the most inadequate knowledge and skills is in child custody cases involving allegations of child abuse, neglect, or family violence. Significant numbers of contested child custody cases involve allegations of partner violence or abuse (Johnston, Lee, Olesen, & Walters, 2005) and attorneys are more likely to ask for a child custody evaluation when there are claims of physical or sexual abuse in the family (Waller & Daniel, 2005). As such, it is beneficial for all child custody evaluators to have specific knowledge in this area. If they do not, it is the evaluator’s responsibility to seek additional consultation, supervision, and/or specialized knowledge, training, or experience in child abuse, neglect, and family violence to address these complex issues. Merely taking one or two workshops on the topic does not qualify someone to have expertise to evaluate these complex cases. It is also essential that he/she is familiar with the laws of the state in regard to addressing child abuse, neglect, and family violence. If these steps are not possible within the timeframe for the expected evaluation, it is imperative for the evaluator to then refer the case to someone else with such credentials and expertise or at least recuse themselves from the case. During the screening process, evaluators also need to assess whether there are any conflicts of interest or multiple relationships present or that may arise in the future (APA, 2002, 2010). For example, we have seen an evaluator conduct an evaluation on a custody case where

Potential Ethical Violations 9 an attorney’s spouse on one side of a case had a personal relationship with the evaluator. This relationship can create bias towards one side, or at the minimum, create a perception of a conflict of interest since this relationship was never disclosed to the other party, their attorney, nor the judge. Another multiple relationship we have seen in too many cases is the evaluator also acting as the therapist, or vice versa. There are many reasons that this is problematic. Greenberg and Shuman (1997, 2007) discuss the conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles and argue against a professional engaging in the two roles at the same time in the same case. There are multiple important distinctions between these roles, one being that in a forensic evaluation the evaluator answers to the attorney or the court as opposed to the client. Another is that the attitudes and roles are different, the therapist usually being supportive, empathic, accepting, and helping the client recover or heal, while the forensic evaluator is an objective, neutral gatherer of data and facts in order to provide an opinion. Also, there should be differing areas of competency of each expert as the therapist must be competent in clinical diagnosis and treatment while the forensic evaluator must be competent in forensic evaluation procedures. If a multiple relationship is discovered during the evaluation process, then it is the responsibility of the evaluator to make this known to all parties and the attorneys. They may need to discontinue their work on the evaluation altogether. These ethical issues may seem obvious to a trained mental health professional, which is why it is surprising to find that they still occur in recent cases. Informed Consent and Assent During initial contacts, extensive information needs to be outlined to each party explaining the evaluator’s qualifications and role, policies, limits of confidentiality, procedures

Potential Ethical Violations 10 (including the nature of assessment instruments), and fees (AFCC, 2006; APA, 1999, 2010). Since the referral may be court-based, parties need to be informed that anything they say could be put into the report, and thus, shared with the judge and court (Zimmerman et al., 2009). A modified informed assent, preferably in writing (if possible) along with verbal format is the best practice when interviewing an older child or any collateral contacts so that everyone understands the potential uses of the information that they are offering to the evaluator (AFCC, 2006; APA, 2010). In addition, evaluators should be prepared to address each person’s questions and concerns relevant to the evaluation and the consent process. From our experience, too often it is unclear whether an evaluator obtained proper informed consent and assent with all involved parties. Unfortunately, some cases that we have reviewed do not appear to have signed consent forms in the records, even from the adult parties. Additionally, we have found that many evaluators do not document the informed consent process in their reports, which is supported by Bow and Quinnell’s (2002) study that found that about 75% of evaluators overlook doing so. It is extremely important for the parties to understand the limits of confidentiality in the context of a custody evaluation, as it varies from the standard limits of confidentiality in a patient-therapist relationship. The informed consent process is a very crucial part of the evaluation, and it cannot be bypassed under any circumstances. Even if the consent process occurs, it is important for evaluators to consider possible individual (e.g., educational level, language, cultural background) or situational (e.g., noise, distractions, nervousness) characteristics that could negatively affect the process. According to Escobedo, Guerrero, Lujan, Ramirez, and Serrano (2007), there are many communication barriers between litigants and evaluators that can occur and lead to misunderstandings during the consent process. Some barriers are related to cultural aspects, such as language and religion.

