Month: October 2016

I have just posted these three principles for child custody recommendations to my website:

The Three Principles of Child Custody Recommendations

---

Principle 1 – Child Custody Evaluations: There is no established validity for the conclusions and recommendations reached by child custody evaluations.

Child custody evaluations violate all of the professional standards of practice for the development of an assessment procedure.

A.)  Inter-Rater Reliability: There is no established inter-rater reliability for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations.  Two different evaluators can reach two entirely different sets of conclusions and recommendations based on the same data.  If an assessment procedure is not reliable, then the assessment procedure cannot, by definition, be valid (the issue is not the collection of data, it is the interpretation of the data).

B.)  Validity: There are no scientific studies that establish the construct validity, content validity, predictive validity, convergent validity, or discriminant validity of the conclusions and recommendations reached by child custody evaluations.

C.)  Operational Definitions: There are no operational definitions for the key constructs of “parental capacity” and “best interests of the child.”  Defining the key constructs to be assessed is foundational to the development of an assessment procedure.  Without operational definitions for the key constructs of “parental capacity” and “best interests of the child,” individual child custody evaluators are free to arbitrarily apply, misapply, or not apply, any, some, or none of the established principles and constructs of professional psychology in any way the evaluator chooses in order to reach an arbitrary decision regarding child custody which is potentially biased by the evaluator’s own beliefs, prejudices, knowledge base, and personal family-of-origin history.

Principle 2 – Custody Time-Share:  There is no scientific or theoretical foundation on which to base an opinion regarding the “best interests” of the child surrounding custody time-share decisions in any individual situation.

A.)  No Definition: Without first defining the construct of “best interests of the child” there are no rational and standardized criteria to apply in determining the best interests of the child.

B.)  Complex Relationships: Children benefit from complex relationships with both parents.  The complexity of the parent-child relationship and the continual fluidity of personal, developmental, and family changes across time prevent any prediction regarding the long-term “best interests” of the child.

C.)  Standard Default Opinion: In the absence of any scientifically or theoretically grounded foundation for deciding the “best interests of the child,” there is no basis for forming or offering an opinion regarding alternative custody time-share options.  Except in cases of child abuse (which would warrant a child protection response), the default recommendation from professional psychology in all cases regarding custody time-share should be for a shared 50-50% custody time-share between the parents.  The parents may cooperatively decide on an alternative custody time-share schedule, and that is their right.  However, the standard recommendation from professional psychology in all cases of child custody (except cases of child abuse that warrant a child protection response) should be for a 50-50% custody time-share between parents, based on the foundational premise that children benefit from a complex relationship with both parents.

Principle 3 – Family Conflict:  Family conflict is a treatment-related issue, not a child custody issue.

A.)  Triangulation into the Inter-Spousal Conflict: Mental health professionals should scrupulously avoid being triangulated into the inter-spousal conflict surrounding divorce when they accept the inappropriate professional role of determining which spouse is the “better parent” who should be awarded the “custody prize” of the child in the inter-spousal conflict surrounding divorce.

B.)  Family conflict: Parent-child conflict and inter-spousal conflict are treatment-related issues, not child custody issues. If there is parent-child or family conflict surrounding a 50-50% child custody time-share schedule following divorce, then these family conflicts can be addressed and resolved in therapy.  Modifications in the standard 50-50% child custody time-share should be based solely on child protection considerations (or through the mutual cooperative agreement of the parents).

C.)  Pathogenic Parenting: Pathogenic parenting is the creation of significant pathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices (patho=pathology; genic=genesis, creation).  Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental and psychiatric pathology in the child may warrant the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse and a child protection response.  In all cases of child abuse (physical abuse, sexual abuse, and psychological abuse), the standard and appropriate mental health response is to protectively separate the child from the abusive parent, treat the impact of the abuse on the child and restore the child’s healthy development, and then to reintroduce the child to the formerly abusive parent with sufficient safeguards to ensure that the child is safe and that the abuse does not resume.  During the protective separation period, the abusive parent is typically required to seek collateral individual therapy to gain insight into the cause of the prior abusive parenting practices.

---

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

In my consultation work with attorneys, I am often asked to review the clinical psychology data contained in child custody reports.  One of the prominent features that I have noticed is the highly variable and often inadequate approach to the clinical interview that is evidenced in these child custody reports.

Forensic child custody evaluators believe they are exempt from the standards of practice required of clinical psychology.  In their book, Forensic Psychology Consultation and Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation, and Expert Testimony, Stahl and Simon (2013) indicate that “clinical thinking and the clinical mindset are no longer felt to be an appropriate approach to forensic psychological work” (p. 18), they “strongly disagree with the clinical approach” (p. 18), and they offer the opinion that, “while there is certainly some overlap between forensic thinking and clinical thinking, we view these modalities as distinct” (p. 20).

Unfortunately, their subsequent analysis of the supposed distinctions in “clinical” thinking and “forensic” thinking substantially mischaracterizes clinical psychology to the point of creating a straw-man argument.

Freed from the confines of the established professional practices and the scientifically established information base of clinical psychology, child custody evaluators believe themselves free to simply make up assessment procedures.  The Standards offered by the American Psychological Association (APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations) provide only general guidelines but do not specifically address the structure of the clinical interview process and the specific application of established constructs and principles from professional psychology to the collected data.

A professional standard in the clinical interview process, derived from Applied Behavioral Analysis, is the collection of the behavior-chain sequence surrounding a behavior; the antecedent cue for the behavior, the expression of the behavior itself, and the consequences that accrue from the behavior.  In Applied Behavioral Analysis, this behavior-chain sequences is referred to as A-B-C; antecedent-behavior-consequence.

