Forensic Psychological Report: Jonathan Gould’s Analysis of Child Custody Evaluation Conducted By Alissa Sherry, Ph.D.

Forensic Psychological Report:

Analysis of Child Custody Evaluation
Conducted By Alissa Sherry, Ph.D. and Michelle Munevar, M.S.
August 22, 2018

Reason for Referral
I was retained by the Law Firm of attorneys for
to review the child custody evaluation report prepared by Alissa Sherry, Ph.D., &
Michelle Munevar, M.S.1 I was contacted by Mr. Robertson in May 2018 and retained
by his firm in July 2018.
I was provided a copy of Dr. Sherry’s report prior to the July 2018 hearing. I was
provided a thumb drive containing the contents of Dr. Sherry’s file at the July 2018
hearing. I had the file printed upon my return to Charlotte and discovered that it
contained more than 38,000 pages. I have been unable to complete my review of the
38,000 page file. From that file, I have reviewed materials that I believed were most
relevant to my examination of Dr. Sherry’s evaluation that included but was not limited
to, notes from interviews with the parties and collateral informants.
I also received six files provided to me by Dr. Sherry’s office that contained
psychological test data of the parties and others who were tested for the evaluation.
1 Although I am aware the report was co-authored, I refer to the report as authored by Dr. Sherry as a
convenience. There is no indication in the body of the report that identifies which data gathering and
opinion formation were provided by Dr. Sherry and which by Ms. Munevar. There is no information in the
report identifying areas in which both evaluators’ agreed with an opinion or where they disagreed. There is
no information in the report describing how differences of opinions, where they existed, were resolved.
1
Foundation for a Psychologist to Offer an Analysis of a Colleague’s Work Product
The standards of comparison used in an analysis of a colleague’s work product are those
governing professional practice standards and guidelines of psychologists in their role as
forensic psychology specialists. Professional practice standards are drawn from the
American Psychological Association’s Ethical. Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct.2 Ethical guidelines governing forensic practice are drawn from the Special.ty
Guidelines for Forensic Psychology.3 Ethical guidelines governing forensic practice in
the specialty area of child custody evaluations were drawn from the American
Psychological Association’s Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law
proceedings4 and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ Model Standards of
Practice for Child Custody Evaluations. 5 Also consulted were current child custody
peer-reviewed articles6 and textbooks,7 and current continuing education workshop
presentations conducted by the forensic psychology training arm of the American
Psychological Association’s Psychology – Law Division and the American Board of
Professional Psychology (ABPP), the organization that grants board certification in
forensic psycbology sanctioned by the American Psychological Association.
Texas Family Code Section 1.01: Chapter 107
Child custody evaluations in the State of Texas are controlled by Chapter I 07 of the
Family Code. The Chapter describes the minimum qualifications of a person who may be
2 American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
American Psychologist, 51, 1060-1073.
3 American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology.
American Psychologist, 68 (1 ), 7 – 19.
4 American Psychological Association (AP A). (2010). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family
law proceedings. American Psychologist, 65(9), 863-867.
5 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Task Force for Model Standards of Practice for Child
Custody Evaluations. (2007). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluations. Family Court
Review, 45(1), 70-91.
6 Martindale, D.A., & Gould, J.W. (2013). Deconstructing Child Custody Evaluations.Journal of the
American Association of Matrimonial Attorneys; Martindale, D. A. & Gould, J. W. (2008). “Evaluating
the evaluators in custodial placement disputes.” In H. Hall (Ed.) Forensic Psychology and
Neuropsychology for Criminal and Civil Cases (pp. 527 – 546). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis;
Martindale, D.A., & Gould, J.W. (2007) “Custody Evaluation Reports: The Case for Empirically-derived
information.” Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1 (3), 87 -99; Gould, J.W., Kirkpatrick, H.D.,
Austin, W., & Martindale, D.A. (2004) “Critiquing a colleague’s forensic work product: A suggested
protocol for application to child custody evaluations. 11 Journal of Child Custody, 1 (3), 37 – 64.
7 See Ackerman, M.J., Kane, A., Gould, J.W., & Dale, M. (2015). Psychological Experts in Divorce
Actions (6’1′ Edition). New York: Kluwer; Ackerman, M.J. (2006). Clinician’s Guide to Child Custody
Evaluations 3nd Edition). New York. Wiley; Gould, J. (2006). Conducting Scientifically Crafted Child
Custody Evaluations (2″‘1 Edition). Sarasota, Fl.: Professional Resource Press; Galatzer-Levy, R. M.,
Kraus, L., & Galatzer-Levy (Eds.). (2009). The scientific basis of child custody decisions (2nd Ed.). New
York, NY: Wiley; Stahl, P. M. (2010). Conducting child custody evaluations: From basic to complex
issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2
appointed to conduct a child custody evaluation. The Chapter also sets out the structure
of a child custody evaluation, inclusive of general methods and procedures.
In my professional judgment, any review of a child custody evaluation conducted in the
State of Texas by a person appointed to conduct such an assessment should compare the
evaluator’s work product against the statutory requirements.
Conceptual Framework Guiding Analysis
Over the past twenty years, a professional consensus has emerged to define the standard
of practice governing the methodology to be used in conducting child custody
evaluations. 8 More than a dozen empirical studies have been published revealing method
and procedures utilized in child custody assessments.9 The consensus about methods and
procedures used in child custody assessment shows the application of basic forensic
psychological methods applied to child custody assessment. 10
Utilizing a methodology consistent with the standard of practice is only part of the
evaluator’s task in competently conducted child custody evaluation. Another critical
component is selecting reliable procedures to gather information. A third component is
using reliable assessment procedures to gather relevant information from independent
sources. The final component is interpreting the information gathered from the reliable
procedures is a manner that is helpful to the court. Following this systematic approach to
conducting a child custody evaluation guides the evaluator toward developing expert
opinions that are consistent with the legal elements of admissibility of scientific evidence
reflected in the US Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert 1 and Texas courts’ decisions in
Robinson12 and Gammill. 13
Recently, it has been proposed that an evaluator’s determination of relevant information
is based upon the specific questions that define the scope of the evaluation.14 The
resulting multi-step approach for a psychologist to use in applying Daubert/Gammill
criteria is to select reliable data-gathering procedures used to gather relevant information.
The final step is to integrate information gathered through the use of reliable data-
8 Ackerman et al. (2015); Bow, J.N. & Quinnell, F .A. (200 I). Psychologists’ Current Practices and
Procedures in Child Custody Evaluations: Five Years After American Psychological Association
Guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 32 (3), 261 – 268. See also Specialty Guideline
9.02 that addresses the need for forensic psychologists to utilize multiple data gathering sources.
9 Ackerman, M.J., Gould, J.W., & Kane, A. W. (in press). Psychological Experts in Divorce Actions (7’1′
edition). New York: Kluwer.
10 Martindale, D.A., & Gould, J. W. (2004). “The forensic model: Ethics and scientific methodology applied
to child custody evaluations.” Journal of Child Custody 1 (2), 1 – 22.
11 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993); Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev.
492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008).
12 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W. 2d 549 (Tex. 1995).
13 Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998).
14 Trial strategies, including deconstruction of a custody evaluation. Presented by the Honorable David
Farr, Lynn Kamin, Esquire, John Zervopolous, Ph.D., JD., & Jonathan Bates, Esquire. Proceedings of the
State Bar of Texas Innovatio11S: Breaking Boundaries in Custody Litigation. Austin, TX.: January 12,
2018.
3
gathering procedures used to answer the specific question into an expert opinion that is
helpful to the court. 15
Another conceptual basis for my reviews of colleagues’ child custody evaluations is that
the evaluation should be focused on parenting behavior, parent-child interaction,
understanding of past and current parent-child relationship, past and current parent-toparent
communication and cooperation over child-related issues. I look for information
about these factors in interview data, collateral data, psychological test data, and parentchild
observations.
An important activity of a child custody evaluator is to serve as a type of information
gatekeeper. Included in the report is information relevant to answering the specific
questions defining the scope of the evaluation. Excluded from the report is information
that is speculation, information obtained from unreliable methods and procedures, and
information from third party observers that contains opinions rather than descriptions of
personal observations of parenting behavior, parent-to-parent communication, and parentchild
interaction.
