PARENTS!

Dr. Barry Bricklin and Dr. Gail Elliot---child custody experts---have formulated strategies for parents involved in custody disputes.
FREE INFORMATION AT:
www.custodycenter.com

Custody Newsletters # 18, 19 & 20

PACE provides the Custody Newsletter Archive as a public service. It can be reproduced for private, non-commercial use as long as it is attributed and referenced.
To subscribe to the Custody Newsletter, contact:
Village Publishing
73 Valley Drive
Furlong, PA 18925
800-553-7678

WELCOME

Welcome to the Custody Newsletter. Our tone is informal; we WANT contributions based on your clinical experiences, as well as more formal presentations.

Second, we solicit input from members of all professions. This is why it is not mandatory that any specific Reference format be followed, e.g., the bibliographic notation system of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, etc.

In general, we favor brief articles, contributions ranging from one half of a typewritten page to about eight typewritten pages.

CUSTODY AND PLACEMENT DECISIONS
-GUIDELINES FOR PARENTS-


Editor’s Introduction
Make sure to read the article before jumping to any conclusions regarding some of the possibly controversial points on various visitation plans. However, there really are some points here about which experts might not agree. For example, Dr. Gail Elliot and I feel strongly that “standard” plans (the child is with one parent during the school week and 3 weekends plus a few overnights with the other parent) are misguided. For reasons too lengthy to enumerate here, we believe “relaxation and recreation” times e.g., weekends for a school-age child, should be split evenly. The article also sidesteps the research which shows that equal access to both parents is not beneficial to children if the levels of conflict remain extremely high. Please let us hear from you. Also, note well that all divorcing parents would have much to learn from this excellent article. It covers just about every single aspect of visitation scheduling.
* * * *
As parents, you are faced with a very difficult task ahead. Not only will you have to work through your own feelings about your separation and divorce, but you will be faced with the continuing job of being “good parents” to your children. Even under the best of circum­stances, parenting is a demanding and challenging job. Coupled with the emotional stress and strain of divorce, you may feel overwhelmed by the challenge. But you are not alone, and there are many resources available to help you cope.

The hardest part of divorce for you may be having to communicate and cooperate with the very individual you are separating from. You and your partner will have to complete the emotional task of separating from each other while continuing to make mutual decisions about your children. Many parents find this task nearly impossible, especially given the high emotions surrounding the separation. Although you may seek professional assistance in making decisions about your children, remember that you, as parents, continue to be the ultimate decision-makers regarding their welfare, and their emotional health depends on you, and your partner’s ability to communicate effectively over a long period of time!

These guidelines can help you create an effective and useful parenting plan, especially regarding the design of a placement schedule acceptable to both parents and children. However, keep in mind that no plan will be fully satisfactory to everyone. You may feel lonely on the days the children are not with you. You may worry about them while they are in the care of the other parent. Your children may miss you while they are at the other parent’s home. There will be the inevitable misunderstandings and miscommunications regarding the children. These problems are normal. Needless to say, a great supply of tolerance and patience will come in handy as you work together.

One of the best things you and your partner can do is to learn to work together as a team regarding your children. There are many professionals who can assist you in developing a successful co-parenting plan. Development of a working relationship with your ex-partner is one of the most beneficial things you can do to ensure your children will “turn out” OK! Later on in this article, I will suggest ways you can effectively communicate with each other regarding your children. It can be concluded from research studies that the single most important predictor of children's mental health in divorce situations is whether or not the parents have developed effective methods for communicating regarding their children's needs! Your children desperately want both of you in their lives, and they want to be able to love both of you without feeling disloyal, secretive, or “caught in the middle.”

GUIDELINES FOR PLACEMENT
While parents (and attorneys) continue to be overly preoccupied with placement schedules, “sole” vs. “joint” custody, child support issues, etc., research indicates that there are other issues that are far more important as far as the children's emotional health is concerned. Your children are far more likely to develop long-term emotional difficulties if any of the following things are true:

1. Parents are locked in bitter conflict over a long period of time, and are unable to protect the children from being caught in the middle.

2. One parent attempts to negatively “brainwash” the children against the other parent.

3. One parent drops out of the children's lives, or is no longer emotionally available to the children.

4. A parent suffers significant psychological or emotional problems, such as major depression, anxiety, alcohol or drug abuse, and does not seek treatment for these problems.

5. The placement schedule results in the child being removed for inappropriately long periods of time from one, resulting in frequent disruptions of attachment.

Note that all these factors have the effect of compromising the safety and security of a warm and loving relationship with both parents. Children respond well when they know that they can have regular, predictable access to both parents, and that their relationship with each parent is supported by the other parent.

I. KEEPING THINGS THE SAME
Ideally, the children's ongoing contact with their parents should attempt to reflect the everyday patterns that occurred prior to the separation. Children do better with a visitation plan when they experience as much “sameness” as possible, especially through the change and turmoil of separation. The more the routines of everyday life can be kept the same as they were before the separation, and the less disruption your children experience, the more secure they will feel.

Example: Susan's mother typically got her up in the mornings and helped her get dressed and off to school. Susan's father worked the PM shift and he usually slept late in the mornings. He counted his “quality time” with Susan on the weekends when he was off, and the family would plan some activity together. An initial placement schedule reflecting this pattern would have Susan with her mother during most school days and with her father on his days off. (Editor’s note: Here is a point with which we do not necessarily agree.)

Changes in the child's day-to-day routines should generally be held to a minimum. The children's involvement in after-school activities, such as sports, Scouts, music, religious activities, etc. should continue, and each parent would be expected to continue to support the children's involvement in these activities. Contact with relatives should follow the patterns already established, since children do have a strong need to draw on the continuing support of family friends and relatives.

If you provided the ongoing day-to-day care of your young child prior to the separation, you should continue this pattern. The parent who remained at home, feeding, bathing, nursing and in general taking care of the day-to-day needs of the child should attempt to continue this role, with the children maintaining ongoing quality contact with the other parent. For young children (less than five years old), this means consistent, planned, and fairly frequent contact with the other, “non-residential,” parent.

II. MOVING TO SHARED PLACEMENT
Shared placement (parents sharing nearly equal time in the caretaking responsibilities) can be considered if the following conditions are present;
1. Both parents have shared relatively equally in the parenting prior to the separation. 2. Both parents live relatively close to each other (within 15-20 minutes driving time) and/or in the same school district. 3. Both parents share basically similar parenting styles and values. 4. Both parents support each other as equal partners in childrearing. 5. Both parents take steps to shelter their children from conflicts and disagree­ments which arise between them. 6. The children have flexible, adaptive temperaments and appear able to adjust to the necessary transitions between the two households. Many parents seek to have “50/50 placement” of the children. There is little research available to guide decision-making on this issue. Experience has shown, however, that some children seem to do fine with equal time-sharing arrangements, while other children do not, even under ideal conditions. This may have to do more with the children's temperament than anything else--some kids need the consistency and security of “one home” while others seem to accept “dual households.” It should be noted that most families do NOT have parents sharing in exactly “50/50" arrangements prior to divorce. The 50/50 concept is a legal or philosophical issue which ultimately makes little difference to children. As far as they are concerned, it is the quality of their relationship with you not how much time they live in your house, that makes the difference in their lives.

III. PLACEMENT SCHEDULES BASED ON AGE OF CHILDREN
If you have children spread over a wide age range (i.e., one infant, several kids in elementary school, and a teenager or two), then you may have to design a schedule which reflects the needs of each age group. Use the following guidelines in developing a schedule:

INFANCY TO TWO AND A HALF YEARS: Select a “primary” household based on caretaking history. The “non-residential” parent has short, frequent contacts daily or on alternating days depending on availability and previous caretaking patterns. Infants may tolerate overnights provided the caretaking by both parents is reasonably consistent, the infant is not nursing, and there is little conflict between the parents.

If there has been a primary caretaking relationship, it is NOT healthy for the infant to be taken from this individual for more than 24 hours at a time until he/she has reached the age of about two. Children who are removed from their primary attachments frequently develop “attachment disorders” which may result in long-term emotional problems. Years later, these problems may prevent a secure attachment to others, including the non-residential parent.

If both parents have shared relatively equally in the care of the infant, they may continue to do so, realizing that this task will require tremendous effort on the part of both parents to create a reasonably consistent environment in both homes. The ability to communicate, solve problems, and work together for the sake of the child is an essential prerequisite for this task. Also, as the infant grows into toddlerhood, he or she may NOT continue to adapt to this shared arrangement, even if he or she apparently did so in earlier years. This may require the parents to revert to having a “primary residence” for the child to assist in the child's emotional growth during this period.

