Month: March 2022

Psychologist researcher Hollida Wakefield and Lutheran Minister turned clinical psychologist, Ralph Underwager, taught that the “natural history” (origin, timing, and nature) of a child abuse allegation must be examined (Wakefield & Underwager, 1990 & 1991).  While they focused primarily on sexual abuse accusations, their strategy is applicable to other forms of alleged abuse as well.  They provided preliminary guidelines for the determination of true versus false accusations. They defined factors behind false allegations of sexual abuse, including the character of the accuser, the persons who aid and in many cases abet the accuser, and the use of leading or manipulative questioning.  Counsel and the defense team should be mindful of the list Wakefield and Underwager (1990 &1991) provided to differentiate between real and false allegations; they suggested the fact finder examine the:

• Origin of the disclosure;
• Timing of the allegations;
• Age of the child;
• Behavior of the accusing parent;
• Nature of the allegations;
• Characteristics of the child’s statement;
• Personality characteristics of the parties involved; and
• Behavior of the Professionals involved.  

For this reason counsel, staff researcher and the defense team expert must carefully analyze every statement made by Adrian, every statement attributed to Adrian by another, and specifically how the CPS and the CAC personnel arrived at their conclusions.  The CAC video-recorded “forensic” interviews must be analyzed, second by second, for indications of parental influences; interviewer bias; leading, suggestive, or repetitive questions; interviewer modifications of what was said; questions that suggested new content; questions that denigrated Richard; and so forth.  Each utterance must be coded as to when it was made, what specifically was said and to whom the statement was made.   Lacking a skilled researcher, this process can be replicated by any attorney near a university.  A little searching (try Craig’s List) will find a social sciences graduate student who is already plugged into numerous medical and behavioral science databases through their study.  They all need money and the good ones can break down the science jargon easily. The statements analysis should then be laid out in an Excel spreadsheet.  These coded lists should be cross-referenced as they will form the basis for cross-examination of the accuser and other witnesses over their inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright fabrications.  

In Richard’s case, counsel will prepare specific science content areas to deal with the alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement and its aftermath. Review of the natural history of the allegation shows that some time before little Adrian is said to have made the “Daddy hurt me” statement, Jane was away at a continuing education seminar and Adrian and Richard traveled to a hotel and theme park.  On the return trip to the family home, Richard was cut off in traffic by an elderly couple driving through a red light.  When he slammed on the brakes, Adrian’s improperly fastened seat belt gave way and the child collided with the rear passenger doorpost.  Her black eye and bruises took several hours to appear.  When they arrived home, Jane grabbed Adrian and left the home.  To educate the trier of fact about what Jane has been saying to Adrian and how the “Daddy hurt me” statement came about is counsel’s first science content area: parental influences on children’s memory.   When Jane took little Adrian to CPS, the investigator sent Jane and Adrian to the local CAC for a forensic interview.  With respect to the interview and the effects of the play therapy on Adrian, counsel’s second science content area is children’s suggestibility.  

Over the course of months since the alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement, the play therapist has carefully noted the many additional statements Adrian has made involving “Daddy” and “hurting” and “a long time.”  Jane’s counsel, the prosecutor and the play therapist all say that Adrian’s alleged “Daddy hurt me” statement is clearly a delayed disclosure.  This, then, is the third science content area counsel we at PsychLaw.net know must develop. 

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1990).  Personality characteristics of parents 

making false accusations of sexual abuse  in  custody   disputes. Issues in 

Child Abuse Accusations, 2(3), 121–136. 

 

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1991). Sexual abuse allegations in divorce and  

custody disputes, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9(4), 451-468.