Potential Ethical Violations 11 Awareness of these barriers is crucial for evaluators as they must correct for possible misunderstandings (i.e., provide a translator, allot more explanation time, give the consent in multiple formats, and test their comprehension at the end). Many individuals will sign the consent form without being fully aware of what they are signing; therefore, it is the evaluator’s duty to take reasonable steps to make the consent process as informed as possible. If evaluators are not meeting the basic requirements of conducting the informed consent as noted above, it is worrisome that they may not be considering the more specific impact of contextual factors on that process or in their conclusions. Interviews During the forensic interview, evaluators need to be neutral, non-judgmental, and familiar with the case and documents. Interviews with each parent (and other adults who perform a caretaking role and/or live in the residence with the child) should follow similar formats so that the evaluator can collect balanced information from each side (AFCC, 2006). Semi-structured interviews can help the evaluator not only follow certain guidelines and similar questioning with both sides but also allow for the flexibility to inquire into additional areas specific to each parent. There is also the added benefit in that semi-structured interviews have been reported to have a higher level of reliability than unstructured interviews (Gould, 2004). The interview questions for each of the parents should revolve around assessing several variables that could relate to current parenting attributes. For example, some areas of importance are family and childhood history, continuity and quality of attachments, child’s special or educational needs, parent’s current and past physical and mental health, parent’s work schedule, styles of parenting and praise/discipline, parenting philosophy, assignment of chores, conflict resolution and communication skills, social support systems, ethics and values, cultural and

Potential Ethical Violations 12 ethnic issues, and religious affiliation (AACAP, 1997; Gould, 2004). Additionally, family violence or child maltreatment needs to be fully assessed since families referred for child custody evaluations often have these special issues that are too often minimized or ignored by assuming it is just another “high conflict” case (Geffner, Conradi, Geis, & Aranda, 2009). Many times these concerns, such as domestic violence and its effects on the children, are not fully explored (Bow & Boxer, 2003) through formal interview questions, questionnaires and psychological instruments (for more assessment information see Drozd, 2007; Jaffe, Crooks, & Bala, 2009). It is disheartening to read a report in which the evaluators indicate there was no evidence of IPV or child abuse so they did not consider it in their conclusions only to then review the actual records and interview notes and find that no questions or elaborations were asked about IPV or child abuse to any of the parties or children even though there were such allegations. In addition to interviewing the parents, children should be interviewed if they are old enough. A study by Bow and Quinnell (2002) found that interviews were regularly conducted with most children over the age of five. Depending on the age, the interview might be brief, such is the case with children who have limited vocabulary, or they may be lengthier and possibly involve psychological testing, such is the case with older children and adolescents. Some evaluators may not be skilled at interviewing children in child custody evaluations, causing them to spend a relatively short-time with even older children and not establishing rapport with them. Spending an appropriate amount of time with a child is particularly important since research over the past 25 years has shown that children are often knowledgeable about their own needs and personal experiences (Saywitz, Camparo, & Romanoff, 2010). In fact, it has been found that the majority of children express a deep desire to have a say in divorce findings and that it makes them feel like the process was more just (Cashmore & Parkinson, 2008). Some

Potential Ethical Violations 13 states have even adopted laws stating that children of certain ages should have a say in custody evaluations and recommendations, unless there is a specific reason why not (Elrod & Spector, 2004). Therefore, it is important to give the child a voice in the decision-making process, or at least ask relevant questions (such as what does mom do when she gets angry, what does dad do, what does mom do when the children do something they should not, and same for dad, etc.). Unfortunately, there are many evaluators who never even ask children about the family dynamics of each household, the strengths and weakness of each parent, or whether they have experienced or been exposed to situations that made them uncomfortable. It has been astounding how many evaluations we have reviewed where there have been allegations of IPV or abuse to which a child has been exposed or observed, and the evaluator never asked the child any questions about the events or their experiences. Worse yet, because a child may not have volunteered such information spontaneously to the evaluator, the evaluators then concluded that the allegations must be false, and then proceeded to make conclusions and recommendations based on that assumption. This may result in placing the child in a very dangerous situation. Too often an evaluator appears to have already made up his/her mind about allegations of abuse before interviewing the children, and children are able to realize quickly that the evaluator does not really want to listen to them or hear what they have to say. These are serious ethical issues. The child’s perceptions should be explored, and it is important for the evaluator to demonstrate a willingness to hear all of the child’s thoughts, without pressuring him/her to pick a side. The evaluator should explore the child’s thoughts about the current situation, the advantages and disadvantage of various options, and the quality of relationships with siblings and parents (AFCC, 2006; Saywitz et al., 2010). It seems inappropriate and likely unethical to make decisions and recommendations about a child’s future for the next several years, as far as

