What More CAN A FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST DO FOR YOU?

Author(s): ROBERT E. ERARD

Source: Family Advocate , Winter 2014, Vol. 36, No. 3, THE FAMILY LAW CONSULTANT:
As Expert and Educator (Winter 2014), pp. 35-37, 46
Published by: American Bar Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24623540

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Family Advocate

This content downloaded from

223.231.149.49 on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:21:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What
What
CAN A

More
FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGIST
DO FOR YOU?
BY ROBERT E. ERARD

c Most
Most experienced
experienced
family law attorneys
family
are familiarlaw
with the
attorneys are familiar w
roles
rolesof psychological
of psychological
experts in child custody
experts
evaluations. in child custody eval
Although
Although child custody
child
evaluation
custody
reports are written
evaluation
for the reports are writt
court,
court,in practice
in they
practice
more often serve
they as instruments
more for often serve as instrume
settlement
settlementthan as the than
foundationas
for the
expert testimony
foundationat trial. for expert testim
Family
Familylawyers lawyers
also commonly use
also
psychological
commonly experts as part
use psychological ex
of
ofan Alternative
an Alternative
Dispute ResolutionDispute
(ADR) process, Resolution
both prior (ADR) process,

r
to
todivorce
divorce
(e.g., facilitative
(e.g.,or evaluative
facilitative
parenting timeor
media
evaluative parenting
tion)
tion) and inand in postjudgment
postjudgment cases (e.g., parent coordi
cases (e.g., parent coordination).
But
Butappropriately
appropriately
trained forensic psychologists
trained alsoforensic
can be psychologists also
helpful
helpfulin many in
othermany
ways behind
other
the scenes.ways behind the scenes.

&
*
REVIEWING
REVIEWING OTHER EXPERTS'
OTHER WORK
EXPERTS' WORK his
hisor
orher
her use ofseemingly
use of seemingly arcane
arcane sources
sources of knowl
of knowl
experts, particularly
Testifying experts, particularly court-appointed
court-appointed child
child
edge edge
(such as (such as technical
technical interpretations
interpretations of the results
of the results
custody evaluators,
custody evaluators,are
areoften
oftenhighly
highlyinfluential
influential
ofin in of personality
personality tests or tests or applications
applications of attachment
of attachment
judges' analysis
analysis of
of the
the children's
children's best
best interests
intereststheory
and in
and inor
theory or systems
family family systems theory)
theory) may may be difficult
be difficult to to
the court's
the court's ultimate
ultimatecustody
custody and
and parenting-time
parenting-time refute
refute based based on general
on general knowledge
knowledge or common
or common sense sense
As the
decisions. As the court's
court's own
own expert,
expert, who
who has
has often
often
alone.alone.
Thus,Thus, attorneys
attorneys seeking
seeking to discredit
to discredit or rebut
or rebut
spent dozens
spent dozens of
of hours
hourslearning
learningabout
aboutthe
theparties
parties
the and
and the opinions
opinions ofexperts
of such such experts on behalf
on behalf of clients
of their their clients
children and
the children and otherwise
otherwise investigating
investigating the
the case,
case,
oftenaa often find themselves
find themselves at a distinct
at a distinct disadvantage.
disadvantage.
court-appointed child
court-appointed child custody
custodyevaluator
evaluatorisisoften
often pre-
pre
Here theHere theyour
use of use of
ownyour own
expert expert consultant
consultant can can
sumed by
sumed by the
thecourt
courttotobebewell
well qualified
qualified to to present
present be indispensable
be indispensable in establishing
in establishing a more
a more even even playing
playing
impartial,scientifically
impartial, scientifically and
and clinically
clinically grounded
field field
grounded (Gould(Gould
et al.,et al., 2004).
2004). The consulting
The consulting psycholo
psycholo
opinions about
expert opinions about what
what kinds
kinds of
ofarrangements
arrangements
gist cangist can address
address the following
the following issues andissues
help and help
would be
would be best
best for
for the
thechildren.
children.Some
Somejudges
judgeseven
even prepare
prepare cross-examination
cross-examination questions
questions highlighting
highlighting
worry about
worry aboutmaking
making findings
findings that
that are are strongly
strongly at the following:
theatfollowing:
variance from
variance fromthe
thecustody
custodyevaluators
evaluator's recommenda-
recommenda • Did the court-appointed
• Did the court-appointed expert have adequate expert have adequate
tions, on
tions, onthe
thesupposition
supposition that
that thethe court
court of appeals
of appeals professional
professional training,
training, background, background,
and skill to and skill to
would find
would findthat
thatthey
theyruled
ruled against
against "the
"the great
great weight
offer the offer
weight opinionsthe opinions and that
and recommendations recommendations that
of the
of theevidence."
evidence." Moreover,
Moreover, the aura
the aura of special
of special were contained
were contained intestimony?
in the report or the report or testimony?
knowledgeand
knowledge and insight
insight surrounding
surrounding (Weissman,
the expert
the expert and and 1991)
(Weissman, 1991)
WINTER 2014 35