The clinical interview to obtain this behavior-chain sequence represents a structured and systematic approach to acquiring information in the clinical interview process, and it guides the assessment process relevant to making an accurate diagnosis regarding the cause of the behavior.

When applied to a parent-child conflict, the clinical interview assessment process of identifying the behavior-chain sequence surrounding the parent-child conflict involves specifically identifying the step-by-step sequence of behaviors that emerged during the parent-child conflict that served as eliciting cues for the subsequent steps in the behavior-chain sequence.

The Applied Behavioral Analysis assessment of identifying the behavior-chain sequence requires that each step in the behavior chain be described in term of specific behaviors, specific communications, and specific feelings.  The client’s use of vague or global descriptions prompts additional assessment for specificity in the description of behaviors and feelings.

Based on my review of current child custody evaluation practices, the standardized application of Applied Behavioral Analysis clinical interviewing to establish the specific behavior-chain descriptions of the parent-child conflict from the perspectives of both the parent and child would substantially improve the assessment process and the reliability of data collection in child custody evaluations.

I have recently prepared a handout for training mental health professionals in the application of the Applied Behavioral Analysis clinical interviewing procedure of identifying the behavior-chain sequence in parent-child conflict.  I have posted this handout to my website:

Assessing the Behavior-Chain in Parent-Child Conflict

Incorporating the Applied Behavioral Analysis clinical interview procedures for identifying the behavior-chain sequence in parent-child conflict with the structured Parenting Practices Rating Scale (Childress, 2016), also available on my website, would help standardize and therefore substantially improve the methodology employed in child custody evaluations by standardizing the collection and documentation of data collected through the clinical interview process of child custody evaluations.

The current practice of child custody evaluations is abysmal.

There is no scientifically established validity for the conclusions and recommendations derived from child custody evaluations.  There are no studies establishing the construct validity, the content validity, the predictive validity, the convergent validity, or the divergent validity of the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations.

There is no established inter-rater reliability for the conclusions and recommendations derived from child custody evaluations.  If an assessment procedure is not reliable, then it cannot, by definition, be valid.

There are no operational definitions for the key constructs of “parental capacity” and the “best interests of the child.”  Defining the operational definitions for the key constructs of the assessment is the foundation for creating an assessment procedure.

Child custody evaluations violate ALL of the established professional procedures for developing an assessment methodology.

Furthermore, child custody evaluations do not apply in any systematic way the established psychological principles and constructs from professional psychology to the acquired data.  Instead, each evaluator is allowed to individually and arbitrarily apply whatever psychological principles and constructs they wish, or none at all, to the acquired data.

The Parenting Practices Rating Scale is an initial effort to bring an operational definition to the construct of “parental capacity.”

The application of the Applied Behavioral Analysis clinical interview procedures for establishing the behavior-chain surrounding parent-child conflict would substantially improve the clinical interview methodology used in child custody evaluations by standardizing the data collection procedures of the clinical interview process.

• Parenting Practices Rating Scale

• Assessing the Behavior-Chain in Parent-Child Conflict

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Psychologist, PSY 18857

In my previous blog post, A Solution to Assessing Parental Capacity, I describe how the most basic and fundamental principle in developing an assessment procedure for any construct is to first define the construct (which is called its “operational definition” for assessment purposes).

This is absolutely Assessment 101 – basic and foundational. 

First, operationally define the construct.

For the construct of intelligence, Spearman proposed a two-factor definition of intelligence involving an overarching form of intellectual ability – a general intelligence factor which he called g – along with specific individual factors which he callled s, such as Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Arithmetic Reasoning, and Computation, .

Thurstone, on the other hand, rejected Spearman’s proposal of a general factor (g) and instead proposed a multi-factor theory.  Thurstone analyzed scores from 56 different tests taken by children of different ages, from which he identified seven “primary mental abilities” that include; 1) Numerical Ability, 2) Verbal Comprehension Ability, 3) Word Fluency Ability, 4) Memory Ability, 5) Reasoning Ability, 6) Spatial Ability, and 7) Perceptual Speed.

Raymond Cattell and John Horn proposed a two-factor model for intelligence comprised of Fluid intelligence (the ability to solve problems and adapt to new situations) and Crystallized intelligence (acquired knowledge through education and personal experience).

Sternberg proposed a Triarchic theory of intelligence comprised of three aspects, Analytic intelligence which is the ability to perform academic problem-solving tasks, Creative intelligence which is the ability to respond effectively to novel situations by finding new solutions to problems, and Practical intelligence which is the ability to solve real-life problems as they arise.

Alternatively, Howard Gardner (different Gardner) proposed a theory of Multiple Intelligence that includes eight different types of intelligence; 1) Linguistic Intelligence, 2) Logical/Mathematical Intelligence, 3) Spatial Intelligence, 4) Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence, 5) Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence, 6) Interpersonal Intelligence, 7) Intrapersonal Intelligence, and 8) Naturalistic Intelligence.

Look how much effort has been put into the assessment of children’s intellectual development, their “intelligence,” because the assessment of children’s intellectual development and the recommendations that result from the assessment can have such profound effects on the lives of children.

Child custody decisions can have equally profound effects on the lives of children.  Yet no effort has been employed by professional psychology to define the construct of “best interests of the child” which is central to the child custody evaluation.  This absence of professional rigor is unconscionable.

Each of the differing definitions of intelligence will produce a different method for assessing “intelligence.”

What’s more, the process of first defining the construct of intelligence promotes vigorous professional dialogue which enhances our understanding for the core meaning of the construct.  Vigorous professional debate surrounding the definition of the construct greatly improves our ability to assess the construct.

But all of this valuable professional debate is absent surrounding the construct of “best interests of the child” as applied in child custody evaluations. There is no established operational definition for what the construct of “best interests of the child” means in the context of child custody evaluations.