Potential Ethical Violations 14 custody or visitation, without even asking the child direct questions about the family dynamics. Unfortunately, too many evaluators have the mistaken belief that they should not ask children these important questions in a child custody evaluation. It is unclear to us where this viewpoint has originated, but it is being seen in more and more evaluations nationwide. It is also important, however, to realize that children may be fearful of disclosing, or may try to protect a parent and therefore, resist the process. Behavioral Observations Behavioral observations can provide a great deal of information. Evaluators should collect behavioral observations from each party and child(ren) during the clinical interview and during any psychological testing that is conducted as well as during any parent-child observation sessions. Every child custody evaluation report should attest to some behavioral observations, especially of the child with each parent. It is another serious ethical issue to be drawing conclusions about parenting and making recommendations about custody and visitation without actually interviewing, assessing, or observing such parent-child interactions. Observing each parent (and step-parents) with the child is important in order to assess bonding, emotional attachment, levels of comfort, communication, parental expectations for children, and disciplinary style. Both unstructured and structured tasks could be utilized, and usually a combination of the two is best as it provides different kinds of information. Starting with an unstructured, free-play task is useful because it helps everyone feel more at ease. The evaluator can then see who leads the play, if the play is reciprocal, and if the play is sustained. Then more structured play can occur. These more structured tasks give information about mutual engagement and compliance. Unfortunately, we have seen evaluators bypass observing parent-child interaction all-together or spend a very minimal amount of time on this. Without

Potential Ethical Violations 15 such interaction and structured activities, it is unlikely an evaluator can truly assess issues of attachment or bonding. There are also detailed structured protocols and procedures for assessing attachment relationships between parents and children (Oppenheim & Goldsmith, 2007; Zeanah & Zeanah, 1989), but they are rarely used in a child custody evaluation (Rhodes, 2009). In fact many child custody evaluation reports may use the terms “bonding” and “attachment,” but they often have not really assessed for these important factors and may not actually be trained in these areas. Limitations within any observation, such as it not being a naturalistic observation, should be taken into consideration. The nature of the situation will automatically influence behaviors and interactions. Therefore, an evaluator cannot rely on behavioral observations alone. This is especially true in abuse cases. It is well known in the child abuse field that children who have been significantly abused physically or sexually may still run up and hug the offender in a safe environment, such as the evaluator’s office with the evaluator present, but that does not mean the abuse did not occur. Evaluators untrained specifically in child abuse often make this mistake and then conclude it must be a false allegation or an allegation programmed and coached by the other parent. Again, conducting an evaluation in such a case without specific training and expertise in child abuse would be an ethical violation (APA, 2002, 2010). As noted above, it is always important to be sensitive to and knowledgeable about cultural, ethnic, and religious factors when doing observations. Home visits are another form of observation that may be necessary. These visits can be costly, time consuming, and difficult to carry out (Stahl, 1994) and have been deemed as the least important data collection method by a subsample of child custody evaluators (Bow & Quinnell, 2001). It should be determined at the onset of the evaluation if a home visit is needed.

Potential Ethical Violations 16 Usually the benefit outweighs the cost and time when there are concerns about the physical home environment of either parent (Hynan, 2002), and the home visit also allows the evaluator to see the interaction of the parent and child in their home environment. Psychological Testing Psychological testing is another useful assessment tool as it can provide information about a person’s strengths and weaknesses, dynamics, and approach to controlled conditions and assessment procedures (Brodzinsky, 1993). As such, it is utilized in the many child custody evaluations performed by psychologists (Bow & Quinnell, 2002). However, testing can be routinely inadequate (e.g., using only one or two instruments when there are a variety of concerns) or misuse of testing can occur (e.g., giving instruments that are not appropriate for the situation, administering them incorrectly, or scoring them erroneously). In addition, a significant misuse of testing is to not include cultural, ethnic, or religious factors when administering and interpreting the testing data. The context of the person or family’s situation must be included. In the forensic area, a multi-method approach in which the evaluator utilizes multiple data gathering methods is highly recommended (Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 2011; APA 2010) as this approach will increase the accuracy and objectivity of the evaluations (AFCC, 2006). For example, Geffner and colleagues (2009) suggest that psychological testing within child custody evaluations should assess for personality, anxiety, depression, trauma, parenting stress, and attitudes at a minimum. If family violence or other specific matters are a concern (e.g., substance abuse), then additional instruments tailored to those specific areas should be used. There are now standardized measures for all of these factors for adults and children, often as low as 6 to 8 years of age. Most of these measures are face valid, have norms, and yield relevant information when taken into account with other data as part