TWO AND A HALF TO FIVE YEARS:
Select a “primary” household based on caretaking history. The children may spend 2-3 overnights in a row with the non-residential parent. If the child has not spent overnights away from home previously, begin with one overnight, and then extend to 2 or 3 as he or she becomes adapted to it. Frequent contact with the non-residential parent is important, such as one to two daytime periods (2-4 hours) per week between the overnight periods.

The age group is a high risk group, and great care should be taken to ensure that the children are not exposed to conflict between the parents. Shared placement arrangements are risky at this age. Ideally, the child should not be away from the non-residential parent for more than a week. The extended time away from the non-residential parent may be broken up by a shorter contact (2-6 hours) period between the longer periods of contact. The presence of an older sibling may make it easier for the younger child to tolerate longer periods away from the residential parent.

SIX TO EIGHT YEARS:
The child may have contacts 1-3 days/week with the non-residential parent, or may alternate half-weeks with each parent. These may be extended to full weeks with each parent as child nears age 8. If child is not tolerant of a shared placement arrangement, he or she may spend 2-3 days (maximum of 4) with the non-residential parent. Again the child should not remain longer than one week away from any contact with the non-residential parent. During summer months, if one parent decides to take a vacation with the child longer than two weeks away from the other parent, this will probably be OK as long as the child maintains some telephone contact with the absent parent.

NINE TO TWELVE YEARS:
The child remains at one “home base” with specific evenings or weekends at the non-residential parent's home. Many children may accept “equal” placement at both homes, up to two weeks in each residence. Both residential placements should maintain the child's access to school, peers, extracurricular and community involvement. The child's adaptation to a shared placement schedule may depend heavily on the child's particular temperament--some children seem to need a “place” to call home, and do not respond well to frequent moves.

THIRTEEN TO EIGHTEEN YEARS:
Many teens are able to accept equal placement at each home, up to two weeks in each residence. Both homes should maintain access to school, peers, extracurricular and community involvement. Most teens will turn one home into their “base of operations” and treat it as their “primary home base” in spite of parent's efforts to maintain an “equal placement” arrangement. This is normal! Teens who are very active and socially involved may resent having to keep their friends informed about their changing home schedule.

The teen's input will have to be considered in designing a schedule. Allowing the teen to come and go at will between the two homes may not work and may open the door for manipulation--parents may be heard to complain “I thought she was at YOUR home last night!” It is common for teens to express a desire at some point to spend more time with the non-residential parent, especially if that parent has had minimal time with the teen earlier. The residential parent should be sensitive to this, and not conclude that the child is being “disloyal” for expressing a wish to see that parent more often. This need to live with the other parent is a normal developmental task many teenagers go through as they move into their adult identities.

IV. CHANGING PATTERNS OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT
Often the crisis of a separation or divorce will “wake up” one parent who has not been previously involved in the care of the children. From the children's point of view, “better late than never!” The primary caretaking parent usually will react by saying “He wasn't involved before, why should he be now?” In the long run, children will benefit from a more equal involvement by both parents, even if it was late in coming. The biggest mistake the previously uninvolved parent makes, however, is “moving too fast” in becoming a more involved parent! It is important to equalize parenting responsibilities gradually over time to reduce the stress both on the children and the parents. Moving immediately to an equal time­sharing arrangement is usually not a good idea for either parent or child. Gradually increasing the time-sharing between parents, following the above guidelines, may prove less harmful to the children, and may make for a more secure relationship between the children and both parents.

V. KEEPING THE CHILDREN TOGETHER
Most experts agree that it is important to keep the children together in following a placement schedule. Children rely on each other for support and assistance, and dividing them up (“I'll take John and you can have Mary”) may hurt them in the long run. However, if there is a large range of ages in your household, it may be useful to have the younger kids go as a group, and to allow the teen to follow a different schedule depending on his or her own needs. Still, try to design some times when all the kids are together with the non-residential parent, such as one weekend a month. Once again, let prior patterns of contact be your guide. If the boys went hunting with Dad on weekends, you may not want to force your daughter to accompany them if she detests hunting! Also, kids do enjoy one-on-one time with each parent. As you settle into a schedule, you may want to informally arrange these types of contacts “as needed.”

Very young children (preschool) may adapt to longer periods away from home if they are accompanied by older siblings. The "only child” may experience more stress without older siblings to help buffer the impact of the changes from house to house.

VI. CHILDREN'S PERSONALITY AND TEMPERAMENT
Some children with significant learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder, or other problems with organization and self-control may not adapt well to a shared placement schedule. These children should remain in one home during most school days and spend non-school days with the other parent. To avoid the “weekend parent syndrome,” that parent should have occasional week-night periods of contact with the child to assist in homework, getting him off to school, etc. This might occur on a “long weekend” (Thursday through Sunday evening, or Friday through Monday evening) once a month or so.

Some children have difficulty making the transitions back and forth between two households. These children may need longer blocks of time with each parent to allow them to “settle in,” to reduce the stress of adjusting and readjusting to frequent changes in placement. This may require experimenting with different schedules until you find one that works. Keep in mind that kids may express their emotional distress more readily with one parent than with another. For example, a child may appear to be “doing just fine” at Dad's, but may then exhibit symptoms of anxiety and depression when they return to Mom's. Children may feel more comfortable expressing these feelings to a particular parent rather than to the other.

Most children do go through an adjustment period following placement at the other parent's home. They may return “out of sorts,” tired, cranky, or “whiny.” They may be difficult to manage and appear to have “lost their manners.” Do not rush to the conclusion that the other household must have a terrible environment. Kids may act this way for awhile (from several hours up to a day or so) simply because they have trouble adjusting to transitions, and the transition does remind them in a very vivid way that their parents are divorced! If the problems are severe, or do not improve after several days, you may need to seek professional assistance to help discover the cause of the distress.

VII PARENTS VERSUS RELATIVES, SITTERS, DAYCARE PROVIDERS
In general, it is preferable to have the child spend quality time with a parent rather than with sitters, daycare operators, or relatives Should circumstances require one parent to be away from home, the other parent should be given the “right of primary refusal”; that is, to be asked to keep the children first before resorting to sitters or relatives. Often, however, children do have close bonds with grandparents or sitters, and they should be allowed to continue these contacts without unnecessarily depriving the other parent of time with the children.

VIII. SUMMERS AND HOLIDAYS
In general, placement periods may be extended to one or two week blocks of time to permit parents to take vacations with their children. One major complaint children have is that they often have to curtail their summer activities (sports, swimming, scout camps, etc.) to spend the required placement periods with the "other parent." Distance is a factor here--both parents should attempt to keep the child involved in summer activities. Parents who live a great distance apart may wish to spend the first week after school with their child, before summer activities begin, or have them the month of August, when most activities begin to wane.

Should both parents attend special activities together? Again, this depends. If there is not a great deal of hostility or conflict between you and the other parent, then by all means attend functions together. Many children, however, do not like their parents in the same place. They like to keep the two worlds of Mom's house and Dad's house separate in order to avoid conflicts and feeling caught in the middle. Your child may not openly express his feelings to you about this issue--having him visit with a counselor to assess his feelings and attitudes may be useful. It may be useful to have each parent choose a certain activity to attend with the child.

For holidays, make a special effort to continue the traditions which were in place prior to the separation. Parents who live reasonably close can share holidays--splitting Thanksgiving, Christmas or Hanukkah into two parts usually works better than alternating years between households. For example, your child may spend Christmas Eve with you and Christmas Day with the other parent. Shorter holidays (Labor Day, Memorial Day, July Fourth, etc.) may be alternated year to year.

IX EXCHANGES--SPECIAL PROBLEMS
Exchanges are difficult for everyone involved. Children do not particularly like these transitions, and many children take some time to make the adjustment to each home. Children express their anxiety in different ways. One child may be come quiet and aloof, another may act up, still another may become whiny and “clingy.” Some children resist changing to the other parent's home, saying “Do I HAVE to go?” Here are some guidelines for making exchanges work:

1. Adhere to the schedule the same way you adhere to attending school--the child is not allowed to choose if he or she wants to attend school! Be calm and cool--while strictly maintaining the schedule. Do not let your child manipulate you into changing the schedule. This could come back to haunt you in the future, in that he or she may become accustomed to having a great deal of power in making his or her own choices.

2. Make the exchanges short and sweet--avoid “long, sad good-byes.” Use the same pattern you would use if dropping the child off at the sitters or at school. A simple, cheery “See you in a few days.. .have fun” will suffice.

