PSYCH 694 Week 4 Forensic Psychology Example

When the Court Is the Client: A Custody Evaluation, a Competency Question and the Work of Forensic Psychologists

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSYCH/694: Specialty Areas in Applied Psychology

Week 4 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The health center, the family and the legal matters are composites written for a model paper; professional guidelines and research findings come from the sources listed.

Renee, a forty-year-old patient at our health center, came to my office upset. Her former husband had filed for custody of their two children, ages eight and eleven, and the family court had ordered a psychological evaluation of both parents and the children. She asked whether our center's psychologist, who had treated her for depression two years earlier, could do it. The question led me into forensic psychology.

What Forensic Psychologists Do

Forensic psychology applies psychological science and practice to legal questions. Despite its image on television, most forensic psychologists do not profile criminals. They evaluate defendants' competency to stand trial and mental state at the time of an offense, assess risk of violence, evaluate parents in custody disputes, assess personal injury claims, consult with attorneys on jury selection and testify as experts. Many are clinical psychologists with additional forensic training and experience.

The Custody Evaluation

Guidelines for psychologists conducting child custody evaluations in family law cases were issued in 2010 (American Psychological Association, 2010). They state that the purpose of the evaluation is to help the court determine the psychological best interests of the child, whose welfare is paramount. Evaluators should acquire specialized competence, strive for impartiality, obtain informed consent from adults while explaining who will receive the report, use multiple methods of data gathering, such as interviews, observation, testing and records, and interpret data cautiously, offering recommendations only when they rest on sound evidence. The guidelines also caution against conducting a custody evaluation of someone the psychologist has treated.

Why Our Psychologist Cannot Do It

Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology, which apply across forensic work, followed three years later (American Psychological Association, 2013). They urge forensic practitioners to strive for impartiality and avoid partisan advocacy, to clarify their role with everyone involved, to avoid multiple relationships that could impair objectivity, such as serving as both therapist and evaluator for the same person, to inform people being evaluated about the nature and purpose of the evaluation and who will receive the results and to distinguish observations, inferences and conclusions when reporting.

Our psychologist treated Renee and was, in a sense, on her side. As an evaluator she would need to be impartial between Renee and her former husband, and her prior relationship would undermine that impartiality and the court's trust in her report. The court will appoint an independent evaluator, and our psychologist may be asked only to provide treatment records with Renee's consent.

The person who helped Renee through depression is the one person who should not judge her as a parent.

How Forensic Work Differs From Therapy

In therapy, the client is the patient, the goal is the patient's well-being and confidentiality is broad. In a custody evaluation, the court is effectively the client, the goal is the children's best interests and what Renee says may appear in a report read by judges and attorneys, including her former husband's. The evaluator will verify information from multiple sources and may seek records rather than rely on Renee's account alone. Impartiality, not support, defines the relationship.

What Renee Can Expect

I explained to Renee what such evaluations usually involve: interviews with each parent, observation of each parent with the children, interviews with the children, psychological testing of the parents, review of school and medical records and contact with others who know the family, such as teachers. I told her it was normal to feel anxious and suggested she speak with her attorney about questions I could not answer. I did not advise her on how to present herself, which would have overstepped my role.

A Second Forensic Role: Competency

Pirelli et al. (2011) meta-analyzed sixty-eight studies of competency to stand trial involving more than twenty-six thousand defendants referred for evaluation. Roughly a quarter of referred defendants were found incompetent. Those found incompetent were considerably more likely to have a psychotic disorder, to be unemployed and to have a history of psychiatric hospitalization, and diagnosis of psychosis was the strongest single correlate. The authors noted wide variation across studies and called for more consistent methods.

Our center sometimes sees patients with serious mental illness who have pending criminal charges. A forensic psychologist evaluating their competency would ask whether they understand the charges and court process and can assist their attorney, a narrow legal question quite different from treatment.

Forensic Research: Eyewitness Memory

Wells and Olson (2003) reviewed research on eyewitness testimony, distinguishing estimator variables, such as lighting, stress or the presence of a weapon, which the justice system cannot control, from system variables, such as lineup instructions and procedures, which it can. They reported that mistaken eyewitness identification was a factor in most early DNA exoneration cases, that confidence can be inflated by feedback after an identification and that lineup procedures, such as warning witnesses that the culprit may not be present, can reduce mistaken identifications. This research has led many police departments to change lineup procedures, an example of forensic psychology improving the legal system itself.

Why Impartiality Is Hard

Impartiality sounds simple but is hard to practice. Research on forensic evaluators has raised concerns that experts retained by one side may, without intending to, interpret ambiguous data in that side's favor. Custody evaluators face similar pressures: parents present themselves at their best, children may be coached and the evaluator's own views about parenting can shape impressions. The guidelines respond by requiring multiple sources of information, so that no single interview carries the conclusion, and by asking evaluators to consider alternative explanations before settling on one. For Renee, this means the evaluator will look beyond her depression history to how she parents today, which is what the court needs to know.

Training and Careers

Most forensic psychologists hold doctorates in clinical or counseling psychology, complete forensic coursework and supervised forensic experience and may seek board certification. Master's-level professionals work in related roles, such as case management in courts and correctional settings, victim advocacy and probation support.

Ethics for a Case Manager

My role is limited. I can provide information, emotional support and referrals; I cannot evaluate, testify about Renee's parenting or advocate in court. If subpoenaed for records, I must consult the center's legal counsel before releasing anything. I can, however, keep helping Renee with the practical problems the dispute creates, such as finding a lower-cost family law clinic and keeping her own counseling appointments, which matter for her well-being whatever the court decides.

Myths Corrected

Writing this paper corrected several of my assumptions. Forensic psychologists rarely work crime scenes. Their reports serve courts, not the people evaluated. And their most important qualities are impartiality and careful methods rather than insight into criminal minds.

Conclusion

Renee's custody evaluation shows the defining features of forensic psychology: the court as client, impartiality over support, multiple sources of evidence and clear limits on roles. Competency evaluations and eyewitness research show the specialty's range, from individual evaluation to reforming legal procedures.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. American Psychologist, 65(9), 863-867. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021250

American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889

Pirelli, G., Gottdiener, W. H., & Zapf, P. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of competency to stand trial research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 1-53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021713

Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028