Potential Ethical Violations 17 of a full battery of measures. Too many evaluators actually appear untrained in the administration and interpretation of many tests and instruments that have been developed and validated during the past 10-15 years. Instead they appear to overly rely on what they may have learned in graduate school (i.e., Wechsler IQ tests and the MMPI). In addition, evaluators need to make sure they do not administer tests indiscriminately, even with pressure from the court, parents, or attorneys, and to choose tests carefully that will target a specific custody-related issue (Brodzinsky, 1993; Klass & Peros, 2011; Stahl, 1999). Ideally, evaluators would not use the same standard battery for every situation. They need to assess the specific characteristics and needs of each case (Butcher & Pope, 1993). Tests should be selected based on their ability to help answer all of the referral questions. Unfortunately, evaluators are not always fully assessing referral questions. More specifically, many instruments do not directly address the psycholegal issues relevant to child custody concerns (Otto, Edens, & Barcus, 2000; Tinsley & Rosen, 2001). For example, parenting inventories, which provide invaluable details about one’s parenting abilities and the nature and quality of the parent-child relationship, are used in only about 45-66% of child custody evaluations even though this is the area of prime concern in a child custody evaluation (Ackerman & Pritzl, 2011; Bow & Quinnell, 2002). Overall, using more specialized tools in combination with general measures seems to be the best practice as an evaluator should not make inferences solely from a general construct (e.g., general personality) to address more specific referral questions (e.g., personality as a parent; Otto et al., 2000). Bow and Quinnell (2001, 2002) also found that psychological measures for children were used from 39-61% of cases. Interesting to note is that some studies identified intellectual testing as the main child assessment, which is generally not relevant for a child custody case

Potential Ethical Violations 18 unless there is an indication of cognitive deficits or a developmental disability (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997; Ackerman & Pritzl, 2011). Administering psychological measures to children who are old enough is useful in order to get the child’s perspective and current psychological needs. More recent studies (Ackerman & Pritzl, 2011) have shown higher rates of psychological testing with children, which is a promising trend for the future. Although not all evaluators are qualified to administer psychological tests as they come from different disciplines and are not all psychologists, the benefit of properly using these tools needs to be stressed. Even if evaluators use a variety of useful assessment instruments, problems can still arise if they misuse these tools during the administration, scoring, and interpretation process. Most often, we find problems within the interpretation. For example, we often see evaluators put too much weight on psychological testing (Brodzinsky, 1993) in determining whether IPV or child abuse allegations may be true. Psychological assessment is not error-proof so results should only be considered substantial if there are other data supporting the conclusions, such as self-report or collateral information. When discussing test results, it is important that evaluators mention other information that supports or disconfirms the testing results and address any discrepancies and alternative hypotheses. In addition, we also frequently see evaluators not take into consideration the context of the situation (e.g., characteristics of the person being assessed, reason for the evaluation, test factors, test-taking abilities) which is suggested by the APA (2002). For example, if an assessment measure shows that one parent is not forthcoming or trying to present themselves in a strong positive light, this is somewhat normalized when you consider the stakes of the situation. When taking into consideration the context in an evaluation, it is important to add that if a parent who is claiming abuse and stalking behaviors by the other parent shows signs of paranoia on a

Potential Ethical Violations 19 measure, the evaluator needs to explain these results within the framework of a parent who may be in constant fear. Misconstruing these test results as negative and even pathological attributes can lead to undue negative outcomes for that parent, and may indeed be misrepresenting the information to the court. This is why it is important for evaluators to not take the computergenerated interpretation of assessment measures at face value (which we have seen copied verbatim into evaluator’s reports) since computer programs do not take into consideration situational and contextual factors. It is important for the evaluator to step back from testing and critically think about the outcomes that were obtained and how they relate to the specific case and referral questions. Unfortunately, evaluators who prematurely decide an allegation of abuse is false may give that impression to a child or parent, and they in turn, may tend to try harder to convince the evaluator of the seriousness of the situation. This self-fulfilling prophecy occurs too often in evaluations we have reviewed and can lead to such incorrect diagnoses for that parent as obsessive/compulsive disorder, paranoid or histrionic personality disorder, etc. In addition, a statement about limitations in regard to testing is necessary (AFCC, 2006; APA, 2002). For example, if an evaluator used a test that may not have been normed on the population (culture or context of child custody evaluation), then possible pitfalls of this should be noted. Similarly, if an examinee appeared to not put forth their best effort or not understand the psychological measure given, then those limitations should also be highlighted. Essentially, evaluators need to neutrally educate the reader in a professional and non-biased manner, which means being honest about flaws in the work, and focus on probabilities and likelihood in both diagnoses and interpretations.

