Custody Newsletter #3

---

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 References 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.

The following article by Dr. Sally Feather is another of the type we most avidly seek: personal and practical. Dr. Feather and her colleague, Barbara Westerberg, have developed a very powerful (and comforting) interview technique. We have deep admiration for those practitioners who are willing to share what they do behind closed doors even when they cannot "prove" (statistically) the efficacy of these practices. This is what The Custody Newsletter is all about.

A DOUBLE-TEAM INTERVIEW

In three years of doing more than 300 court-ordered custody/visitation evaluations we have developed an effective double-team approach that we highly recommend. Professional time and resources are limited in our private nonprofit agency, but our two-person interviewing team of psychologist and social worker seems to get the most for the money. As we all know, parents being evaluated in this context are under a lot of pressure to look good. They run the gamut of nervous, anxious and well-meaning to the slick psychopath who may be in it for the money and who is almost impossible to trip up in an interview session. Figuring out which is which is often next to impossible, and even in the best situations we realize we can be fooled or simply miss some salient point (i.e. could that nice gentle young man really be an abusive father?) In these custody evaluations it becomes especially important to pay very close attention to the affect, the tone of voice, the gaps in the story, or just one's gut reaction.

We have found this is best done with two trained interviewers working as a team together in the same intense interview hour. Each professional is able to recoup during the interview as the other takes over in a natural flow of conversation, enabling many more facets to be explored.

Sometimes we have found new information relative to differing roles we each might take, like the good cop-bad cop police investigative approach. Whereas a confrontive style may work with one, a more sympathetic approach is better with another.

On a number of occasions we have had parents thank us for the chance to really tell their side, perhaps reveal facts about themselves or their partner which have never been shared before. Others, without being court-ordered, have accepted the idea of parent education/counseling or individual therapy for a problem in their life with a more accepting point of view. Somehow having two professionals hear them at once seems to be acceptable, even preferable for the majority of our clients, at least by the end of the session.

As anyone who does intensive child custody work knows, these evaluations are often extremely heartrending, some reveal material for DYFS, and nearly all are heavy and frightening in terms of the consequences of professional error (even though it is the Judge who makes the final decision).

These are heavy responsibilities for one professional alone. So, having a professional colleague with whom to collaborate at the moment, who saw and heard what you did, is a great help in the therapist's keeping her own sense of balance. And like juror members have found after the trial is over, it is important to have a colleague with which to de-cathect. It is a good way to avoid total burnout.

AUTHOR: Sally Feather, Ph.D.
Barbara Westerberg, ACSW
Family Services
10 Banta Place
Hackensack, NJ 07601
(201) 342-9200

*******************************************************

Dr. Daniel Rybicki, who served as a divorce conciliator and custody evaluator for the 19th Judicial District in Northern Illinois, offers us a wonderful array of methods with which to make office observations more standardized and useful. Dr. Rybicki is a Clinical Professor at the Forrest Institute of Professional Psychology, and teaches at the Alfred Adler Institute.

OBSERVATIONAL METHODS IN CUSTODY EVALUATION

One of the most useful procedures to utilize for in-office assessment of parental behavior is a set of relatively standardized observational tasks. Some of these are described by Bricklin (1990) in the ACCESS outline for observing family interaction. Our office has developed some similar procedures which have been helpful in judging parental response style, child-behavior management skills, and interpersonal dynamics of family members.

According to the literature on the assessment of cooperation and competition (eg. Azrin and Lindsley, 1956), there are a number of tasks that can be presented for the family members to perform (in dyads or other combinations). Our office uses such procedures as asking the family members to work with an Etch-a-Sketch (tm) to develop a drawing. One family member works one knob, while the other knob is controlled by the other. Observations are made as to how the dyad decides what to draw, the degree of cooperation and directions given to each other, which member takes a dominant role, and how much cooperation is achieved. The behaviors of other family members watching this task are also recorded, with the observer watching the overall family system to assess the degree of competition between members.