This content downloaded from

223.231.149.49 on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:21:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 expert follow
• Did the expert follow applicable
applicable professional
professionalguide
guide- • That• peer-reviewed publications
That peer-reviewed publications do not support
do not supportthethe
lines for
lines forconducting
conductingchild
child custody
custody evaluations? opinion opinion
evaluations? or its or
basis and and
its basis indeed
indeedactively callinto
actively call into
(e.g.,
(e.g., APA,APA,
2010) 2010) question Dr. L.'s methodology.
question Dr. L.'s methodology.
••Was
Was the expert's
the expert's ethical
ethical conduct conduct
in this matter above in this matter
• That the opinion and above
its basis are• not
That the
consistent opinion and its
with
reproach?
reproach? generally accepted standards
generallygoverning the application
accepted standards governing the application
••Did
Did the proceed
the expert expert proceed
according according to the and
to the prevailing prevailing and
interpretation of interpretation
psychological tests and child of psychological
standards
standards of practiceof practice
in child in child custody custody-evaluation
custody evaluations? evaluations? custody-evaluation techniques.
techniques.
(Ackerman
(Ackerman et al., 2004) • That the potential
et al., 2004) error
• That rateerror
the potential ofrate
the opinion
of the and
opinion and
•• Did
Didthethe expert
expert appropriately
appropriately select and
select and accurately and accuratelyrecommendations
and recommendations
offered by Dr. offered by Dr. L. is unknown,
L. is unknown,
fairly
fairly administer,
administer, score,
score, and and
interpret theinterpret
psychological the psychological because
because the themethodology
underlying underlying methodology
is untested and is untested and
tests?
tests? (Heinz
(Heinz & Grisso, & Grisso, 1996) not recognized
1996) as reliable.
not recognized as reliable.
••Did
Did the expert
the expert misapprehend
misapprehend or fail to consider or fail to consider • That
• That the bases for Dr.the basesand
L.'s opinions for Dr. L.'s opinions and r
recommenda
evidence
evidence that
that was bothwas both
relevant relevant and consequential?
and consequential? tions
tions are not are
accepted nottheaccepted
within within the relevant exp
relevant expert
••IsIs there
there evidence
evidence inofthe
in the record bias inrecord of bias in thecommunity,
the expert's expert'si.e.,
community, i.e., among
among qualified psychologists who qualified psycholo
weighing
weighing of the of the
evidence? evidence? are knowledgeable
are in that field
knowledgeable in thatof study
field of studyand are
and are
•• Are
Arethethe expert's
expert's theories,theories, methods,
methods, and and opinions con-
opinions con professionally
professionally engaged on a engaged on
regular basis in aapplying
regular basis in applying
sistent
sistent withwith accepted
accepted science
science and and
practice in the practice
field? in the field? such knowledge.
such knowledge.
•• That
Thatthe
the
basis
basis
for the
foropinions
the opinions
is unreliable,
is unreliable,
and that and that
PREPARING
PREPARING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
MOTIONS IN LIMINE experts in the child
expertscustody
in the child field
custody would not
field would not rely
rely on on
Because
Because family
family law evidentiary
law evidentiary hearings
hearings are are always bench such
always bench sucha abasis
basis to reach
to reach theoftype
the type of being
opinions opinions being
trials(except
trials (except in Texas),
in Texas), the approach
the approach to matters
to evidentiary evidentiary matters proffered.
proffered.
commonly
commonly practiced
practiced is less is less rigorous
rigorous than
than in other inofother areas of• That
areas • That
Dr. Dr. L.'s methodology
L.'s methodology is never is never
relied uponrelied
by upon by
litigation
litigation where
where jury jury trials
trials are moreare more
typical. typical.
Even so, the Even so, the experts outside
experts outside of the
of the context
context of litigation
of litigation and is not and is not
rulesofof
rules evidence
evidence aresame
are the thefor
same forlaw
family family
cases as law cases as every-generally
every generally accepted
accepted withinwithin
the fieldthe field of psychology,
of psychology, even even
whereelse.
where else.
Fed.Fed. R. 702
R. Evid. Evid.
and702 and its equivalents
its equivalents in most in most for
forpurposes
purposes ofof testimony
testimony in court.
in court.
stateshold
states hold
the the
judgejudge responsible
responsible for determining
for determining whether whether• That
• That
Dr. Dr. L.'s methodology
L.'s methodology has notgeneral
has not achieved achieved general
thebases
the bases of expert's
of an an expert's
opinionsopinions meet standards
meet sufficient sufficient standards scientific
scientific acceptance
acceptance among
among impartial
impartial and disinterested
and disinterested
ofreliability
of reliability and relevance
and relevance to merit admissibility. experts
to merit admissibility. ininthe
experts fieldofof
the field forensic
forensic psychology
psychology and that, inand that, in
Specifically,
