Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This is the third installment of a four-part series offering a model for attorneys to use when faced with the task of analyzing a custody assessment. Trial preparation requires that a thorough dissection of the forensic work-product be done to determine how to counsel the parent-litigant about the next step in his or her case. A small body of literature has developed that suggests some of the areas most important to consider when analyzing a child custody report, including articles by Austin, Kirkpatrick, & Flens, (2011, Family Court Review), and by Gould, Kirkpatrick, Austin, & Martindale (2004, J Child Custody.
More recently, the Custody Assessment Analysis System, or CAAS, provided a comprehensive system for the pre-trial analysis of CCEs by attorneys (Wittmann, 2013, MatLaw Corp.). The inspection of an evaluator's report, focusing on the factors outlined below, produces a “red-flag” analysis; that is, a catalog of threats to reliability that compromise the usefulness of a particular evaluation. The ways in which an assessment may be sturdy and unlikely to yield under attack can also be determined through attention to the assets or strengths of a particular child custody evaluation (CCE).
The CAAS model suggests four broad lenses for such an analysis, lenses that give structure to our four installments: Management of Professional Relationships, Data Adequacy, Technique Adequacy, and Reasoning Adequacy. The third of these dimensions (technique adequacy) is the focus of this installment.
Technique Adequacy
This lens focuses on the following question: Did the evaluator execute the assessment technique in a manner viewed by his/her field as reliable and valid? Whereas the prior lenses for analysis emphasized the professional relationships between an evaluator and those involved in a case and the adequacy of the data that were gathered, here, the focus is on whether the forensic professional executed his or her craft in a manner that is technically sound, accurate and congruent with guidelines and standards in the field. It emphasizes questions about how the data were gathered.
1. Problems with Interview Technique
Were the interviews conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of reliable and valid assessment? For example, did the evaluator use a structured/planned interview approach as opposed to an unstructured approach? Unstructured approaches to interviewing can cause substantial variability in the questions litigants are asked, both within a particular assessment (i.e., from one parent to the next) and between evaluations (so that one litigating family is queried in a significantly different manner from another). Structured protocols, where all litigants are generally asked the same, pre-designed set of questions (with flexibility to the specific issues in dispute) are generally viewed as procedurally preferable in the forensic context.
Another important issue regarding interview technique involves sequencing: Were sessions counterbalanced with respect to sequence (e.g., mother, then father, then mother, then father) to control for the biasing effects of clustering multiple sessions with one parent before seeing the other? Chunking time with one litigant in advance of seeing the other is a ticket to distortion, given the risk of becoming excessively immersed in the worldview of one litigant before hearing the other person's story (a reason we recommend that most custody assessments begin with a joint session with the parents).
Counterbalancing the sessions also affords an orderly way to present each parent with assertions made by the other in prior interviews, insuring a chance to respond to all relevant allegations. Such balanced approach to sequencing is a fairer way to gather data, and where perceived fairness is high, parental confidence in the integrity of the process is likely to be higher. When analyzing a forensic custody report, it is also important to confirm that the tenets of reliable child interviewing were followed (e.g., non-leading and developmentally appropriate questions were used), a step that usually requires access to the contemporaneously taken session notes.
2. Problems with Testing Technique
Were the tests administered and scored in a manner consistent with published assessment instructions and standards? As implied above, analyzing the approach to testing taken in a CCE often requires the assistance of a psychological consultant. Errors made in this area include violating the administration standards of a test (by, for example, sending the test home for completion) and ignoring standards intended to reduce the threats to reliability and validity. On occasion, evaluators use outdated scoring approaches or make significant mistakes when they score an instrument. Psychological testing is one area of assessment for which there are clear standards of practice that are readily available to a law firm trying to analyze a CCE report (e.g., Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, AERA, 1999).
3. Problems with Collateral- Records Technique
The attorney analyzing a CCE report should confirm that the information gathered via collateral contacts and written materials was collected in a balanced and complete manner.