Potential Ethical Violations 20 Interpretation and Evaluation Conclusions When constructing conclusions from all the above data, it is important that evaluators remain unbiased and base their interpretations on balanced information from each party, the records, assessment, interviews, and observations. No parent is perfect; there are always positive and negative attributes to a person. However, sometimes evaluators may minimize one parent’s misdeeds and exaggerate the errors of another (Klass & Peros, 2011). Countertransference appears to not have been dealt with adequately in some of the evaluations we have reviewed. Evaluators need to strive to maintain impartiality throughout the evaluation process (APA, 2002, 2010). Their conclusions should be withheld as best as possible until all of the data (e.g., interviews, behavioral observations, home visit, document review, and testing) are collected. If an initial impression is formed, information that could discount this opinion may be bypassed or minimized. To help protect against confirmation bias, in which preference is given to information that confirms expectations, the evaluator should search actively for any data that disconfirm expectations and should analyze what lead to their decisions by making sure there is proper supporting information (Butcher & Pope, 1993). Also avoiding countertransference in drawing conclusions is equally important ethically. Whenever possible, it is good practice for evaluators to utilize peer-reviewed published research in their work. For example, if one parent has an alcohol dependence problem, an evaluator should reference what research has been found in regard to how that affects a child and what is the best way to reduce the effects of the parent’s alcohol use. Reading peer-reviewed scholarly journals with a critical eye, taking into account sample size and characteristics, confounding variables, generalizability, quality of the research, and replication of the findings are the keys to utilizing research appropriately.

Potential Ethical Violations 21 We have seen many evaluators who are misinformed by one party and put this misinformation in a report as factual despite a lack of supporting evidence. An example of this is one party alleging or denying the occurrence of IPV. There are several common myths that we have seen evaluators use related to domestic violence. One is that IPV or abuse has no correlation with child abuse and unfit parenting. It has been shown in many studies during the past 10-15 years that this assumption is not true (see Geffner, Griffin, & Lewis, 2008; Geffner, Igelman, & Zellner, 2003). Such a statement by an evaluator would support the ethical issue of practicing outside one’s area of expertise since it has been clear for over a decade now that such exposure and adverse childhood experiences can cause serious psychological as well as neuropsychological harm (Geffner, Griffin, & Lewis, 2009; Geffner et al., 2003). Detrimental beliefs along the same line include that maximum contact with both parents is essential and beneficial. In reality, even if children are not directly abused, they can experience serious emotional and neuropsychological damage as a result of living in a violent or abusive household. This is especially true since domestic violence is a pattern of behavior that may become more severe and frequent over time, which would result in an increase of trauma and neuropsychological harm to the child (Stride, Geffner, & Lincoln, 2008). For example, Lung and Daro (1996) reported that violence in the home is a contributing factor to the growth of reports of child abuse and neglect. The estimated overlap between domestic violence and child physical or sexual abuse ranges from 30 to 50% (Geffner et al., 2009; Jaffe, Baker, & Cunningham, 2004; Straus & Gelles, 1990). If the evaluator is aware of the facts and well trained, then these myths would not come into play, and such unethical statements in reports would be eliminated.

Potential Ethical Violations 22 Similarly, evaluators should not base conclusions on generally unacceptable ideas (i.e., junk science) in the mental health field, such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” or “Parental Alienation Disorder” (PAS/PAD), which surmises that children who show dislike or opposition toward a parent may be a victim of programming from the other parent, who is usually perceived to be the mother. PAS/PAD is not based on scientific nor peer-reviewed research (Bond, 2007; Bruch, 2001; Geffner et al., 2009; Houchin, Ranseen, Hash, & Bartnicki, 2012; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Meier, 2009; Pepiton, Alvis, Allen, & Logid, 2012; Walker & Shapiro, 2010). Therefore, it is not included in the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) nor any prior ones and has been considered inadmissible now in several courts (Hoult, 2006). Bond (2007) points out that PAS does not meet established legal standards for the admissibility of expert testimony due to the lack of peer review, rigorous research, an error rate, and independent publications. He also concludes that PAS is more pseudoscience than science. In addition, Walker and Shapiro (2010) assert further problems with the concept of PAS, which include the inability to separate the causes of parental rejection in addition to alienation and denigration by one parent against the other and the harm that can come from forcing a child who has been abused to be with the abusive parent. For Meier (2009), this theory may threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Some researchers, such as Johnston (2003), Johnston, Walters, and Olesen (2005), and Kelly and Johnston (2001) demonstrated evidence against the PAS theory, indicating that the children’s negative behavior and attitudes toward a parent have multiple determinants. Overall, PAS often serves to pathologize the child and to vilify a parent without a proper scientific foundation. Use of such junk science in decision making and recommendations would also be an ethical issue. We have