A third conceptual basis is examination of the evaluator’s integration of obtained
information with the professional and scientific literature of the discipline of psychology.
I also seek to identify when evaluators go beyond their data and offer opinions based
upon speculation, personal rather than scientifically based opinions, and
misunderstanding of research findings. I also seek to identify areas that might have
provided the court with useful information but was excluded from the current evaluation.
Analysis of Dr. Sherry’s Child Custody Evaluation
My review of Dr. Sherry custody evaluation revealed that she utilized the methodology
viewed as the standard of practice within the child custody field. She conducted multiple
interviews with each parent and other caretakers, administered, scored, and interpreted
psychological tests to each parent and other caretakers, observed the minor child with
each parent and care taker, conducted a home study of each parent and caretaker’s home,
spoke with third-party observers ( collateral witnesses), and reviewed past and current
records.
Summary of Concerns My concerns with Dr. Sherry report focus not on the choice
of methodology but on the information contained in the report, concerns about both the
information included in the report and information excluded from the report. I am also
concerned about the ways in which data developed during the evaluation process fails to
address critical issues about parenting behavior, parent-child interactions, and parent-to parent
communication.
15 Ackerman, M.J., Kane, A., & Gould, J.W. (2018). Psychological Experts in Divorce Actions (6th Ed.:
2018 Supplement). New York, Aspen.
4
Among the concerns discussed below are misuse of psychological tests within the context
of a child custody evaluation, lack relevant information about parenting-specific, parent
and child specific, and parent-to-parent specific behaviors.
The majority of the information contained in Dr. Sherry’s report focuses attention on the
parental conflict, the extended family dysfunction, and each parent’s allegation about the
other parent’s character. Dr. Sherry does an excellent job of painting a picture of a
chaotic family system, parents with a long history of significant problems regarding
substance abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, abusive and neglectful parenting, and
dysfunctional parent-to-parent communication. Issues are also raised by both sides and
their respectful collateral informants of parental psychopathology.
Given the complexity of the family dysfunction and the evidence supporting many of the
concerns about parental behavior toward the child and toward each other, it might be easy
to overlook the purpose of a child custody evaluation. The purpose is to gather
information about how each parent parents the minor child; gather information about the
child’s developmental level and parenting needs; gather information about the nature and
quality of the parent’s interactions with the child and the child’s interactions with each
parent; gather information about parent-to-parent communication; to integrate these
data to allow development of opinions about the fit between the needs of the child and the
parenting attributes of each parent.
In the report and interview notes, I found little attention given to gathering relevant
information about how each parent has parented the minor child from birth through the
present or in obtaining information from third party observers that describes personal
observations of parent-to-child behaviors. The vast majority of information from third
party observers is opinions and generalizations about parenting, often based upon
speculation or what another person has told the collateral infonnant. There is little
information about parenting based upon direct observation and personal knowledge.
Dr. Sherry’s report is filled with information about each parent’s struggles with properly
regulating their emotional reactions. The primary focus has been on the mother’s
apparent inability to regulate her emotional reactions in a healthy productive way.
There is an abundance of data indicating mother’s challenges in controlling her emotional
reactions when upset resulting in highly dysfunctional and destructive behaviors toward
herself ( e.g., substance abuse), toward the child ( e.g., abusive behavior in the tub), toward
the father (e.g., acts of verbal and physical aggression), toward others (e.g., acting out
toward father’s former girlfriend and current wife). These are significant areas of concern
across many areas of mother’s life.
Far less attention was paid to concerns about the father’s multi-year history of alcohol
abuse and physical violence. Dr. Sherry provides an abundance of evidence of father’s
unpredictable and violent temper. Both parents have been found to expose their minor
child to their mutual verbal and physical aggression. The information in the report
strongly suggests that father has not engaged in mental health treatment that specifically
5
assists him to learn to better regulate his emotional reactions when upset. In particular,
there is no indication that father has learned any new skill set to help better regulate his
emotional reactions or skills to behave differently in situation which, in the past, resulted
in aggressive and/or violent acting out when around the minor child.
Recidivism research addressing alcohol abuse and emotional dysregulation shows that
without effective intervention followed by periodic maintenance, each of these behavioral
challenges will likely reoccur. The father’s description of consuming approximately a
six-pack of beer every night in a non-party context raises concerns about his ability to
react appropriately and timely to the minor child’s needs when father is drinking.
The father’s description of the mother triggering his emotional reactions that lead to his
physical aggression is a form of externalizing behavior. There was no indication in the
body of the Sherry report that father accepted responsibility for his acts of physical
aggression, learned to identify and control his actions to the “triggers” others pushed that
led to his anger reactions.
In my judgment, the picture painted by the  Sherry  report is of a five-year-old child who
has two parents who are emotionally dysregulated, who engage in significantly unhealthy
and threatening behaviors around the child, expose the child to conflict, and do not seek
out long-term mental health treatment for themselves to address the relevant aspects of
their unhealthy reactiveness to emotionally challenging events.
Another area of concern is the lack of attention to each parent’s knowledge of child
development and parenting expertise. Both parents have engaged in parenting behaviors
that are harmful to their child. There is no information in the Sherry report that she
investigated whether either parent has sought help from third-party sources to assist him
or her in learning about child development and effective parenting strategies.
In terms of concerns about use of a reliable methodology that yields relevant information,
the parent interviews contained little, if any, information about each parent’s knowledge
of child development as it applies to their child’s needs, understanding of effects of
child’s exposure to parental conflict, and parenting philosophy.
There is little, if any, information about each parent’s understanding of how his/her
parenting attributes and style fit the minor child’s developmental and psychological
needs. Dr.  Sherry appears to have failed to gather information about each parent’s
understanding of the minor child’s developmental needs and how his/her parenting
abilities are able to meet those needs.

There is also no information about the minor child’s developmental and emotional needs.
There is little analysis of the minor child’s developmental needs. Based only upon
information found in the collateral section of the Sherry report, concerns are raised about
Dr. Duncan’s understanding of evidence-based literature on child sexual abuse. Dr.
Sherry reported that Dr. Duncan said: “CM does not show signs of sexual abuse. She
would be more disorganized in her thinking, communication, and attachment if that were
6
the case.”16 There is no literature supporting the notion that there are reliable signs of
sexual abuse.17 Children who have experienced substantial and frequent disruptions to
their relationships with primary caretakers are likely to display attachment challenges
and, as a result, may display disorganized thinking, communication and attachment.
Research findings show that children who are sexually abused often display behaviors of
concern that are also displayed by children who come from high-conflict family systems
and children who are emotional/psychiatric problems.
Staying with concerns about Dr. Duncan, he appears to be using play therapy as a
primary treatment modality with the (then) three-year old child. Play therapy, in its
various forms, is probably the only useful treatment modality for young children. Caution
needs to be practiced when young children who are engaged in play therapy make
statements during play. Although children’s statements made during play may be useful
avenues of discussion, there is considerable literature warning about the unreliable nature
of children’s statements made during play therapy and used as a diagnostic tool. 18
Without information about parenting attributes and information about child development,
it is not possible to form an opinion about the fit between each parent’s parenting
attributes and the needs of the child.
Dr. Sherry provides examples of each parent’s time with the child but little relevant
information about the actual caretaking and parenting behaviors displayed by each parent,
little information about the nature and quality of parent-child interactions drawn from
third party observers (collateral witnesses), and little information about history of parent to-
parent decision-making about child related issues.
Another concern is Dr.  Sherry’s use of psychological test results. Dr. Sherry failed to
explain how the test results from each parent are related to specific hypotheses about
parenting behavior, parent-child interactions, or parent-to-parent communication and
cooperation. Many psychological factors assessed by the 1v11v.1Pl-2 have been empirically
associated with particular parenting- and parenting-related behaviors. Dr. Sherry fails to
integrate information about these empirically based parenting and parenting-related
behaviors with each parent’s psychological test scores. Evaluators who integrate
information about these empirically based parenting and parenting-related behaviors with
each parent’s MMPI’ s scores have a research-based foundation from which to develop
hypotheses to investigate in a custody evaluation that explore how a parent’s 1v11v.1Pl-2
results may be associated with particular parenting and parenting-related behaviors.