Instances of limit-setting behavior and nurturance or reinforcement or encouragement by the parent are also given particular importance. Other cooperative tasks may include having various dyads build something together with Lego blocks or other blocks. Cooperative drawings are also used for younger children, and again observations focus on parenting skills and the degree of cooperation as well as closeness displayed.

Additional tasks include having the family members take turns playing simple card games (eg. Crazy Eight's), or playing the game Barrel-Full-of-Monkeys. The clinician's observations are focused on the ability of the parent to interact in a playful manner, as well as the degree of support, nurturance, limit-setting, and cooperation that the parent exhibits.

Imaginary scenarios and problem-solving tasks are particularly useful for assessing parenting style and family problem-solving skills. Imaginary problems are presented for the family as a whole to solve. The method by which the solution is reached provides suitable data for sampling decision-

making methods used by the family at home.

One scenario provided for the family to solve is deciding on one vacation spot, with a large, unspecified amount of cash to spend. There is one restriction, however; the final decision must be agreed upon by all the family members.

Observations are made on how opinions are solicited or volunteered, how the parent manages disputes, and how the final selection is made. Parenting roles may vary from autocratic to ignoring, as described by Elder (1962). Parents may also be rated according to guidelines suggested by Schaefer (1959). The style of conflict resolution is observed, and the sibling relations are also given consideration.

These brief structured tasks can be expanded upon, to include such behaviors as role playing of family events. One particularly useful scenario is to have the family role-play a typical dinner exchange. Again, observational data regarding the quality of interaction is made available to the custody evaluator without the necessity of leaving the office.

These suggestions are presented here, not as an exhaustive listing, but as a starting point for further development by others in the field. Comments and recommendations are invited by the author.

References

Azrin, N.H., and Lindsley, O.R. The Reinforcement of cooperation between children. J. Abnormal Social Psychiatry, 1956, 52, 100-103.

Bricklin, B. Access to parental strength: Family Interaction Data. Village Publishing: Doylestown, PA 1990.

Elder, G.H. Structural variations in the child-rearing relationship. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 241-262.

Schaefer, E.S. A circumplex model for maternal behavior. J. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 226-235.

AUTHOR: Daniel J. Rybicki, Psy.D., C.A.C.
P.O. Box 1087
Lake Zurich, IL 60047
(708) 540-8029

Apparently the use of conventional psychological tests in custody matters is controversial. I had not realized this was the case; I believed I was one of the very few who had reservations.

However, since stating my position, I have heard from many other psychologists who think similarly. Dr. Hoppe, the author of the present article, has also encountered this prejudice. He believes the prejudice against conventional psychological tests is misguided.

Here Dr. Hoppe presents an excellent and persuasive argument for the use of conventional tests in custody matters. It is not only a highly persuasive piece of writing, but also good to have simply for its many excellent references.

My own hesitations about conventional psychological tests never had to do with their reliability or accuracy. I studied for many years at the side of Dr. Zygmunt A. Piotrowski, a world-famous researcher in the Rorschach test, drawings, and the TAT, and a much more limited time with Dr. Emanuel Hammer. I co-authored with Dr. Piotrowski, a book and several articles on projective tests. I have no doubt at all about the powerful utility of conventional psychological tests.

My reservations apply to the individual case, where group statistics are not necessarily very comforting. I am never quite certain of just exactly what the effects, for example, in a particular parent, of "depressive moods," will be on a particular child. (PORT and BPS data were designed to help answer such questions). These reservations notwithstanding, I myself find myself very moved by Dr. Hoppe's article in the direction of his thinking.

THE USE OF CONVENTIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS

IN CUSTODY-VISITATION LITIGATION

It has been argued that traditional tests have little value in custody-visitation evaluations (Ellsworth & Levy, 1969; Okpaku, 1976; Gardner, 1982) because diagnosis itself is not a useful concept in such evaluations. However, even those who would seem to oppose the use of testing find occasions for the Rorschach to evaluate the extent of psychosis, for example (Gardner, 1989, p. 73) or a Millon, or an MMPI, or an Incomplete Sentences Blank, or the TAT, not to mention non-projective tests such as the Wechsler (Keilin & Bloom, 1986; Gardner, 1989). Thus, the use of tests is not always indicated, but there are times when tests are useful.