The absence of an established definition of this fundamental construct in child custody evaluations is described by Stahl and Simons,

“A critical subject facing those working in the field of family law, whether they’re legal professionals or psychological professionals, is the concept of the best interests of the children. Even recognized experts in this concept differ with regard to what it means, how it should be determined, and what factors should be considered in determining what is in the best interest of a child. Thus, this ubiquitous term escapes consensus and remains fundamentally vague.” (Stahl & Simon, 2013, p. 10-11)

“It is defined differently from state to state; and even in Arizona, where there are nine statutory factors associated with the best interest of the child, the meaning behind many of the factors is obscure.  Additionally, when psychologists refer to the best interests of children, they are referring to a hierarchical set of factors that may have different meanings to different children with different families and that may be understood differently by psychologists with different backgrounds and different training.” (Stahl & Simon, 2013, p. 11)

Stahl, P.M. and Simon, R.A. (2013). Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation, and Expert Testimony, Chicago, IL: Section of Family Law of the American Bar Association

And yet, despite this violation of a fundamental and incredibly basic principle of psychological assessment – to first operationally define the construct to be assessed – the scientifically unsupported (but financially lucrative) practice of child custody evaluations continues.

Determining Best Interests

So how should we define the best interests of the child relative to various custody time-share alternatives?

Answer:  There is no information in the research or theoretical literature that would allow professional psychology to develop or render an opinion regarding this question.  None.

I know the child development literature.  I know the clinical psychology literature. I know the research literature surrounding children, families, and divorce.  There is no information in the research or theoretical literature that would allow professional psychology to develop or render an opinion regarding this question.  None.

The best professional psychology can do is to identify child abuse, in which case a child protection response of 100% – 0% custody time-share is warranted for as long as the abuse potential exists.  But short of child abuse, there is no information in the research or theoretical literature of professional psychology that would allow professional psychology to develop or render an opinion regarding various custody time-share options relative to the “best interests” of the child.

There is no information in the research or theoretical literature of professional psychology that would allow professional psychology to provide an opinion that a 60-40% custody time-share will be in the long-term best interests of the child over a 70-30% custody time-share, or a 50-50% custody time-share.  These gradations are far too fine – exceedingly too fine – and far surpass our research and theoretical knowledge.

Define “best interest of the child” for me in a way that this definition can be applied to the variety and complexity of parent-child and family relationships (across cultural contexts).  You will immediately begin to see the immense (and unsolvable) problem posed by even attempting this definition.

Short of determining the presence of child abuse in which a child protection response is warranted, professional psychology should avoid being drawn into a spousal dispute to determine who is the “better parent” and who is to be “awarded the prize” of the child for being the “better parent.”  Becoming the arbiter in a spousal dispute as to who is the “better parent” to be “awarded the prize of the child” following divorce is an inappropriate professional role for professional psychology. 

If there is a problem in family relationships, psychotherapy can fix the problem.  But determining who is the 60% better parent relative to the other parent’s 40% good parenting, or who is the 70% better parent relative to the other parent’s 30% good parenting is not an appropriate role (and is actually an impossible role) for professional psychology to undertake.

If a custody evaluator decides that the child’s “best interests” are better served by an 80% custody time-share with the supposedly “better” parent (based on some yet undefined criteria for determining the “better” parent), how does the custody evaluator know this?  Where is the research literature that supports this decision regarding the long-term best interests of the child (based on some as yet undefined criteria for determining the long-term “best interests” of the child)?  Where is the research literature that indicates that the child’s long-term “best interests” are better served by being placed 80% of the time with the parenting practices of the “better” parent and that limiting the child’s contact and relationship with other parent to only 20% of the time is in the long-term “best interests” of the child?  Where is the scientific evidence to support this?  There is none.

There are simply too many complexities to this question that it far-far surpasses even the hope of an answer from the research base and theoretical literature of professional psychology.

There is absolutely no way – no way – professional psychology can come up with any opinion regarding the long-term benefits or impairments to a child from a 60-40% custody time-share, versus a 70-30% custody time-share, versus a 50-50% custody time-share in a specific individual family context.  Rendering such an opinion far exceeds the extent and capacity of our knowledge.

It’s analogous to asking a Neanderthal to design and build a computer.  The Neanderthal doesn’t even have electricity yet.  The Neanderthal is chipping spear points out of stone and making fire with sticks.  There is absolutely no way the Neanderthal can design and build a computer.

There are simply too many complexities (way-way too many) and too many variable factors (way too many), and our knowledge base is way too limited, to even get close to answering the question of whether a 60-40% custody time-share is in the long-term best interests of a specific child rather than a 70-30% custody time-share, or a 50-50% custody time-share.  It is just complete speculation.  Not even educated speculation.  Just pull it out of the sky pure unadulterated guesswork.

Might as well have a monkey throw darts at a dartboard.  Seriously.

Disagree?  There’s a Comment section on this blog.  Feel free to define for me the construct of “best interest of the child” in a way that can be applied to all the various complexities of parent-child and family relationships, and THEN cite for me any research whatsoever that would allow us to apply this definition of the “best interests of the child” to such a fine-grained discrimination as a 60-40% custody time-share versus a 70-30% custody time-share versus a 50-50% custody time-share, and that describes what parenting factors in all of the complexity of parent-child and family relationships (across cultures) would allow for such fine-grained custody time-share decisions relative to the proposed definition for the “best interests of the child.”

Impossible.  Impossible.  Impossible.

So why isn’t the impossibility of this exposed?  Because everyone in professional psychology is pretending that they see the emperor’s beautiful new clothing.

The emperor has no clothes.  The emperor is naked.