Critical Review of Information Included in Dr. Sherry’s Report
16  Sherry report> p. 144.
17 Kuehnle> K. (1996). Assessing allegations of child sexual abuse. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource
Press; Kuehnle> K., & Connell, M. (2009). The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A
comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. New York, NY: Wiley.
18 Ackerman et al. (2005).
7
In the remainder of the report, I analyze the information provided by Dr. Sherry in her
report, discuss information that was excluded from her report, and offer expert opinions
about the reliability, relevance, and helpfulness of her expert opinions and the
information upon which her expert opinions are based.
Importance of Specific Questions Defining the Scope of the Evaluation
The importance of identifying at the start of the evaluation process specific questions to
guide the inquiry cannot be understated. 19 Identifying specific questions allows the
attorneys to agree that the questions to be investigated are, in fact, questions the answers
to which would be relevant to the issues before the court in the present case.20
Psychologists have an ethical responsibility to inform participants in psychological
assessments about the nature and purpose of the evaluation. The lack of identifying
questions to be investigated and discussing them with each parent does not allow the
parent to make an informed decision about participating in the evaluation.
Without specific questions to guide the evaluation, the evaluator is unable to select the
psychological assessment tools that would best measure the factors of concern.
Without specific questions to guide the evaluation, the evaluator is unable to construct an
interview with each parent that targets the particular concerns identified by the specific
questions. The evaluator is also unable to construct interviews of collaterals that target
the particular concerns of the present evaluation.
The Court Order identified several areas that defined the scope of the evaluation. 21
Dr. Sherry was directed to “include recommendations concerning conservatorship,
including decision-making, rights, powers, and duties of each parent, the right to establish
the primary residence of the child, and possession and access ofCM.”22 In my
professional judgment, in order to provide an expert opinion addressing the factors
articulated above, evaluators must gather information about parenting behavior, parent-child
interactions, child behaviors, developmental needs of the child, the fit between
19 Although a California case, the case of In re Marriage of Seagondollar (2006) (139 Cal.App.4th 1116,
1119-1120] is instructive. Mother and father were court ordered to participate in a child custody evaluation.
Father was concerned mother wanted to relocate out of state. Mother filed an affidavit indicating that she
was not intending to relocate. The evaluator conducted a relocation evaluation and recommended for the
move. Father’s attorney objected, arguing among other concerns that the evaluator was never appointed to
conduct a relocation evaluation. Among the court’s decisions was that specific questions guiding
evaluations needed to be included in the court’s order so that everyone is clear about the focus of the
inquiry.
20 See AFCC Model Standards of Child Custody Evaluation. Also Ackerman, M.J., Kane, A., Gould, J. W .•
and Dale, M. (2015). Psychological Experts in Divorce Actions (6th edition). New York: Aspen; Gould,
J.W., & Martindale, D.A. (2009, May). Specific Questions Guide Child Custody Investigations. The
Matrimonial Strategist .• 1 – 3; Gould, J. W. (1999). Professional interdisciplinary collaboration and the
development of psycholegal questions guiding court ordered child custody evaluations. Juvenile and
Family Court Journal. 50 (1), 43 – 52.
21 Order for Child Custody Evaluation date August 12, 2018.
22  Sherry report, p. 1.
8
parental parenting attributes and child needs, and parent-to-parent_ communication and
cooperation.
The Order identified eight (8) specific questions outlined by the parties to be specifically
addressed in her evaluation. Each of the questions addressed concerns about mother,
father, and minor child. 23
Nowhere in the Court Order was there direction for Dr.  Sherry’s evaluation to examine
individuals other than the parents as possible, alternative caretakers for the minor child. It
is puzzling, therefore, to review psychological test data, interview data, and observational
data of the child with other caretakers. Nothing in the list of specific questions indicated
that Dr. Sherry was authorized to conduct an evaluation on other caretakers and raises
questions about whether she exceeded the scope of her appointment.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that the information contained in the report about other
caretakers might not be helpful to the court. I am questioning whether the scope of Dr.
Sherry’s assignment authorized her to gather data about other caretakers with the
intention of offering expert opinions about non-parent caretakers’ respective suitability
for the child’s custodial placement.
Limitation of Information Gathered from Parent and Child Interviews
The purpose of forensic interviewing of parents in child custody assessment is to gather
relevant information about the issues presented to the court that address parenting
behavior and knowledge, parent-child relationship factors, and parent-to-parent
communications.
The Texas Chapter directs evaluators to assess “the relationship between each child who
is the subject of the suit and each party seeking possession of or access to the child.”24
The Custody Chapter does not address how the child’s relationship with each parent
should be evaluated. The Chapter does require evaluators to assess “the party’s parenting
skills or capability” and “the party’s relationship with the child.”25
As indicated in the Texas Chapter, evaluators are also guided by “the professional
standard of care applicable to the evaluator’s licensure and any administrative rules,
ethical standards, or guidelines adopted by the licensing authority that licenses the
evaluator. “26
Psychologists who conduct child custody evaluations are guided in their forensic
interviews by professional practice guidelines promulgated by one of several national
organizations that include the American Psychological Association’s Child Custody
Guidelines, the Association of Family and Conciliation Court’s Model Standards for
23 Sherry report, p. I.
24 See Section 107 .109 (7).
25 See Section 107.108 (f) (2) and (f) (3).
26 See Section 107. 108 (a).
9
Child Custody Evaluation, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer’s
Standards for Child Custody Evaluations.
Both the Texas Custody Chapter and professional practice guidelines address factors to
be assessed in child custody evaluations. The AP A identifies three primary areas of
investigation: the psychological needs of the child, the parenting attributes of the parent,
and the fit between the needs of the child and the parenting abilities of the parent.
The Texas Custody Chapter appears to address two of the three AP A factors. The Texas
Chapter directs the assessment of the parent’s parenting skills or capabilities that is
similar to the APA’s focus on parenting attributes. The Chapter also directs evaluators to
assess the relationship with the child that is similar to the AP A’s focus on the fit between
the needs of the child and the parenting skills of the parent.
Limitation of Parents’ Interview Data One criticism of Dr. Sherry’s forensic
interview data with the parents is the lack of specific information about each parent’s
parenting behavior. There are example of a few instances of dysfunctional and abusive
behavior that appear to have placed the child at risk. It is my opinion that despite the
value of understanding the instances of dysfunctional and abusive parenting behavior, it
is also important to gather information about other aspects of each parent’s parenting
behavior.
There is no doubt that one or more instances of dysfunctional or abusive parenting may
lead to supervised access. Custody evaluators are responsible for helping the court to
understand what, if any, positive, age-appropriate parenting behaviors does the parent
possess, to what degree the parent has been able to effectively demonstrate those positive
age-appropriate parenting behaviors with the minor child. To understand aspects of the
child’s attachment to each parent, it is important to gather information about each
parent’s involvement in specific caretaking behaviors from birth through present.
Examples include who bathed the child, who dressed the child, who toilet trained the
child, who played with the child, who comforted the child when upset, who put the child
to bed, who awoke with the child, who got up with the child in the middle of the night,
and other similar areas of parenting and parent-child interaction.
Dr. Sherry provides important information about instances of the mother’s inappropriate
and abusive parenting during times when mother was consuming illegal substances. Less
clear is information about mother’s parenting when not intoxicated/high on drugs and the
child’s response to her mother’s parenting behaviors.
There is information about the father’s intoxication when engaged with the mother and
minor child. There is important information about instance of the mother and father’s
display of verbal and physical aggression that involved the child and to which the child
was exposed. Less clear is information about father’s parenting when he was not
intoxicated and/or not verbally and physically aggressive.
There is little, if any, information about father’s involvement in direct caretaking during
the minor child’s infancy and toddler years. Information in the report suggests mother
was the primary caretaker during the minor child’s infancy and toddler years but there is
little, if any, description of what mother’s caretaking consisted of and how the child
responded to her mother’s caretaking.
Information about each parent’s participation in each of these important areas and
information about the child’s responses to her parent’s actions help to shed light on
understanding the development of the child’s view of each parent as one who has been
able to respond in a timely and appropriate manner to the needs of the child – a critical
factor in development of secure attachment.