Specifically, under
under FREthe702,
FRE 702, the
expert expert
must be qualmust be qual- fact,
fact, disinterested experts
disinterested experts in peer-reviewed
in peer-reviewed publica publica
ified,
ified, thethe testimony
testimony must bemust besufficient
based on based on sufficient
facts or facts or tions have
tions have soundly
soundly rejected
rejected such methods.
such methods.
data,the
data, the testimony
testimony must must
be the be the product
product of reliable of reliable princi-Even
princi Even when
when courts
courts deny
deny such such motions,
motions, often promising
often promising
piesand
ples and methods,
methods, andexpert
and the the expert must
must have have
applied the applied thethat
that they
they will will consider
consider such arguments
such arguments in due courseinas due course as
principles
principles andand methods
methods reliablyreliably to the
to the facts facts
of the case. of the case. they
theyconsider
consider the weight
the weight and sufficiency
and sufficiency of the expert's
of the expert's
Moreover,
Moreover, with
with respect
respect to the reliability
to the reliability of the expert'stestimony
of the experts testimony
(and (and thus creating
thus creating an eminently
an eminently appealable appealable
methodology,
methodology, courts
courts in half
in about about
the half
states the
(D. L.states (D. L. issue), there
issue), there can belittle
can be little doubt
doubt thatansuch
that such early an early
Faigman
Faigman et et
al., al., Modern
Modern Scientific
Scientific Evidence:Evidence: The Law and challenge,
The Law and challenge, properly
properly executed,
executed, will
will tend tend to undermine
to undermine any any
Scienceofof
Science Expert
Expert Testimony
Testimony (2011),(2011), p.6)20,
p. 20, fn arefn 6) are expected
expected unreflective
unreflective credulity
credulity in the consideration
in the court's court's consideration
of the of the
to use
to usemore
moreor or
less less the same
the same kinds
kinds of of for
criteria criteria expert's
for reliability
reliability opinions.
expert's opinions.
and
and relevance
relevanceas as
federal
federal
courts
courts
do under
do under
the standards
the standards
promulgated
promulgated in Daubert
in Daubert v. Merrell
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,PARENTING
Dow Pharmaceuticals, PARENTINGPLANS FOR IMPAIRED
PLANS PARENTS PARENTS
FOR IMPAIRED
Inc.,
Inc.,509 U.S.U.S.
509 579,579,
1135 S. Ct. 2786,
1135 1252786,
S. Ct. L. Ed. 125
469 L. Ed. 469 Sometimes the
Sometimes the client
client in a in a custody
custody or parenting-time
or parenting-time dis dis
(1993),and
(1993), and
its its progeny.
progeny. The application
The application of the Daubert pute
of the Daubert hassome
pute has some serious
serious and undeniable
and undeniable impairment
impairment affecting affecting
criteriatoto
criteria expert
expert testimony
testimony in custody
in child child custody matters
matters can be can be
hishis or her
or her suitability
suitability as a caretaker
as a caretaker for thebut
for the children, children,
still but still
aa thorny
thorny undertaking
undertaking (Krauss
(Krauss & Sales,&1999),
Sales,
but1999), but scientific
scientific hashas
the the makings
makings of a reasonable
of a reasonable claimkind
claim for some forofsome kind of
and
and professional
professionalstandards, such such
standards, as those
as cited
thoseincited
the previ
in the previ-continuing
continuingrelationship
relationship
with with
them. them.
The optimal
The optimal
legal stratlegal strat
oussection,
ous section, can
can be be a valuable
a valuable source of guidance. egyegy
source of guidance. ininsuch casesmay
such cases maybe tobefocus
to focus
on how on howthe
to make tobest
make the best
Example.
Example. In In
oneone
childchild custody
custody case involving
case involving question question-ofofa less
a less than
than optimal
optimal situation,
situation, rather
rather than than
attempt to attempt to
ablycompetent
ably competent expert
expert testimony,
testimony, I assisted
I assisted the attorneyminimize
the attorney minimize or deflect
or deflect the other
the other party's party's
concerns.concerns.
withwhom
with whom I was
I was consulting
consulting in preparing
in preparing a motion in a motion in Consultation
Consultation withwith a psychological
a psychological or psychiatric
or psychiatric expert expert
limine
liminetoto
find thethe
find expert's testimony
expert's inadmissible
testimony on the
inadmissible on themay
maybe be
helpful
helpful
in developing
in developing
proposals
proposals
that offer
that
a reason
offer a reason
following
following grounds:
grounds: able opportunity to make the best
able opportunity ofthe
to make thebest client's strengths
of the client's strengths
•• That
ThatDr. Dr. L.'s opinion
L.'s opinion and
and its basis its
have notbasis
been have not been and points
and good goodaspoints
a parent,as a parent,
while while
also offering also offering adequate
adequate
subjected
subjected to objective,
to objective, independent
independent validation and validation and protection
protection for the
for the children. Suchchildren. Such
proposals may proposals may involve:
involve:
replication.
replication. • Medication monitoring;
• Medication monitoring;