The expert should expect to be challenged by attorneys whose clients are not supported by his or her evaluation. Paraphrasing Gardner (1989), the expert who assumes there has to be a good reason for harsh criticism in a courtroom procedure is delusional. The expert who does not use testing may be sharply questioned about why tests were not included. The expert who does will have to face questions about validity, relevance, and bias. Thus, it is important to describe some of the circumstances in which testing is indicated and to summarize some of the rationale which supports its use.

Individuals who are court ordered to undergo evaluations comprise a highly select group, the members of which are very likely to manifest just the kind of pathology which can be objectified by traditional psychological tests. Most divorce filings are resolved outside of the courtroom. Less than two percent of filings ever go to trial over custody. For example, in Los Angeles County, in 1989, six thousand cases of disputed custody were identified to the court. Of this number, about 5,300 were resolved without home visits or referral to the mental health panel. An additional 800 were resolved after home studies. One hundred sixty were sent by the court for evaluations by psychiatrists or psychologists. Of this 160, less than half were involved with psychological tests in addition to interviews. It is estimated that a similar number of custody matters were also evaluated by mutual stipulation outside the attention of the court because the matter was settled before coming to the court hearings (McIsaac, 1990, 1990a). Thus the individuals in disputed custody situations which could potentially come for testing represent a highly selected group. This select group is fertile ground for emotional difficulties (Curtis, Chase, Rosenstein, Hoppe, and Lachman, 1980). This sample is, therefore, in many ways similar to the out-patient population which clinicians regularly and frequently test.

WHY USE TESTS IN CUSTODY EVALUATIONS?

There is clinical experience and research evidence to support their use. The collective experience of clinicians who have used tests to guide clinical interventions has suggested that the information gained from proper use of a battery of well constructed and validated tests provides a better basis for making important decisions about individuals than would be otherwise available (American Psychological Association, 1985; Kernberg, 1977). It is presumed by many evaluators that this collective experience applies to custody decisions as well, and there is research to back up the idea that tests such as the Rorschach and MMPI have proven to be useful.

Kertzman (1978) studied a sample of 40 child abusers and a sample of matched controls all of whom were selected from individuals in family court. He found that child abusers in family court had more dependant Rorschach responses than non abusers. Ollendick and Otto (1984) and Ollendick (1984) studied divorcing parents referred for a second opinion in a custody study in Minnesota. The parent within these pairs to whom the court granted custody appeared healthier on the MMPI. A summary of experienced professionals indicates that about 75% use psychological tests in child custody evaluations (Keilin & Bloom, 1986). It must be emphasized, however, that the conscientious custody evaluator will always state how utilized tests were normed.

Attorneys frequently demand assessment of pathology. Allegations of extreme psychological disorder on the part of one parent are regularly raised either at the time of evaluation or at the time of trial. Often each parent raises mutually contradictory allegations about the other. An attorney may begin to examine the expert with a series of questions such as the following: "Hypothetically, Doctor, if one parent has such and such psychological tendency is that sometimes believed to cause disturbance in the child?" If the expert says, "No," research studies will be cited and another expert who would answer in the affirmative will be or may have already been deposed. Then the evaluator is asked "How do you know that Parent X does not manifest such and such which so and so has shown to affect children?" Projective tests and personality inventories are good at documenting serious personality difficulties (or their absence) which are not always clear from conversations even with trained observers. That is what they have been designed to do.

But there is also a question of relevancy. Does psychological pathology really make a difference to the developing child? What if a parent is psychotic or manic depressive or substance abusing? Does this make a difference? Yes, it does. There are three lines of evidence to back up this assertion: (1) observation of individual infants with disturbed parents, (2) the collected clinical experience of those who regularly do child and adult psychotherapy, (3) long term studies of large samples of children of adults with known psychological difficulties. These various lines of evidence indicate that there are plenty of reasons to believe that exposure to a parent's emotional illness (bipolar illness, alcoholism and substance abuse, psychoses, antisocial tendencies, sexual abuse, violence, depressions and so forth) have an indelible impact on the child (Brown, 1988; Anthony and Cohler, 1987).