Infmomation about caretaking activities during infancy and toddler years provides a basis
for inferring the nature and quality of parenting skill and parenting knowledge. The lack
of information about these activities is a critical flaw in any evaluation that intends to
help the court understand the parenting attributes an9 skills of each parent.
Lack of Information about Relevant Parenting Dimensions Turning further
attention to the AP A’s Child Custody Guidelines, there is virtually no information in the
Sherry interview notes or report indicating that she gathered information useful in
answering any of the three dimensions identified by the AP A as the focus of a child
custody evaluation. There is no little, if any, information about mother and father’s
parenting attributes, no information describing parenting skills, no infonnation describing
parenting knowledge, no information describing each parent’s caretaking activities with
the child from birth to the present.
An important contribution of psychological expertise of the professional and scientific
literature that informs knowledge of positive parenting is the empirical research
examining parenting, parent-child interactions, child development, parent-to-parent
communication and cooperation, and parent-child fit. Knowledge of the empirical
research provides the court with unique, evidence-based understanding of factors
empirically associated with child adjustment and wellbeing.
The field of psychology has often been criticized for putting forth what I will call ideas
du jour. Ideas fall in and out of favor. Some ideas, however, have stood the test of
empirical analysis over decades. Among the most reliable concepts relevant to parenting
is parenting style. Parenting style is an empirically developed concept that is defined by a
continuum ranging from neglectful to permissive to authoritative to authoritarian
parenting. Research finding have shown that authoritative parenting best supports
children’s healthy growth and development.
Parenting style is comprised of two factors: Parental responsiveness and parental
demandingness. Parental responsiveness, characterized by parental warmth and
supportiveness, refers to the degree to which parents intentionally bolster their children’s
individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and
acquiescent to their children’s unique needs and demands. Parental demandingness,
11
characterized by degrees of behavioral control exerted over children, refers to the
demands parents make on children to become integrated into the entire family, by their
, maturity demands, supervisory actions, disciplinary efforts and willingness to challenge
the child who does not follow family rules.
Parenting styles also differ in the extent to which they are characterized by a third
dimension: psychological control. Psychological. control refers to control attempts that
intrude into the psychological and emotional development of the child through the use of
parenting practices such as guilt induction, withdrawal of love, or shaming.
Assessment of parenting style, with particular focus on parental responsiveness, parental
demandingness, and psychological control, would have provided useful information
about critically important parenting dimensions. Concerns have been expressed in the
Sherry report about mother’s responsiveness to the minor child. Concerns have been
expressed in the Sherry report about mother and father’s demandingness toward their
child and toward others. Concerns have been expressed in the  Sherry report about the use
and abuse of psychological control by both parents. Examining how these powerful
dimensions may influence each parent’s parenting of their minor child would have been
very helpful.
Nothing in Dr.  Sherry’s interview notes or report suggests any examination of each
parent’s parenting style. Understanding each parent’s preferred parenting style might
provide helpful information to the court in determining which parent offers the minor
child the best fit. As described in my analysis of her use of psychological testing, several
of the tests administered to mother and father have empirical data linking specific
diagnostic categories (i.e., depression, anxiety) to specific parenting styles or parenting
behavior. Dr.Sherry provides no analyses that link mother and father’s psychological test
data to empirically based parenting behavior that might be useful in generating
hypotheses of parenting, parent-child interaction, and parent-to-parent communication.
Misuse of Psychological Testing
The purpose of psychological testing in child custody evaluations is two fold. One
purpose is to identify potential concerns about abnormal or psychopathological
functioning through data gathering procedures that are empirically based rather than
relying on clinical judgment drawn from interview data.27
The Texas Chapter requires evaluators to “only use psychometric tests if the evaluator is
familiar with the reliability, validation, and related standardization or outcome studies of,
and proper application and use of, the tests within a forensic setting.”28
27 Gould, J. W., Martindale, D.A., & Flens, J.R. (2009). “Responsible use of psychological tests in child
custody assessment (pp. 85 – 124).” In R. Galatzer-Levy, L. Kraus, & B. Galatzer-Levy (Eds.). Scientific
Basis of Child Custody Evaluations (2nd edition). New York: Wiley.
28 See Section 107 .110 ( c ).
12
Another purpose is to use psychological test results to generate hypotheses about
parenting behavior, parent-child interaction, and parent-to-parent communication and
cooperation. Several diagnostic categories and clinical syndromes have been linked
empirically to specific parenting behaviors. Hypotheses developed from the test results
linked to empirical findings provide direction for data gathering from parent interviews,
parent-child observations; collateral informants, and record review.29
Dr. Sherry reported that she administered several psychological tests to the parents,
among them the 1vllv.1PI-2 RF,30 the NEO-PDR,31 and the PAI.32 The 1vllv.1PI-2-RF and the
PAI are among the commonly administered tests in child custody assessment. The NEOPI-
3 upon which the NEO-PDR is based is a well-constructed test less commonly used in
child custody evaluations.33 Dr. Sherry also administered the Rorschach.
Dr. Sherry also administered test commonly used in clinical setting but infrequently, if
ever, used in child custody assessment. These measures were the Wechsler Abbreviated
Scale of Intelligence (W ASI), the Wide Range Achievement Test – 4th edition (WRA T-
4), the Delis Kaplan Trail Making Test, and the Booklet Category Test-2 (BCT).
Dr. Sherry provides no explanation for choosing tests that are not commonly used in
child custody assessment and for which she explained no relationship between the tests
and parenting hypotheses. None of the specific questions that guided Dr. Sherry’s
evaluation indicated concern for either parent’s level of intellectual functioning yet
mother and father were administered the W ASI and the WRA T. The parents were
administered a measure of executive functioning yet Dr. Sherry provided no explanation
of how results from measures of executive functioning assisted in better understanding
parenting behavior, parent-child interactions, or parent-to-parent communication.
Some peer-reviewed literature discusses the relationship between executive functioning
behavior and parenting concepts34 but Dr. Sherry did not connect the dots with regard to
29 Ackerman et al. (2015); Gould et al. (2009).
30 MMPl-2 RF= Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd edition: Restructured Form.
31 NEO-DPR = NED-Management Planning Report.
32 PAI = Personality Assessment Inventory.
33 Survey data summarizing tests commonly used in child custody evaluations have yet to find frequent use
of the NEO-PI, NEO-PI-2, or NEO-PI-3 among child custody evaluators. See Ackerman, M.J., & Pritzl,
T.B. (2011). Child custody evaluation practices: A 20- year follow up. Family Court Review, 49 (3), 618
-628 and Bow, J., Gould, J., Flens, J., & Greenhut, D. (2006). “Testing in child custody evaluationsSelection,
usage, and Daubert admissibility: A survey of psychologists. 0 Journal of Forensic Psychology
Practice, 6 (2), 17 – 38.] A few studies have examined the use of the NEO in child custody evaluations.
[See Langer, F. (2011). Using the NEO Personality Inventory in child custody evaluations: A practitioner’s
perspective. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 8(4), 323-344] while other authors
have warned against its use in custody evaluations. [See Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Waller, N. G. (1992).
‘Normal’ personality inventories in clinical assessment: General requirements and the potential for using
the NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 14-19.]
34Posthuma, A. (2016). Current and New Developments in Psychological Testing for Child Custody
Disputes. In M.L. Goldstein (Ed.). Handbook of Child Custody (pp. 67 -84). Springer International
Publishing. Switzerland.
13
how information about executive functioning might assist in understanding how these
parents might parent this child .
. The professional and scientific literature describing the value of measures of executive
functioning in child custody evaluations focuses on executive functioning of children and
parents’ abilities to teach skills related to executive functioning in children. There is
extensive research support in the developmental literature of the importance to parents in
learning how to develop executive functioning in children.35 Executive functioning in
children is developed, in part, through the parent’s ability to provide scaffolding
experiences for the child. Studies have shown that development of EF is significantly
related to social influences, starting in early childhood. EF increases social problem
solving and confidence.36
Development ofEF is related to specific parenting skills, most frequently observed in
parenting of young children in parents’ ability to provide scaffolding experiences to their
child. EF can be measured both in the parent and in the child.37 This enables an objective
detennination of the EF potential in the parent, as well as, the benefit to the child.38
In addition to EF testing, the custody evaluator can measure the parents’ behavioral
strategies employing scaffolding during the observational sessions to assess each parent’s
ability to promote the child’s EF. Dr.  Sherry provided no indication that she assessed
parent-child interactions in an effort to determine each parent’s abilities to provide the
minor child with behavioral strategies associated with developing executive functioning.