3. Do NOT use the exchanges to discuss difficult issues with the other parent. The child inevitably feels she is the cause of her parents’ distress and may feel guilty. She may increase her resistance to spending time with the other parent simply because she does not want to see any more conflict between her parents.

4. Be prompt--call if you will be more than 15 minutes late. It is a good rule that the parent whose placement period is beginning be responsible for picking up the child. Also, children tend to blame themselves for any problems their parents are having with the exchanges. After all, THEY are the reason you are having exchanges in the first place! No wonder they feel bad when things don't go well.

5. Prepare children ahead of time for the transition. Remind them about a half-hour ahead of time that they will be returning to the other parent's house. This will give them time to mentally prepare for the exchange, as well as finish whatever activities they are involved in.

X. WHY NOT ASK THE CHILDREN WHERE THEY WANT TO LIVE?
It is not a good idea to ask the kids where they want to live for two reasons. First, in most cases this is a false question. In actuality, the children will be living certain days with one parent and the remaining days with the other. They will continue to have two parents, although their parents will be living in two separate homes. Asking a child “Where do you want to live?” or “Which parent do you want to live with?” assumes they will only live with one parent and seldom see the other! Also, this question requires the child to feel as though they have “rejected” one parent by choosing another. Sometimes the guilt over this “choice” can last a lifetime. We don't ask parents to choose between their children, and neither should we ask children to choose between parents.

As children grow older, they can be expected to have more input into decisions affecting their placement. Contrary to popular belief there is no specific age at which children can decide where they want to live. Keep in mind that giving children too much responsibility for determining their placement schedule may cause problems later. They may develop behavior problems from having been given too much control over where they go, and they may have problems living with the guilt of having “rejected” one parent in favor of another.

You need to remind your children that their parents are divorcing each other not the children. Younger children especially need reassurance that they will continue to have two parents who love and care for them. They need to see you cooperating for their sake, talking together and making mutual decisions which affect them. This is very hard for many parents to do, and it may take a long period of time to reach this level of cooperation. Nonetheless, it is essential for you and the other parent to work towards this goal.

XI CHILDREN'S MOTIVES BEHIND THEIR REQUESTS TO SPEND MORE (OR LESS) TIME WITH ONE PARENT
Often children will express a strong wish to spend more time with a parent, or may state they want to "live with" one parent. There are many reasons why a child would make a request such as this, and parents are cautioned to think carefully about their reasons for requesting a change. Some of the more common motives are listed below:

1. The child may “idealize” the parent he spends less time with and may believe that living with that parent would be more exciting or fun. This is more likely to occur if that parent has seen the child predominantly on weekends, when rules and schedules are not so demanding.

2. The child feels sorry for the parent he spends less time with, and wishes to give more time to that parent in an effort to make that parent feel better. This is more likely to occur if that parent is seen as the “victim” in the divorce.

3. The child has been taught that “being fair” means “splitting it down the middle.” Therefore he believes that if he divides himself in half between two parents, they will cease fighting over him.

4. The child may begin to realize that he can have more freedoms, fewer rules, more “fun” at one parent's house, and therefore it is only natural to request more time with that parent. This is especially true of teenagers, who will usually want to live more at the house where they can talk longer on the phone, stay out later, have less supervision, etc.

5. The child has been advised by the other parent to ask for more time with him or her and is dutifully carrying out these instructions!

There are many other motives, some obvious, others quite hidden, for a child to request or demand more (or less!) time with one parent. It may be useful to have the child meet with a counselor skilled in divorce issues to help understand the true motives behind such requests.
XII. RELIGIOUS ISSUES
Following the principle of continuity, it is good to keep the children involved in their familiar religious traditions. Problems arise when one parent joins a different church and attempts to get the children involved in a different religious tradition. If parents alternate weekends, children may find themselves in two different religious cultures. Most children can manage this, provided the two traditions are relatively similar in terms of teaching or doctrine. Difficulties arise when one of the traditions reinforces a belief that one parent is “bad” or “sinful” because of their behavior. Children should be protected from religious cultures which denigrate or negatively judge one parent. Young children are unable to comprehend the differences in religious doctrine and it is harmful for them to think of one parent as “bad” or “sinful” for whatever reason.

XIII. GRANDPARENTS
Grandparents and other relatives play an important role in children's lives. Their relationship with the children should continue, if possible, as it was before the separation. Sometimes, however, relatives “line up” and take sides behind one or the other parent) and at times they may express their viewpoints in front of the children. Grandparents, relatives, and friends of the family need to be cautioned by both parents to keep their opinions to themselves. Children often hear comments such as, “It's a shame your father decided to split up the family,” or “Your mother needs counseling--there is no reason she needs to treat your father this way.” Children may overhear telephone conversations where parents and others voice their feelings and opinions about the divorce. Try to protect your children from these comments. If someone begins to bring up a sensitive topic with the children near, simply raise your fingers to your lips and whisper “little ears!” This may help remind the others that the children need to be kept out of range of adult discussions concerning the divorce.

XIV. DOES MY CHILD NEED COUNSELING?
Parents often wonder if one or more of the children need counseling to help them through the emotional trauma of separation and divorce. Your children may benefit from the opportunity to speak with a counselor who can assist them to adapt to the separation, and may help them “stay out of the middle.” Most counselors will at some point involve the parents in the counseling process, initially to get their observations on how the children are doing, and later to offer them suggestions on how to assist the children at home.

You may notice that one child may appear to be handling things well, whereas another child may be having obvious difficulties in adjusting to the changing family circumstances. If your child is showing one or more of the following symptoms, it may be helpful to have them see a counselor who can assess the sources of the difficulties and make suggestions regarding interventions that may help:

PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN:
1. Increase in moodiness, crying spells, or clinging behavior
2. Increase in stomach aches or headaches
3. Loss of toilet training
4. Disturbances in sleep--difficulty going to sleep, frequent wakening, inability to sleep alone
5. Disturbances in eating patterns
6. Withdrawal from peers, reduced spontaneity in play, appears withdrawn

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN:
1. Increase in disruptive behavior at home or school
2. Moodiness, crying, depressed appearance
3. Problems with temper, anger control
4. Physical symptoms--headaches, stomach aches
5. Inability to sleep alone


MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN:
1. Decline in academic performance
2. Increase in acting-out behavior--disruptiveness, oppositional behavior
3. Depressed mood
4. Increased use of alcohol or drugs
5. Increased absence from home or school
6. Increased problems with temper or anger control


If you are not sure how your children are doing (many kids are great at hiding their reactions from their parents!), you may want to have them visit with a counselor at least once for a “check-up.” These type of appointments are useful for children from about age 4 on up to later teen years. Most counselors will discuss with you whether your child needs additional counseling. Many counselors will offer you things to try at home to help your child cope. Also, there are many school programs available for children who are experiencing a divorce at home. While children often resist seeing a counselor at first, most will report that the experience was helpful and many wish to continue!

Many times, the child's teacher will be the first to notice changes in mood. Be sure to talk with your child's teacher if you wonder about your child's adjustment. Let the teacher know about changes in the placement schedule or other stresses occurring in your child's life.

XV. ALLEGATIONS OF PARENTAL ALCOHOL OR DRUG ABUSE
It is not unusual for one parent to complain about the other parent's use of alcohol or drugs. There are many parents whose alcohol use is not an issue in terms of parenting, but there are also situations where one or both parent's alcohol use will be dangerous to the child. These situations call for a full assessment by a qualified alcohol and drug abuse specialist. A complete assessment should involve all family members, since the problem drinker may deny or minimize his or her alcohol use. Serious problems involving alcohol or drug use are seldom solved without professional intervention.
XVI. MOVING AWAY
Following a divorce, one parent may experience a strong desire to move away, perhaps to be closer to his or her own relatives. Or she may feel her own personal happiness and freedom is being stifled by remaining in the same community. One parent may begin to resent having to confront his or her ex-spouse, running into old friends, or being reminded of a “failed” marriage. There are many legal problems associated with moving, and the other parent may feel compelled to initiate a court action to gain custody of the children in response. Unless there is a great deal of ongoing conflict between the parents, children usually want their parents to remain close to each other. Moving them away from one parent will result in additional losses for the children, not only in having to leave one parent behind, but in also leaving familiar friends, schools, neighborhoods. The moving parent needs to assess his or her needs to relocate and weigh this carefully against the negative impact on the children. Simply moving “to get away from old memories” or “going somewhere warmer” is usually not considered a good reason to uproot children. Obtaining a significant job advancement or moving to further one's education may constitute a more valid reason, as is attempting to escape harassment or abuse on the part of an ex-spouse. This decision is an important one with far-reaching implications, and you are advised to seek advice and counsel from others, especially from a child-oriented counselor who can help you understand the consequences for your children.