Once professional psychology lives up to its own established standards of practice regarding the development of “assessment techniques” (Standard 9.05 of the APA ethics code), or is forced to live up to these standards by the Court, so that an operational definition for the construct of “best interests of the child” becomes required of the professional assessment practice, then the entire house of cards surrounding the biased and unscientific practice of child custody evaluations will collapse.

Standard 9.05 of the APA ethics code regarding the construction of “assessment techniques” requires:

9.05 Test Construction
Psychologists who develop tests and other assessment techniques use appropriate psychometric procedures and current scientific or professional knowledge for test design, standardization, validation, reduction or elimination of bias and recommendations for use.

“…and other assessment techniques…” – like child custody evaluations. 

And “standardization” refers not just to standardizing the procedures for data collection, standardization also refers to standardizing the interpretation of the collected data. If two different evaluators can interpret the data differently based on the fact that the best interests of the child “may be understood differently by psychologists with different backgrounds and different training” (Stahl & Simon, 2013), then the interpretation of the data is not standardized.

Vigorous Professional Debate

For the life of me, I cannot come up with a cogent definition for the “best interests of the child” based on “current scientific or professional knowledge” – it’s like asking this poor Neanderthal to design and build a computer.  I can’t fathom how to accomplish the impossible task of defining the “best interests of the child” for the astounding complexity of the various parent-child and family relationship factors involved.

But if the practice of child custody evaluations is not to be replaced by a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard, it is incumbent upon the advocates for the practice of child custody evaluations to operationally define the construct of “best interests of the child” (like Spearman, and Thorndike, and Cattell, and so many others did relative to the construct of intelligence) in order to afford professional psychology the opportunity for the vigorous professional dialogue commensurate with the astounding importance of making custody decisions that will have such a profound impact on the child and family.

The methodology for child custody evaluations that is then created as a product of this vigorous and healthy debate within professional psychology should then be subjected to the rigors of inter-rater reliability, validity (construct validity; content validity; predictive validity; convergent validity; divergent validity), and cross-cultural validation that represents the “appropriate psychometric procedures… for test design, standardization, validation, [and] reduction or elimination of bias” referenced by APA Standard 9.05 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.

Until this is accomplished, there exists NO INFORMATION in the professional literature or research base that would allow professional psychology to answer the question regarding the “best interests of the child” relative to alternative custody time-share options (with the exception of determining child abuse that warrants child protection considerations; leading to a 100% – 0% custody recommendation for the duration of child protection concerns).

The Solution

Children’s emotional and psychological development benefits from a complex relationship with both parents.  The complexity of the parent-child relationship and the complexity of the relationship processes involved in healthy child development preclude the formation of any informed opinion or recommendation regarding the potential “best interests” of the child resulting from various custody time-share alternatives (with the exception of child abuse and child protection considerations; 100% – 0%) for specific individual family circumstances.

As a consequence of professional psychology’s inability to form or render a cogent, reliable, and demonstrably valid opinion regarding the “best interests of the child” that will result from various custody time-share options (with the exception of child abuse and child protection considerations; 100% – 0%), the custody recommendation from professional psychology for all cases that don’t involve child abuse and child protection considerations should be for a 50-50% time-share based on the principle that children benefit from complex relationships with both parents.

In the absence of child protection considerations, there is no scientifically or theoretically supported foundation for any other decision or opinion from professional psychology regarding a fine-grained discrimination in the child’s long-term “best interests” resulting from a 60-40%, 70-30%, 80-20%, or 90-10% custody time-share in specific individual family circumstances following divorce.

Professional psychology should avoid being drawn into spousal conflicts surrounding divorce to render an opinion as to who is the “better parent” to be “awarded the prize” of the child following divorce.

If the parents wish to work out some alternative custody time-share arrangement, that is their right and that is their prerogative. 

But if professional psychology is asked for an opinion, the only rational and supported opinion which can be offered by professional psychology given the immense complexity surrounding parent-child and family relationships (including the cultural context of parenting and family relationship structures) regarding various custody time-share alternatives is for 50-50% custody timeshare equally with both parents (with the exception of child abuse and child protection considerations; 100% – 0%) based on the principle that children benefit from complex relationships with both parents.

If family problems exist with a 50-50% custody time-share, this represents a family therapy issue, not a custody-related issue.  The family problems should be assessed and a treatment plan can be developed to resolve the family problems.  This is not a custody-related issue.  This is a treatment issue.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

I teach a graduate level course in assessment.  Professional assessment begins with first defining the construct to be assessed. 

For example, if we seek to create an assessment for intelligence, we must first define what we mean by the construct of “intelligence.” 

If we are creating an assessment for self-esteem, we must first define what we mean by the construct of “self-esteem.” 

The professional process of developing an assessment procedure BEGINS with defining the construct to be assessed.

In professional psychology, defining the construct to be assessed is called developing an “operational definition” for the construct.  For example, do we define intelligence as the amount of knowledge a person has, or is intelligence an approach to reasoning and solving problems?  Or both?  Based on our operational definition of the construct, we then develop an approach to assessing for that definition of the construct.

If we define intelligence as being the amount of information the person knows, then we develop questions to sample how much the person knows.  If we define intelligence as the person’s reasoning ability, then we develop questions that challenge the person’s ability to solve abstract problems.  In professional psychology, our assessment procedures are dependent on how we define the construct to be assessed – our “operational definition” for the construct.

However, child custody evaluations have entirely skipped this crucial step in the assessment process.  Child custody evaluations are supposedly assessing two key constructs of family functioning:

• Parental capacity
• The best interest of the child.

Yet neither of these key constructs is operationally defined in the custody evaluation procedures.

