This is a work product sample of what I run across from forensic psychology. I redacted red for the sentences of the Evaluator, and blue for direct quotes.
Notice the extent of direct quotes. She tape recorded the sessions and simply used the transcripts from the sessions as her History and Symptoms. Then she provided three paragraphs in the concluding “Opinions” section of her report, giving her judgement; her decree on the child custody schedule.
When the Checklist for Applied Knowledge is used on her report, her report evidenced the application of no knowledge from any domain of professional psychology. The red-redacted sentences in the body of the report were mostly transitional statements from one block quote to the next in the recorded transcript. Her final three paragraphs were entirely her opinion and judgement recommendations.
Her “Opinions” recommended that because the 12 year-old son didn’t want to live with his mother that the father should have sole physical custody of him, and even though the 10 year-old daughter explicitly said in the direct quotes in the report of the Evaluator that she wanted 50-50% shared custody visitation with both parents when the custody Evaluator asked her what she wanted, the Evaluator said said the daughter’s custody visitation schedule should only be every-other-weekend with the mother, with no rationale given.
This is considered an acceptable standard of practice child custody assessment in forensic psychology.
Notice the signature line for this psychologist, all the puffy titles, Queen protector of the realm of Zambeezeland. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it.
I say “sounds impressive” because I have her actual work product. I know what this psychologist actually does. Now you do too. You’re pretty much looking at it. She tape records her sessions, uses the transcript as her History and Symptoms, she applies no effort, no knowledge, nothing to the actual analysis of anything, then she just writes three paragraphs at the end saying, “The 12 year-old child says he doesn’t want to live with XYZ parent so full custody should go to ABC parent” – Next…
Unbelievable, but oh so true. I run into this abysmal level of professional practice from forensic psychology all the time – and much-much worse – every single day. I exaggerate. Three times a week, four tops.
Look at the lines of her signature. She’s one of the “top people” in forensic psychology. She’s one of their supposedly best people… and this is her actual work product. She’s a fraud.
Holy cow, do you understand the implications of that? One of the top people in forensic psychology is a fraud. Ask me if I’m surprised. I read their stuff all they time. Typically, they’re better at hiding it. Typically it’s not this completely and utterly lazy and incompetent.
She didn’t know that anyone in the world would be reviewing her report, and certainly not Dr. Childress. She probably would have done things differently if she had known her report was going to be “reviewed” by somebody who actually knew something about professional psychology. Which is what makes it perfect… this is an example of what they do. Routinely.
Did you know it’s illegal for me to have an opinion about the work of a forensic psychologist. Yeah, only other forensic psychologists are allowed to express an opinion about the work of a forensic psychologist. So you’ll never hear me express an opinion about the actual practice involved with a specific child custody evaluation. I’m legally not allowed to do that, only they can “review” their work – and this is one of their top people who would do the “review” – APA you MUST come look at this – from the outside – do NOT let forensic psychology review itself. This is an example of their “top people”.
I’m different, though. I’m a clinical psychologist. I’m treatment guy. My focus is on treatment plans for the family. What do we do about things.
The forensic psychology report almost always refers for therapy. That’s me, I’m therapy psychologist. I’m the one who catches the family as they’re jettisoned from the child custody “evaluation”. That’s where I come into the mix, talking about treatment issues of concern surrounding the family data.
Do I have an opinion about the child custody evaluation? Oh yeah. I’ve made my opinions about child custody evaluations abundantly clear. No inter-rater reliability, no validity (by definition if there’s no reliability), voodoo assessments, rattle some beads, chant some incantations, and read the entrails of a goat. That’s my opinion.
But I just can’t say that about any specific forensic psychology evaluation. Only they are allowed to critique each other’s work. How… convenient.
I am in professional jeopardy because of my critical statements about forensic psychology. This is a prominent financial industry for them. They will NOT like me calling attention to their deficits and critiquing their work. They’re not used to having their work critiqued by “outsiders” like me.
Don’t care. Standard 1.04 and 1.05 of the APA ethics code are clear.
Because of the professional threat to me personally from forensic psychology’s retaliation, this full redaction of one of their reports is great, because it is so incredibly blatant. From someone who is considered a “top” forensic psychologist. One of their best. Honest to god, this is the standard of practice. It is arrogance, arrogance, arrogance through and through. Do you know why? No oversight or review.
Their reports are sealed by the court to protect the child, and only other forensic psychologists can review what each other do… and this is considered standard of practice. Anything is. Usually it is more structured, but that’s for the big nine-month version for lots of money. This psychologist appears to have thrown this one off in a few sessions. The family probably didn’t have enough money for the longer version.