If you do move away and retain physical custody of the children, the remaining parent needs to work hard to maintain a relationship with the children. This means planning out a placement schedule which will keep the children in significant contact with that parent. If the parents remain within weekend commuting distance (i.e. 3-4 hours apart) then alternating weekends may work well. Time in the car can be a fun time for both parent and child, and there may need to be some planning regarding how to make the best of travel time. You will need to negotiate whether one parent will drive the kids the entire distance to the other parent's home, and the other the entire distance returning them, or whether you will meet in the middle to exchange the kids. For distances greater than a weekend commute, you will need to plan out holiday times well in advance.

XVII LEARNING TO COMMUNICATE AS CO-PARENTS
One of the most difficult jobs for parents who are separating involves learning to communicate about their children. For many parents, this may seem to be an impossible task, given the intensity of emotions surrounding separation and divorce. Most parents, however, within six months following a separation, can usually learn how to talk about the children and negotiate decisions regarding their welfare. Here are some guidelines to follow:

1. Try to schedule some time weekly to meet to discuss the children. Many parents talk on Sunday afternoon or evening to plan the week ahead. 2. Confine yourselves to issues ONLY related to the children. Do not bring up past injustices, hurts, wrongs--you will never agree on who did what to whom, and time spent in rehashing past mistakes takes away from the task at hand.

3. Do not talk within earshot of the kids. If you talk over the phone, make sure the kids are outside, in bed, etc. Nothing stirs up anxiety in children like hearing parents argue over the phone about money, children, relatives, etc.

4. Confine yourselves to an agenda--deal with schedule changes first. Do not attempt to change schedules unless there are extenuating circumstances. Talk about discipline problems, health needs, medication, school issues. Repeat back to each other what you both have decided, and write down any decisions made.

5. Do not interrupt each other. If the conversation gets hot and out of control, suggest a time out of 10 to 15 minutes, and return to the conversation when you are “cooled off.”

6. If after several attempts you are unable to carry on a conversation about the children, seek someone to help mediate the discussion. This individual should be someone you both trust who is skilled in communications and mediating discussions. Your minister, counselor, or a professional mediator may be able to assist you.

7. Keep in mind that talking together is a “trainable” skill, requiring much experimentation and effort. Do not give up. If after many attempts you both fail to make progress, you may then have to use a third party to help you make decisions about the children.

XVIII PARENTAL ALIENATION
Sadly, there are times when one parent is entirely convinced that the other parent is a destructive and “evil” influence on the children. This parent may undertake a campaign, either consciously or unconsciously, to undermine the children's relationship with the “targeted” parent. Strategies may range from outright attempts to hide the children from the other parent, to more subtle messages to the children about that parent. The children may come to believe that they are “bad” if they spend time with the other parent. They may fear losing the love and support of one parent if they show any positive feelings about the other parent.

An alienating situation, if unchecked, can have a very destructive impact on the child. If you are worried that the other parent is alienating the children against you, professional help is advised. In extreme cases, a court may order a change in custody if severe alienation is proved.

XIX. DOMESTIC ABUSE
Many children have witnessed arguments or physical fighting between their parents. Witnessing even one violent episode can have a lasting emotional impact on children. Violent interactions take many forms in families, from a single physical fight caused by the emotional stress of the separation, to a consistent pattern of physical intimidation and abuse lasting many years. If you feel that physical violence has been an issue in your family, or that there is a risk for violent behavior to occur, you must seek professional help immediately. You must protect both you and your children from physical AND emotional abuse, as well as shelter them from observing abusive behavior between you and your partner.

In families where there is a risk for physical or verbal abuse, supervised contact with the abusing parent may be recommended. Keep in mind that children do have the right to have contact with both parents, except where there is a risk of that parent abusing the child. Again, these decisions should be made with the guidance of professionals skilled in evaluating domestic abuse.

XX. FINALLY, KEEP THESE POINTS IN MIND:
1. It is NOT the placement schedule itself which will determine your child's emotional adjustment over the years. Much more important is the quality of parenting he or she receives. If you both are reasonably happy with the schedule, if you have resolved most of your anger, if you are both getting on with your lives and the children are “out of the middle,” they will probably turn out OK!

2. Try to learn to communicate directly with your ex. Avoid becoming overly dependent on attorneys, and avoid going back to Court if at all possible. Litigation is costly, and deepens the mutual hostility and mistrust between you. This is not good for the children. If you cannot communicate directly, seek the services of a professional mediator. Remember to give mediation a chance--it may take up to 3 to 4 sessions for it to get results!

3. Watch out for “indirect child abuse!” When you say bad things about the other parent in front of the child (or even if she overhears you talking on the phone), the child feels attacked! Since your children have both parents as parts of their core identity, any negative comments you make about the other parent are felt by the child as attacks on them! It may take a great deal of restraint and self-control to avoid denigrating the other parent, but the positive impact on your child is worth it in the long run.

4. Remember that your children still need discipline, limits, responsibilities, structure. Many parents “feel sorry” for the suffering their kids are experiencing and thus may “let up” to make life easier. DON'T! They will cry out for assertive parenting from both you and the other parent. Continue the same rules and expectations--this will alleviate the anxiety they may have that you will cease being a strong parent to them.

5. And finally, if problems with the other parent arise, ask yourself these questions before doing anything:

*How would I handle this problem if we were still married? Could we try to handle it again this way? If not, why not?

*What might be the unintended effects on the children of what I am about to do or say to the other parent?

*Will the simple passage of time change this problem or make it easier to solve? Why do I have to act NOW?

*Is what I am about to do or say going to increase the likelihood that we can eventually achieve a working, cooperative “co-parenting” relationship, or will it set us back from this goal?

*Ten years from now, will my kids look back and say “THAT WAS A GOOD DECISION YOU MADE”?

Author:
Kip Zirkel, Ph.D
1610 Madison
La Crosse, WI 54601
608-784-8688


Family and Children’s Center
1707 Main
La Crosse, WI 54601
608-785-0001

The following piece is by Ira Gorman, Ph.D., ABPP, RCE-AD.

Ira is an immensely productive “heavy-hitter” in our field, and we welcome this contribution (which first appeared in the Orange County Psychologist). It will be seen as controversial by some, and even very controversial by many others. Share your thoughts. It is entitled:

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN FORENSIC ASSESSMENT
The new Ethical Principles for Psycholo­gists (APA, 1992) provides guidelines for those who perform evaluations (Ethi­cal Standards 2.01- 2.10) and specifi­cally for psychologists who do forensic assessments (Ethical Standards 7.01 -7.06). As I am asked frequently to re­view other psychologists' reports and testing procedures to assist attorneys with cross examination, I have had the oppor­tunity to closely examine my colleagues' work.

This strategic position has al­lowed me to discover problems in assessment which can have serious effects on the results of an evaluation and can distort the report's conclusions. Since the judiciary relies on our work, it is crucial that we pro­vide the highest level of clini­cal excellence.

This article will address some of the problems that I have observed. I will provide examples of questionable practic­es in the choice of tests and lack of atten­tion to norms. In addition, I will discuss the importance of 'clarifiers' when using tests impressionistically, when assistants participate in the evaluation, and when there are reasons to question the validity of the assessment.

Ethical Principles:
Our code of conduct stresses the im­portance of truthfulness and candor. This is denoted in our Ethical Principles:7.02 (b) “Whenever necessary, to avoid mis­leading, psychologists acknowledge the limits of their data or conclusions,” and 2.02 “Psychologists who develop, administer, score, interpret or use psycho­logical assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments do so in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on our evidence of the usefulness and proper application for the techniques.”

Test Selection:
Ethical standard 2.02 tells us it is unethi­cal to use tests that are inappropriate in light of research findings. Yet I frequent­ly read reports in which psychologists use tests which have popularity but are lacking in validity and reliability.

Tests based on figure draw­ings such as the Draw a Person (Goodenough, 1926), The Kinetic Family Drawings (Burns and Kauf­man, 1970) and the House, Tree, Person Test (Buck, 1948), rank high in popularity and continually find their way into forensic assessments. De­spite our pleasure in sounding erudite when making interpretations, such instru­ments have consistently been shown to be lacking in reliability and in validity (An­astasi, 1988). To make matters worse, rather than using the tests as authors intended, we seem to ignore standardized testing procedures and administer the test in various ways.