The failure to operationally define the key constructs that are being assessed by child custody evaluations leads to a fundamentally and fatally flawed assessment in which the evaluator is allowed to make up his or her own idiosyncratic definition of these constructs, which introduces into the assessment process the inherent biases of the individual evaluator.  Different evaluators will have differing interpretations and definitions for the key constructs of “parental capacity” and “best interests of the child,” leading to differing conclusions and recommendations from different evaluators.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability: The stability of the findings from one assessment to the next (test-retest reliability), or from one evaluator to the next (inter-rater reliability).

Validity:  The truth and accuracy of the assessment’s findings.

If the conclusions and recommendations reached by an assessment practice are not stable across evaluators (if an assessment procedure is not reliable) then the conclusions and recommendations cannot, by definition, be valid.

If an assessment procedure for a person’s intelligence results in a finding of normal-range intelligence when the assessment is administered by Psychologist A, but results in a finding of significant cognitive impairment when the assessment is administered by Psychologist B, then this assessment procedure is not reliable, and if an assessment procedure is not reliable, then the findings, by definition, cannot be valid. 

In this example, is the person being assessed of normal-range intelligence?  Or is the person cognitively impaired?  If the results of an assessment depend on who conducts the assessment, then the findings are not a valid indicator of person’s actual intelligence but are simply a reflection of the personal biases introduced by the individual evaluator.

The first step toward making an assessment reliable (stable across evaluators; called “inter-rater” reliability), is to operationally define the construct to be assessed.  Operationally defining the construct allows all assessors to apply the same definition of the construct to the assessment data, thereby improving the inter-rater reliability of the assessment.

Operationally Defining Parental Capacity

In developing an operational definition for the construct of parental capacity, the central issue is to identify the key factors of parenting that capture the quality of parenting behavior.  Identifying the key qualitative descriptors for parental behavior will allow evaluators to more reliably assess parental behavior on these key qualities.

In an effort to provide a solution – or at the very least to initiate a discussion of the issue – I have developed a checklist of key parenting qualities that can describe parenting practices.  This checklist is on my website:

Parenting Practices Rating Scale

This rating scale identifies four aspects of parenting behavior as central to defining the construct of parental capacity:

1.)  Classification of Parenting Behavior:  A categorical classification of parental behavior within a 4-tiered hierarchy.

Level 1: Child abuse

Level 2: Severely problematic parenting

Level 3: Problematic parenting

Level 4: Healthy parenting

 2.)  Permissive-Authoritarian Parenting: A dimensional rating from 1 to 100 along the parenting spectrum of permissive parenting, through communication-based and discipline-based parenting, to authoritarian parenting practices.

 3.)  Capacity for Authentic Empathy: A rating from 1 to 5 along the parenting dimension of authentic empathy for the child’s experience; from narcissistic self-absorbed parenting at one end of the spectrum, through authentic empathy, to over-intrusive enmeshed parenting at the other end of the spectrum.

 4.)  Issues of Clinical Concern:  A categorical indicator of additional issues of clinical concern relative to the parent.

If court-involved mental health professionals, including child custody evaluators, court-involved therapists, and court-appointed parenting coordinators, were to begin including this brief Parenting Practices Rating Scale in their assessments and reports, the increased clarity afforded by this rating scale would substantially improve the standardization for the definition of parental capacity.

Professional assessment BEGINS by operationally defining the construct to be assessed.  The Parenting Practices Rating Scale is my offer of an operational definition for the construct of parental capacity.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Caveat:  Dr. Childress is not an attorney, he is a psychologist.  His commentary on this blog is as a psychologist, not an attorney.  For legal advice consult an attorney and follow the advice of the attorney.

---

In my professional consultation work with attorneys, I am frequently asked to help them prepare their lines of cross-examination for child custody evaluators who have reached problematic conclusions relative to the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation” (AB-PA).

There are so many problems inherent to the practice of child custody evaluations that it’s hard to know where to begin.

The multitude of problems all stem from how the practice of child custody evaluations began.  The practice of child custody evaluations developed gradually and piecemeal over the course of time in response to the needs of the Court for guidance in family matters.  But this gradual and piecemeal origin means that the practice of child custody evaluation is not well thought out.

With the increase in the divorce rate occurring in the 1970s and 80s, professional psychology was increasingly asked to provide input to the Court regarding child custody arrangements in high-conflict families.  The initial response of professional psychology was to provide haphazard and idiosyncratic assessments and opinions of varying quality based on variable methodology.

In an effort to improve the practice of offering child custody recommendations to the court, various “standards” were developed by professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association in 1991 (Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 2006 (AFCC: Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations) which sought to provide standardized methodology for the conduct of child custody evaluations.

However, these “standards” exclusively address the role-relationships of the evaluator to the client and court, and the methodology for collecting the data – they do NOT address how the data is to be interpreted, and it’s the interpretation of the data that is central to forming the conclusions and recommendations provided by the evaluation. The interpretation of the data collected in child custody evaluations is left entirely (100%) to the discretion of the particular evaluator, as is the decision regarding what information from professional psychology is to be applied – or not applied – to the interpretation of the data.

I want to be entirely clear on this, child custody evaluations consider themselves exempt from the standards governing clinical psychology, and so they believe themselves exempt from systematically applying all of the established constructs or principles drawn from professional psychology to the interpretation of the data, including the DSM diagnostic system for identifying pathology (see AFCC Standard 4.6c), or they apply these principles and constructs in such haphazard, random, and idiosyncratic ways as to be essentially worthless in providing a standardized professional interpretation of the data based on established psychological principles and constructs.

