AI Analysis of Forensic Psychology

This Chat with Eliza is what a “direct examination” by her supervising psychologist, Dr. Childress, looks like. Only in this case it’s about the topic of forensic psychology in the family courts, not a specific case in the family courts.

I asked Gemini: Is the analysis provided in the Chat of the situation in the family courts accurate?

From Gemini: Yes, the analysis provided in the chat regarding the situation in the family courts is accurate based on the information presented in the document “Direct-Examination-of-Eliza-Forensic-Custody-Evaluations-cc.pdf”.

The chat accurately summarizes the following key points:

Historical Context of Forensic Custody Evaluations: It correctly outlines the shift from patriarchal norms and the “Tender Years Doctrine” to the “best interests of the child” standard, which opened the door for mental health professionals in family courts. It also accurately describes the informal beginnings, institutionalization, and subsequent criticisms of the practice.

Experimental Nature of the Role and Procedures: The chat accurately states that the quasi-judicial role for doctors and the practice of forensic custody evaluations represent an experimental role and procedure, deviating from the traditional medical model of diagnosis and treatment.

Lack of Inter-Rater Reliability and its Impact on Validity: It correctly identifies that research indicates poor to unacceptable inter-rater reliability for forensic custody evaluations and explains the foundational relationship between reliability and validity in psychometrics, concluding that poor reliability undermines validity.

Activation and Violations of the Belmont Report: The chat accurately asserts that the experimental nature of these evaluations triggers Belmont Report obligations and correctly details how the principles of Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice are violated, especially concerning vulnerable populations like children and parents.

Findings of the New York Blue-Ribbon Commission: The chat correctly summarizes that the Commission found evaluations “biased and harmful to children,” “dangerous,” and lacking “scientific or legal value,” and that a majority voted for elimination, despite the Commission not formally recommending a statewide ban. It also accurately reflects the commentary of Jennifer Friedman and Lorraine Silverman regarding pervasive bias, procedural violations, financial conflicts, and the strong call for elimination or moratorium.

Implications for Belmont Report and Conflicts of Interest: The chat accurately connects the Commission’s findings to further violations of the Belmont Report and highlights the significant career and financial impact on evaluators if the practice were ended, thereby creating a clear conflict of interest.

The analysis accurately reflects the content and arguments presented within the provided document.

I asked Gemini: If the analysis in the Chat is accurate, what obligations would be incurred by state licensing boards?

If the analysis in the chat is accurate, state licensing boards would incur significant obligations due to the numerous ethical and professional concerns raised about forensic custody evaluations. These obligations stem from their role in upholding professional standards, protecting the public, and ensuring ethical conduct within their licensed professions.

Here are the key obligations that would be incurred by state licensing boards:

Competence (APA 2.01): Licensing boards would have an obligation to investigate and address evaluators operating outside their boundaries of competence, such as offering legal opinions, assessing personality disorders without diagnostic training, or opining on risk without structured tools, as frequently happens.

Use of Established Scientific Knowledge (APA 2.04): Boards would need to ensure that evaluations rely on established scientific knowledge and empirically supported procedures, given the stated finding that evaluations “often fail APA 2.04 by not relying on established scientific knowledge” and that scientific grounding is “largely absent in most custody evaluations”. Continuing to use unreliable procedures would violate this standard.

Bases for Assessments (APA 9.01): Licensing boards would be obligated to ensure psychologists base their assessments, recommendations, and reports on sufficient information and techniques to substantiate their findings. The reported “poor reliability” means recommendations cannot be substantiated, which violates this standard.

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest (APA 3.06): Boards would need to address the structural and individual financial conflicts of interest where evaluators profit from the very roles and guidelines they promote. They should require disclosure and potentially recusal from policymaking roles.

Minimizing Harm (APA 3.04): Boards have a duty to ensure that practitioners avoid and minimize harm. The analysis indicates that evaluations can cause “unjustified separation of children from parents”, “attachment rupture and emotional trauma”, and “potentially disastrous consequences for parents and children”.

Given that parents and children in family courts are identified as a “vulnerable population”, licensing boards have a heightened ethical responsibility to ensure their protection. This includes addressing the lack of special protections and the disproportionate impact on socioeconomically disadvantaged or marginalized parents.