While the case is winding through discovery in the family court, psychological evaluations to determine the “best interests” of Adrian are ordered.  Counsel should work to get this process started with an evaluator who has some sense of PA.  Counsel should negotiate with opposing counsel to pick a skilled evaluator, and with the family court judge to obtain a protective order stating that Richard does not have to begin the evaluation until the criminal case is concluded.  In the likely event that counsel is stuck with someone’s favorite evaluator, it will be important to work with the defense team expert to slowly spoon feed the evaluator with recent research on the psychological evaluation of alienating and target parents.  The defense team expert should provide a brief on research into alienating parents that found alienators perceive themselves to be flawless and virtuous, and they externalize responsibility onto others.  They lack insight into their own behavior and the impact their behavior has on others (Bagby, Nicholson, Buis, Radovanovic, & Fidler, 1999; Bathurst, Gottfried, & Gottfried, 1997; Siegel, 1996).  The defense team expert should add to this brief for the evaluator the literature which describes psychological disturbance (including histrionic, paranoid, and narcissistic personality disorders or characteristics) as well as psychosis, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse as common among alienator parents (Baker, 2006; Clawar & Rivlin, 1991; Gardner, 1992; Hoppe & Kenney, 1994; Kopetski, 1998a, 1998b; Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005; Lampel, 1996; Siegel & Langford, 1998; Rand, 1997a, 1997b; Racusin & Copans, 1994; Turkat, 1994, 1999; Warshak, 2010a).  Counsel’s brief, designed to educate the chosen evaluator, must include a discussion of two important MMPI-2 studies comparing alienator parents with target parents and controls (Siegel & Langford, 1998; Gordon, Stoffey & Bottinelli, 2008).

As the weeks go by, Jane associates with a number of like-minded folks in her support meetings. They begin to attend court sessions with Jane. In the hallways of the courthouse, counsel must step around a developing cadre of people infused with righteous anger, staring Richard down. What is happening here?   Counsel, in the criminal and family court pleadings, has described PA.  This has aroused the ire of persons who argue that men misogynistically use the concept of PA in court to defeat women who are trying to stand up for themselves and their children.  Counsel must be aware of the arguments these detractors rely upon (Lorandos, 2006).

While advocacy is playing out in the family court, the CAC has been giving Adrian “therapy.”  Through discovery in the criminal case, counsel learns that the child is receiving play therapy, a particularly controversial modality that encourages the child to use her imagination and narrative skills to express herself (Campbell, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c, & 1992d; Lindsay, Johnson, & Kwon 1991). Records delivered in discovery document that Adrian’s stories are getting more and more detailed as Adrian goes to therapy once a week and sometimes twice if she’s particularly “anxious.” The master document file and chronology hold data demonstrating that the double visits are occurring on the weeks in which there is a court date. 

Adrian’s increasingly detailed stories make their way into the court record through Jane’s filings. Jane, Janice, Steven’s sister, and her supporters seize on this, and counsel is met with a barrage of blog posts, news articles, website articles about PA, and articles accusing Richard Gardner of being a protector of abusers. Jane and her supporters appear on a local talk show, specifically stating, “Richard Connelly abused his 3-year-old daughter.” The townspeople are sharpening their pitchforks, and a whiff of bonfire is in the air.  A normal reaction would be to speak out.  Counsel must remember Gentile (1991) and circle the wagons.  In Gentile, an attorney gave a press conference hours after his client was indicted on criminal charges. The Nevada State Bar filed a complaint alleging that the attorney violated a rule prohibiting an attorney from making an extrajudicial statement, which could have “a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.”  It was a mess.   Counsel, don’t shoot ‘til you see the whites of their eyes. 

In the criminal case, counsel must do every bit of discovery possible in Richard’s preliminary examination. Put Jane on the stand, and Adrian too.  Counsel should ask as many specific questions as possible, because the devil is in the details. Once counsel gets Jane and Adrian’s stories at the Preliminary Examination, support staff must compare them to every statement from every other place the “Daddy hurt me” allegation has been repeated.  Staff must compare police reports, CAC records, therapy records, and Jane’s appearances in the media.  With this data, support staff must compile charts of the inconsistencies between each actor’s stories.  Counsel’s researcher and the defense team expert must analyze all of the interviews and the credentials of the professionals involved in the case from within this scientific perspective. Before counsel attempts Jane’s deposition in the family case, counsel should depose other actors, such as therapist Steven and sister Janice. Counsel must depose the CAC therapist, making sure to focus on finding out what Adrian has stated in therapy. Counsel must politely question the CAC therapist about what she does in play therapy, getting as many details as possible.  In Jane’s deposition counsel must confront Jane with the things the private investigator has uncovered, as well as what counsel has found while deposing other individuals.  Counsel should not work for a Perry Mason moment here; just get Jane to lie, again and again and again.  Counsel’s goal must be to link Adrian’s statements (from interviews, therapy, and Adrian’s teachers) to statements by Jane.  They will all be cross-referenced by staff in the “inconsistencies” charts.  Later they will be used to show Jane’s parental influence on Adrian.  Counsel must push the criminal trial and base the defense on science. 

Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Radovanovic, H., & Fidler, B. J. (1999). 

Defensive Responding on the MMPI-2 in Family Custody and Access Evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 24-28. 

Baker, A. J. L. (2006). Patterns of Parental Alienation Syndrome; A Qualitative 

Study of Adults Who Were Alienated from a Parent as a Child. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34(1), 63-78. 

Campbell, T. W. (1992a). False allegations of sexual abuse and their apparent 

credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10(4), 21-35. Quotes at pages 23, 25 and 27 respectively.   

 

Campbell, T. W. (1992b). False allegations of sexual abuse and the persuasiveness 

of play therapy. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 4(3), 118-124. 

 

Campbell, T. W. (1992c). Promoting Play therapy: Marketing dream or empirical nightmare. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 4(3), 111-117. 

 

Campbell, T. W. (1992d). Psychotherapy with children of divorce: The pitfalls of  

triangulated relationships. Psychotherapy, 29(4), 646-652. 

Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991). Children Held Hostage: Dealing with 

Programmed and Brainwashed Children. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Section of Family Law. 

Gardner, R. A. (1992). The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental 

 Health and Legal Professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. 

Gordon, R. M., Stoffey, R., & Bottinelli, J. (2008). MMPI-2 Findings of Primitive 

Defenses in Alienating Parents. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(3), 211-228. 

Hoppe, C. & Kenney, L. (1994). A Rorschach Study of the Psychological 

Characteristics of Parents Engaged in Child Custody/Visitation Disputes.  

Paper presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American 

Psychological Association. 

Johnston, J. R. & Campbell, L. E. (1988). Impasses of Divorce: The Dynamics and 

Resolution of Family Conflict. New York, NY: The Free Press. 

Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005). Clinical Ratings of  

Parenting Capacity and Rorschach Protocols of Custody-Disputing Parents:  

An Exploratory Study. Journal of Child Custody, 2(1-2), 159-178. 

Kopetski, L. (1998a). Identifying Cases of Parent Alienation Syndrome, Part I. 

Colorado Lawyer, 27(2), 65-68. 

 

Kopetski, L. (1998b). Identifying Cases of Parent Alienation Syndrome, Part II. 

Colorado Lawyer, 27(3), 61-64. 

Lampel, A. (1996). Children’s Alignment with Parents in Highly Conflicted Custody Cases. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 34(2), 229-239. 

Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in 

memory source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52(3), 297-318. 

Lorandos, D. (2006). Parental alienation syndrome: Detractors and the junk science 

vacuum. In R. A. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), The 

International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, 

Clinical and Legal Considerations (pp. 397–418). Springfield, IL: Charles C 

Thomas. 

Siegel, J. (1996). Traditional MMPI-2 Validity Indicators and Initial Presentation  

in Custody Evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13(3), 55-63. 

Siegel, J., & Langford, J. (1998). MMPI-2 Validity Scales and Suspected Parental  

Alienation Syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(4), 5-14.