Let me just add something about Standard 4.6c of the AFCC standards; while “diagnostic labels” may have a “prejudicial” impact against the person who is diagnosed with a pathology, such as a narcissistic or borderline personality parent, intentionally withholding relevant diagnostic information from the Court in order to influence the Court’s decision would seemingly have an equally “prejudicial” impact in the opposite direction (against the normal-range parent seeking custody) and would be equally – if not more – problematic in my opinion.  I believe professional psychology has a fundamental obligation to provide the Court with ALL of the relevant mental health information, including relevant DSM diagnostic information, and allow the Court to determine the relative weight given to this information.  In my opinion, it is not within the purview of professional psychology to preempt the decisional authority of the Court by unilaterally making  a preemptive decision about the potential prejudicial or probative value of mental health information and to then intentionally withhold relevant DSM diagnostic information from the Court in order to influence – in any direction – the decision of the Court. We should simply be reporting on the relevant mental health information, not making preemptive decisions that would bias – in any way – the reporting of the relevant mental health information.

Instead of being circumscribed within the confines of established psychological constructs and principles, child custody evaluators are free to just make up their conclusions and recommendations based on their personal beliefs and personal biases, which are highly vulnerable to “counter-transference” issues (influence from the evaluator’s own childhood and family-of-origin experiences that affect the evaluator’s interpretation of the custody evaluation data). 

When it comes to the interpretation of the data, they just make it up based on their own idiosyncratic beliefs and biases.

At times, child custody evaluators use “psychology-sounding” words to make it seem like they are applying established constructs and principles, and these “psychology-sounding” words fool legal professionals and the public who don’t know the literature and research in professional psychology. But I’m a psychologist – I know the literature and research in psychology – and these child custody evaluators are talking complete nonsense when they use these “psychology-sounding” words… 100% nonsense.  They are making it up, completely and totally making this stuff up.

Child custody evaluators are not applying any existing models or principles of professional psychology to the interpretation of the data, or they are doing so in odd and idiosyncratic ways that essentially fit with their preconceived biases.  The “Standards” for Forensic Psychology produced by the APA and AFCC are essentially putting lipstick on a pig – it’s still a pig.  And not a very pretty pig at that. 

Read them. The standards are entirely about how to collect data and about how the professional relationship is to be established with the client and court.  There is nothing about how the data should be interpreted – specifically interpreted.  There are statements about “best interests of the child” and applying the knowledge from child development, and divorce, and other related areas of professional psychology, but in any specific case, the application – or non-application – of this professional knowledge base is left entirely – 100% – to the idiosyncratic and highly variable discretion of the individual evaluator.

The very foundation for the practice of child custody evaluation is inherently flawed.  So let me begin with this foundational line of questioning which is available to attorneys:

Line 1:  There is no established scientific foundation for the practice of child custody assessments.

The core premise – the foundational premise – upon which child custody evaluations are based is deeply and inherently flawed, resulting in a deeply and inherently flawed application of this premise.  The scientific foundation for the practice of child custody evaluations is non-existent, and as a result, the practice of child custody evaluation is built on a fragile house-of-cards.

While it looks like an elegant construction, if we breathe on this house-of-cards it will collapse.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Hans Christian Anderson wrote a short story about an emperor who wanted a wonderful new set of clothing.  The emperor hired two (charlatan) tailors who said that they could create a “magical” suit of clothing that would be invisible to anyone who was incompetent and unfit for their position.  Anyone who was incompetent and stupid would be unable to see the “magical” clothing.

As these charlatan tailors began their work on sewing their supposedly “magical” clothing, the emperor and all of his courtiers were afraid to say that they couldn’t see the clothing because that would mean that they were unfit for their positions, that they were stupid and incompetent, so everyone pretended to see the clothes.  They all praised the magnificent beauty and quality of the “magical” clothing, and since everyone else seemed to see the clothing each person thought that they alone could not see the “magical” clothing.

When the clothes were finally finished, the tailors were paid and they quickly left the kingdom (making a lot of money for their supposedly “magical” clothing).  The emperor decided to proudly display his magnificent new clothing in a parade before his people.  Again, all of the people along the parade route also pretended to see the clothing because no one wanted to admit that they couldn’t see the emperor’s new clothes, because that would mean that they were incompetent and stupid since everyone else obviously saw the clothing.  But as the emperor paraded past his people, a young child turned to his mother and said, “Look mommy, the emperor has no clothes.”  With that, the collusion of silence was broken and everyone began to admit that they too saw no clothing, and they began to laugh at the emperor who stood naked before his people, duped by the charlatan tailors.

With regard to child custody evaluations, I am that little kid on the parade route; “Look mommy, the emperor has no clothes.”

The practice of child custody evaluations violates every standard of professional practice regarding assessment.  But no one in professional psychology is saying anything.  It’s a collusion of silence.

So I’ll say it, “the emperor has no clothes” – and family law attorneys need to begin saying it too.

There is no scientifically established validity to the conclusions or recommendations of child custody evaluations.  None.  Zero.

Don’t believe me, or don’t agree?  There is a Comment section to the blog. I invite anyone to provide a single citation in the research literature that establishes the inter-rater reliability or validity (construct validity; content validity; predictive validity; convergent validity, discriminant validity) for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations.  Not for the data collection procedures, but for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations, which are made based on the interpretation of the data.

<crickets>

Child custody evaluations do not apply in any systematic or rational way the established constructs and principles of professional psychology, and the conclusions and recommendations offered by child custody evaluators are simply made up based on the individual idiosyncratic biases of the individual custody evaluator.

They simply make it up.

Child custody evaluations are little more than voodoo assessment.  Rattle some beads, recite some magical incantations, and read the entrails of a goat. Seriously.