Boards would need to address the lack of true informed consent, as participation is often court-compelled and involuntary. Parents and children are reportedly “evaluated under compulsion, often without adequate understanding or consent”.

Licensing boards must address the fundamental problem that custody evaluations “lack reliability, validity, and standardized methodology”, and their core constructs are “not operationalized or normed in scientific literature”. They would need to enforce the use of “validated diagnostic instruments” rather than “unvalidated or idiosyncratic interview methods”.

Boards would need to critically review and potentially revise or withdraw any guidelines that promote practices lacking scientific validation or ethical oversight. This would involve a push for “structured methods, evidence-based reasoning, and clear boundaries between clinical and forensic roles”.

Given the New York Blue-Ribbon Commission’s findings, which included a majority vote for elimination and strong evidence of harm and lack of value, licensing boards would be obligated to seriously consider implementing moratoriums or even advocating for the termination of the practice until ethical compliance and scientific validity can be demonstrated.

Boards would be responsible for establishing mechanisms for independent oversight, risk-benefit analysis, ongoing harm monitoring, and adverse outcome reporting, which are currently “largely absent”. They would also need to address the “institutional capture” by non-scientific bodies like the AFCC that promote roles based on “internal consensus rather than scientific validation”.

In essence, if the chat’s analysis is accurate, state licensing boards would be compelled to recognize that the current practice of forensic custody evaluations appears to be an “uncontrolled experiment on families” that operates with “profound ethical failure”, necessitating immediate and substantial intervention to protect the public and uphold professional integrity.

I asked Gemini: Would this suggest that state licensing boards are currently failing in their obligations to protect the citizens of their states from unethical and harmful professional practices?

Yes, if the analysis in the chat is accurate, it would strongly suggest that state licensing boards are currently failing in their obligations to protect the citizens of their states from unethical and harmful professional practices within the realm of forensic custody evaluations.

Here’s why:

Lack of Enforcement of Ethical Standards: The analysis repeatedly highlights violations of core ethical standards, such as competence (APA 2.01), use of established scientific knowledge (APA 2.04), and bases for assessments (APA 9.01). If these violations are widespread and systemic, as suggested, it points to a failure by licensing boards to enforce the very codes they are established to uphold.

Failure to Protect Vulnerable Populations: The analysis explicitly states that children and parents involved in these evaluations constitute a “vulnerable population” and that there are “no special protections” for them. The Belmont Report principles, which boards should implicitly follow, emphasize heightened ethical responsibility for vulnerable groups. The documented harms like “emotional damage,” “family fragmentation,” and “attachment rupture and emotional trauma” directly contradict the boards’ protective mandate.

Ignoring Lack of Scientific Validity and Reliability: The findings of “poor to unacceptable” inter-rater reliability and the assertion that the evaluations “lack reliability, validity, and standardized methodology” are critical. Licensing boards are responsible for ensuring that licensed professionals use scientifically sound practices. Allowing the continued use of procedures that “cannot be considered a scientific or forensic assessment” indicates a significant lapse.

Absence of Oversight and Accountability: The chat details a complete lack of IRB-like review, risk-benefit analysis, harm monitoring, or adverse outcome reporting for these evaluations. This “uncontrolled experiment on families” operates without the kind of oversight that would be mandatory in other fields involving human subjects. The fact that this system is allowed to persist suggests a failure of the boards to institute necessary safeguards.

Neglecting Conflicts of Interest: The analysis points out “widespread financial incentives” and a “structural conflict of interest” within the industry. If licensing boards are not addressing these conflicts, particularly regarding evaluators in positions of authority who advocate for practices from which they financially benefit, they are failing in their duty to ensure unbiased and ethical professional conduct.

Disregarding Commission Findings: The New York Blue-Ribbon Commission’s findings, especially the majority vote for elimination and the strong condemnation of these evaluations as “biased and harmful,” “dangerous,” and lacking “scientific or legal value”, put licensing boards “on notice”. If boards fail to act significantly on such damning conclusions from an official body, it represents a failure to respond to clear evidence of systemic harm and unethical practice.

 

In summary, the documented issues point to a profound gap between the ethical and professional standards that licensing boards are mandated to enforce and the reported reality of forensic custody evaluations in family courts.

 

Craig Childress, Psy.D. – Eliza 5.1 (ChatGPT) – Google Gemini
Clinical Psychologist & AI
WA 61538481 – CA 18857