The presumption that placing a child with a parent who is clinically within normal limits when the other parent is not, vastly improves the child's chances of developing normally is supported by a variety of longitudinal studies of the children of psychologically ill parents. These include children of alcoholics, children who were victimized by abuse and incest, and children of parents who had other mental illnesses. In a ten year follow up study of 37 children of manic-depressive patients, Anthony and Cohler (1987, p. 179) report that when both parents had a clinical level of disturbance, nearly 70% of the children were found to be clinically disturbed. But when one parent was within normal limits for psychological adjustment, only half as many of the offspring, or less that 35%, were also clinically disturbed.

Studies specifically testing the effects of the custody placement with the less psychologically disturbed of two parents have not been done, and it would seem highly unethical to conduct an experiment designed to test the presumed differences in some sort of double blind arrangement. Naturalistic observations on the topic abound, however (Gardner, 1989). Observational studies of maternal mental illness indicate that the chronicity and severity of maternal mental illness is the strongest predictor of poor outcome in the development of young children at 30 and 48 months of age as measured by the Rochester Adaptive Behavior Inventories. Mental illness considered globally without regard to specific diagnostic groupings, was a stronger predictor of child competency than were such other factors as socioeconomic status, family stress, parental beliefs about the developmental process, or parental beliefs about "authoritarian" controls (Seifer & Samerof in Anthony and Cohler, 1987). Of importance here was the finding that no two kinds of diagnostic groups differed significantly.

This observation about the role of mental illness regardless of specific diagnosis underscores an important caveat for the use of tests in custody/visitation evaluations. Specific DSM III-R diagnoses are to be avoided. Instead the examiner should concentrate discussions on quantifiable measures of such global traits as the degree of consensually validatable perception; the capacity for logical thinking; the degree of impulsivity; the relative severity of illness between two litigants. Such findings may have diagnostic implications, but specific diagnosis is not the purpose of a custody/visitation evaluation, quite apart from whether specific diagnosis is even appropriate or feasible to attempt from test data. In addition to supplying little or no significant information to the courtroom, the use of diagnostic terminology may waste time or even weaken an evaluation. Experts rarely agree on a specific diagnosis in a courtroom, and asserting the presence on a specific diagnosis may expose the expert to such cross-examination frustrations as being asked to define schizophrenia. As Gardner (1989) points out, there is much to lose and little to gain by the attempt to diagnose in the sense of DSM III-R.

Information from testing helps to explain behavioral observations. Even a highly trained evaluator of child-parent interaction may miss the pathology inducing impingements (Winnecott, 1975) a parent may have on the child unless the evaluator is aware that a parent may have a psychological disorder. Recent studies of parental interaction and infant development indicate that knowing about the likelihood of emotional disorder is an essential precondition to correctly interpreting interaction data. Stern (1985) illustrates how even trained teams of observers could not easily discern that a mother's actions which seemed to be exquisitely sensitive caretaking were actually unrelated to her infant's needs but based on the mother's communion with her own delusions. Without the knowledge that the woman had delusions, her actions would have not only passed but would have looked good, because the child adapts to the faulty parental attunement. The inheritance to the child of such upbringing, however, is "disastrous" (Stern, 1985, p. 207).

Testing minimizes examiner bias as a source of error. The psychological/ psychiatric expert witness is vulnerable on cross examination to attack by clever use of the "subjective expert gambit." This is an attempt to dismiss the expert's opinion as being biased because of a prejudicial feeling towards a particular client. Every evaluator has feelings about a client. To the trained observer, the feelings evoked are useful because these feelings have informational value. However, it can be argued that such feelings form a bias, and because of this bias the evaluation itself is blemished and should be discounted. Tests which yield scores which any trained observer can count up can be used to address this argument.

