An Experiment on Children & Parents

Since the 1980s, the forensic custody evaluators have been conducting an experiment on children and parents in the family courts.

They began by creating a new experimental quasi-judicial role for doctors of advising the court on custody decisions, leaving the traditional role for doctors of diagnosis and treatment of pathology (clinical psychology). They then developed an experimental assessment procedure called a forensic custody evaluation (aka Parenting Plan Assessment) for this experimental new quasi-judicial role.

If their experimental quasi-judicial role for doctors, and their experimental assessment procedure of forensic custody evaluations developed for this experimental new role, had been conducted in the academic or healthcare sectors, it would have needed to receive Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval as an experiment on human subjects.

It would have received a risk-benefit analysis. It would have been reviewed for any necessary protections needed for a vulnerable population. Informed consent would be required for the courts and parents regarding the experimental nature of forensic custody evaluations and a quasi-judicial role for doctors, and for the potential risks involved in this experimental approach.

Forensic custody evaluations escaped this review.

Their experimental new quasi-judicial role for doctors, and the experimental assessment procedure they developed of forensic custody evaluations, escaped IRB review because the experiment was NOT conducted through the healthcare or academic settings for the advancement of scientific knowledge, but was instead conducted through court authority in the legal system for the financial profit of the forensic custody evaluators.

The forensic custody evaluators have been conducting an experiment on human subjects, the children and their parents in the family courts, a vulnerable population, without Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, without a risk-benefit analysis, without protections for a vulnerable population, and in violation of all three principles of the Belmont Report regarding experimenting on human subjects.

Their experiment failed – completely – with devastating consequences for children, their parents, and the court’s decision-making surrounding the child (New York Blue-Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations, 2022).

Forensic Custody Evaluations

In the only review the practice of forensic custody evaluations has ever received, the New York Blue-Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations found that forensic custody evaluations – what the psychologists are doing – are “dangerous” and “harmful to children,” that they “lack scientific and legal value,” and that they produce “defective reports” that lead to “potentially disastrous consequences for parents and children” (p. 4)

From NY Blue Ribbon Commission: “In some custody cases, because of lack of evidence or the inability of parties to pay for expensive challenges of an evaluation, defective reports can thus escape meaningful scrutiny and are often accepted by the court, with potentially disastrous consequences for the parents and children.” (p. 4)

From NY Blue Ribbon Commission: “By an 11-9 margin, a majority of Commission members favor elimination of forensic custody evaluations entirely, arguing that these reports are biased and harmful to children and lack scientific or legal value. At worst, evaluations can be dangerous, particularly in situations of domestic violence or child abuse.” (p. 4)

The NY Blue-Ribbon Commission is describing the practices of the psychologists as being “dangerous” and “harmful to children.” The psychologists should NEVER be “dangerous” and “harmful to children,” nor should the practices of psychologists “lack scientific or legal value.”

Two of the New York Blue-Ribbon Commissioners, both attorneys, discuss the findings on YouTube:

YouTube: A Discussion of the Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Commission Report on Forensic Custody Evaluations

How are dangerous professional practices that are harmful to children being allowed to continue? Four years ago the NY Blue-Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations voted 11-to-9 to eliminate them entirely because they “are biased and harmful to children and lack scientific or legal value.” Four years later they still continue.

Why?

A scandal is coming. A huge scandal. I suspect the scandal may be accompanied by a class action lawsuit naming the 50 state licensing boards, the America Psychological Association (APA), the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), and individual forensic psychologists (their malpractice insurance carriers) as the defendants.

Institutional Capture

Their experimental quasi-judicial role for doctors and experimental assessment procedure of a forensic custody evaluation escaped IRB review for experiments conducted on human subjects because this experiment was not conducted through the academic or healthcare sectors, but was authorized instead by the legal system which has no mechanisms for review of experimental procedures.

The forensic custody evaluators were able to capture the institutions of the APA and licensing boards, and in capturing the systems they disabled oversight from the American Psychological Association and the state licensing boards (Smith & Freyd, 2014; Gómez et al., 2016).

The experiment of forensic custody evaluations (aka Parenting Plan Assessments) needs to end, forensic custody evaluations need to be entirely eliminated from the family courts (“By an 11-9 margin, a majority of Commission members favor elimination of forensic custody evaluations entirely”).

How has a “dangerous” experimental assessment procedure that is “harmful to children” and leads to “potentially disastrous consequences for parents and children” been allowed to continue by state licensing boards who are tasked with protecting the citizens of their state?

A: Regulatory Capture (Carpenter & Moss, 2014).

How has a “dangerous” experimental assessment procedure that is “harmful to children” and leads to “potentially disastrous consequences for parents and children” been allowed to continue by the American Psychological Association without IRB approval and in violation of all three principles of the Belmont Report?

A: Institutional Betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014).