An example might be illuminating. Think of the last time that you recall anyone administering the House, Tree, Person Test according to the instructions devel­oped by Buck (reviewed by Hammer in Rabin, 1981):

“A number two pencil with eraser is employed on a few page form sheets of white paper, each page 7 X 8'/2 inches in size. Only one surface is exposed at a time to the subject. The drawing of a house is requested with the longer axis of the sheet placed horizontally before the subject, and his drawings of a tree and persons of each sex in turn are then obtained in separate sides with the longer axis the vertical way. The subject is asked to draw as good a house (and later tree and person) as possible. The subject is instructed to draw any house, erase as much as necessary, and take as much time as needed. The pencil and the pencil drawings are then taken away, crayons are substituted and a chro­matic set of drawings of a house, tree, and person of each sex is obtained. The subject is allowed to use the crayons in any way, as few or as many as desired, to shade in or draw only the outline as preferred, and all questions are handled non-directively."

I do not know of even one psychologist who uses these instructions. In my experience, the psychologist only asks the test taker to draw one picture either with a pencil, crayon or marking pen on whatever paper is available. This is only the beginning of the problem with this testing instru­ment. After the single drawing is obtained, the psychologist then makes overreaching statements based on a 'sign' approach to interpretation.

This is not only true of the HTP, but of all drawing tests. I have seen psychologists talk about 'bonding' based on the proximity of the figures to each other in a Kinetic Family Drawing Test. This interpretation by the psychologist is not supported by any well-designed scientific research that I have read. This is a classic example of 'illusory correla­tion' (Chapman and Chapman, 1971). Since we associate 'bonding' with closeness of figures, if the child draws family members close together, this must by inference mean that this scientific instru­ment is measuring bonding. (Editor’s note: I would certainly challenge this statement. Figure - closeness does, in my opinion, reveal important information, BUT ONLY IF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTEXT IS FACTORED IN. This can make figure placement seem like an unreliable measure, but much of the difficulty disappears when one takes account of the exact instructions given to the child. In other words, “bonding” varies with the psychological context in which a child finds him- or herself.)

Ziskin & Faust, (1988) in their review of figure drawings, quote Maloney and Glasser, who discuss the DAP Test: “Despite its general popularity, the DAP has been the subject of constant controversy. Reports of experimental research have yielded no evidence that the DAP has any predictive validity whatsoever (P183).” If one reads the reviews from the Mental Mea­surement Yearbook and follows its guidelines, these tests are best left for hypothesis-generating and not for forensic assessment.

Lack of Attention to Norms:
Perhaps the awareness that “no one test is best for all” leads the psychologist to embrace the corollary, that “all tests are good for all”. This seems to be the most omnipresent problem in assessment. Examiners are not considering norms for gender, age and ethnicity.

Gender Norms:
The Parenting Stress Index (PSI)) (Abidin, 1986) and the Personality Inventory for Children (PIC) (Lachar, 1982), are two examples of tests which have been normed on mothers with only limited sampling of fathers. Even though there have been some studies with fathers, parents' scores on these instruments are not equivalent. Different results are obtained on the subtests for fathers and mothers; therefore, mothers' and fathers' scores cannot be compared directly. Yet in child custody evaluations, I consistently see evaluators using these tests with fathers, and then using mothers' norms and comparing mothers and fathers. (A new set of norms for the PSI which includes fathers has been published.)

To underline the importance of restricting the administration of this test to mothers of young chil­dren many of the items only apply to mothers of in­fants and toddlers and are inappropriate to use with mothers of adolescents. I would question how a mo­ther of an adolescent girl (and worse yet a father) would respond to question #8 which asks about how the child reacts to the parent's dressing and bathing her.

Since the test sounds face-valid to evaluate parenting stress, it has found its way into accep­tance (for both sexes of all age children) because of nicely-placed advertising. Despite Gresham 's scathing critique (Gresham in Buros, 1989), the test seems to be increasing in its popularity.

Gresham writes:
“The PSI is a poorly standardized, unreliable, and an invalid measure of stress. Users of the PSI should be aware that whatever it is that is being measured is being measured with a great deal of error. Moreover, profile interpretations of the PSI suggested in the manual, represent the worst form of 'subtest scatter' analysis and yield data that are virtually meaningless given the unreliability of the subscales. The use of the PSI in clinical settings to make important deci­sions for families cannot be recommended.”

The Personality Inventory for Children, is similar in format to the MMPI and also used fre­quently in custody studies. It is an objective person­ality assessment tool that was developed for use with children and adolescents ages 6-16, to provide a comprehensive and clinically relevant description of a child's behavior, affect, and cognitive status, as well as family characteristics. Since its publication ten years ago, it has received generally favorable reviews (Anastasi, 1988), although Dr. Knoff (Knoff in Buros, 1985) criticizes the test for being normed only on Minnesota children rather than nationally normed. Anastasi states “...what has been accomplished in the short period since the publica­tion of the PIC is impressive in extent and quality, and the results are promising (p.538).” I have found the PIC is useful when one wishes to evaluate how a mother views her child, but it is inappropriate to use on fathers. The norms are based on the responses of mothers. This is ex­pressed by Knoff, who states,“profiles of PICs completed by anyone other than a child's mother may have some degree of variability or error.”

Even Dr. Lachar recognizes the test's limita­tions with fathers, and recommends that fathers should be tested on this instrument only if mothers are unavailable. There is a significant lack of correspondence between parents on several of the scales with fathers generally under reporting their children's symptomology.

Age Norms:
Another common error of evaluators is their failure to consider normal changes in test responses that occur with age and interpreting pathology when a more accurate interpretation would be the factor of advancing age.

The MMPI scale analysis provides a good example of this point. Scales, 1, 2, and 3 elevate with age. A psychologist who only looks at the elevations of the psychogram and not the age norms may interpret a code type with high 123 as someone who has depressive or somatic features, and at the worst may over interpret suicide potential, and yet the norms show that elevations even ten T points above the mean may only be a sign of normal aging.

In a forensic report, the reader without the benefit of all of the MMPI norms, may accept the psychologist's misdiagnosis. To only accept and report the cook-book interpretation of this 123 code type and not also report the norms for older individuals may be considered unethical. In custody cases involving grandparents, or in guardianship matters, this comment has particular relevance. In a recent case of age discrimination against the police department, I was asked to review another psychologist's report. The results of the MMPI were crucial in the dis­qualification of this aging applicant from being hired by the police department, in part, because of his (misapplied) MMPI findings.

Ethnic Norms:
In Orange County, we are faced with ethnic diversity, yet I have seen psychologists test individ­uals indiscriminately without concern for whether the individual can clearly understand the items or if the test norms are appropriate.

This is most pronounced in the MMPI which depends on a clear understanding of American idioms and grammatical structure. Compensating for this by using translations can help, but does not always solve the problem. In addition, translations are not always accurate. I recently attempted to obtain a Korean version of the MMPI. After finding a psychologist who had a translation, he explained the problem of the Korean translation to me. Kore­ans' understanding of the double negatives result in reversing the scoring of some items. They answer yes, where a native-born individual may answer in the negative, and yet both mean the same (Lee, 1993). Because of this problem in translating the MMPI into Korean, I chose to not administer the MMPI to the individual, and was forced to use other instruments which are relatively 'culture free'.

Sometimes different interpretations of scale scores are dependent on cultural meanings. An example of this might be in the interpretation of scale 5 in an Asian person. A female who answers items on Scale 5 in a masculine manner, or a male who responds in a passive way might be considered out of harmony with his culture. They may base their answer to MMPI questions on their under-standing of the cultural ideology, which may be contradictory with Caucasian norms. One common correlate for a high 5 male is someone who has artistic and aesthetic interests. Yet an Asian who may be artistic and cultured and fits that description may interpret and respond to the items to show publicly his masculine side in accordance with the philosophy of Confucius.

Differences between blacks and whites have been studied extensively as have comparisons between Hispanics and Caucasians (Greene, 1991), and yet I rarely see any mention of differential findings of these groups in reports.

Although studies conflict, some studies (Gyn­ther, Fowler, and Erdberg, 1971) have found blacks scoring higher on F,K, 8 and 9 on the MMPI. His­panics also were found to score higher on F and other clinical scales (Diaz, et. al., 1984).

The importance of these ethnic differences is that the evaluator needs to be sensitive to the possibility that different scores might be a function of characteristics of an ethnic group rather than an indication of psychopathology.


Importance of 'Clarifiers': Using Psychological Tools vs Psychological Tests:
Sometimes psychologists use tests despite their limitations or decide that our understanding of the individual can be best obtained by using instruments which would never pass a 'psychometric screening test'. The prototypical case in point is the Thematic Apperception Test, (TAT) (Murray, 1943) 1 have never seen a clinician score the TAT according to Murray's need-press system, and now even if it were done, this probably would be unethical accord­ing to principal 2.07--using obsolete measures.