Testing helps protect the evaluator from spurious lawsuits. Many custody evaluators find themselves the target of lawsuits by disgruntled parents. Artful use of the Subjective Observer Gambit by plaintiff's attorneys leaves the expert open to lawsuits which emulate Cutter v. Brownbridge or other strategies designed to circumvent the protection intended by Civil code 47(2). With great time and expense such suits may be winnable by the evaluator as in Silber v. Anderson, but the time involved in such a defense can paralyze most clinicians. Having a psychological report which uses various kinds of questions in a battery of tests adds to the protection of the evaluator when the testing explains or confirms the evaluator's impressions. Having a test battery can also protect the consumer. When the test impressions are at variance with those of the primary evaluator the certainty of the evaluator's opinions may be diminished.

Denied allegations of abuse and violence. There is agreement that the evaluation of sexual abuse is difficult unless the alleged perpetrator admits guilt, which is often unlikely (Bressee, Stearns, Bess, & Packer, 1986; Green 1986). Yet in custody/visitation cases allegations of sexual impropriety proliferate. There is a high level of agreement that no one profile is characteristic of all who abuse children. However, Groth (1982) asserts that such offenders "do tend to exhibit a number of pronounced traits or characteristics." In The American Bar Association publication Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases (Nicholson & Bulkley, editors, 1988), Berlinger reports that while polygraph examinations are not helpful, and that while there are no typical demographic profiles nor psychological profiles of offenders, "Studies of the psychological profiles of offenders based on responses to standardized personality tests show typical patterns which are consistent with other antisocial individuals." Berlinger goes on to say that psychological testing is an "essential ingredient" of the evaluation of sexual offenders.

Evaluation of allegations of violence is also problematic for many of the same reasons. Yet here it has been shown (Cerney & Shevrin, 1974) that Rorschach responses can be useful in differentiat-ing those who are given to eruptive destructive behavior with little apparent provocation from others who discharge hostility in other more benign ways.

Concerns about the child's development. There are reasons why a child might be examined with a psychological test battery too. Sometimes a parent alleges that the child is not accomplishing well in school because of the actions of the other parent. How does one know what is an appropriate level of expectation for performance for a particular child? Determining the likelihood of academic achievement by measuring IQ and setting appropriate levels of expectation is the oldest and most widely accepted use of psychological tests.

There are reasons to be interested in the child's attachments to various family members, and this can be difficult to assess. In addition to interviewing and observations, Family Relations testing by a growing variety of test instruments is available to help assess these issues.

Questions are raised about a child's need for therapy, and this is often entangled with the financial settlement. A skeptical parent may demand something other than interview impressions, and indeed psychological testing is regularly used to answer such questions in the clinical setting.

TESTS AND WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THEM

The Rorschach and the capacity to think and perceive. It has been asserted that the event of a custody/visitation litigant's stating that Rorschach Card I resembles a "transvestite troglodyte" would have no instructive value to a custody/visitation evaluator (Stone, 1990). The experienced Rorschach examiner will recognize that this is a highly statistically infrequent response and that it would impact on accuracy ratios and indices of condensed thinking. For the purposes of custody litigation the Rorschach is best used as a test of perception and thinking-- "What does it look like" and "why?" In the course of a custody dispute, many allegations are made about the state of mind in the formerly beloved but by now detested spouse. Often these allegations are highly accurate, but sometimes they are but thinly disguised projections. The Rorschach can help to demonstrate when allegations are based on projection rather than accurate perception by telling us to what extent the one making such allegations perceives things like the rest of the adult population. The findings that one parent's every response is statistically unusual tends to diminish our confidence that this person can accurately perceive subtle nuances of affect and motivation in an estranged spouse. This speculation, like every other one, needs to be cross-validated by other observations. Furthermore, there are normative data about what the level of accurate perception is among adults in general and how different levels of perception can be demonstrated among adults with known emotional problems. Content or thematic Rorschach analysis (as distinct from structural analysis) often leads to unnecessary difficulties on cross examination and may not be needed when there are glaring discrepancies in the structural data.