As noted in our prior installment, errors can be made with respect to what collateral or written information is included in a particular assessment. However, here we focus on how the collateral or written information is processed during the assessment. Did the evaluator make the error of being selectively inattentive to information s/he had accepted from the litigants, either because of time constraints or sloppiness? Was a choice made to review a substantial volume of material from one party at the beginning of the CCE (setting the stage for one of the multiple kinds of bias that can affect forensic reasoning) and to wait to review the material from the other litigant until the end of the process? On occasion, evaluators request and receive relevant yet negative records from a professional (Therapist, MD, etc.) regarding one parent and fail to seek similar, available records pertaining to the other parent.
4. Additional Technique Problems
Was the general method for gathering the assessment data characterized by a cautious hypotheses-testing approach? Here, the attorney analyzing the report should look for any signs that the evaluator prematurely drew conclusions about the children or parents. Indications that this error may have been made are most often evident in session notes, where notations about the parties during sessions have been made in the margins, offering a glimpse into the thought processes that were operative as the family was being assessed. In addition, any signs that the evaluator sought to confirm his or her hypotheses about a family and failed to try to disprove these hypotheses simultaneously (an approach referred to in the literature as “confirmatory hypothesis testing”) should also be seen as a red flag for unreliability.
Implications for Practice
While there is substantial variability in the procedural choices clinicians make as they provide treatment to those seeking their assistance, in the area of forensic assessment the various mental health disciplines have struggled to promulgate guidelines that reduce the differences in technique between practitioners and that help insure the use of methods that have been shown to be reliable. Organizational efforts aimed at increasing methodological consistency are especially important in an arena in which human rights and liberties are at stake. Unfortunately, the degree of variability in technique, even among forensic practitioners, is high (Bow and Quinell, 2001, “Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,” 32-3, 261-268). For this reason, close attention must be paid to the procedures chosen by a particular professional with a particular family so that deviations from acceptable practice can be identified. Departures from generally accepted practices call into question the reliability of an assessment about to be presented to a court.
This is the third installment of a four-part series offering a model for attorneys to use when faced with the task of analyzing a custody assessment. Trial preparation requires that a thorough dissection of the forensic work-product be done to determine how to counsel the parent-litigant about the next step in his or her case. A small body of literature has developed that suggests some of the areas most important to consider when analyzing a child custody report, including articles by Austin, Kirkpatrick, & Flens, (2011, Family Court Review), and by Gould, Kirkpatrick, Austin, & Martindale (2004, J Child Custody.
More recently, the Custody Assessment Analysis System, or CAAS, provided a comprehensive system for the pre-trial analysis of CCEs by attorneys (Wittmann, 2013, MatLaw Corp.). The inspection of an evaluator's report, focusing on the factors outlined below, produces a “red-flag” analysis; that is, a catalog of threats to reliability that compromise the usefulness of a particular evaluation. The ways in which an assessment may be sturdy and unlikely to yield under attack can also be determined through attention to the assets or strengths of a particular child custody evaluation (CCE).
The CAAS model suggests four broad lenses for such an analysis, lenses that give structure to our four installments: Management of Professional Relationships, Data Adequacy, Technique Adequacy, and Reasoning Adequacy. The third of these dimensions (technique adequacy) is the focus of this installment.
Technique Adequacy
This lens focuses on the following question: Did the evaluator execute the assessment technique in a manner viewed by his/her field as reliable and valid? Whereas the prior lenses for analysis emphasized the professional relationships between an evaluator and those involved in a case and the adequacy of the data that were gathered, here, the focus is on whether the forensic professional executed his or her craft in a manner that is technically sound, accurate and congruent with guidelines and standards in the field. It emphasizes questions about how the data were gathered.
1. Problems with Interview Technique
Were the interviews conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of reliable and valid assessment? For example, did the evaluator use a structured/planned interview approach as opposed to an unstructured approach? Unstructured approaches to interviewing can cause substantial variability in the questions litigants are asked, both within a particular assessment (i.e., from one parent to the next) and between evaluations (so that one litigating family is queried in a significantly different manner from another). Structured protocols, where all litigants are generally asked the same, pre-designed set of questions (with flexibility to the specific issues in dispute) are generally viewed as procedurally preferable in the forensic context.
Another important issue regarding interview technique involves sequencing: Were sessions counterbalanced with respect to sequence (e.g., mother, then father, then mother, then father) to control for the biasing effects of clustering multiple sessions with one parent before seeing the other? Chunking time with one litigant in advance of seeing the other is a ticket to distortion, given the risk of becoming excessively immersed in the worldview of one litigant before hearing the other person's story (a reason we recommend that most custody assessments begin with a joint session with the parents).
Counterbalancing the sessions also affords an orderly way to present each parent with assertions made by the other in prior interviews, insuring a chance to respond to all relevant allegations. Such balanced approach to sequencing is a fairer way to gather data, and where perceived fairness is high, parental confidence in the integrity of the process is likely to be higher. When analyzing a forensic custody report, it is also important to confirm that the tenets of reliable child interviewing were followed (e.g., non-leading and developmentally appropriate questions were used), a step that usually requires access to the contemporaneously taken session notes.
2. Problems with Testing Technique
Were the tests administered and scored in a manner consistent with published assessment instructions and standards? As implied above, analyzing the approach to testing taken in a CCE often requires the assistance of a psychological consultant. Errors made in this area include violating the administration standards of a test (by, for example, sending the test home for completion) and ignoring standards intended to reduce the threats to reliability and validity. On occasion, evaluators use outdated scoring approaches or make significant mistakes when they score an instrument. Psychological testing is one area of assessment for which there are clear standards of practice that are readily available to a law firm trying to analyze a CCE report (e.g., Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, AERA, 1999).
3. Problems with Collateral- Records Technique
The attorney analyzing a CCE report should confirm that the information gathered via collateral contacts and written materials was collected in a balanced and complete manner.
As noted in our prior installment, errors can be made with respect to what collateral or written information is included in a particular assessment. However, here we focus on how the collateral or written information is processed during the assessment. Did the evaluator make the error of being selectively inattentive to information s/he had accepted from the litigants, either because of time constraints or sloppiness? Was a choice made to review a substantial volume of material from one party at the beginning of the CCE (setting the stage for one of the multiple kinds of bias that can affect forensic reasoning) and to wait to review the material from the other litigant until the end of the process? On occasion, evaluators request and receive relevant yet negative records from a professional (Therapist, MD, etc.) regarding one parent and fail to seek similar, available records pertaining to the other parent.
4. Additional Technique Problems
Was the general method for gathering the assessment data characterized by a cautious hypotheses-testing approach? Here, the attorney analyzing the report should look for any signs that the evaluator prematurely drew conclusions about the children or parents. Indications that this error may have been made are most often evident in session notes, where notations about the parties during sessions have been made in the margins, offering a glimpse into the thought processes that were operative as the family was being assessed. In addition, any signs that the evaluator sought to confirm his or her hypotheses about a family and failed to try to disprove these hypotheses simultaneously (an approach referred to in the literature as “confirmatory hypothesis testing”) should also be seen as a red flag for unreliability.
Implications for Practice
While there is substantial variability in the procedural choices clinicians make as they provide treatment to those seeking their assistance, in the area of forensic assessment the various mental health disciplines have struggled to promulgate guidelines that reduce the differences in technique between practitioners and that help insure the use of methods that have been shown to be reliable. Organizational efforts aimed at increasing methodological consistency are especially important in an arena in which human rights and liberties are at stake. Unfortunately, the degree of variability in technique, even among forensic practitioners, is high (Bow and Quinell, 2001, “Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,” 32-3, 261-268). For this reason, close attention must be paid to the procedures chosen by a particular professional with a particular family so that deviations from acceptable practice can be identified. Departures from generally accepted practices call into question the reliability of an assessment about to be presented to a court.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.