• Rattle some beads: The procedures used for data collection
• Recite some magical incantations: Write a report with psychology-sounding words
• Read the entrails of a goat: Make recommendations about the “best interests of the child”

Here’s what two leading figures in Forensic psychology, Stahl and Simon, say about the definition of “best interests of the child” (and notice who published this work, The Family Law Section of the American Bar Association):

“A critical subject facing those working in the field of family law, whether they’re legal professionals or psychological professionals, is the concept of the best interests of the children. Even recognized experts in this concept differ with regard to what it means, how it should be determined, and what factors should be considered in determining what is in the best interest of a child. Thus, this ubiquitous term escapes consensus and remains fundamentally vague.” (Stahl & Simon, 2013, p. 10-11)

“It is defined differently from state to state; and even in Arizona, where there are nine statutory factors associated with the best interest of the child, the meaning behind many of the factors is obscure.  Additionally, when psychologists refer to the best interests of children, they are referring to a hierarchical set of factors that may have different meanings to different children with different families and that may be understood differently by psychologists with different backgrounds and different training.” (Stahl & Simon, 2013, p. 11)

Stahl, P.M. and Simon, R.A. (2013). Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation, and Expert Testimony, Chicago, IL: Section of Family Law of the American Bar Association

“may have different meanings to different children with different families and that may be understood differently by psychologists with different backgrounds and different training.”

This is related to a property of the assessment called “inter-rater reliability” – the stability of the conclusions and recommendations derived from the data across different evaluators.

They just make it up.  Seriously.  They – just – make – it – up.

Voodoo assessment.  Rattle some beads (data collection procedures), recite some magical incantations (write a report with psychology-sounding words), and read the entrails of a goat (make recommendations from the “spirit world” of professional psychology regarding the supposed “best interests” of the child).

I am making a strong allegation.  This blog has a Comment section.  I invite any advocate for the practice of child custody evaluations to provide a citation for a single study – just one – that has demonstrated the inter-rater reliability and validity (construct validity, content validity, predictive validity, convergent validity, divergent validity) for the conclusions and recommendations produced by child custody evaluations.

<crickets>

There is NO scientific foundation for the practice of child custody evaluations.

Inter-Rater Reliablity

The construct of “reliability” is the professional term for the stability of an assessment’s results.  If I give you an IQ test this week and your score is 100 (normal-range), then your IQ score should be roughly the same when I retest you one week later. 

If, one week later, your IQ score drops to 70 (cognitively deficient), then my assessment procedure for establishing your IQ is NOT reliable.  My assessment procedure does not yield stable results from one assessment administration to another.

In the IQ example given above, the type of reliability is called “test-retest reliability,”  There are four methods in the professional practice of assessment that are used to establish an assessment procedure’s reliability:

• Test-retest reliability
• Inter-rater reliability
• Split-half (internal consistency) reliability
• Alternate forms reliability

This is all standard – and basic – professional psychology assessment stuff.  I teach it every semester to graduate students in my Psychometrics of Assessment class.  Basic stuff.

By definition, an assessment procedure cannot be valid if it is not reliable. If your IQ changes from normal-range to developmentally delayed because of the inherent instability of my assessment procedure, my assessment procedure is NOT a valid assessment of your intelligence.

Validity is the professional psychology term that refers to the actual truth or accuracy of the findings from an assessment procedure.

A fundamental axiom within the field of professional assessment is that:  An assessment procedure CANNOT BE VALID if it is not reliable.  In the example above, my assessment procedure for your IQ cannot be valid (true and accurate) if the findings from the assessment procedure fluctuate radically from one test administration to the next (in one assessment you’re deemed to be of normal-range intelligence but in the next assessment a week later you’re deemed to be cognitively delayed).

In the case of child custody evaluations the appropriate form of reliability would be inter-rater reliability, which means that two raters (two evaluators) would reach the same conclusions and recommendations based on the same data set.  Inter-rater reliability.

No research has ever been conducted to establish the inter-rater reliability for the conclusions and recommendations reached by child custody evaluations.  None.

And note, this is in the context of Stahl and Simon’s (2013) analysis regarding the fundamental construct being assessed in child custody evaluations, the “best interests” of the child:

“Even recognized experts in this concept differ with regard to what it means, how it should be determined, and what factors should be considered in determining what is in the best interest of a child.” (Stahl & Simon, 2013, p. 10)

The inter-rater reliability for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations has NEVER been scientifically established.

So if two different custody evaluators can reach two radically different sets of conclusions and recommendations from the same data – based on their differing interpretations regarding the meaning of the data – then the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations are not reliable.

And if the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations are not reliable (are not stable from one custody evaluator to the next; inter-rater reliability), then the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations CANNOT, by definition, be valid.

Let that sink in for a moment.  If the conclusions and recommendations are not reliable (stable) from one evaluator to the next (inter-rater reliability), then the conclusions and recommendations cannot, by definition, be valid.

There is no scientific evidence establishing the inter-rater reliability for the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations.

Foundational Line of Questioning

This is the basis for the first line of questions; to question the custody evaluation in such a way so as to:

1.)  Expose the absence of any data in the scientific literature that establishes the “inter-rater” reliability for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations.

1A.) Walk the evaluator through definitions for the constructs of “reliability” and “validity” – defining the four types of reliability, with a focus on inter-rater reliability.

• Reliability: The stability of the assessment findings across situations (raters)
• Validity: The truth or accuracy of the findings

1B) Ask for citations from the scientific literature that establish the “inter-rater reliability” and “validity” (to be discussed later) for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations – there are none.

1C.) Lead the evaluator into a key question, “Can the findings from an assessment procedure be valid if they are not reliable? – A: No.

2.)  Expose the meaning of this: “Can two different child custody evaluators reach markedly different conclusions and recommendations based on the same data set?” A: Yes.

2A.) If the child custody evaluator tries to assert that other psychologists would agree with his or her interpretation of the data, ask how the evaluator knows this if there has never been any research done on the inter-rater reliability for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations (that they all collect data in the same way does not establish that they would all interpret the data in the same way).