This is considered top-level standard of practice in forensic psychology. Look at the credentials she cites for herself. Hey, American Board of Assessment Psychology, this is the standard of practice work for one of your “Diplomats” – this is the product of your training – you – the American Board of Assessment Psychology – are confirming the quality of her work… See, right there in her signature line to her court report, she’s saying she’s a Diplomat of your training. Her quality of work is your product. This is the quality of work produced by your Diplomats.
The forensic psychology people (I refuse to call them professionals until they start acting like professionals; standard of practice) may start making noises about this redacted report being an “exception” – no. Actually it’s not. I read their reports all the time. This is typical, they even get worse. Most are irrational and lazy. Then there’s the behemoth 9-month $40,000 monstrosities.
No application of any knowledge, no diagnosis, everybody just makes stuff up. Look. Right there. See. This forensic psychologist just made something up. That’s all over the place, they all do it. That is considered normal everyday run-of-the mill sort of stuff for this psychologist. For all of them. I read their reports. Listen carefully – I – read – their – reports.
And my head is exploding at how bad it is. Have we even touched on cultural competence yet? Holy cow, is that a nightmare and a thousand over here in forensic psychology. But they review themselves. Don’t you see the problem with that? They – review – themselves. And this report is from one of their “top” forensic psychology people. She’s one of the people they’d ask to review the reports of other forensic psychologists. You don’t see the problem with that?
If you don’t believe me, just look for yourself. Please. Come over here and look. APA. I’m pleading with the APA, please, please, please come look at this “forensic psychology” world, it’s a nightmare of professional ignorance and professional sloth – and a true paradise of pathological narcissism… in the mental health professionals.
Haughty arrogance. You see that in this report can’t you? Of course. That sense of haughty and arrogant entitlement, she’s above the rules, the rules don’t apply to her. All the lines following her name, she’s a sham grandiosity – an outward appearance of pompous grandiosity without substance. Don’t believe me? Look at her work product. That’s who she actually is. A sham. A fraud. But showy pomp.
THAT is her actual work product. I didn’t produce that report, SHE did. That is her work product. Do you think that is in any way acceptable professional practice? Yikes cowabunga not from my world of clinical psychology. That is not even practicum student level. If an intern gives me that report, I’m booting the intern out of the training program and contacting the graduate school about their inferior training of their students.
And this person is considered a “top” person in forensic psychology. APA, this needs OUTSIDE review. Bring cultural, bring psychometrics, bring clinical, bring ethics. Do NOT let forensic psychology “review” themselves. This is one of their “top people” – this person is who will be doing their “review” of themselves.
That’s standard of practice in forensic psychology. She’s just one of the gang. In fact, she’s one of the top in their gang. She’s a leader of their little group of “forensic Evaluators” – she’s a Diplomat in Assessment. Wow, she’s their best.
And this is her work product.
Defend it forensic psychology. Defend this report. Tell me that amount of block quotes and a three paragraph summary that entirely lacks the application of any professional knowledge, tell me that’s “okay”. That this is acceptable standard of practice.
Because… if you don’t… then this psychologist is going to face a malpractice lawsuit from mom, and she’s going to get one of you forensic psychologists to “review” the work of this psychologist for “standards of practice” related to fraud and incompetence. It will be based on your testimony, forensic psychology – remember, I’m not legally allowed to review the work of forensic psychologists, so mom is going to ask you… forensic psychology… is this fraud and incompetence?
What’s your answer forensic psychology? Is this fraud and incompetence?
These people’s lives hang in the balance, her opinion holds the lives of these people. The child’s development, the child’s life, is in this woman’s hands.
Is this level of professional practice what you would want from your “Evaluator” if your children and your lives depended on the “Opinion” you received from “the Evaluator”?
Doesn’t that even sound creepy? The “Evaluator” – the child custody “Evaluator” – like the Inquisitor from the Church of forensic psychology, who judges parents and decides the fates of children and parents, whether parents “deserve” to have children. The child custody “Evaluator”.
They abrogate the obligations of the court. The “Evaluator” from forensic psychology hears evidence (the history of the conflict in vivid and voyeuristic detail), they make a finding of fact (regarding the supposed cause of the conflict), and they order the remedy (of child custody and visitation schedules; who should have the children and when).
Isn’t that the court’s job, to hear evidence, make a finding of fact, and determine the remedy?
Why is a child custody “Evaluator” doing that, based on this sort of shoddy report? She tape records sessions, uses the transcript as her History and Symptoms, and gives a three-paragraph pronouncement of her rulings from the
bench – excuse me, from the couch.