The Rorschach provides an egocentricity score which is sometimes interpreted as the individual's tendency to see themselves rather than to perceive things more objectively. In addition there is a measure of psychotic thinking, the WSUM6 score. Norms are available for the general population as well as for those who are known to have various serious mental disorders. Norms for those under the pressure of court ordered psychological custody/visitation evaluation are also known (Hoppe, in preparation). Observations of this measurement helps to objectively specify whether or not a specific parent has or has not a disorder of thinking of such proportions that it might make a difference to the overall evaluation of that person's capacity to accurately attune to the needs of a child.

The MMPI and the Millon. The MMPI has been shown to discriminate between those parents more likely to be given the greater proportion of custody and those who are not (Ollendick & Otto, 1984). The MMPI-2 (which is the 1989 revision of the MMPI) and the Millon Multiaxial Inventory-II are computer scored and answered wholly by the subject himself or herself. These tests reflect major forms of psychological illness as well as personality profiles shown to be associated with substance abuse. There are built in checks for lying. These tests can be completely scored by automation which minimizes the appearance of examiner bias. Computerized interpretative statements which minimize scorer bias are also available.

TAT and ISB. The TAT and Incomplete Sentences Blank provide responses in the subject's own words and in his own handwriting. There have been studies (Hoppe & Loevinger, 1977) documenting the predictive power of the incomplete sentences blank for determining anti-conforming tendencies among the general population. Such tendencies are conceptually related to antisocial tendencies in individuals where there is little evidence of internalized standards for behavior. Research relating the Incomplete Sentences Blank specifically to effective custody decisions remains to be done. Pathognomonic responses in the subject's own words are helpful in rounding out impressions gained from other test scores.

SOME IRRATIONAL OBJECTIONS TO TESTING

The disappointed wish for a silver bullet. Test findings are not beyond all reasonable doubt, but they help to establish a preponderance of the evidence about an allegation. In general, no one part of the custody evaluation process is sufficient to be the basis for making a specific recommendation. This caveat applies to testing as well. Test findings are strongest when they appear on more than one instrument. Thus, it is important to use a battery of tests with interviews and observations to see how the findings converge.

Fear of being known. Another kind of objection is to the seeming impersonality of psychological tests. Family life is intensely personal but testers talk in terms of numbers, ratios, shapes of profiles, and esoteric scores. Since numbers suggest an impersonal view of the world, innumeracy, the mathematical counterpart of illiteracy (Paulos, 1988), combines with fear of what tests might actually reveal to create a powerful emotional objection to the idea of using testing.

How do you know what you know, Doctor? Then there is the inadequate validity argument. By the time an attorney who objects to test findings reaches for this one he or she is really getting desperate. (Editor's interjection: I love the next few sentences!) Because those who do testing hold themselves to a mathematically higher standard by trying to calculate validity statistics whereas the court itself or interviewers or other decision makers do not attempt to numerically calculate reliability ratios or validity coefficients, it is asserted that the tests which have such calculations are something less than the procedures for which such ratios are not even attempted. Every process of discrimination potentially has a validity coefficient. The mathematical validity for most decision processes is unknown. There is no known validity coefficient for a specific evaluator's interview, or a specific question within an interview, or the decisions of the court itself, for example.

The "special breed" of mankind. Finally there is the "breed apart" argument which is a way of attacking thinking about people in general by activating the fantasy of a special (and usually superior) breed. It is implied that college sophomores or mental patients are a "breed apart" so that research based on these (inferior) beings cannot possibly apply to the present case.

Summary:

Proper use of well constructed and validated tests provides a better basis for making important decisions about individuals and programs than would be otherwise available (American Psychological Association, 1985; Kernberg, 1977). A survey of experienced professionals indicated that about 75% use psychological tests in child custody evaluations (Keilin & Bloom, 1986). Any psychological assessment method is useful to custody investigations if it can draw attention to observable deficits in parenting and their potential for remediation, demonstrate the degree of fit between an individual parent and a specific child's needs or identify special needs of a child in the custody evaluation (Schutz, Dixon, Lindenberger, & Ruther, 1989). Tests can provide valuable and sometimes unique information that enhances the over all assessment, but it should be emphasized that the significance of psychological test data increases when it is corroborated by other sources of data. Tests are also useful when they describe behavior that has a direct adverse impact on the child, such as psychopathy, substance abuse, or severe

mental illnesses, for which corroborating records and observations may be potentially available but difficult or extremely expensive to obtain.