The same is true for sentence completion instruments. The Rotter Incomplete Sentence Test (IST), and the Washington Sentence Completion Test (WS­CT) have objective scoring systems (Rabin & Zloto­gorski, 1981). Despite this, sentence completion tests in forensic studies have generally been used clinically.

Testing for overall adjustment on the Rotter IST or levels for ego development with the WSCT (Rabin & Zlotogorski, 1981) may not be relevant to the question which is being asked the evaluator. Yet clinically interpreting sentence completion items, a skilled psychologist may obtain valuable data.

Some clinicians use the Roberts Apperception Test For Children (McArthur & Roberts, 1982) impressionistically for children below age six, the lower limit for the formal scoring system. They rely on their clinical skills. I have no argument with this approach when a scoring system is less than adequate or fails to meet the needs of the evaluator. Since I am critical of this approach, the reader may question how can I now accept this non-actuar­ial departure? To be clear, a nomothetic approach is preferable when it is available and/or meets the needs of the evaluator. The clinical approach is acceptable when alternatives are less suitable. Sometimes the clinical/forensic psychologist must adjust his testing to answer the referral question, but when the examiner deviates from the orthodox and standardized format, this must be explained in his/her report. A simple statement in a footnote of the report would clarify this deviation. An example with the TAT is illustrative:

“The TAT has been used impressionistically, rather than with a standardized objective scor­ing system. Though research attempts have been made to standardize the TAT, lower levels of reliability and validity have been reported than with more objective tests such as the MMPI-2. However, this evaluator has administered the test approximately 2,500 times. By training and 25 years of experience, this evaluator has found this instrument useful when combined with other tests in a battery.”

In this way, the reader of the report will know the limitations of the of the instrument and can assign proper weight to the expert's interpretations. Rather than judge the test on its own merit, the evaluator's competence in interpretation will be judged.

Earlier, when I discussed using other tests with my Korean client since the MMPI was not a viable choice, I was faced with the dilemma of not testing at all. I chose a compromise and administered the TAT and the Rorschach. Since the Rorschach stimuli are relatively free of cultural bias, I was left with using American norms but not knowing how a Korean subject would respond compared to the norms. It seemed Exner only minimally addressed the cultural issues when he developed norms for the Comprehensive Scoring System. He reported one study comparing non-white subjects with whites, and found that non-whites produced larger numbers of chromatic responses, thereby effecting weighted C and the EB ratio (Exner, 1986).

To meet my ethical obligation, I added a foot­note to my report stating the limitations and indicating that the results of the Rorschach may not be valid.

Proper Test Procedure:
A 'clarifier' is also necessary when the results of a test may be questioned because of the test administration. A therapy client of mine who is being treated for depression stemming from stress at her work was referred by her employer to a psychiatrist for an evaluation. He administered the MMPI under atypical conditions--part before, and the remainder following a very upsetting interview. The client told me that she stopped reading questions after the interview to hastily complete the test and escape from his office. The psychiatrist hopefully will add a ‘clarifier' to his report to explain the atypical testing format, and the effect this might have upon the results. Pope and Vasquez (1991) list some of these circumstances which could effect test results: dim lighting, frequent interrup­tions, noisy environment, medication, and taking a test at home. To this list I would add the lack of privacy when an individual takes the test in a waiting room, and certainly when an upsetting intervention occurs in the middle of a test.

Use of an Assistant:
Another application of 'clarifiers' is when the evaluator uses an assistant for part of the assess­ment. Each individual involved in the evaluation should be named in the report and his/her qualifica­tion delineated. Just as is required in Workers' Compensation reports (Herlick, 1990), individuals contributing to the assessment should sign the report. In this way, attorneys will know who to subpoena, and the Court will also know how much to rely on these assistants.

The supervisor is responsible for reviewing the work of those who perform any part of the assess­ment. I recently reviewed the entire file of a psychologist who did an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation, (the court's expert). The '730' evaluator relied on the testing of an assistant. When I re­viewed the Rorschach, I was shocked. The Ror­schach had only ten responses. This would of course invalidate the test and it should not be scored at all (Exner, 1989), yet the supervisor did not seem to notice and reported the results of the test.

The importance of supervision of subordinates is described in Ethics Code 1.22(b):

“Psychologists provide proper training and supervision to their employees or supervise and take reasonable steps to see that such persons perform services responsibly, and ethically.”

The report and the care the individual psycholo­gist might place in compiling the components of that report can be unraveled by failing to review an assistant's work. A significant problem such as faulty testing may call into question the entire evaluation procedure.

Conclusions:
In this commentary, I have discussed some of the problems which I have observed in my role as a rebuttal expert in forensic assessments. Unfortunately, this list has not been exhausted in this article.

A few years ago, the California Psychological Association convention theme was Excellence in Practice, and the new APA Code of Ethics is our guideline to perform excellently in our individual practices.

The preamble and the general principals are our aspiration goals to guide us to the highest ideals of psychology. Perhaps if we will apply ourselves to these goals, excellence in psychology will be the norm and not just an aspiration.

Author:
Ira Gorman, Ph.D., ABPP, RCE-AD.
930 West 17th Street, Suite D
Santa Ana, CA 92706
714-542-4144 (Fax) 714-542-3858

REFERENCES
Abidin, R.A. (1986). Parenting Stress Index. Second Edition. Charlottesville, VA.: Pediatric Psychology Press.
American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical Principles of Psychologists & Code of Conduct. American Psych.
Anastasi, Anne (1988). Psychological Testing, 6th Edition, NewYork:MacMillan.
Buck, R.C. (1948). The HTP Technique: A Quantitative and Qualitative Scoring Manual. Clinical Psychology Monographs, 5,1-20.
Burns, R.C. and Kaufman, S.H. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD): An Introduction to Understanding ChildrenThrough Kinetic Drawings. New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Buros, O.K., (Ed.) Mental Measurements Yearbook, Vol.3,4,5,8,9 & 10. Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon Press.
Chapman, N.J. and Chapman, J.P. (1971). Psychology Today.
Diaz, J.O.P. Nogueras, J.A. and Draguns, J. (1984). MMPI (Span­ish Translation) Puerto Rican Adolescents: Preliminary Data on Reliability and Validity Hispanic Journal of Behavior Science. 6(2), 179-189.
Exner, J.E., Jr. (1986). Rorschach: A Comprehensive System, Vol I, Second Edition, New York: Wiley & Son.
Exner, J.E., Jr. (1989). A Rorschach Workbook for the Com­ prehensive System., Third Ed., Rorschach Research Foundation.
Goodenough, F. (1926). Measurement of Intelligence by Draw­ings, New York: World Book Company
Greene, R.L. (1991). The MMPI-2/MMPI, An Interpretive Manual, Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Gresham, F. (1989). Review of the Parenting Stress Index: In Buros (Ed.), The Tenth Mental Measurement Yearbook, Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Gynther, M.D., Fowler, R.D., and Erdberg,P. (1971). False Posi­tives Galore: The Application of Standard MMPI Criteria to a Rural Isolated Negro Sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 234-237.
Hammer, E. (1981). Projective Drawings: In A.I. Rabin (Ed.), Assessment with Projective Techniques, New York: Springer Publishing Co.
Herlick, S.D. (1990). California Workers' Compensation Handbook, 10th Edition, Carlsbad, CA: Parker and Son Publication.
Knoff, H.M. (1985). Review of the Personality Inventory for Chil­dren: In Buros (Ed.) The Ninth Mental Measurement Yearbook, Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Lachar, David (1982). Personality Inventory for Children (PIC) - A Revised Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Lee, Scott (1994,. Personal Communication.
McArthur, D. and Roberts, Glen (1982). Roberts Apperception Test for Children Manual. Western Publishing Services.
Murray, H. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test Manual. Harvard University Cambridge, Mass.
Pope, K.S. and Vasquez, M.J.T. (1991). Ethics In Psychotherapy and Counseling: A Practical Guide for Psychologists. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Rabin, A.I. & Zlotogorski, Z. (1981). Completion Methods: Word Association, Sentence, and Story Completion: In Rabin, A.l. (Ed.), Assessment with Project Techniques. NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Ziskin, J. and Faust, D.(1988). Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony, 4th Edition. CA: Law and Psychology Press.

The Expert Witness as Educator:
This short little article addresses and issue of monumental importance: the proper positioning of a mental health professional in serving in the role of an expert witness.