36 FAMILY ADVOCATE www.ambar.org/familyadvocate

This content downloaded from

223.231.149.49 on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:21:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 • Random drug and
Random drug and alcohol
alcoholtesting
testingororbreathalyzers
breathalyzers | coping coping
withwith
estab
estab
priortoto
prior and
and following
following parenting
parenting time; time; \ c°2
lished clients with
lished clients with

•1Appropriate
Appropriatereferrals
referralsfor
forpsychotherapy,
psychotherapy, batterer's
batterer's 1 personality disorders
personality disorders
intervention, or
intervention, or intensive
intensive outpatient
outpatient substance
substance abuse
abuse | (e.g., I time demands
(e.g., time demands
programs;
programs; | versus financial \ versus financial
•*Graded
Graded progressions
progressions from
from therapeutic therapeutic
visitation visitation I resources, excessive
\ resources, excessive
through
through increasingly
increasingly more relaxed supervised demands
more relaxed supervised for for
IP demands emoemo
parenting,
parenting, or other or other and
interventions interventions
safeguards; and safeguards; tional support,
tional support,
•• Identifying
Identifyingclients
clients
with severe
withmental
severe
illnesses
mentalor illnesses or
serious
serious personality
personality
disorders.
disorders.
Lawyers
Lawyers need
need
to consider
to consider
their ethical
their duties
ethical
Lawyers
Lawyers
(and duties (and
needneed
to consider
to consider
their their
liabilities)
liabilities) when
when serving serving
clients clients
of questionable compe ethical duties (and liabilities) when
of questionable compe- ethical duties (dnd lld
tence. These matters are treated in detail in the rules of
tence. These matters are treated in detail serving clients
in the ofof
rules questionable
serving clients of quest
professional conduct for each state and the rulings of state
professional conduct for each state and the competence
rulings of state COITipetenCe
bar
barcommittees
committees on professional
on professional
responsibility,
responsibility,
but many but many
states
states follow the American
follow Bar Associations
the American BarModel Rules
Associations Model
irrationalRules irrational
performance performance
expectations, expectations, malp
malpractice litigation
ofProfessional
of Professional Conduct
Conduct (MRPC) in this (MRPC)
regard. in this risk)
regard. risk) and
and professional ethicalprofessional ethical
MRPC
MRPC Rule 1.14,1.14,
Rule ClientClient
Under a Under
Disability,
a discusses
Disability,challenges
discusses challenges
posed posed
by such clients (e.g., by such
personal clients (e.g., perso
threats,
an
anattorney's duties,duties,
attorney's options, options,
and appropriate
andconsidera
appropriate considera-
attempted attempted
seductions, erosion of seductions, erosion
the professional/ personal of the prof
tions
tions in in
cases in which
cases "a client's"a
in which ability to make
client's decisions
ability to make decisions
boundary) may also boundary)
call for expertmay
advice.also call for expert advi
inconnection
in connection with
with the the representation
representation is impaired." The is impaired."
ConsultingThe Consulting
psychologists psychologists
with strong clinical back with strong c
rule
ruleprescribes that the
prescribes attorney
that must attempt
the attorney to maintain
must attemptgrounds
to maintain
are experienced
groundswithare
such
experienced
practical and ethical
with such practica
aa normal
normalattorney-client relationship
attorney-client with the client
relationship insofar
with the challenges
client insofar
and skilled
challenges
in techniques
andfor
skilled
asserting
inappropri
techniques for ass
as
asthis
thisis practically possible.
is practically A psychologist
possible. or other men orate
A psychologist other
professional
men- boundaries.
ate professional
Thus, they
boundaries.
can help attorneys
Thus, they can
tal
talhealth
healthprofessional may be able
professional may to be
advise
ablea lawyer with a lawyer
to advise with develop
develop effective effective
client-management client-management
strategies. In some strateg
aa mentally
mentallyill orill or cognitively
cognitively deficient
deficient client as to whatclient
is as tothey
cases, what
mayis cases,
also they
be called upon may also be
to intervene called
directly to upon to in
reasonable
reasonable or unreasonable
or unreasonable to expect
to expect about about the
the client's helpclient's
the client help
managethe
the client manage
stresses of litigationthe
or tostresses
coun of litig
decision-making
decision-making capacity, given thegiven
capacity, level ofthe
impairment,
level of impairment, sel
sel the client in histhe client
or her in hiswith
relationship or the
herattorney.
relationship with t
and
andalso
also
provide
provide
guidance
guidance
as to how
asbest
to to
how
explain
bestor to explain or
frame
frame legal
legal issuesissues to the client. CHALLENGING
to the client. PRENUPTIAL
CHALLENGING AGREEMENTS
PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS

MRPC1.14
MRPC 1.14further
further provides
provides that that in some
in some cases the Although
cases the Althoughmarriage
marriage licenses,
licenses, prenuptial
prénuptial agreements,
agreements, busi busi
attorney may
attorney mayseek
seekthe
theappointment
appointment
of of a guardian
a guardian ad litem,ness
ad litem, nessagreements
agreementsbetween
betweenspouses,
spouses,
mediation
mediation
settlements,
settlements,
conservator,oror
conservator, guardian
guardian or take
or take other
other protective
protective action action and
andjointly
jointly held
held property
property are are often
often takentaken atvalue,
at face face value,
they they
whenthe
when theattorney
attorney reasonably
reasonably believes
believes that
that the the client may
client maybe besubject
subject
to to challenge
challenge during
during divorce
divorce on theon the grounds
grounds
cannot
cannotact
actinin
hishis
or her own own
or her interest. Comment
interest. 6 to this6 to this
Comment ofof civil
civil incompetence
incompetence of of
of one one ofparties
the the parties
or the or the exercise
exercise
provisionstates:
provision states:"The
"The lawyer
lawyer may
may seekseek guidance
guidance fromfrom ofof
an an coercion or undue
coercion influence.
or undue PartiesParties
influence. sometimes claim
sometimes claim
appropriatediagnostician."
appropriate diagnostician." Indeed,
Indeed, the Michigan
the Michigan Bar Bar that
that they onlyentered
they only entered into
into apparently
apparently binding
binding agreements
agreements
AssociationStanding
Association Standing Committee
Committee on Professional
on Professional EthicsEthics or made
madecertain
certainfinancial
financial decisions
decisions because
because theythey
were were
has
has held
held that
thatif
ifaalawyer
lawyerbelieves
believesthat a client
that is unable
a client to to defrauded,
is unable threatened,terrorized,
defrauded, threatened, terrorized,oror "not
"not in in their
their right
right
make
make decisions
decisionsregarding
regardingrepresentation
representationor or
is incompetent,
is incompetent,minds"
minds"atatthe
thetime.
time.Mental
Mentalhealth
healthprofessionals
professionals
cancan
play
play
the lawyer
the lawyershould
should seek
seek corroborating
corroborating reports
reports fromfrom
profesprofes- an essential
an essential role
role in in evaluating
evaluating such claims.
such claims. Cases I have
Cases I have
sionalsor
sionals orprocure
procure the
the appointment
appointment of aof a guardian
guardian or con-
or con consulted
consulted on include
on include questions
questions such as:
such as:
servator[RI-51
servator [RI-51]. ]A- mental
A mental health
health professional
professional can the
can help help the • Did
• Did thethe client
client freely,
freely, knowingly,
knowingly, and without
and without coercioncoercion
attorneyestablish
attorney establish
an an objective
objective basis basis for deciding
for deciding whetherwhether enter
enterinto
into
thethe prenuptial
prénuptial agreement?
agreement?
theappointment
the appointmentof aof a guardian
guardian is warranted
is warranted and can and can • • Did the client
Did the clientintend,
intend, when
when commingling
commingling proceeds
proceeds
providea asubstantive
provide substantive defense
defense if attorney's
if the the attorney's decision
decision on on from aninheritance
from an inheritance (e.g.,
(e.g., by by placing
placing funds
funds in a jointly
in a jointly
thispoint
this point is challenged
is challenged later. later. held investment held
account or checking
investment account),
account or checking to
account), to
Peoplewith
People with severe
severe personality
personality disorders
disorders are moreare more likely
likely treattreat
these these assets
assets as as property?
marital marital property? Was the client
Was the client
thanothers
than othersto to
getget divorced,
divorced, to engage
to engage in child in childliti
custody custodyemotionally
liti- emotionally coerced
coerced into into doing so?
doing so?
gation,and
gation, andto to need
need intensive
intensive and extensive
and extensive legal assistance
legal assistance • Was •the
Was thepsychologically