In employing tests in a custody/visitation evaluation, it is imperative to state that these tests were not originally normed on the population under study, but that the examiner has found that use of the tests is nevertheless informative, according to APA guidelines on the proper use of tests. In all cases, specific diagnosis of DSM III-R categories is not the purpose of testing. The purpose is to help quantify and objectify the degree of alleged parental psychopathy and to determine whether it is of the kind and degree which is known to have a deleterious effect on the smooth development of young children.

(From a paper presentation to the Los Angeles County Bar Association, February, 1990.)

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (1985) Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Anthony, E.J., and Cohler, B.J., (1987) The invulnerable child. New York: Guilford.

Bressee, P., Stearns, G., Bess, B. & Packer, L., (1986) Allegations of child sexual abuse in child custody disputes: a therapeutic assessment model. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 560-569.

Brown, S., (1988) Treating adult children of alcoholics. New York: Wiley.

Cerney, M. & Sheverin, H., The relations between color dominated responses on the rorschach and explosive behavior in a hospital setting. Bulletin of the Menninger Foundation. 38, 430-444.

Curtis, T.A., Chase, G.A., Rosenstein, R., Hoppe, C.F. and Lachman, N. (1980) Relationship disorder; a new diagnostic entity seen in custody visitation disputes. Paper and panel discussion. Chicago: Joint Convention of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

Ellsworth, P. & Levey, R., (1969) Legislative reform of child custody adjudication: An effort to rely on social science data in formulating legal policies. Law and Society Review. 4, 167-233.

Gardner, R.A., (1982) Family evaluation in child custody litigation, Creative Therapeutics: Cresskill, New Jersey.

Gardner, R.A., (1989) Family evaluation in child custody mediation, arbitration, and litigation. Creative Therapeutics: Cresskill, New Jersey.

Green, A.H., (1986) True and false allegations of sexual abuse in child custody disputes. Journal of the american academy of child psychiatry, 25, 449-456.

Groth, A.N., (1982) The incest offender. in Sgroi, S. (Ed.) Handbook of clinical intervention in child sexual abuse. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.

Hoppe, C.F. & Loevinger, J., (1977) Ego Development and Conformity, Journal of Personality Assessment, 41.

Keilin, W.G., and Bloom, L.J., (1986) Child custody evaluation practices; A survey of experienced professionals. Professional Psychology, 17, (2) 227-232.

Kernberg, O., (1977) introduction to Appelbaum, S.A. Anatomy of change; A Menninger Foundation report of testing the effects of psychotherapy. New York: Plenum.

Kertzman, D., (1978) Dependency, frustration tolerance, and impulse control in child-abusers, Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.

McIsaac, H., (1990) Child custody, the lawyer and family court services. in Polun, S.S., (Ed.) Family law reference book. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Bar Association, Family Law Section.

McIsaac, H., (1990a) from an address to the family law panel of the Los Angeles Superior court, Dept. 2.

Nicholson, E.B., & Bulkey, J., (1988). Sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation cases. American Bar Association.

Okpaku, S., (1976). Psychology: Impediment or aid in child custody cases? Rutgers Law Review, 29, 1117-1153.

Ollendick, D.G., Scores on MMPI-based alcohol scales and court ordered child custody. Psychological Reports 55, (1), 337-338.

Paulos, J.A., (1988), Innumeracy; Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. New York: Hill and Wang.

Schutz, B.M., Dixon, E.B., Lindenberger, J.C., & Ruther, N.J., (1989) Solomon's sword; A practical guide to conducting child custody evaluations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stern, D.N., (1985) The interpersonal world of the infant; A view form psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books.

Stone, N.M., (1990) from an address to the family law panel of the Los Angeles Superior court, Dept. 2.