Potential Ethical Violations 23 noticed more recently that the terms PAS or PAD are not used as much in child custody cases, but the exact same procedures, conclusions, and recommendations match what Gardner (1998) had proposed without any factual data, research, or evidence. In fact, the recommendations run counter to what is known in the child development and trauma literature. Report Writing Even if an evaluator follows appropriate procedures and conducts a thorough evaluation, a poorly written report could dismantle the work and credibility of the evaluator, and bring into play ethical violations. For example, mediocre reports can confuse the reader and make it appear as if the evaluator did not spend adequate time on the evaluation. In order to avoid this, the evaluator should organize the material by using a proper template and outline to work from that includes various headings and subheadings to denote different sections of information. This is particularly imperative for child custody evaluations since they usually involve such a large amount of data collected from different sources. Readers should be able to look at the headings and be able to determine where they can find something in particular. In addition, information, such as personal history should usually be in chronological order since it frames the context of situations. In order to keep the report succinct and focused, evaluators need to only fulfill the directives and needs of the Court (AFCC, 2006). This means evaluators need to make sure they address the court’s referral question(s) and do nothing less (e.g., neglecting to tell important information) or more than that (e.g., giving personal opinions or making decisions on matters in which the evaluator did not assess). Going outside the court orders may cause dual relationships, breaches of informed consent, or other ethical violations.

Potential Ethical Violations 24 A report that is too short may miss critical details of a case which could cause the judge to make an ill-informed decision. On the other hand, overly lengthy reports can be haphazard in that they are often confusing and can muddle the important key facts. They may have substantial amounts of history and other information that may not really be needed for the case and may mask the important information and data. It is unlikely that a judge will read a report that is 100 or more pages (which we have seen too often) in its entirety, and that may mean that pertinent information is bypassed. It also may lead to conclusions and recommendations becoming the focus without others reviewing the data upon which they should be based. In too many cases, we have seen the conclusions and recommendations not matching the data in the actual evaluation or report. In custody disputes that have been going on for years, it is easy to get overwhelmed by various details; however, a good evaluator can write a complex child custody evaluation in a concise, organized format. Lastly, it is often apparent that some evaluators do not properly proof read or spend ample time on their reports. It is unacceptable to see evaluations with multiple writing errors such as inaccurate punctuation, sentence fragments, factual errors, typos, unclear phrasing, statements that lack support or explanation, and omitted important information (e.g., evaluation procedures, mental status information, inadequate clinical description of parties, omitted child history on parents, little detail about collateral contacts, no or omitted testing data, and no dates of interviews or time spent; Bow & Quinnell, 2002). Reports also need to be written in a reasonable, understandable language that is appropriate for the layperson. In addition, the notes upon which the report is based should also be complete, dated, and legible. We have seen lengthy reports on some cases in which the actual records and statements by various parties and the collateral sources do not match the notes, may have been omitted from the notes, or are too

Potential Ethical Violations 25 vague. This becomes an ethical issue when the conclusions are then based upon the inaccurate information. Conclusion Child custody evaluations are very complex and challenging, and thus, it is easy for an evaluator to get in over his/her head. It is also difficult for most mental health professionals to acknowledge even to themselves that they may not have expertise in specific areas when they are licensed and have practiced as a mental health professional for many years. This article attempted to clarify some of the common, ethical practices that can be problematic during an evaluation, and potential pitfalls that can and do arise. Unfortunately, when evaluators are continuously active in the field but do not continue their education and training in specific areas, they can fall into some of the problems listed in this article. Although child custody work is difficult, there are many benefits as the evaluator has an opportunity to do an intensive case study of a family in crisis and has a chance to make a positive impact (Pickar, 2007). As a result, evaluators should always strive to improve their abilities no matter how long they have been doing the work. Kirkpatrick and colleagues (2011) identified various steps an evaluator can take in order reduce weaknesses and possible ethical violations on each specific case. These include: be aware of applicable professional guidelines and standards, be aware of applicable laws, be knowledgeable about risk assessment when harm is a concern (and if not handled properly, can result in significant harm to a child’s future), be familiar with relevant scientific literature in specific areas of concern (e.g., IPV, child abuse, substance abuse, cultural issues, attachment, family dynamics), consider alternative hypotheses, receive training and read about cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases within custody evaluations, acknowledge limitations of the evaluation in the report, and make sure opinions and

Potential Ethical Violations 26 recommendations are supported by data rather than interpreting data to match preconceived notions. Custody evaluators should always be striving to improve their practice as they play a significant role in custody decisions (Waller & Daniel, 2005). When someone becomes aware of an evaluator who commits ethical violations with potentially serious detrimental consequences, professionals should consider having the affected party file ethical complaints to the state licensing boards and/or professional organizations of relevance. An area that needs more debate in the ethical field concerns professionals filing complaints against those who violate accepted standards and ethical practices in order to police ourselves. Usually, it is appropriate to notify other professionals of potential ethical violations in an effort to resolve them before filing a complaint. However, often this is not possible in forensic situations after someone completes the evaluation, writes a report, or testifies in court due to confidentiality issues when reviewing someone else’s custody evaluation or testimony. If filing a complaint, the APA, for example, asks that individuals give identifying information of the person you are filing against along with a brief description of the complaint (APA, 2012). Although the process may seem burdensome, it is important to make sure that inadequate and potentially harmful evaluation is reported in order to improve the efforts of evaluators in the future and to ensure that only qualified professionals are conducting such important work. This would contribute to the credibility of family and child custody evaluators.

Potential Ethical Violations 27 References Ackerman, M. J., & Pritzl, T. B. (2011). Child custody evaluation practices: A 20-year followup. Family Court Review, 49, 618-628. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01397.x American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (1997). Practice parameters for child custody evaluation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(10), 57S-68S. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (1990). Guidelines for psychosocial evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in young children. Chicago, IL: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Fifth Edition. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association. (1999). Guidelines for psychological evaluations in child protection matters. American Psychologist, 54, 586-593. doi:10.1037/0003066X.54.8.586 American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.12.1060 American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. American Psychologist, 65, 863-867. doi:10.1037/a0021250 American Psychological Association. (2012). Filing a complaint. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/complaint/index.aspx Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2006). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation. Madison, WI: Author.

Potential Ethical Violations 28 Bahr, S. J., Howe, J. D., Mann, M. M., & Bahr, M. (1994). Trends in child custody awards: Has the removal of maternal preference made a difference. Family Law Quarterly, 28, 247267. Bond, R. (2007). The lingering debate over the parental alienation syndrome phenomenon. Journal of Child Custody, 4, 37-54. Bow, J., & Quinnell, F. (2001). Psychologists’ current practices and procedures in child custody evaluation: Five years after American Psychological Association guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 261-268. doi:10.1037//0735-7028.32.3.261 Bow, J., & Quinnell, F. (2002). A critical review of child custody evaluation reports. Family Court Review, 40, 164-176. doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.2002.tb00827.x Brodinzsky, D. M. (1993). On the use and misuse of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Professional Psychology, 24, 213-219. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.24.2.213 Bruch, C. S. (2001). Parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation: Getting it wrong in child custody cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35, 527-552. Butcher, J., & Pope, K. (1993). Seven issues in conducting forensic assessments: Ethical responsibilities in light of new standards and new tests. Ethics & Behavior, 3(3-4), 267288. doi:10.1080/10508422.1993.9652108 Cashmore, J., & Parkinson, P. (2008). Children’s and parent’s perceptions on children’s participation in decision making after parental separation and divorce. Family Court Review, 46(1), 91-104. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00185.x Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (2011). The specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.ap-ls.org/aboutpsychlaw/ SGFP_Final_Approved_2011.pdf

Potential Ethical Violations 29 Drozd, L. M. (2007). DVCC protocol. Journal of Child Custody, 4, 19-31. doi:10.1300/J190v04n03_02 Elrod, L. D., & Spector, R. G. (2004). A review of the year in family law: Children’s issues remain the focus. Family Law Quarterly, 37, 527-575. Escobedo, C., Guerrero, J., Lujan, G., Ramirez, A., & Serrano, D. (2007). Ethical issues with informed consent. Bio-Ethics,1, 1-8. Retrieved from http://cstep.cs.utep.edu/research/ ezine/Ezine-Ethical IssueswithInformedConsent.pdf Gardner, R. A. (1998). The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals, 2nd Ed. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. Geffner, R., Conradi, L., Geis, K., & Aranda, M. B. (2009). Conducting child custody evaluations in the context of family violence allegations: Practical techniques and suggestions for ethical practice. Journal of Child Custody, 6, 189-218. doi:10.1300/ J190v01n01_06 Geffner, R., Geis, K., & Aranda, B. (2006). Family violence allegations in child custody evaluations: The overlap of family and forensic psychology. The Family Psychologist, 22(2), 9-14. Geffner, R., Griffin, D. A., & Lewis III, J. (2008). Children exposed to violence: An often neglected social, mental health, and public health problem. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(1/2), 3-28. doi:10.1080/10926790801982352 Geffner, R., Griffin, D. A., & Lewis III, J. (Eds.) (2009). Children exposed to violence: Current issues, interventions and research. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis Publishers. Geffner, R., Igelman, R. S., & Zellner, J. (Eds.) (2003). Effects of intimate partner violence on children. New York, NY: Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press.