client client psychologically coerced
coerced by his or her by his or her
in family
in family law
law matters
matters (Erard,
(Erard, 2012). 2012). Psychological
Psychological experts experts attorney
attorney into making
into making misrepresentations
misrepresentations to the media to the medi
canbe
can beasked
asked to meet
to meet with with prospective
prospective clients toclients
screen to screentor
tor and
and agreeing
agreeing to a settlement
to a settlement on the
on the record thatrecord that
outthose
out those whose
whose severe
severe personality
personality problemsproblems are likelywas
are likely to to plainly
was plainly notclient's
not in the in the client's
best best interests?
interests?
outstrip
outstrip the resources
the resources of the
of the attorney attorney
in question. in
Practical question. Practical Continued on page
Continued 4646
on page

WINTER 2014 37

This content downloaded from

223.231.149.49 on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:21:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
what
WhatMove
MoveContinued
Continued
from
from
page page
37 37
ROBERT E. ERARD is clinical director of

• And
Andeven,
even, in in
oneone
casecase
in aninIowa
an court... had this had
Iowa court... (nowthis (now ■j®*™ Psychological
Psychological Institutes
Institutes of Michigan, of
P.C. Michigan,
in P.C
deceased) elderly, wealthy client with early signs of
deceased) elderly, wealthy client with early signs of |^W^j|il Bloomfield, Michigan, where he has a
Bloomfield, Michigan, where he has a
Alzheimer's
Alzheimer's disease
disease been competent
been competent tomuch
to marry his marry his much clinical
clinical and forensic
and forensic practice. He practice.
conducts He condu
younger
younger bride? bride? child custody evaluations, provides
child custody evaluations, provides
mediation
mediation and and
parentparent
coordination
coordination
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION services, offers rebuttal testimony concerning
services, offers otherconcerning
rebuttal testimony experts'other experts'
Psychological
Psychological experts
experts can can do much
do much more more thanasserveopinions,
than serve as opinions, and provides
and provides consultation
consultation services forservices for attorne
attorneys.
custodyevaluators
custody evaluatorsandand parenting
parenting coordinators.
coordinators. In moreIn more
He is He is a fellow
a fellow of the American
of the American Psychological
Psychological Association, Associatio
challenging
challengingcases
casesrequiring
requiring
innovative
innovative
approaches
approaches
to ADR;
to ADR; the Michigan
the Michigan Psychological
Psychological Association,
Association, and the
and the Society forSociety for
preparingcross-examinations
preparing cross-examinations of opposing
of opposing experts
experts Personality
or even
or even Assessment.
Personality His writings
Assessment. on forensic
His writings onpsychology
forensic psycholo
challenging
challengingthe
theadmissibility
admissibility
of of
their
their
testimony;
testimony;
crafting have
crafting
par been
par- published
have in Family in
been published Advocate'
Family Family Court
Advocate- Family Court
entingplans
enting plansfor
for patients
patients with
with periodic
periodic mental
mental Review;Review;
or emotional
or emotional Psychology, Public Policy,
Psychology, andPolicy,
Public the Law; thethe
and Journal
Law; the Jou
unfitness;coping
unfitness; coping with
with clients
clients whowho
havehave serious
serious ofor
mental
mental or Child Custody;
of Child the Journal
Custody, of Personality
the Journal Assessment,Assessment;
of Personality
personality
personalitydisorders;
disorders;and
and
addressing
addressing
claims
claims and Psychological
of incompetence
of incompetence Injury and
and Psychological Law. He
Injury andcan be reached
Law. He can at
be reached at
rerard2000@ ameritech.net.
or coercion
or coercionin in making
making binding
binding agreements,
agreements, psychological
psychological rerard2000@ ameritech.net.
experts
experts can
canbe
beananessential
essential
resource
resource
in your
in your
legallegal
toolkit,
toolkit,
fa fa