Dr. Sherry’s choice of Delis Kaplan Trail Making Test is a test not designed to measure
types of executive functioning associated with parental competence as described above.
Dr. Sherry administered a measure of malingering (i.e., BCT} that is not used in child
custody evaluations. Evaluators are wise to be aware of parents’ tendency to present in a
highly favorable light, known also as presenting in a defensive manner or providing a
“faking good” profile. No research has been published showing that the use of the BCT
provides useful information when used in a child custody evaluation. There is peer-
35 Posthuma (2016).
36 Landry, S., Smith, K., & Swank, P. (2009). New directions in evaluating social problem solving in
childhood: Early precursors ·and links to adolescent social competence. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, (123), 51-68
37 The relevance of this research for custody evaluators is both the existence of a parenting construct
important for determining the “best interest of the child”, and a construct that can be objectively measured,
either through ability tests such as the Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST) or self-report inventories such as
the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF). The BRIEF inventories have extensive
research in their support beyond the assessment of ADIID, with which they are usually associated. The
BRIEF has not only acceptable psychometric properties, including response bias measures, but also has
three different versions: child, parent, and teacher forms. Finally, the three versions of the BRIEF enable
the examiner to determine the parent’s understanding of the child or children, and thus the parent’s
potential to address their future needs.
38 Wittke, K., Spaulding, T. J., & Schechtman, C. J. (2013). Specific language impairment and executive
functioning: Parent and teacher ratings of behavior. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.
22(2), 161-172.
14
reviewed literature examining the use of measures of deception and malingering in child
custody evaluations39 but the BCT is not among those measures discussed.
A final concern about Dr. Sherry use of tests of intelligence, executive functioning, and
malingering is relevance concerns. The 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griggs et
al. v. Duke Power Company is a matter only remotely related to custody evaluations but
with important implications for evaluators and their choice of tests. The Griggs case
focused on tests used in industry for purposes of guiding decisions regarding
employment, placement, or promotion. The Griggs court declared that our assessment
“devices and mechanisms” must be demonstrably reasonable measures of job
performance (at 436) and “what Congress has commanded is that any tests used must
measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract’ (at 436, emphasis
added). These italicized words are critical. Individuals who employ psychological tests
must “measure” and describe only those aspects of the person that relate directly to the
job for which the person is being evaluated.
As David Martindale and I have previously written:
The lesson that custody evaluators can take from the Griggs decision is that our
attempts to assess the characteristics that bear directly upon parenting are more
likely to meet with success ifwe conceptualize parenting as a job and focus our
attention on those attributes, behaviors, attitudes, and skills that are reliably
related to the demands of the job. Examining an attribute in the absence of
evidence of its connection to parenting effectiveness leaves an evaluator open to
criticism on several fronts. 40
MMPI-2-RF – Father’s Scores
Dr. Sherry administered the MMPI-2-RF to the parents and scored it using a standard
scoring program. She did not score the test using a program that generated an interpretive
program explaining results. [More on this concept of a computer-generated interpretive
report later in my analysis.] Dr. Sherry interpreted the father’s validity scale scores to
indicate “moderate evidence of portraying himself in a very positive light ~y deny
several minor faults and shortcomings most people acknowledge.” There are two
concerns about Dr. Sherry’s interpretation of father’s validity scale scores.
Father scored relatively high on the L scale. Father’s L-scale score of 71T is more than
one and a half standard deviations above the average L-scale score for male custody
litigants [and more than two standard deviations above average scores for the normative
39 Gould, J.W., Flens, J., & Rappaport, S. (2018). Use of Psychological Tests in Child Custody Evaluations:
Effects of validity scale scores on evaluator confidence in interpreting clinical scales (pp. 497 – 513). In R.
Rogers & S.D. Bender (eds). Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception (4th edition}: New York:
Guilford Publishers
40 Gould, J. W. & Martindale, D.A. (2013). ‘”Child Custody Evaluations: Current Literature and Practical
Applications.” In R. K. Otto (ed.). Handbook of Psychology: Volume 11: Forensic Psychology {pp. 101 –
138). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
41 Sherry report, p. 194.
15
sample].42 This ~uggests that Dr. Sherry minimized the meaning of the father’s L-scale
that may have lead to minimizing interpretations of other l\flvfl>I-2-RF scores.
Conventional interpretation of an L-scale score 70 and above is that people with similar
scores are very self-controlled and/or lack insight into their behavior and/or hold very
conservative ·moral and religious values, and/or deny common human faults and/or trying
to create a highly favorable picture of themselves for others and/or frequently use
denial.43
Elevations on validity scales in which scores are elevated on defensiveness or “faking
good” measures have the effect of lowering scores on scales that measure areas of clinical
interest. The more a person attempts to present himself in a favorable light, the more
likely it is that he did not answer accurately questions that describe more problematic
aspects of his behavior and thinking.
Father’s likely suppression of scores resulting from his elevated L-scale results in
questioning scores that are subclinical; that is, it may be wise to examine scores that
suggest some concerns yet have not reached the statistical level of concern. Examining of
scores that are just below the clinically significant range shows that father’s score on the
Thought Dysfunction scale (TDS = 63T) might call for additional examination. Nothing
in Dr. Sherry’s interview notes or report indicated that she looked further into the father’s
subclinical score on the Thought Dysfunction scale.
In light of the likely suppressing effect of father’s L-scale score on clinical scales, a
reasonable hypothesis to examine further is whether any of the behaviors associated with
an elevated score on TDS has been observed by others. Behaviors empirically associated
with an elevated TDS score include significant problems with thought processes that may
reflect initial stages of acute psychotic processes or more chronic psychotic processes that
are becoming less troublesome to them. The TDD scale is composed of items from three
factors: Psychoticism, Ideas of Persecution, and Aberrant Experience.44 Examining the
reason for the THD elevation might have yielded important information about the
meaning of father’s score.
Associated with father’s subclinical score on the Thought Disorder scale is his very high
RC 6 scale that measures Ideas of Persecution (75T). Individuals who score similar to
father on RC 6 tend to feel mistreated and picked on. They display significant difficulties
developing and maintaining trusting relationships. They are suspicious of and alienated
from others. 45
42 Bathw-st, K., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child
custody litigation. Psychological Assessment. 9 (3), 205-211.
43 Greene, R.L. (2011). The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF: An interpretive manual (3rrJ Edition). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon; Graham, J.R. (2012). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5th Edition). New
York: Oxford University Press.
44 Greene (2011).
45 Greene (2011).
16
Dr. Sherry noted concerns about the father’s elevated RC 6 and listed the critical items
that elevated the scale. There is no indication that Dr. Sherry structured an interview
around these critical items to determine further the basis for the father’s elevated score on
a scale that measures persecutory ideas.
This is a critical oversight because a parent who is displaying signs of persecutory ideas
may present a significant risk to a child.· Dr. Sherry failed to integrate the empirical
literature addressing potential risk to children from a parent with persecutory ideas and
she failed to address how the father’s scores on a measure of persecutory ideas may affect
his parenting, his ability to communicate with the mother, and his ability to accurately
perceive and respond to his environment.
Each of these scores is associated with parenting behaviors that might interfere with
effective parenting and interfere with the child’s perception of mother as being timely
and appropriate in response to the child’s needs. There is a solid empirical basis linki~
possible parenting deficiencies associated with high levels of depression and anxiety.
Dr. Sherry failed to explore whether any of father’s scores and the parenting behaviors
associated with the scores were observed in father’s interactions with the minor child.
MMPI-2-RF – Mother’s Scores
Dr. Sherry offered an interpretation of mother’s validity scale scores: ” produced
a valid and interpretable protocol.”47 She failed to note the extraordinarily low L scale
score {37T). The average L-scale score for female custody litigates is 56.48T (standard
deviation= 11.19). Mother’s L-scale score was almost two standard deviations below
that which is expected among female custody litigants. Dr. Sherry failed to inquiry about
the likely reasons for mother’s deviation from expected score.
Recall that most custody litigants are motivated to present themselves in a favorable light.
Mother’s L-scale score suggests that she presented herself differently. Examination of
her score might have helped to understand the meaning of her score.
Individuals whose L-scale score is 44 and below appear to be creating an extremely
pathological picture of themselves.48 These people present themselves as more
psychologically disturbed than they really are. 4 An important question to explore is why
this parent engaged in child custody assessment is presenting herself as someone who is
“extremely pathological”?
46 Teti, D.M., Cole, P.M., Cabrera, N., Goodman, S.H., & McLoyd, V.C. (2017). Supporting Parents: How
six decades of parenting research can inform policy and best practice~Research-Practice Partnerships:
Bui/din!{ two-way streets of enJ{aJ{ement. 30 (5), 1 – 34; Woodward, K. E., Boeldt, D. L., Corley, R. P.,
DiLalla, L., Friedman, N. P., Hewitt, J. K., … Rhee, S. H. (2018). Correlates of positive parenting
behaviors. Behavior Genetics. Advance online publication.
47 Sherry report, p. 198.
48 Greene (2011).
49 Graham (2012).
17
Other MMPI-2-RF results suggest mother is suffering from high levels of depression
(RC-2 = 73T), self-doubt (SFD = 76T), malaise {MLS = 81 T), and stress and worry
(65T). There is a solid empirical basis linking possible parenting deficiencies associated
with high levels of depression and anxiety.50 Dr. Sherry failed to explore whether any of
mother’s scores and the parenting behaviors associated with the scores were observed in
mother’s interactions with the minor child.
There is no indication that Dr. Sherry analyzed mother or father’s MMPI-2-RF scores
using published child custody normative data.51
PAI -Father’s Scores
Dr. Sherry administered and scored the PAI using the standardized scoring system that
also provides a computer-generated interpretive report. There are several concerns
regarding her interpretation of the PAI.
Dr. Sherry wrote father’s validity scores suggest “moderate evidence to suggest
had some unusual responding.” Dr. Sherry significantly minimized father’s score on the
“infrequent responses” (INF) scale.
Data exist demonstrating how male and female custody litigants’ score on the PAI.52
Male custody litigants’ average INF score is 50.14 with a standard deviation of 7.76.
Father’s INF score was 71T. This means that father’s INF score was just below three (3)
standard deviations above the average score for male custody litigants.
Placed within the context of a child custody assessment, parents approach psychological
testing with the intention to present themselves in a favorable light They tend to
minimize odd or unusual behaviors in order to make themselves look as good as possible
on the tests. A parent who presents himself in a favorable light – as noted by Dr. Sherry –
and still reports a significantly high level of infrequent (read: unusual) responses is
responding in a manner requiring further examination. People who score highly on the
INF scale have responded in an atypical manner suggesting carelessness, confusion,
reading difficulties, or other sources of random responding.
An alternative reason for a high INF score is that the individual answers questions in a
highly unusual, idiosyncratic manner.53 Evaluators may be able to distinguish during an
interview whether the individual is answering randomly or idiosyncratically based upon
so Teti, D.M., Cole, P.M., Cabrera, N., Goodman, S.H., & McLoyd, V.C. (2017). Supporting Parents: How
six decades of parenting research can inform policy and best practice. Research-Practice Partnerships:
Building two-way streets of engagement. 30 (5), 1 – 34; Woodward, K. E., Boeldt, D. L., Corley, R. P .•
DiLalla, L., Friedman, N. P., Hewitt, J. K., … Rhee, S. H. (2018). Correlates of positive parenting
behaviors. Behavior Genetics. Advance online publication.
51 Archer, E., Hagan, L., Mason, J., Handel, R., & Archer, R. (2012). MMPI-2-RF Characteristics of
Custody Evaluation Litigants, Assessment, 19 (I), 14 – 20.
52Hynan, D. (2013). Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory in Child Custody Evaluation. Open
Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 5, 120- 133.
53 Morey, L. (1996). Interpretive Guide to the Personality Assessment Inventory (P Al). Odessa, FL.: PAR.
18
explanation of whys/he answered questions in a particular direction. Dr. Sherry did not
indicate whether she conducted an interview with father to explore possible reasons for
his random responding.
Father’s score on the MAN scale (Manic= 67T) also raises concerns. Although a
subclinical score, average score for male custody litigants on the MAN scale is 45.46
(standard deviation= 8.26). Father’s score is more than two standard deviations above
the average score for male custody litigants.
The MAN scale was designed to measure classic signs of manic behavior. Father’s score
on the MAN-I scale suggests he is similar to people characterized as impatient (62T). His
score on the MAN-A subscale (67T) suggests he is similar to people characterized as
involved in a wide range of activities, often disorganized, and experiencing accelerated
thought processes. The manual indicates that MAN subscale scores above 65T should be
considered “high. “54
When integrated with the Jv.llv.[pl-2-RF results indicating father’s subclinical score on
thought dysfunction and significant elevation on the persecutory ideas scale, examining
father’s responses that lead to a significantly high infrequent/random responding and his
subclinical score on a scale that measures aspects of manic behavior must be considered.
Critically important is examination of father’s critical items. 55 Based upon data found in
Dr. Sherry’s report and other relevant documents, it appears that father presented
inaccurate information about his past behavior. Dr. Sherry failed to interview father based
upon his.inaccurate answers on PAI items.
For example, among the items father answered “false” are the following statements:
My drinking has never gotten me into trouble.
People are afraid of my temper.
I have a bad temper.
I’ve threatened to hurt people.
Sometimes I am very violent.
Sometimes my temper explodes and I completely {sic} lose control.
I never use illegal drugs.
Evaluators have an obligation to address discrepancies in data to determine which
answers or assertions are better supported by the accumulated information. Nothing in
Dr. Sherry’s interview notes or report indicated further investigation into the
discrepancies between the father’s answers on the PAI critical items and the various
independent data sources providing information contrary to the father’s answers.
Psychologists have an ethical obligation to inform about the limitations of the procedures
and interpretation of the results of those procedures used in their psychological
54 Morey (1996), p. 45.
55 Sherry report, p. 194- 195.
19
activities.56 The PAI has an extensive research support as an objective psychological test
of emotional adjustment. Unfortunately, there is very little research support for its use in
CCEs, even though survey data indicate its popularity in CCEs.57 The major difficulty
with the PAI is the effect of response bias impression management. 58 The PAI has been
found to produce a valid protocol when the same parents were found to have produced
invalid :rvnv.tPI-2 and other tests. Another concern is that parents who score highly on the
Pllv1 (Positive Impression Management) scale tend to elevate scores on the Warmth
(WRM) scale. This might mean that a false picture may emerge of positive parenting
qualities such as empathy, affection, and patience that do not actually exist. The
elevation on Warmth may be an artifact of the elevation on the Pllv.1 scale.59
Finally, a critical reading of Dr. Sherry’s PAI interpretive statements compared with the
computer-generated interpretive report shows almost verbatim statements from the
computer-generated report placed in the Sherry report.
Psychologists have an ethical obligation to select scoring and interpretation services,
including automated services such as computer-generated interpretive reports, on the
basis of evidence of the validity of the program and procedures. Dr. Sherry’ s reliance on
the computer-generated narrative report raises concerns about compliance with this
ethical standard. 60
Over the past 15 years, the professional and scientific literature addressing the use of
psychological tests in child custody evaluations has warned against reliance upon
computer-generated reports.61 With the exception of the more recent:rvnv.tPI-2-RF, none
of the computer-generated reports identify the empirical basis for the interpretive
statements. None of the programs provide information to the evaluator regarding which
score or which set of scores is associated with specific statements found in the computer-
56 Ethical Standard 9.05: Interpreting Assessment Results: When interpreting assessment results, including
automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the
various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as
situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect psychologists’ judgments or
reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant limitations of their
interpretations. [Italics added for emphasis.]