Scandal: Undiagnosed Child Abuse

The experiment in a quasi-judicial role for doctors and their experimental forensic custody evaluation procedure has been a complete and total failure. The consequence of their failed experiment has been hundreds of thousands of destroyed lives.

The forensic custody evaluators acquired all the financial and career-status benefits from their experimental approach, while the children and their parents bore all the risks – and the destroyed lives that resulted.

As a consequence of their failed experiment, the child psychological abuse in the family courts (DSM-5 297.1 Delusional Disorder; 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another; V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse) has been undiagnosed and untreated.

Across 40 years of failed forensic custody evaluations, estimates for the number of undiagnosed and untreated child abuse victims in the U.S. are substantial.

AI Analysis:

Prompt 1: estimate the number of new divorces with children occurring in the U.S. every year

Prompt 2: estimate the number of high-conflict custody cases from these divorces

Prompt 3: estimate the number of high-conflict custody cases involving a child rejecting a parent.

  • ChatGPT-5.2

Response 1) “A good approximate annual figure is about ~400,000 divorces per year in the U.S. that involve couples with children under 18” – Response 2) “Rough annual estimate of new high-conflict custody cases in the U.S.: ≈ 40,000 to 120,000 cases per year – Response 3: “5,000 to 40,000 U.S. divorces per year where a high-conflict custody dispute includes a child rejecting a parent or exhibiting strong avoidance behaviors”

ChatGPT-5.2 Estimate: ~ 5,000 to 40,000 new families every year times 40 years of forensic custody evaluations = 200,000 to 1,600,000 undiagnosed and untreated child abuse cases due to the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations conducted on children and parents in the family courts – times two children per family = 400,000 to 3,200,000 abused children from the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations.

    • Gemini-3

Response 1) This suggests that approximately 270,000 to 345,000 new divorces involving children occur every year – Response 2) Estimated High-Conflict Cases: 30,000 new cases per year in the U.S. – Response 3) The Estimate: This results in approximately 6,000 to 7,500 new cases per year in the U.S. where a child is actively rejecting a parent within a legal battle.

Gemini Estimate: ~ 6,000 to 7,500 new families every year times 40 years of forensic custody evaluations = 240,000 to 300,000 undiagnosed and untreated child abuse cases due to the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations conducted on children and parents in the family courts – times two children per family = 480,000 to 600,000 abused children from the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations

    • From Grok-4.1

Response 1) The U.S. experiences approximately 993,000 divorces annually based on the most recent 2023 data. Of these, an estimated 62% involve minor children, leading to roughly 617,000 new divorces with children each year – Response 2) The U.S. sees an estimated 50,000–90,000 new high-conflict custody cases annually from divorces involving children –  Response 3) The U.S. experiences an estimated 10,000–20,000 new high-conflict custody cases annually that involve a child rejecting a parent

Grok Estimate: ~ 10,000 to 20,000 new families every year times 40 years of forensic custody evaluations =  400,000 to 800,000 undiagnosed and untreated child abuse cases due to the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations conducted on children and parents in the family courts – times two children per family = 800,000 to 1,600,000 abused children from the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations

    • From Claude Sonnet 4.5:

Response 1) Given that roughly half of all children in the United States will witness their parents’ divorce at some point, and considering current divorce rates, a reasonable estimate would be that approximately 300,000-400,000 divorces involving minor children occur annually in the U.S. –  Response 2) Conservative estimate: 30,000-60,000 high-conflict custody cases annually in the U.S. – Response 3) Conservative estimate: 3,300-19,800 cases annually involving significant child rejection of a parent. Mid-range estimate using 25%: 7,500-15,000 cases annually

Claude Estimate: ~ 7,500 to 15,000 new families every year times 40 years of forensic custody evaluations =  300,000 to 600,000 undiagnosed and untreated child abuse cases due to the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations conducted on children and parents in the family courts – times two children per family = 600,000 to 1,200,000 abused children from the failed experiment of forensic custody evaluations

Discarding the low and high estimates (ChatCPT), the estimated number of undiagnosed and untreated child abuse victims in the family courts created by 40 years of the “dangerous” experiment on the children and parents of forensic custody evaluations is estimated to be between 480,000 (Gemini) to 1,600,000 (Grok) abused children – and another 240,000 to 800,000 spousal abuse victims of the targeted parents who lost their children.

The scope of the undiagnosed and untreated abuse is staggering. The coming scandal is enormous. There are reasons experiments on human subjects require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. This is the reason.

Escaping Review & Oversight

The experimental quasi-judicial role for doctors, and their experimental forensic custody evaluation assessment procedure developed for their   experimental quasi-judicial role, have escaped oversight and review because this experiment was NOT conducted through the academic or healthcare sectors to advance knowledge, but was instead conducted by authorization of the legal system for motives of financial profit to the forensic custody evaluators who developed the experimental role and experimental assessment procedure.