Isn’t hearing evidence, making a finding of fact (based on the law, not opinion), and making an order for the custody and visitation schedule (based on the law, not opinion), isn’t that the court’s obligation? How is it that we have an “Evaluator” doing this, this… one person. Why them? Why any of it? We should be focused on treatment, not custody.
The courts can make decisions. Professional psychology is about pathology and treatment. This isn’t a child custody issue, it’s a family pathology and treatment issue. Professional psychology needs to stay away from custody and visitation schedules. I don’t care.
1.) 50-50. That’s my recommendation as a clinical child and family psychologist. That is the best I can come up with if you ask me. Mother-daugher, father-daughter, mother-son, father-son, all unique, all equally important, 50-50. Like kindergarten and Legos, we learn to share.
2.) Every-other-weekend. If, for some reason a shared 50-50 isn’t workable, then the default is primacy to one parent and the other parent gets every-other-weekend and one weekday (maybe dinner, maybe overnight) during the week. Still okay. Everything is fine.
3.) School year/vacations. If distance factors make an every-other-weekend schedule impractical, then the next default is primacy to one parent during the school year and vacation bonus time to the other parent. This is not great, we’d prefer every other weekend, and we’d actually prefer 50-50, but the world has its limitations and context.
Which of these three options the court chooses is for the court to decide based on the application of its legal criteria for its decision-making. Psychologists do not make decisions about custody and visitation schedules, courts do.
I can provide counsel to the court on family pathology, it’s treatment and it’s resolution. Here’s my counsel surrounding custody visitation schedules.
First, I don’t care what the schedule is. The only thing that’s important is the flow of love from the parent to the child – we always want 100 mom-love and 100 dad-love reaching the child whenever they see each other. Zero mom-love or Zero dad love is a very-very-very bad thing. If there are problems, we fix them.
Second, the only time we ever separate a child from a parent is for child abuse and child protection.
When we act for child protection, it should accompany a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse. If there is no DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse, then there is no justification for restrictions on the child’s access to the parent. The directional flow of love that is of professional concern is from the parent to the child, we want the child receiving and accepting abundant parental love from each and both parents.
The only justification for interrupting the flow of love from the parent to the child is a threat of child abuse. A threat of child abuse should be documented by a corresponding DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse.
Designating someone a “bad parent” based on arbitrary criteria arbitrarily applied is frightening in its implications – and it’s application. The “Evaluator” system of forensic psychology is a frightening system, both traumatic and abusive.
Look at her “credentials” – her vitae gets even puffier… she’s a big-wig I’m sure. A full narcissist display of show without substance.
Work product assessment is the best assessment there is – bar none. If you want to know what somebody’s work is going to be like, get a sample. Work product sample is a lock assessment.
This is a report from a big-wig in forensic psychology, standard of practice in forensic psychology. Please, APA, get over here to look at this.
The review committee should include representation from cultural psychology, from psychometrics, from trauma, from attachment, from clinical psychology, and from ethics.
DO NOT allow “forensic psychology” to review itself. They will select this person or someone similar to “review” the work of forensic psychology. You will be decieved by the lines following their names. THIS is an actual sample of their work product.
Please, APA. Bring review and scrutiny to the world of “forensic psychology” from OUTSIDE of forensic psychology. They must NOT be allowed to continue to self-review. The “Evaluator” system of judgment with no oversight or review is not working. Severely not working.
There is zero application of knowledge.
Professional review needs – needs – to include representation from psychometrics and assessment design. Please, please, please, they have constructed a nightmare assessment of narcissistic self-indulgence. Please, APA, we need psychometrics to review the evaluation procedures.
Lest forensic psychology start to babble at me at this point, I have three words – inter-rater reliability. What is the inter-rater reliability for your assessment procedure? Zero. If there is no reliability to the assessment procedure, it cannot possibly be a valid assessment of anything. That is axiomatic in the psychometrics of assessment design, construction, and use.
I have a professional obligation under Standards 1.04 and 1.05 of the APA ethics code to speak, and to continue to speak until appropriate professional review and oversight occurs.
This – this report – is considered high-quality standard of practice in forensic psychology.
If an intern gave me a report like that, I’m terminating the intern’s placement at my agency and I’m contacting the graduate school immediately to express my deep-deep concerns about their training program – and I’m not accepting another intern from that school.
That’s for an intern. This is from what’s considered to be a “top professional” in forensic psychology. This is top-quality work product in forensic psychology.
This is not unusual. I run into this level, and worse, routinely.
I am appalled. Standard 1.04 and 1.05 are applicable.