Krauss,
Krauss,D.D.
A.A.
& B.
& Sales,
B. Sales,
The The
Problem
Problem
Books & More of
of Helpfulness
Helpfulness in in
Applying
Applying
Daubert
Daubert
to to
,, - t. , Expert Testimony: Child Custody
Expert Testimony: Child Custody
Family
Family Law Consultants
Law Bibliography
Consultants Bibliography Determinatio
Determinations in Family Law as an
Exemplar,
Exemplar, Psych., Pub.
Psych.,
Pol., & L„Pub.
5, Pol., & L.,
78-99, 1999.
E-discovery http://www.sequenceinc.com/tech
E-discovery http://www.sequenceinc.com/tech
Hamilton,
Hamilton, William,
William, niques-used-to-hide-income-and-assets
Bill Hamilton's
Bill Hamilton's niques-used-to-hide-income-and-assets- Stahl, Philip M. & R
Stahl, Philip M. & Robert A. Simon,
in-divorce-cases/ Forensic Psychology Consultation
Seven
Seven Deadly
Deadly Sins of Sins of
the Rule 26 the
(f) Rule 26 (f) in-divorce-cases/ FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY C
in Child Custody Litigation: A
"Meet
"Meet andand Confer"
Confer" Conference,
Conference, Ass'n of
Forensic Ass'n of
psychologist Forensic psychologist IN CHILD CUSTODY L
Handbook for Work Product
Certified
Certified E-discovery Specialists,
E-discovery June
Specialists,
Ackerman,June Ackerman,
M. J., M. J., M. C. Ackerman, HANDBOOK FOR WO
M. C. Ackerman,
Review, Case Preparation and
7,2010.
7, 2010. L. j. steffen, & S. Kelley-Poulos,
„ t> i i ■' n ■ /" j i Expert Testimony (ABA
Expert
Review
FLS(ABA
Testimony 2013).
Case Prepara
L. J. Steffen, & S. Kelley-Poulos,
FLS 2013).
E-discovery.
E-discovery: E-storytelhng
E-storytelling Psychologists'
Delivers Practices Psychologists
Delivers Compared to the Practices Compared to the
Happy
Happy Trial Trial
Endings,Endings,
INSIDE INSIDE
Expectations Expectations
of Family of Family
Vocational
Law Judges and expert Law Judges and Vo
COUNSEL,
Counsel, July 2,Attorneys
July 2, 2013. 2013.in Attorneys in Amundson,
Child Custody Cases, J. Child Norman E., JoAnn
Custody Harris
Cases, J. Amu
Child Custody, 1(1), 41-60, 2004. Bowlsbey & Richard G. Niles,
—E-discovery:
E-discovery: 7for
7 Principles Principles
Selecting for Selecting Child CUSTODY, 1(1), 41-60, 2004.
Essential Elements of Career
Retained
Retained Counsel, INSIDE COUNSEL,
Counsel, Inside Counsel,
American Psychological American
Association Psychological Association Es
Counseling: Processes and
July16,
July 16,2013.
2013. (APA), Guidelines for Psychological
(APA), Guidelines for Psychological
Techniques, 3d ed.,
ed„ 2013,
2013, $40.80.
$40.80.
E-discovery:
E-discovery:The
TheUnfulfilled
UnfulfilledLast Evaluations in
Evaluations
Last in Family
Family Law
LawProceedings,
Proceedings,
Boiles, Richard Nelson, WHAT COLOR
Chapter
Chapter in Story
in the the of
Story ofAm.
Keyword Psychol., 65(9),
Keyword Am.863-867, 2010.