Potential Ethical Violations 30 Gould, J. W. (2004). Evaluating the probative value of child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 1, 77-96. doi:10.1300/J190v01n01_06 Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D W. (1997). Irreconcilable Conflict Between Therapeutic and Forensic Roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28 (1), 50-57. Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (2007). When worlds collide: Therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38 (2), 129-132. Houchin, T. M., Ranseen, J., Hash, P. A. K., & Bartnicki, D. J. (2012). The parent alienation debate belongs in the courtroom, not in DSM-5. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40(1), 127-131. Hoult, J. (2006). The evidentiary admissibility of parental alienation syndrome: Science, law, and policy. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 26(1), 1-61. Hynan, D. J. (2002). Child health and safety factors in custody evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2, 73-80. doi:10.1300/J158v02n01_04 Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2009). A framework for addressing allegations of domestic violence in child custody disputes. Journal of Child Custody, 6, 169-188. doi:10.1080/15379410903084517 Jaffe, P. G., Baker, L. L., & Cunningham, A. J. (2004). Protecting children from domestic violence: Strategies for community intervention. New York, NY. Guilford. Johnson, H. P., & O’Brien-Strain, M. (2000). Getting to know the future customers of the office of child support: Projections report for 2004 and 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/projections/ch04.html

Potential Ethical Violations 31 Johnston, J., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43, 283-294. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00029.x Johnston, J. R. (2003). Parental Alignments and Rejection: An Empirical Study of Alienation in Children of Divorce. Journal of The American Academy of Psychiatry and The Law, 31, 158–170. Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005). Is it alienating parenting, role reversal or child abuse? A study of children’s rejection of a parent in child custody disputes. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5 (4), 191-218. Katz, A. (2003). Junk science v. novel scientific evidence: Parental alienation syndrome, getting it wrong in custody cases. Pace Law Review, 24, 239-243. Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Family Court Review, 39 (3), 249-266. Kirkpatrick, H. D., Austin, W. G., & Flens, J. R. (2011). Psychological and legal considerations in reviewing the work product of a colleague in child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 8, 103-123. doi:10.1080/15379418.2010.547450 Klass, J., & Peros, J. (2011). Ten signs of questionable practices in custody evaluations. American Journal of Family Law, 81-86. Lung, C. T., & Daro, D. (1996). Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: The results of the 1995 annual fifty state survey. Chicago, IL: National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse. Meier, J. S. A. (2009). A historical perspective on Parental Alienation Syndrome and parental alienation. Journal of Child Custody, 6, 232-257.

Potential Ethical Violations 32 Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C., Lyons, P., & Otto, R. K. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Oppenheim, D., & Goldsmith, D. F. (Eds.) (2007). Attachment theory in clinical work with children: Bridging the gap between research and practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., & Barcus, E. H. (2000). The use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 38, 312-340. doi:10.1111/j.1741617.2000.tb00578.x Pepiton, M. B., Alvis, L., Allen, K., & Logid, G. (2012). Is parental alienation disorder a valid concept? Not according to scientific evidence [Review of the book Parental alienation, DSM-IV and ICD-11, by W. Bernet]. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21, 244-253. doi:10.1080/10538712.2011.628272 Pickar, D. B. (2007). On being a child custody evaluator: Professional and personal challenges, risks, and rewards. Family Court Review, 45, 103-115. doi:10.1111/j.17441617.2007.00131.x Rhodes, J. (2009, November). Speaking for the child: Using attachment theory to design child custody recommendations to reduce family conflict. Symposia conducted at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Regional Training Conference in Reno, NV. Saywitz, K, Camparo, L. B., & Romanoff, A. (2010). Interviewing children in child custody cases: Implications of research and policy for practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 542-562. doi:10.1002/bsl.945

Potential Ethical Violations 33 Stahl, P. M. (1994). Conducting child custody evaluations: A comprehensive guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stahl, P. M. (1999). Complex issues in child custody evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Stride, S., Geffner, R., & Lincoln, A. (2008). The physiological and traumatic effects of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(1/2), 83101. Tinsley, B. J., & Rosen, E. S. (2001). Issues in the use of psychological testing in custody evaluations. California Family Law Monthly. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com/ practiceareas/family/pdfs/UseofPsychologicalTestingArticle.pdf Walker, L. E., & Shapiro, D. L. (2010). Parental Alienation Disorder: Why label children with a mental diagnosis? Journal of Child Custody, 7 (4), 266-286. Waller, E. M., & Daniel, A. E. (2005). Purpose and utility of child custody evaluations: The attorney’s perspective. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(2), 199-207. Zeanah, C. H., & Zeanah, P. D. (1989). Intergenerational transmission of maltreatment: Insights from attachment theory and research. Psychiatry, 52(2), 177-196. Zimmerman, J., McGarrah, N. A., Ally, G. A., Hess, A. K., Benjamin, G. A., . . . Kaser-Boyd, N. (2009). Ethical and professional considerations in divorce and child custody cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 539-549. doi:10.1037/ a0017853