Winnicott, D.W. (1975) Through Pediatrics to psycho-analysis. New York: Basic Books.

AUTHOR: Carl F. Hoppe, Ph.D.
360 N. Bedford Drive #215
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(213) 550-0314

*******************************************************

CUSTODY COURTS AROUND THE COUNTRY

Our legal system extends wide discretion to the judges and other critical decision makers who deal with custody disputes. No single ruling, regardless of its origin, imposes extensive restrictions on these decision makers. A practitioner seeking guidance in any phase of custody decision making must look beyond individual statutes and rulings. Familiarity with custody law as a whole, paying special attention to discerning the intentions of the lawmakers, is where guidance can be found. Hence, the following is in commentary form, and in no instance is a report EVER intended for legal use.

IMPORTANT DECISION REGARDING A CHILD'S SCHOOL RECORD

A 14 year old boy was doing very poorly in school. He had not been diagnosed as suffering either a learning disability or any form of mental retardation, but had simply failed many of his courses and rarely completed homework assignments. He was also late an inordinate number of times and frequently absent.

In what could stand as an important ruling, a trial court found that the child's custodial mother did not control her son's self-destructive behavior exhibited by his willful failure to do that which he knew he should do.

The trial court decided to make the father the primary caretaking parent (although joint custody was granted overall).

This court's decision that a child's lack of academic success warranted the finding of "changed circumstances," is exceedingly important. Notice also, that it simply decided that the father "appeared" to be better able to handle the situation than would the mother. (So far as I could determine, there was no proof the father would ultimately do any better than the mother had done.)

This kind of ruling could be a real can of worms for several reasons. First of all, many learning disabilities are quite subtle. While the impairments might not reach the magnitude a school system would require to reach the diagnosis of "learning disability," there may still indeed be significant deficiencies in a child's ability to process information effectively. Keep in mind that the diagnosis of "learning disability" is often political; school systems are reluctant to reach this diagnosis because it usually involves spending extra money on the involved child.

Keep in mind also that underachievement itself is a most difficult thing to work with. Even very well-intentioned parents who are careful about checking homework assignments, etc. often cannot do much to upgrade a child's failing grades.

As a co-author of a book on the psychology of underachievement (which was a bestseller, translated into ten different languages) I can attest to the enormous problems involved in helping underachievers. I have often said it is easier to get a person suffering schizophrenia to function comfortably and effectively than it is to convert a child who chronically gets D's into a child who can earn B's and C's. (You're often up against subtle information processing impairments, peers who devalue education, gaps in the child's skill-base, crummy teachers, etc., etc.)

Allowing poor grades to constitute "changed circumstances" (regardless of the intricacies of the present case), could be very dangerous.

*******************************************************

COMING IN A FUTURE CUSTODY NEWSLETTER:

A VERY PROVOCATIVE AND IMPORTANT ISSUE

A trial court had apparently directed a mother to create a more positive feeling toward the father in the children's minds. The mother claimed that this violated her first amendment rights by forcing her to express feelings and beliefs in which she did not believe.

The Florida Supreme Court found against her.

Parents frequently find themselves in great conflict over this issue. Bright parents know, or at least strongly believe, they should foster a good relationship between their children and the other parent. What is a parent to do when he or she believes the other parent is a real jerk? Should one lie for the sake of parent-child unity? In the present case I think we need to read between the lines. My own personal feeling is that the Supreme Court thought not so much that the mother had failed to speak in favor of the father but that she created the rift between the children and the father. They pointed out that the order, directing the mother to create a good feeling in the minds of the children, was promoting the state's interest in restoring a meaningful relationship between the children and the father.

They pointed out that it was a custodial parent's duty to nurture the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent, and that this required nothing more than a good faith effort to promote positive interactions and to refrain from doing anything that would defeat this purpose. They held that it does not require her to express opinions she does not hold.

I believe the issues here are exceedingly complex, and I'm not at all certain the Florida Supreme Court came up with a wise decision.

The Custody Newsletter would love to hear your views on this subject.

Click here to return to the Custody Newsletter Archive