Psychol., 65(9), 863-867, 2010. Richard Nelson Wh
„ ,. T -L J y Is Your Parachute? 2013:
Is Your Parachute? A
2013: A
Searching, INSIDE COUNSEL, Erard, R. E., Coping with Clients with
earc tng, nside OUNSEL, Erard, R. for
Practical Manual E„ Coping
Job-Hunters wit
June 18, 2013.
June 18, 2013. PersonalityPersonality
Disorders, Fam. Advoc., Disorders,
and Career Changers, 13th ed., Fam. A
— E-discovery:
E-discovery: Not
Not as 34(4),
as Expensive
as Expensive as16-19,
34(4),2012(a).
16-19, 2012(a). 2012, $18.99.
2012, $18.99.
Old Habits, INSIDE COUNSEL,
Old Habits, Inside Counsel, Goultl,
Gould, J. W.,H.H.D„D„
J. W„ Kirkpatrick, Borjas,
Kirkpatrick, George
Borjas, George J., J., Labor
Labor Economics,
Economics,
June4,4,
June 2013.
2013. W. G. Austin, & D. M.
W. G. Austin, & D.Martindale,
M. Martindale, 6th
6th ed„ 2013,
ed., 2013, $232.00
$232.00
— How to Avoid Six Big E-discoveryCritiquing a Colleagues Forensic
— How to Avoid Six Big E-discovery Critiquing a Colleagues Forensic Figler> Howard
Figler, Howard and
and Richard
Richard Nelson
Nelson
Blunders, UF
Blunders, UFLaw,
Law,June
June 2013.
2013. Advisory Report:A A
Advisory Report: Suggested
Suggested Protocol
Protocol Boiles,
Boiles, The
The CAREER
Career COUNSELOR'S
Counselor's
Forensic accountant for Application
Forensic accountant to to
for Application Child Custody HANDBOOK,
Child Custody Handbook, 2d 2d
ed., ed„
2007, 2007,
$19.99. $19.99.
Miles, FORENSIC
Mason, Miles, Forensic Accounting
ACCOUNTINGEvaluations,
Evaluations,J.J.Child
ChildCustody,
Custody,1(3),
7(3),Power,
power,Paul
PaulW„W., A Guide
A Guide to TO
37-64, 2004.
Deskbook (ABA FLS) 37-64, 2004. Vocational Assessment, 5th ed„
Deskbook (ABA FLS) Vocational Assessment, 5th ed.,
Heinze, Heinze,
M. C., & M.
T. Grisso, Review 2013, $68.00.
http://www.sequenceinc.com/gathering-
http://www.sequenceinc.com/gathering C., & T. Grisso, Review 2013, $68.00.
financial-documents-for-divorce/
financial-documents-for-divorce/ ofofInstruments
Instruments Assessing Parenting
Assessing Parenting Weissman,
Weissman, H.Child
H. N., N., Child
CustodyCustody
http://www.sequenceinc.com/findingCompetencies
http://www.sequenceinc.com/finding- CompetenciesUsed in Child
Used Custody
in Child CustodyEvaluations:
Evaluations: Fair
Fair andand Unfair
Unfair Professional
Professional
hidden-income-in-divorce-and-child-
hidden-income-in-divorce-and-child Evaluations, Behav.
Evaluations, Sei. & L.,
Behav. Sci.14,
& L., 14,Practices,
Practices, Beflav.
Behav. Sei. &Sci. & L.,
L„ 9, 9, 469—76,
469-76,
support-cases/ 293-313,
support-cases/ 293-313, 1996. 1996. 1991. 1991.

46 FAMILY ADVOCATE www.ambar.org/familyadvocate

This content downloaded from

223.231.149.49 on Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:21:19 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms