tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post1184973147151341063..comments2024-03-05T01:05:37.027-08:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: Calif.: Custody evaluators facing lost immunityKaren Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-90225422856596107712010-05-20T11:03:21.770-07:002010-05-20T11:03:21.770-07:00As borrowed from the Liz Library, Liznotes article...As borrowed from the Liz Library, Liznotes article titled, "Reevaluating the Evluators"<br />-Hiring a custody evaluator in a family law case is not like the hiring of a forensic expert to determine how many feet the car slid with the brakes on, or whether a particular medicine caused a patient's illness. It usually does not expedite cases, reduce costs, simplify litigation, help children, result in better judicial decision-making, or result in better child-rearing outcomes. The bottom line is that at best it's unnecessary -- there are just not that many possible custody choices to choose from in the usual case, and a good custody decision is not that difficult to make. Somehow that happens in the many, many cases that either are settled early on by the parents themselves, or are decided by a judge when neither litigant has a big financial pot for these helping professionals to party down on.<br /><br />It's time we stopped pretending.<br /><br />Cutody Evaluations should only be used as a last resortAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-16273598551630548852010-04-30T17:56:12.990-07:002010-04-30T17:56:12.990-07:00Re: "Karen. I agree with you on a lot of thin...Re: "Karen. I agree with you on a lot of things. A lot. I respect you and I respect your blog. But I think you are just flat out wrong on this topic. " I agree with this poster VERBATIM. You do have a wonderful blog that I read assiduously and for which I am most appreciative. But on this topic, I must say, your views really surprise me. For one, "expert" witnesses need to be held accountable for their testimony just as D.A.'s and judges SHOULD be (but are not). For another, there certainly IS a "gender-feminist" (as opposed to "equality" feminist) infiltration into the courts and therapeutic industries (I should know, I've been working within it for 25 years). I can tell you that female D.A.'s and judges are, by-and-large, DEATH for any man accused of a sex crime. Of course, there are lots of male D.A.'s and judges this could be said of, but I'm talking "on-the-whole". Yeah, there's some nuts in the men's rights movement but let's compare that with the women's rights movement. Don't think there are any sadistic zealots over there? Give me a break! And there's also a lot of mean and vindictive ex-wives and mothers out there, too just as there many mean and vindictive ex-husbands and fathers. I think one of the most important take-home points is that we must not continue to disseminate justice based upon gender, or any other, profiling. Keep up the otherwise excellent work, Karen.<br />-Another DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-72299618914876472442010-04-28T17:27:31.192-07:002010-04-28T17:27:31.192-07:00The most logical way to convey this AB 2475 Bill i...The most logical way to convey this AB 2475 Bill is to ask our state and the nation as to whether or not they like to go to a doctor he/she is not held liable for what they do? That is why medicine is the best practice in the US. Any and all doctors are and will continue to be held 100% (not any less) liable for what they do until the last minute they practice, for a reason. "Liability Fosters Good Care." <br />If you remove this liability, you create a world of careless and cold blooded sociopaths and un-professionals who are only self serving. <br /><br />As a result losing the homes and college funds and parents fighting each other in the Court will never stop. And if ANY this will get worse as long as those fraudulent court ancillaries are cut lose on the public with no accountability, whatsoever. <br /><br />"Unsupervised Assets Teaches Theft." <br /><br />How can we care about our own health and never care about the best professional decisions for our children? If we inspire for a great country with great generations, then let us do what is professional and responsible for our children and families. <br />Emad Tadros MDEmad Tadrosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-80780187401674919162010-04-28T16:40:56.028-07:002010-04-28T16:40:56.028-07:00It may be that in the 90's there was only ONE ...It may be that in the 90's there was only ONE supported disciplnary action (which is a sad commentary). Given the bias in the family courts by mediators and evaluators, this shows how important it is to expose the family court personnel who are using junk science, not following appropriate guidelines, and other blatantly inappropriate behaviors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-61734341199318364232010-04-28T12:08:57.252-07:002010-04-28T12:08:57.252-07:00Karen. I agree with you on a lot of things. A lot....Karen. I agree with you on a lot of things. A lot. I respect you and I respect your blog. But I think you are just flat out wrong on this topic. While I don't belong to any particular men's rights groups I am sympathetic to their aims.<br /><br />The fundamental problem is that independent should mean neutral but it rarely if ever does. As a former CASA volunteer many years ago I can testify first hand how many so-called experts came in with a very obvious and clear ax to grind. I don't think that all of them are men bashers; I've seen the opposite. But over time I do think that men have gotten the short end of the stick.<br /><br />Like others, I too note that the fact that only one professional got disciplined is not a sign that everyone else is crazy but a sign the board won't police it's own. It's a problem in other areas of psychology too, not just here.<br /><br />More fundamentally I think it would be wise for you to take a step back for a moment. If people who you see as liberals and people who in other areas admire and respect you, disagree with you on this topic then maybe....just maybe....if you have an open mind....you might consider that there is at least some merit to their claims and that they are not just a bunch of loonies as Slate would have it. <br /><br />Having said that, I don't know if I support this specific bill or not. I think it's a very difficult subject. My own opinion is that the real flaw lies in our system of legal education. Most judges have no training in psychology and thus they have no way to adequately review whether a guardian ad litem has fulfilled their obligation to do a neutral review of not. They either accept what the expert says uncritically or if they have doubts they hope that the adversarial process sorts it out. That's an inherently flawed approach.<br /><br />DanielAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-37014139816049696242010-04-28T11:09:12.612-07:002010-04-28T11:09:12.612-07:00How disgusting that only one complaint was taken s...How disgusting that only one complaint was taken seriously. When law goes back to using scientific forensic evidence instead of fantasy and hearsay then both mothers and fathers will be better served. Psychology is a pseudoscience, the opining by these people adds nothing to family court but more expense, the ability to obscure real evidence and the rape of justice by opinions that are bought and paid for.<br />The psychologists have done a great job covering up child abuse and domestic violence by forcing people to "discuss" it in family court instead of prosecuting it like the crime that it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-85907772637017358682010-04-28T10:23:30.691-07:002010-04-28T10:23:30.691-07:00I am a child and family psychotherapist. I have o...I am a child and family psychotherapist. I have one case in which a mother and child, who were abused and traumatized when I began seeing them. Their attorneys had a hired a custody evaluator who said they were "not victims of domestic violence," in his opinion, even though he gathered reams of evidence to the contrary. The idea that the custody evaluator could determine whether or not they were victims of domestic violence, a year and a half after I began working with them is utterly crazy at least, and highly unethical at most.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-75397073098952513452010-04-28T10:22:25.398-07:002010-04-28T10:22:25.398-07:00Fascinating that you cite the following in your ar...Fascinating that you cite the following in your argument against the bill: <br /><br />"California logged the most licensing board complaints over child custody evaluations of any U.S. state during the 1990s. Yet according to Kirkland et al's review, of all of those 1,660 complaints, only a single one -- that's right, ONE -- led to a formal finding against the psychologist." <br /><br />This review only adds ammunition to our arguments for supporting this critical legislation- the self-policing licensing boards are failing miserably in their protection of the public from lawbreaking court appointees. <br /><br />As a prime sponsor of this bill, I can assure you that our organization has received detailed documentation from many hundreds of California family law cases that proves that private court appointees such as custody evaluators, minors counsel, therapists and special masters, to name a few, are routinely violating state laws, local rules of court and the standards of their professions. <br /><br />The forensic psychology industry would do well to embrace this and other attempts to finally create some meaningful accountability for your profession. That way you can avoid the embarrassing headlines about how pet cats are receiving the same mail-order credentials as some of the California courts' most trusted forensic psychologists.Kathleen Russellhttp://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-25657944761539232682010-04-28T01:15:27.143-07:002010-04-28T01:15:27.143-07:00The bill is supported by CA fathers and mothers, a...The bill is supported by CA fathers and mothers, and advocates for each. <br /><br />It is aimed at unethical private members of CA divorce "cottage industries" (and there are many) who profess to be experts, seek court appointments, charge parents tens of thousands of dollars, AND, in the process, "violate laws, rules of court and professional standards". You all know these hired guns are out there, nationwide, largely unregulated, and making lots of money, at the expense of devastated divorcing families. <br /><br />Bad apples spoil it for the whole bunch. Blame the bad apples, not CA court victims (mothers AND fathers), their advocates, or concerned CA legislators for this turn of events. <br /><br />Nationwide, the public is mad as h***, and they aren't going to take it anymore. If the divorce driven "cottage-industries" won't regulate their own, the public will do it for them -- whether it is via this bill, or the next, or voter initiatives. The party is over. It is only a matter of time. <br /><br />Period. End of Story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com