Ruth A. Blizard & Morgan Shaw (2019)
Journal of Child Custody
DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1590285
Abstract
False Memory Syndrome (FMS) and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) were developed as defenses for parents accused of child abuse as part of a larger movement to undermine prosecution of child abuse. The lost-in-the-mall study by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus concludes that an entire false memory can be implanted by suggestion. It has since been used to discredit abuse survivors’ testimony by inferring that false memories for childhood abuse can be implanted by psychotherapists. Examination of the research methods and findings of the study shows that no full false memories were actually formed. Similarly, PAS, coined by Richard Gardner, is frequently used in custody cases to discredit children’s testimony by alleging that the protective parent coached them to have false memories of abuse. There is no scientific research demonstrating the existence of PAS, and, in fact, studies on the suggestibility of children show that they cannot easily be persuaded to provide detailed disclosures of abuse.
The info is here.
Showing posts with label Child Custody Cases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Child Custody Cases. Show all posts
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Court awards $1.5 million to Anniston couple who lost custody of child
Tim Lockette
The Anniston Star
Originally posted December 13, 2018
A Calhoun County jury ordered a psychologist to pay $1.5 million in damages to a couple who lost custody of their child following the psychologist’s evaluation of them.
John and Farrah Lynn were Anniston residents in 2014, when the Department of Human Resources placed their infant son Oliver in foster care. Oliver Lynn, who had been born with a birth defect, died a little more than a month later.
“Everybody, even DHR, said there was nothing wrong with this family,” said the couple’s lawyer, George Monk. “Only the psychologist objected.”
According to court documents, Oliver Lynn’s birth defect required surgery at Children’s Hospital in Birmingham. The hospital contacted DHR before the infant was released back to the Lynns, setting up an in-home visit to determine whether the Lynns were able to care for the child while he was recovering from surgery.
Social workers found no problem at the Lynns’ Anniston home, Monk said, but did request a psychological assessment of both parents. Dennis Sizelove, a clinical psychologist and owner of Faith-Based Psychological Associates in Sheffield, examined both John and Farrah Lynn.
Sizelove recommended removing the child from the home, citing “occupational, social, and emotional functioning” that put the infant at risk of harm. Sizelove also noted a “self-reported inability to read” on behalf of both the parents.
The Anniston Star
Originally posted December 13, 2018
A Calhoun County jury ordered a psychologist to pay $1.5 million in damages to a couple who lost custody of their child following the psychologist’s evaluation of them.
John and Farrah Lynn were Anniston residents in 2014, when the Department of Human Resources placed their infant son Oliver in foster care. Oliver Lynn, who had been born with a birth defect, died a little more than a month later.
“Everybody, even DHR, said there was nothing wrong with this family,” said the couple’s lawyer, George Monk. “Only the psychologist objected.”
According to court documents, Oliver Lynn’s birth defect required surgery at Children’s Hospital in Birmingham. The hospital contacted DHR before the infant was released back to the Lynns, setting up an in-home visit to determine whether the Lynns were able to care for the child while he was recovering from surgery.
Social workers found no problem at the Lynns’ Anniston home, Monk said, but did request a psychological assessment of both parents. Dennis Sizelove, a clinical psychologist and owner of Faith-Based Psychological Associates in Sheffield, examined both John and Farrah Lynn.
Sizelove recommended removing the child from the home, citing “occupational, social, and emotional functioning” that put the infant at risk of harm. Sizelove also noted a “self-reported inability to read” on behalf of both the parents.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Use and Misuse of Mental Health Professionals in Custody Cases
By Stephen Gassman and David A. Martindale
New York Law Journal
Originally published August 29, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
As is evident from the decision, the trial court found the mother misused numerous mental health professionals in pursuit of her goal of cutting the father out of the child's life. While accepting the evaluator's findings and most of his conclusions concerning the mother's ongoing alienation, the court did not adopt the evaluator's specific recommendation on the ultimate issue of what custodial arrangement would serve the child's best interests.
The court carefully delineated its reasons for so doing, articulating those facts of which the evaluator had been unaware. Particularly noteworthy is the court's statement that one of the "salient facts revealed during the course of the Hearing" and, therefore, unknown to the evaluator, was that the mother had "received extensive—over 50 hours—of preparation for her forensic interview…from…Dr. Jonathan Gould," a well-known forensic consultant from North Carolina. Justice Colangelo stated that this intensive preparation was "to the detriment of [the mother's] position…." in terms of assessing credibility.