57 Ackerman et al. (2015).
58 Bagby, R., Nicholson, R., Bacchiochi, J., Ryder, A., & Bury, A. (2002). The predictive capacity of the
M1tfPI-2 and PAI validity scales and indexes to detect coached and uncoached feigning. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 78(1), 69-86; Hynan (2013).
59 Carr, G. D., Moretti, M. M., & Cue, B. H. (2005). Evaluating parenting capacity: Validity problems with
the MMPI-2, PAI, CAP!, and ratings of child adjustment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
36(2), 188-196.
60 Ethical Standard 9.09: Test Scoring and Interpretation Services (a) Psychologists who offer assessment or
scoring services to other professionals accurately describe the purpose, norms, validity, reliability, and
applications of the procedures and any special qualifications applicable to their use; (b) Psychologists select
scoring and interpretation services {including automated services) on the basis of evidence of the validity of
the program and procedures as well as on other appropriate considerations. [Italics added for emphasis.]
61 Gould, J. W., Martindale, D.A., & Flens, J.R. (2009). “Responsible use of psychological tests in child
custody assessment (pp. 85 – 124).” In R. Galatzer-Levy, L. Kraus, & B. Galatzer-Levy (Eds.). Scientific
Basis of Child Custody Evaluations (2nd edition). New York: Wiley.
20
generated reports. Similarly, none of the programs provide infonnation to the evaluator
regarding the value of the score or scores upon which the interpretive statements are
based.
The biggest obstacle to admissibility of interpretive statements drawn from computergenerated
reports is the lack of information about the reliability and validity of the
programs used to generate the interpretive statements included in the report. None of the
programs used to produce computer-generated reports have been subject to peer-review.
The algorithms used in producing the interpretive statements are proprietary and have yet
to be empirically examined in peer-reviewed publications. Simply stated, evaluators who
rely on interpretive statements drawn from a computer-generated report are basing their
expert opinions on a methodology (the algorithms used in the computer-program) of
unknown reliability applied to test data by a person or persons unknown to the evaluator
and unknown to the court. Among those who have written about concerns using
computer-generated reports, the reliance on interpretive statements drawn from the
computer-generated reports is considered inadmissible hearsay evidence.
PAI – Mother’s Scores
Similar to father, Dr.  Sherry administered and scored the PAI using the standardized
scoring system that also provides a computer-generated interpretive report. There are
several concerns regarding her interpretation of the PAI using a computer-generated
interpretive report discussed above.
Similar to mother’s exceptionally low L-scale score described above, mother scored
exceptionally low on PIM (Positive Impression Management= 41 T). The average score
for female custody litigants on the PIM: scale is 60.60 (standard deviation= 7.96).
Mother’s PIM score is almost three standard deviations below that expected from other
female custody litigants. Dr. Sherry failed to investigate the meaning of mother’s
exceptionally low PII.\1 score. Recall that most custody litigants present themselves in a
favorable light. Custody litigants who present a more negative than positive presentation
of the test are responding in an unusual manner. It is incumbent upon an evaluator to
explore scores that differ significantly from those expected from other custody litigants.
Mother’s PAI profile reveals a subclinical elevation on Anxiety (ANX = 68T) and
clinical elevations on Depression (DEP = 71 T) and Drug Abuse (DRG = 70T). Dr.
Sherry’s interpretation of mother’s scores on these scales is drawn directly from the
computer-generated interpretive report. None of the interpretations provide information
about the relationship between elevated scores on each of these scales and parenting
behaviors commonly associated with these elevated scores. For example, there is no
examination of how mother’s anxiety may affect the emotional environment in which the
minor child may live. People who are anxious often manifest anxiety in parenting
behaviors that affect children’s sense of safety, security, and predictability in their
environment.
21
Research examining depression and parenting suggest a need to investigate parenting
behaviors such as irritability increased likelihood of use of corporal punishment, and
decreased effectiveness of parental supervision. None of these possible parenting
behaviors associated with depressed parental functioning were explored within the
context of mother’s relationship with the minor child.
Dr. Sherry appears to have failed to conduct an interview focused on mother’s critical
item responses. Although she endorsed items that represented her experiences, mother
appears to have minimized their importance of frequency. There is no indication that Dr.
Sherry inquired further into mother’s apparent minimizing of several important concerns
clearly described in the evaluation report and in court documents.
There is no indication that ,Dr. Sherry analyzed mother and father’s PAI scores using
published child custody normative data.62
NEO-PI-3 Mother and Father’s Scores
Dr. Sherry provides no rationale for choosing to administer the NEO-PI – 3. Both the
l\.’.fl\.1PI-2-RF and PAI are based upon theories intended to provide information about
abnormal or psychopathological functioning. Given the parents’ history, obtaining data
from tests that measure abnormal or psychopathological functioning ·might provide
relevant data to address the specific issues identified at the beginning of Dr. Sherry’s
report.
The NEO-PI – 3 is based upon a theory of science not intended to measure abnormal or
psychopathological functioning. Dr. Sherry fails to inform the reader about the relevance
of using the NEO-PI -3 in an evaluation in which the parents’ aberrant behavior is of
significant concern.
Dr. Sherry scored the NEO-Pl-3 using a computer-generated interpretive report. The
same concerns about forensic use of computer-generated interpretive reports raised in the
PAI discussion above apply here.
The NEO-PI-3 is built upon the Five Factor Model of personality and is viewed as a
measure of healthy personality. There are child custody nonns for the NEO.63 Caution is
urged when using tests built on the FFM such as the NEO for diagnosis of
psychopathology.64 This is one reason why I question Dr. Sherry’s selection of the NEOPI-
3 for use in this evaluation.
62 Hynan (2013).
63 Langer, F. (2011). Using the NEO Personality Inventory in child custody evaluations: A practitioner’s
f..erspective. Journal o/Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 8(4), 323-344.
Ben-P.orath, Y. S., & Waller, N. G. (1992). ‘Normal’ personality inventories in clinical assessment:
General requirements and the potential for using the NEO Personality
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 14-19.
22
Concerns over susceptibility of the NEO to positive bias and impression management
have been raised. These factors are also called “faking good” factors. These are factors
similar to the scales that measure a custody litigant’s tendency to present a favorable
picture when taking tests.
Dr. Sherry raised concerns over the father’s tendency to present himself in a favorable
light on the :tv.flvlPI-2-RF and PAI. The NEO-PI-3 is known to have difficulties
determining the degree to which a parent fakes good on the test and, as a result, produces
results that are underestimates of true functioning. Dr. Sherry fails to raise in her report
this significant limitation of her use of the NEO-PI-3.
There is some empirical evidence that the NEO-PI tests may be helpful in child custody
evaluations in determining parenting style factors. Positive parenting was associated with
higher levels of NEO-PI scales of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and
openness. Lower neuroticism was also related to warmth and behavior control
effectiveness in parents. Low neuroticism was also related to the development of
autonomy in children. 65
Dr. Sherry fails to discuss any of the empirical findings linking each parent’s NEO-PI-3
results to the empirical findings associated with parenting style.
Dr. Sherry analyzed the parents’ NEO-PI-3 results using a computer-generated
interpretive report intended for use in a clinical setting and interpreted “by a team of
management psychologists.”66 There is no research to support the use of the Management
Planning Report written by a team of management psychologists in a forensic
assessment. The existing custody research has examined the relationship between the
global factors assessment by the NEO-PI-3: Openness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness,
Agreeableness, and Warmth. None of the custody research employing the NEO-Pl-3 has
used the factors identified in the Management Planning Report.
NEO-PI-3 Mother’s Scores
I have the same concerns about Dr. Sherry’s use of the NEO-PI-3 as described above.
There is no indication that Dr. Sherry analyzed mother or father’s NEO-Pl-3 scores using
published child custody normative data.67
Rorschach Ink Blots (RP AS)
Dr. Sherry administered the Rorschach and scored it using what is considered the most
reliable scoring method available, the RP AS.
65 Prinzie, P., Starns, G. M., Dekovic, M., Reijntjes, A. A., & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between
parents’ big five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97(2), 351-362.
66 NEO-PI-3, p. 1.
67 Langer (2011).
23
Although the Rorschach continues to be used in child custody assessments and some
states have admitted it as a scientific instrument, I do not use the Rorschach nor do I
believe it is a useful tool in child custody evaluations.68
The development of the Rorschach is based upon the projective hypothesis for which
there is little, if any empirical support. Over the years, the Rorschach changed from a
projective technique to a measure of cognitive and perceptual functioning.