There is a clear financial conflict of interest. The oversight role of self-monitoring was given to the very psychologists who financially profited from the experimental role and assessment approach they created. The forensic custody evaluators obtained all the financial and career-status benefits, while the children and their parents bore all the risks.

Even after 40 years, the forensic custody evaluators still don’t know what they are doing and their experimental forensic custody evaluation approach forensic still remains in its “formative years” (Simon & Stahl, 2020):

From Simon & Stahl 2020: “This illustrates the reality that as an organized field and as an organized, systematic approach to behavioral science, forensic psychology remains in its formative years.” (p. 5)

Simon, R.A. & Stahl, P.M. (2020). Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation, and Expert Testimony (2nd edition). American Bar Association.

Clinical psychology, on the other hand, diagnosis and treatment, is a fully established, organized, and systemic approach to behavioral science:

From Improving Diagnosis: “As the diagnostic process proceeds, a fairly broad list of potential diagnoses may be narrowed into fewer potential options, a process referred to as diagnostic modification and refinement (Kassirer et al., 2010). As the list becomes narrowed to one or two possibilities, diagnostic refinement of the working diagnosis becomes diagnostic verification, in which the lead diagnosis is checked for its adequacy in explaining the signs and symptoms, its coherency with the patient’s context (physiology, risk factors), and whether a single diagnosis is appropriate.” (National Academy of Sciences, 2015)

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015). Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare; Erin P. Balogh, Bryan T. Miller, and John R. Ball, Editors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338596/

Forensic custody evaluators have abandoned the healing role of doctors to become “agents of the state” who do NOT have the goal of alleviating the child’s suffering:

From Simon & Stahl 2020: “When the court appoints a mental health professional to conduct a child custody evaluation and offer advisory recommendations to the court regarding the psychological best interests of the children, the evaluator is in reality, an agent of the state.” (p. 18)

Doctors should NEVER be “agents of the state,” doctors should always remain doctors working for the best interests of their patients.

From Simon & Stahl 2020: The forensic role is a non-helper role. The evaluating FMHP [forensic mental health professional] is not involved in services that have as a goal the alleviation of suffering or discomfort.” (p. 26)

Doctors should ALWAYS have as their goal the alleviation of the child’s suffering.

Forensic custody evaluations are “dangerous” and “harmful to children and lack scientific or legal value,” and they should be entirely eliminated from the family courts (NY Blue-Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations, 2022).

From NY Blue Ribbon Commission: “By an 11-9 margin, a majority of Commission members favor elimination of forensic custody evaluations entirely, arguing that these reports are biased and harmful to children and lack scientific or legal value.”

Each year that forensic custody evaluations remain in the family courts, an estimated 6,000 (Gemini) to 20,000 (Grok) additional families in the U.S. (and an equal number internationally) are added to the destruction caused by forensic custody evaluations (aka Parenting Plan Assessments) in the family courts.

Why do they continue? Regulatory Capture (Carpenter & Moss, 2014) – Institutional Betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014).

Clinical Psychology – Differential Diagnosis

Clinical psychology – diagnosis and treatment – needs to return to the family courts.

The pathology of concern when a child rejects a parent surrounding divorce is:

DSM-5 297.1 Delusional Disorder; persecutory type (shared/induced with allied parent as the primary case).

DSM-5 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (a false/factitious attachment pathology imposed on the child for primary and secondary gain to the allied parent).

DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse by the allied (narcissistic-borderline-dark personality) parent.

DSM-5 V995.82 Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological of the targeted parent by the allied parent using the child (and the child’s induced pathology) as the spousal abuse weapon.

Risk Assessment for Child Abuse

In all cases of a child rejecting a parent surrounding court-involved child custody conflict, a proper risk assessment for child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnoses for each parent:

The pathology in the family courts is child abuse. The pathology in the family courts is spousal abuse of the targeted parent by the allied parent using the child as the spousal abuse weapon. All mental health professionals have a duty to protect.

In all cases of a child rejecting a parent surrounding court-involved child custody conflict, a proper risk assessment for child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnoses for each parent:

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist
WA 61538481 – CA 18857

References

Carpenter, D., & Moss, D. A. (Eds.). (2014). Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence and how to limit it. Cambridge University Press.

Gómez, J. M., Smith, C. P., Gobin, R. L., Tang, S. S., & Freyd, J. J. (2016). Collusion, torture, and inequality: Understanding the actions of the American Psychological Association as institutional betrayal. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 17(5), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2016.1214436 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015). Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare; Erin P. Balogh, Bryan T. Miller, and John R. Ball, Editors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338596/

New York Blue-Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations. (2022). Report of the Blue-Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations. New York State Unified Court System. https://www.nycourts.gov/reports/FCEreport.pdf.

Simon, R.A. & Stahl, P.M. (2020). Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation, and Expert Testimony (2nd edition). American Bar Association.

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037564

Leave a comment