2B)  Use the phrase “conclusions and recommendations” when referring to reliability and validity because you’ll want to avoid issues surrounding data collection procedures. The data collection procedures are highly standardized – they are likely to be reliable-stable in the data they produce – it’s the interpretation of the data to reach conclusions and recommendations that is at issue.  What is being set up by this line of questions is a second line of question regarding what constructs and principles from professional psychology did the child custody evaluator apply to the interpretation of the data – this second line will be a key line of questioning.

3.)  Expose that the conclusions and recommendations of the child custody evaluator are simply the opinions of one psychologist and may not represent the opinions of other psychologists who would review the data;

3A.) Q: “So there’s no way of knowing whether your opinions represent the opinions of other psychologists, or whether a vast majority of other psychologists would disagree with your conclusions and recommendations, there’s simply no way of knowing that is there?”

4.)  Expose that the conclusions and recommendations of the child custody evaluator are simply the opinions of one psychologist and may be biased by the personal attitudes and beliefs of the evaluator.

4A.) This sets up a second line of questions regarding what established constructs from professional psychology were applied in interpreting the data (not collecting the data; interpreting the data) as a means to limit the potential introduction of bias.

4B.) The custody evaluator may try to answer the bias question by pointing out the standardized collection of data.  That’s irrelevant.  The issue is NOT the collection of data, it’s the interpretation of data.  The cross-examination seeks to expose that NO established principles of professional psychology (specifically, principles from family systems theory; triangulation, cross-generational coalition, inverted hierarchy, emotional cutoff – and attachment theory) were applied to interpreting the data.  This will be addressed in the second line of questioning.

The second part of this scientific foundation line of questioning is about the construct of “validity.”  It’s a short line of questions, but on the same topic area of undercutting the scientific foundation for the practice of child custody evaluation.  The emperor has no clothes.

I’ll cover issues of “validity” (construct validity; content validity; predictive validity; concurrent validity; discriminant validity) in a future blog post, but essentially the issue is that no studies have ever been conducted to establish the “validity” for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations.

There is no established scientific validity to the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations.  None.  Zero.  Nothing.  The emperor has no clothes.

A Monkey Throwing Darts

Child custody evaluations are voodoo assessment. Rattle some beads (data collection procedures), recite some “magical” incantations (write a report with “psychology-sounding” words), and read the entrails of a goat (offer conclusions and recommendations from the “spirit world” of professional psychology).

But as for the scientifically established validity (truth and accuracy) for the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations… we might as well have a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard.

Seriously, neither the monkey throwing darts nor child custody evaluations have any data whatsoever regarding the reliability and validity of these respective “assessment” procedures.  And at least the monkey throwing darts approach would be much cheaper, and probably more entertaining.

Q: “Dr. So-n-So, if we had a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard regarding various custody time-share options, where in the scientific literature is there evidence that the conclusions and recommendations reached by child custody evaluations are more reliable and any more valid than the outcome of a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard?”

A: There is no evidence from the scientific literature that the conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations are any more reliable or valid than the conclusions and recommendations reached by a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard.

Again, for all the advocates who are in favor of the “assessment” practice of child custody evaluations, there is a Comment section on this blog.  Feel free to prove me wrong.  Cite for me a single research study demonstrating the inter-rater reliability and construct validity, or content validity, or predictive validity, or convergent validity, or discriminant validity for the conclusions and recommendation provided by child custody evaluations.

<crickets>

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

I want to make a quick announcement. 

I learned that my blog has been nominated for inclusion in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest.

The voting site for the contest is at:

Best Legal Blog Contest Voting

What’s The Expert Institute, you might ask?  I don’t know.

And honestly, I don’t care all that much either.  Any solution that involves having targeted parents prove “parental alienation” in court is no solution at all.  Proving “parental alienation” in the legal system is far too expensive for most targeted parents to afford and it takes far to long.  Time is on the side of the pathogenic parent.  The pathogenic parent can delay and delay legal proceedings for years.

The solution to “parental alienation” is through the mental health system:

The Solution

I’m working on the solution for all children and all families, not just one family at a time. This solution will ultimately be through fixing the broken mental health system, not the legal system. But until we fix the mental health system response, there’s little alternative for targeted parents other than proving “parental alienation” in court.

I’m sorry that professional psychology has so completely failed you.  The first step is to get all mental health professionals to properly assess for the pathology using the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting.

Yet even as I work on the solution for all children and all families, I know that for each targeted parent this is a directly personal experience with your specific child. I realize that each targeted parent is trying to solve their problem today, now, before the mental health system has been fixed first. 

Based on this understandable motivation of individual targeted parents, I am sometimes asked to serve as an expert witness in court proceedings in hopes that my testimony about “triangulation” and “cross-generational coalitions” might be able to persuade the court.  I’m not optimistic about that.  The legal system response remains broken. But if your attorney thinks my expert testimony might be helpful and that’s a route you want to go, then your attorney can contact me by email and I will provide the attorney with additional information about my potential role as an expert consultant and witness.

(Just as an FYI regarding my expert testimony, I have found my testimony to be the most helpful when the mental health professional who is involved with your family has used the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting and my testimony then addresses the meaning and implications of the symptom ratings made on the Diagnostic Checklist by the involved mental health professional.)

Again, however, my focus is not (yet) on fixing the broken legal system response.  My focus is on fixing the broken mental health system response for all children and all families in order to ensure that all children and all families receive appropriate assessment of the pathology, accurate diagnosis of the pathology, and effective treatment for the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation” (AB-PA).

I suppose it’s nice that my blog has been nominated in a contest for the “Best Legal Blog.”  Getting the attention of the legal system regarding this form of attachment-related pathology is a good thing.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Psychologist, PSY 18857

Of all the symptoms displayed by the child, the absence of empathy is the most disturbing. The absence of empathy is associated with the capacity for human cruelty