Interpretation of Rorschach responses is guided by a computer-generated interpretive
program that has the same limitations as computer-generated interpretive programs
developed for the PAI and NEO-PI-3.
There is nothing in Dr. Sherry’s interpretive statements about either parent’s Rorschach
scores explaining the relationship between obtained Rorschach scores and parenting
behavior. There is no indication that Dr. Sherry utilized published child custody
normative data69 when interpreting each parent’s Rorschach scores.
In summary, Dr. Sherry’s use of psychological testing raises significant concerns about
the reliability and validity of the data upon which she based her expert opinions. Dr.
Sherry failed to explore further concerns about father’s possible thought dysfunction.
There is no indication that Dr. Sherry structured an interview around critical items drawn
from either the 1v.lMPI-2-RF or the PAI addressing father’s answers that are inconsistent
with his known history.
Other concerns include expert opinions about the meaning of each parent’s test scores
based interpretations di-awn directly from statements found in the computer-generated
interpretive program that itself is of unknown reliability to the expert. Further, none of
the expert opinions based upon testing results generated hypotheses about parenting
factors, leaving the reader with little understanding of how specific psychological test
scores may be helpful in understanding parenting behavior.
Flawed Data Collection from Collateral Interviews
The purpose of gathering information from independent third parties is to obtain data that
may confirm or disconfirm each parent’s assertions about their parenting, the parent-child
relationship, and parent-to-parent communication.70 The experiences of collateral
68 Woozles (Originally coined by Winnie the Pooh) has been defined as the use and abuse of social science
research by advocacy and political groups. A longstanding psychometric example of a prevalent woozle, in
both clinical and forensic literature, is the Rorschach.68 In spite many devastating reviews, the Rorschach
~ersists in both clinical and forensic arenas, with authors encouraging its use in CCEs.
9 Erard, R.E., Singer, J.S. & Viglione, D.J. (2017). Multimethod Assessment with the Rorschach in Ch~ld
Custody Cases. In R.E. Erard & F.B. Evans (Eds.) The Rorschach in multimethod forensic assessment:
Conceptual foundations and practical assessments. New York: Taylor & Francais.
70 Austin, W. G. (2002). Guidelines for utilizing collateral sources of information in child custody
evaluations. Family Court Review, 40 (2), 177 -184; Ackerman et al. (2015); Gould, J.W. & Martindale,
D.A. (2013). “Child Custody Evaluations: Current Literature and Practical Applications.” In R. K. Otto
24
informants are helpful in describing observations of parent-child interactions about which
they have personal knowledge. Research findings have consistently shown that collateral
informants provide more reliable descriptions of parenting than do parents themselves, in
large part because collaterals are not subject to the same bias factors that affect a parent’s
perception of his/her own parenting and perceptions of the other parent’s parenting. Still,
collateral informants are subject to other biases most often revealed in the opinions they
hold about the parent and the other parent that tend to be freely expressed to evaluators
and included in forensic reports.
Non-professional collateral witnesses, however, are not expert witnesses who provide
opinions about the children, the parent, or other factors that are the province of the court
or the evaluator.71 The relative value of information from non-professional collateral
witnesses who have personal knowledge of the parents and their interactions with the
children is the pro9-uct of its credibility or believability combined with the opportunity to
accurately report on parent and child behaviors that are important to critical issues in the
evaluation.72
Evaluators play a gatekeeping role in their interviews by providing relevant information
about the collateral witness’s personal knowledge of the parent, child, parent-child
interactions, parent-to-parent communication and other related variables. Evaluators
should not include in their reports collateral witness opinions about ultimate legal issues
or include speculation.
The vast majority of information contained in Dr. Sherry’s Collateral Interview section
contains opinions, speculation, and very little description of behaviors that provide the
basis of opinions about parenting relevant factors. Information contained in collateral
interviews found in Dr. Sherry’s report are filled with accusations, assertions without
basis, hearsay, double-hearsay, and personal opinions. There is virtually no information
about observed parenting behavior by either mother or father with their minor child.
In summary, the collateral information provided by Dr. Sherry in her report contains
little useful information about direct observations of parenting behaviors, parent-child
interaction, or parent-to-parent communication. Dr. Sherry included many opinions
expressed by collateral witnesses but did not provide in her report information about the
basis for these collateral witness opinions. Dr. Sherry also included collateral witnesses
speculation about issues for which they had no factual basis.
(ed.). Handbook of Psychology: Volume 11: Forensic Psychology (pp. 101 -138). New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
71 Austin (2002).
72 Austin, W.G., & Kirkpatrick, H.D. (2004). The investigation component in Forensic Mental Health
Evaluations: Considerations in the case of parenting time evaluations. Journal of Child Custody: Research,
Issues, and Practices, I: 2, 22 – 43.
25
Parent-Child Observations
The purpose of parent-child observations in a child custody evaluation is to gather
information about the parents’ interactions with the children, the children’s interactions
with the parents, the nature and quality of the family interaction, and interactions between
and among siblings.
Home observations of parent-child interactions help to paint a picture of life in each
family home. Comparing home observations to observations from collateral witnesses
and observations of parent-child interactions in other environments such as the
evaluator’s office provides useful data about consistency of behavior across different
settings.
Evaluation of parenting behaviors requires observing parent-child interaction.
Identification of positive or negative parenting behavior and parent-child interactions
requires knowing what behaviors to assess and procedures to assess those behaviors.
Research findings over the past 30 years have identified positive parenting behaviors that
directly and indirectly affect children’s wellbeing.73 Factors that are associated with
positive parenting include parental sensitivity to the child, child’s responsiveness to
parent, parental warmth, parental affection, parental responsiveness to needs of child,
quality of parent-child language exchange, enthusiasm for interaction, and parenting
style.74 Based on my review of Dr. Sherry’s interview notes and report, I found no
indication that any of these empirically-based positive parenting factors were assessed.
Dr. Sherry’s description of visits to each parent’s home reveals virtually no information
about parent-child interaction. A series of empirical studies have shown the critical
importance of evaluating the process of parent-child interaction to understand better how
parents teach their children about emotional regulation, effective communication,
emotional understanding, and emotional expression.75 There is virtually no information
about parent-child interaction and no analysis of how each parent demonstrates any of the
empirically based factors associated with positive parenting.

Expert Opinion
It is my professional opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that
Dr. Sherry’s evaluation is seriously flawed. Dr. Sherry provides a robust understanding of
the dynamics and chaotic organization of the families. She does not, however,
provide information relevant to answering questions about parenting attributes, abilities,
or capabilities. She does not provide information relevant to answering questions about
the nature and quality of parent-child interactions. She does not provide information
relevant to answering questions about the psychological and emotional needs of the child.
73 Woodward et. al. (2018)~ Zeti, D.M., & Cole, P.M. (2011). Parenting at risk: New perspectives, new
approaches. Journal of Family Psychology, 25 (5), 625 – 634.
7 Woodward et al. (2018).
75 Zeti & Cole (2011).
26
She does not provide information relevant to answering questions about the fit between
the parenting attributes, abilities, or capabilities of each parent and the psychological and
emotional needs of the child.
Dr. Sherry’s interview procedures neglect gathering information about critically
important areas of parenting, parent-child interactions, parent-to-parent communication,
and child’s perception of each parent.
Dr. Sherry’s information gleaned from collateral interviews was essentially absent of
information describing third party observers’ personal knowledge and behavioral
descriptions of parenting behavior or parent-child interactions.
None of the parent interview data and none of the collateral interview data were
organized around factors identified in the professional and scientific literature pertaining
to positive parenting.

Dr. Sherry’s uses of psychological test results were of questionable value. Her use of
computer-generated reports raises concerns about use of hearsay and concerns about
admissibility of opinions based upon the computer-generated interpretive reports. She
did not integrate psychological test results with empirical knowledge of parenting factors
associated with those results that would lead to hypotheses about each parent’s parenting
strengths and weaknesses.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and critique Dr. Sherry’s child custody
evaluation.

Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., ABPP