The entire article is here.
New York Law Journal
Originally published August 29, 2014
Here is an excerpt:
As is evident from the decision, the trial court found the mother misused numerous mental health professionals in pursuit of her goal of cutting the father out of the child's life. While accepting the evaluator's findings and most of his conclusions concerning the mother's ongoing alienation, the court did not adopt the evaluator's specific recommendation on the ultimate issue of what custodial arrangement would serve the child's best interests.
The court carefully delineated its reasons for so doing, articulating those facts of which the evaluator had been unaware. Particularly noteworthy is the court's statement that one of the "salient facts revealed during the course of the Hearing" and, therefore, unknown to the evaluator, was that the mother had "received extensive—over 50 hours—of preparation for her forensic interview…from…Dr. Jonathan Gould," a well-known forensic consultant from North Carolina. Justice Colangelo stated that this intensive preparation was "to the detriment of [the mother's] position…." in terms of assessing credibility.
The entire article is here.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Psychologist surrenders license over custody evaluation
Psychiatric Crimes Database
Published on November 29, 2012
On July 20, 2012, psychologist Charlotte Higgins-Lee surrendered her license to practice to the Oregon Board of Psychologist Examiners According to the Board’s document, in late 2010, Higgins-Lee received a referral to conducted a psychological evaluation of a father and his nine-year-old daughter and to testify in a January 2011 hearing concerning custody and parenting time. Though the custody matter concerned the father, daughter and father’s ex-spouse (the daughter’s mother), Higgins-Lee did not interview the mother (though she interviewed the father, daughter and others). Nonetheless, she concluded that the father should have sole custody and that “more information should be obtained on the mother’s alcohol use/abuse and violence,” among other statements critical of the mother, whom she had never met or interviewed. The Board proposed a reprimand, civil fine of $7,500 and requirement to practice under supervision for a minimum of six months. However, Higgins-Lee later agreed to a new stipulated agreement to surrender her license to the Board.
The board order is here.
Published on November 29, 2012
On July 20, 2012, psychologist Charlotte Higgins-Lee surrendered her license to practice to the Oregon Board of Psychologist Examiners According to the Board’s document, in late 2010, Higgins-Lee received a referral to conducted a psychological evaluation of a father and his nine-year-old daughter and to testify in a January 2011 hearing concerning custody and parenting time. Though the custody matter concerned the father, daughter and father’s ex-spouse (the daughter’s mother), Higgins-Lee did not interview the mother (though she interviewed the father, daughter and others). Nonetheless, she concluded that the father should have sole custody and that “more information should be obtained on the mother’s alcohol use/abuse and violence,” among other statements critical of the mother, whom she had never met or interviewed. The Board proposed a reprimand, civil fine of $7,500 and requirement to practice under supervision for a minimum of six months. However, Higgins-Lee later agreed to a new stipulated agreement to surrender her license to the Board.
The board order is here.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Judge sends suspended Doc back to work
By Andy Fox
WAVY.com
Originally published on June 7, 2012
A local psychologist who is often called on by local courts to give advice on child custody decisions is back in business.
WAVY.com first told you earlier this week the Virginia Psychology Board indefinitely suspended Dr. Brian Wald for inappropriate relations with a client.
But a trip to court changed that. The Judge basically overruled the Psychology Board, allowing Dr. Wald to go back to work until the matter is settled in court in September. The Judge set several conditions: Wald must take an ethics course, he must continue his own therapy, he must have supervision during clinical cases and he is prohibited from participating in parental custody cases in Norfolk.
Here is a video of the local newscast.
The entire article is here. A prior blog entry can be found here.
WAVY.com
Originally published on June 7, 2012
A local psychologist who is often called on by local courts to give advice on child custody decisions is back in business.
WAVY.com first told you earlier this week the Virginia Psychology Board indefinitely suspended Dr. Brian Wald for inappropriate relations with a client.
But a trip to court changed that. The Judge basically overruled the Psychology Board, allowing Dr. Wald to go back to work until the matter is settled in court in September. The Judge set several conditions: Wald must take an ethics course, he must continue his own therapy, he must have supervision during clinical cases and he is prohibited from participating in parental custody cases in Norfolk.
Here is a video of the local newscast.
The entire article is here. A prior blog entry can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)