* * * *

I have served as an expert witness on more than 2,000 civil and criminal cases in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont since 1972. While the cases that I have been involved in have been varied in terms of content, most of my involvement has been regarding cases of abuse and neglect: sexual, physical and emotional. In the vast majority of these cases, I have served as the expert witness for the prosecution. I would like to share with you how my perception of the proper role of the expert has evolved over the years.

Initially, my role as an expert witness began rather parsimoniously with my work as a school psychologist in Northern New Hampshire. Prior to my arrival, abuse and neglect referrals to New Hampshire Social Services had occurred at a rate of about one per month. This increased during my tenure to the point that daily referrals were not uncommon. Given that I had little formal training in this area, I believe that this increase was likely due to an underreporting of abuse and neglect issues for several years, coupled with the arrival of a school psychologist who was sensitive to these matters. New Hampshire law (NH169-C:29), for the interested reader, requires that all citizens have a duty to report abuse and/or neglect when there is a “reason to suspect.”

New Hampshire Social Services began to not only refer cases for treatment and/or evaluation, but to use me extensively as an expert witness in Court. This, as you might expect, creates an incestuous relationship to some degree: the issue of serving the hand that feeds you, so to speak. In any event, I became an unabashed advocate for the victim, and by extension the State of New Hampshire. Concurrent to a falling out with New Hampshire Social Services in the late 1980's, and court decisions limiting the scope of expert testimony in my primary field of expertise, my thinking on the role of the expert witness was evolving.

Three New Hampshire Supreme Court cases changed the landscape in respect to expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases; State v. Cressey (New Hampshire, No. 92-018, 7/15/93), State v. Chamberlain (New Hampshire, No. 92-361, 7/15/93), and the State v. Luce (New Hampshire, No. 92-219, 7/15/93). A California decision, People v. Gray (231 California Reporter 658, Cal. Appellate 2, Dist. 1986) is also instructive. These cases served to place new boundaries on the expert witness, limiting or eliminating the experts opinion regarding whether or not abuse had actually occurred to the defendant. While closing one door, the Courts seemed to have opened another door for the expert witness - the expert witness as educator. I would propose that mental health professional who serve as expert witnesses in all legal contexts, not limited to abuse and neglect cases, seriously consider our primary role as educator. In my experience, the expert as educator limits the degree of contentiousness between the parties in general, reduces the number of “battles of the experts” in the Courts, allows the expert to comfortably consult with either of the parties before or during the trial regarding the issues at-hand, and promotes stipulations between the parties when appropriate. Most importantly, the expert as educator provides us with a dignified role, rather than the often unwarranted label as a shill for the highest bidder.

Author:
Paul Donahue, Ph.D.
101 Rock Strain Drive
Littleton, NH 03561
603-444-2209

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR CUSTODY EVALUATORS WHO HELP PLAN PLACEMENT SCHEDULES
According to Huntly Collins, reporting in the Philadelphia Inquirer (April 4, 1997), toddlers in daycare settings performed as well on certain tests as did the children who remained at home with their mothers.

Infants and toddlers who are in high-quality daycare settings perform as well on tests of intellectual and language development as children who are at home with their mothers, according to new findings from the largest study ever conducted of child development in the United States.

The results may allay the fears of families who, by choice or necessity, have placed their young chil­dren in daycare. More than 50 million American mothers now work outside the home.

“The most striking aspect of these results from the early childcare study is that children are not being placed at a disadvantage in terms of cognitive development if they have high-quality daycare in their first three years,” said Duane Alexander, a physician and director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which sponsored the study.

By “high quality,” researchers said they meant daycare in which the care-givers were warm and sen­sitive, spent time talking to the children, and stimulated their language development by asking them questions and responding to the children's questions.

“We found that the amount of language that is directed at the child in child care is an important component of quality provider-child interactions,” said Sarah Friedman, coordinator of the study, which is being conducted by university researchers around the country. “This language input is predictive of children's acquisition of cognitive and language skills, which are the bedrock of school readiness.”

Cognitive skills in young children include the ability to sort objects by shape and color and to recognize different letters and numbers.

The study, launched in 1991, is following more than 1,300 children nationwide from birth through first grade. The children came from a cross-section of socioeconomic and racial groups. The current findings cover the children’s intellectual development up to age 3. At the three-year mark, 22 percent of the children were being cared for by their mothers at home. The rest were in an array of other settings - daycare centers, daycare homes, and in-home care by a babysitter, grandparent, or relative other than the mother.

Among the children being cared for by someone other than their mother, those who were in daycare centers performed better than other daycare situations on measures of cognitive and language development, researchers reported. They said the finding was not surprising since center workers tend to be better paid and trained in child development than other care-givers.

“We know we are not hurting our children” by putting them in quality daycare, said Marsha Weinraub and Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, the Temple psychologists overseeing the study in Philadelphia. “At this point, we have seen no evidence to support the concerns of those people who are worried.”

The finding was the second major study outcome to indicate that daycare is not inherently detrimental to early child development.

Last year, the researchers reported that daycare did not hurt the ability of infants to develop an emotional attachment to their mothers as long as the babies were also getting sensitive care from their mothers. The finding was based on data collected up to age 15 months. About 50 percent of American mothers with children under a year old now work outside the home. The figure is up from 38 percent in 1980.

While the latest findings showed no negative effect on intellectual development if children were in quality daycare settings, the study also underscored the importance of what happens in the family.

Overall, such factors as family income, the mother’s vocabulary and her intellectual stimulation of the child had more impact on cognitive development than quality daycare.

In other study results to be reported at a meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, the researchers found:

  • Infants and toddlers in high-quality daycare tend to have more positive relationships with their mothers than those who were not in high-quality programs.
  • The more hours the youngsters spent in daycare, however, the less likely they were to have such positive relationships. This was particularly true for families in which the mothers did not suffer from either poverty or depression.


The researchers defined positive relationships as those in which the mother was attentive to the child’s needs, the child was responsive to the mother, and both showed affection toward each other.

Researchers said they focused on the relationship between the mother and child rather than the father because, in most American families, it is still the mother who does most of the child-rearing.

And social scientists have long held that the mother-child relationship is probably the single most important factor in determining the emotional health of children as they grow to adults.

To measure the mother-child relationship, the researchers took three bags of toys into the home when the children were 6 months, 15 months, 24 months and 36 months old. The mother was asked to play with the child for 15 minutes in any way she liked. The researchers observed, taking note of such things as how the child responded when the mother offered toys and how the mother responded when the child engaged with her or turned away.

Researchers used standardized tests to measure the children’s cognitive development at 15, 24 and 36 months. Language development was assessed using a checklist to measure how many words the child understood, how many words the child used, and the complexity of the child’s sentences.

Introduction
The following is a review of an article authored by Eric Marine and Sylvan Schaffer, J.D., Ph.D., which appeared in the Georgia Psychologist, Fall, 1996, entitled:

Child Abuse Reports: Catch 22
The authors caution that competent and experienced therapists are finding that the rules concerning evaluation of alleged abuse are ambiguous. They cite a case in Pennsylvania, in which a teenager reported she had been sexually molested by her father. This occurred when the woman was a minor. The police arrested the father. The woman entered therapy with a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist diagnosed the woman: “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” related to sexual abuse, and treated the woman accordingly. In 1992, at the age of nineteen, she recanted the accusation. Charges were dropped.

The psychiatrist continued to treat the woman, even when the patient recanted. The family filed suit against the psychiatrist for failure to investigate the accusations. The psychiatrist argued her job was not to investigate patient accusations. To do so could worsen the patient’s condition and undermine confidence and rapport. The jury returned a verdict in excess of $200,000 against the psychiatrist, for failing to investigate the allegations to make sure the diagnosis and treatment were appropriate.

In New Hampshire, adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse sought to prosecute the alleged abusers. In its decision, the Superior Court found “that the testimony of the victims as to their memory of the assaults shall not be admitted at trial because the phenomenon of memory repression, and the process of therapy used in these cases to recover the memories, have not gained general acceptance in the field of psychology; and are not scientifically reliable. “The court ordered that testimony from the survivors should not be allowed to be made part of the case.”

In New York, immunity was denied to a therapist employed by a county social service agency to treat a minor. The therapist testified that she believed her patient when the patient claimed to be abused. A lawsuit was filed against the therapist and the agency. The therapist argued for dismissal based upon the state law granting immunity to mandated reporters of suspected child abuse. The judge denied the motion stating “...care must be taken in investigating and evaluating such a claim and in reaching the conclusion that such abuse did take place.” The judge went on to conclude “I find, therefore, that the defendants did, in fact, owe a duty to plaintiffs under the circumstances alleged here...” This ruling, in some ways going further than the Ramona case in California, means that therapists may be sued by parties who were never their patients including the suspected abuser. A New York statute provides immunity for good faith reports. If it is determined that a report is the result of gross negligence, the “good faith” immunity might not apply.

In Colorado, a Court of Appeals concluded “...a mental health care provider owes a duty to any person who is the subject of any public report or adverse recommendation by that provider, to use due care in formulating any opinion upon which such a report is based.” Statutory immunity applies only to the reporting, but any therapy that gives rise to a report or that follows the report is not protected by the immunity. A therapist may be sued for the method in which a conclusion of child abuse is arrive at.

The authors believe that an important theme in many cases is “foreseeability.” We are all charged with the responsibility for not exposing others to harm. A report of suspected abuse will expose the alleged perpetrator to harm, especially if not true. Therapists must take steps to make sure allegations are made in good faith and reasonable in order to qualify for the immunity promised by the law.

In some states, (e.g., California) immunity for mandated child abuse reporting is absolute, and not based on “good faith.” In these and other states, legislation is being introduced to modify or eliminate the protection granted by the existing laws and place restrictions on the types of psychotherapy which may be used. The authors argue that if these efforts are successful, working with the abused will become almost impossible.

Marine and Schaffer assert that these cases show a trend towards some form of investigation before making a report of suspected abuse. Yet, they do not clearly detail what this investigation should entail, nor does this follow statutes which mandate a report based on a “suspicion” not on an investigation. Schaffer and Marine point to other huge complexities e.g., to discuss a patient’s condition with anyone not authorized could be a breach of confidentiality, and to approach an alleged abuser with the allegations may taint the ability of the police to investigate the criminal complaint. There is a potential for a defamation suit for the therapist. In situations of real abuse, skepticism by the therapist may cause a negative reaction in the patient. Diagnosis is traditionally part of therapy; investigation is not. The authors conclude with a series of excellent and important recommendations.

1. Questions all diagnostic techniques which deal with suspected child abuse. They will frequently be challenged.

2. Be particularly careful in using controversial assessment techniques, such as anatomically correct dolls and behavior checklists.

3. When an adult brings a child in and is suspicious of abuse, have the adult also make the report if possible.

4. Be wary of any situation in which the child is the subject of a custody action.

5. Consult with colleagues familiar with abuse. This will help demonstrate care on the part of the therapist and the reasonableness of the response. (Document this step.)

6. Be careful when using any therapeutic technique which may be later interpreted to be implanting or influencing memory, i.e.. hypnosis or drugs to elicit memory.

7. Become familiar with the professional literature on sexual abuse.

8. Document and preserve treatment and assessment records, relating to factors leading to a decision to report or not to report.

9. Remain familiar with the reporting requirements of your state. Continue to update this information.

10. Become involved in the political process that makes the laws. As a professional, you are aware of the-treatment and assessment process; its strengths and weaknesses. You are also aware of the risks to the practice of psychology.

11. Be active in your state organization. The larger the group, the louder the voice. The combined energy, expertise, and strength will multiply your influence.

About the Authors:
Eric C. Marine is Vice President of Claims for the American Professional Agency, Inc. and frequent writer of topics of risk management in the mental health field.

Sylvan Schaffer, J.D., Ph.D. is both a practicing psychologist and lawyer in the Greater New York City area. He also serves as Legal Counsel to the New York State Psychological Association and has written extensively on risk management topics. Editor’s Introduction The following is a review of a column called “Legal Notes.” It appears regularly in the Newsletter of the Philadelphia Society of Clinical Psychologists. The column is authored by Lee A. Schwartz, Esquire, who can be reached at 215-545-4181. This particular column deals with the important issue of a child’s (conscious) choice of where he or she wishes to live.

* * * *

Attorney Schwartz considers the case captioned Meyer’s v. Didomenico, 657 A. 2nd 956 (PA Super 1995.) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania dealt with two children, age 14 and 11. The children lived with their mother for the prior nine years and now expressed a desire to live with their father. The Court noted that while the express wishes of a child are not controlling in a custody decision, those wishes do constitute an important factor that must be carefully considered. Such preferences must be based on good reasons and the child’s maturity and intelligence must be taken into account. The weight to be given to the child’s wishes can best be determined by the Judge before whom the child appears. The Court said that when the households are equally suitable, the childs’ preference to live with one parent over another “could not but tip the evidentiary scale in favor of the father.”

The daughter, age 14, said she and her brother wanted to live with their father because the children had the opportunity to live with their mother for the prior nine years and “...when you have two parents and you love them both and you want to live with them both...I should get a chance to live with him too...”

Editor’s Introduction
The following is reprinted from the New York State Psychological Association periodical, NOTEBOOK (Vol. IX, No. 4, July 1997).

The article is authored by Sylvan Schaffer, J.D., Ph.D., NYSPA Legal Counsel.

Dr. Schaffer’s very important commentary on these guidelines will follow in a future Custody Newsletter edition.

(I have always greeted “guidelines” with a jaundiced eye: they are always “double-edged swords,” and can give rise to all sorts of unintended [negative] consequences.)

Approved March 1997 Child Custody Evaluation New York State Board for Psychology Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations

DEFINITION:
Child custody evaluation in these guidelines refers to any service designed to affect a child's legal relationship with the biological, surrogate, foster, or adoptive parents, and/or any other legal guardian. Children may be substituted for “child” throughout these guidelines, although there are aspects of custody evaluations specific to evaluations of multiple children in a family that are not discussed here.

1. The child's best psychological interests and well-being are always the primary concern.

2. Psychologists should be impartial and objective in conducting child custody evaluations. The psychologist typically should not have or have had any role with the child and parental figures other than child custody evaluator.

3. The psychologist should provide a fair, non-biased assessment and should not necessarily endorse the perspective of the individual or agency/agencies making the request for the evaluation, or aying for the services. This should be made clear to all involved parties at the outset. Ideally, the court should order the evaluation.

4. Special knowledge and experience on the part of the psychologist for a child custody evaluation is essential. This should include child and family development; diversity in family living structure, culture and function; child abuse and neglect; the dynamics of divorce and its effect on children; court procedures; and legal options in custody.

5. A variety of data is required in a child custody evaluation. The evaluation should incorporate information from all meaningful settings in the child's life including, but not limited to, home and school. This information should include the nature of the child's interactions with all parental figures and other significant individuals, the child's developmental needs, and the resulting fit.

6. The psychologist should determine if other professionals are evaluating the child and make every effort to minimize redundant evaluation sessions, while conducting as many sessions as necessary to enable the psychologist to render a recommendation confidently be made in the best interest of the child.

7. When any form of child abuse is reasonably suspected in the course of a custody evaluation, the psychologist is required to take steps to protect the child, including following the mandated reporting procedures. (Editor’s note: Dr. Schaffer has a big problem with this item regarding what “protect the child” should entail.)

8. It is the responsibility of the psychologist to determine the scope of the evaluation based upon the child's best interest, even when a request may be made to evaluate only a specific aspect of child custody.

9. The Psychologist should obtain informed consent from adult participants and, as much as possible, from the child(ren). Prior to beginning the evaluation, all participants should be informed of the limits of confidentiality and the conditions of disclosure of information.

10. When the psychologist makes custody recommendations, the psychologist's opinion should be limited to information derived from the integration of all available data.

11. The report should be made in a timely manner.

12. Financial arrangements should be clarified and agreed upon prior to commencing a child custody evaluation.

INTERNET ADDICTION AND CHILD CUSTODY
(by the Editor)
Over and over I hear from irate wives that their husbands have abandoned them for the Net. I was not really surprised then (although I was surprised that I was told this so casually) when a very prominent local businessman said the following to me: “I had to get rid of the Net. I found myself sitting in front of my computer hour after hour looking at porn. It became an incredible drain on my time.”

This issue became a very serious matter for a woman in Florida. Donald P. Baker, of the Washington Post (reporting in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/25/98) writes that a husband accused his wife of becoming so addicted to the Internet that she neglected their two children.

The wife denies she is addicted to her home computer, but she readily admits she has found friends and solace in cyberspace that were missing at home.

Divorce arising from excessive Internet use is a rapidly growing phenomenon, according to Kimberly S. Young, a psychologist and founder of the Center for On-Line Addiction at the University of Pittsburgh-Bradford, but Young said the divorce in question was the first she knew of in which a mother lost custody of her children.

The mother wants to appeal the custody ruling. Thanks to a division of property that left her the house, computer, fax machine and software, she has an idea for a home-based job---on the Internet.

Click here to return to the Custody Newsletter Archive