At PsychLaw.net we understand that when psychotherapists join with custodial parents as sympathetic allies, they can find themselves inducted into a perniciously triangulated relationship of “victim”, “villain” and “savior”. Instead of disrupting these triangulated dynamics, therapists too often participate in them. They endorse the custodial parent’s assessment of who the “villain” is, re‑define the custodial parent as a “victim” in addition to the children, and appoint themselves as “saviors” to protect these “victims” from the alleged malevolence of supposed “villains”.
As altruistic saviors responding to the plights of beleaguered victims, therapists lose their objectivity. The myriad twists and turns of the dramatic plots narrated by custodial parents can reduce therapists to the status of a sympathetic audience. The therapists respond to a reality constructed by custodial parents and children who are subject to the influence of their custodians.
When indoctrinated by the particular version of reality presented to them, therapists may leap to unsubstantiated conclusions. They often fail to discriminate between the characteristics attributed to non‑custodial parents by custodial parents and their children, and how those non‑custodial parents actually relate with their children.[1] These failures of discrimination can lead psychotherapists to abandon even the appearance of objectivity and appoint themselves as advocates for custodial parents. As loyal advocates, therapists respond more to the agenda of custodial parents than to the welfare of the children involved in these circumstances.
In their determination to obtain the trust of custodial parents, therapists may overlook considerations of sound judgment and ethical practice. “Advocate” therapists too often disregard their lack of contact with non‑custodial parents; and while ignoring the limited information available to them, they make recommendations to courts that disrupt the relationships between non‑custodial parents and their children. These disruptions range from recommending reductions or suspensions in visitation, to inappropriately validating allegations of physical or sexual abuse directed at non‑custodial parents.[2],[3] At PsychLaw.net we feel that when psychotherapists commit these kinds of errors, their misguided attempts at therapy often deteriorate into iatrogenic outcomes ‑‑ treatment leads to increased distress for children of divorce because it polarizes the parental conflicts responsible for that distress.
To the extent that standards for evaluating custody‑visitation matters are relevant to psychotherapy for children of divorce, therapists who function as advocates of custodial parents risk censure for unethical conduct. In regard to evaluating custody‑visitation disputes, Weithorn (1987b) has emphasized that a psychologist violates ethical principles if:
“(1) one permits that alliance [an alliance with one of the parents] to compromise one’s objectivity and impartiality in the investigation, interpretation, and reporting of findings; or (2) one extends beyond the limitations of a necessarily incomplete evaluation … by making statements, drawing inferences, or offering conclusions about parties and relationships not assessed directly”[4] [italics added]
Most psychologists seem to respect these standards when evaluating custody‑visitation matters. Unfortunately, however, too many disregard them when treating children of divorce.[5]At PsychLaw.net we consider, for example, a psychologist who made visitation recommendations without ever having seen the child’s father.
Attny: And in your letter of date, you say that you advise that she [minor child] not have contact with her father, correct?
Psych: Can you direct me to where you are referring to?
Attny: Yes. Same page, several lines down, same paragraph.
Psych: Yes I see it.
Attny: “I strongly advise that Anna not have contact with her father.” Is that what it says?
Psych: That’s what it says.
Attny: In your letter of date, you say, “Such contact at this time would be emotionally traumatic for Anna, in addition to exposing her to further abuse,” correct?
Psych: That’s what it says.
Attny: And you express these opinions without the benefit of ever having any professional contact with Anna’s father, correct?
Psych: I had no contact with Anna’s father, correct.
Attny: Now I’d like you to look at Exhibit No. 1, please. Standard 2.01 (b) of the ethical code of psychologists. And I’ll read. “Psychologists’ assessments, recommendations, reports, and psychological diagnostic or evaluative statements are based on information and techniques (including personal interviews of the individual when appropriate) sufficient to provide appropriate substantiation for their findings.” You are obligated to comply with code provision, correct?
Psych: I’m responsible to conform with this standard, yes.
Attny: And expressing professional opinions about someone with whom you have no contact is inconsistent with that code, correct?
Psych: If I did do that, that would be the case.
Despite her protests, however, this psychologist had clearly made recommendations regarding Anna’s relationship with her father. Not only had the psychologist never met Anna’s father, she also had never observed the relationship between Anna and her father. We at ____ feel that obviously, then, the psychologist did not have sufficient information to appropriately substantiate her visitation recommendations. This fact became increasingly evident as the cross‑examination of the psychologist continued.
Attny: I’d like you to assume this hypothetical. I’m asking you to describe an
African‑American male residing in the inner city of an urban area, whom you have never met, okay. You would not automatically describe him an unemployed, substance abusing man who is likely to have a criminal record, would you?
Psych: I wouldn’t make an assessment at all. I haven’t met him.
Attny: Okay. If you were describe the person in that hypothetical as being a substance abuser with a criminal record, you’d be stereotyping him, correct?
Psych: Yes.
Attny: But you were willing to make conclusions about Peter Thomas, based upon your work, correct?
Psych: Incorrect.
Attny: And when you offered statements about your belief concerning Peter Thomas, you had never met him, correct?
Psych: I can’t answer that question the way it’s stated.
We at PsychLaw.net feel quite clearly, then, this psychologist’s opinions regarding Mr. Thomas amounted to unsubstantiated stereotypes. Confronted with this indisputable fact, she could do no more than attempt to evade the question.
Footnotes
[1]. Weithorn, L.A. & Grisso, T. (1987). Psychological evaluations in divorce custody: Problems, principles, and procedures. In L.A. Weithorn (Ed.), Psychology and child custody determinations: Knowledge, roles, and expertise. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
[2]. Campbell, T.W. (1992). False allegations of sexual abuse and their apparent credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10 (4), 21-35.
[3]. Campbell, T.W. (1998). Smoke and mirrors: The devastating effect of false sexual abuse claims. New York: Insight Books.
[4]. Weithorn, L.A. (1987). Psychological consultation in divorce custody litigation: Ethical considerations. In L.A. Weithorn (Ed.), Psychology and child custody determinations: Knowledge, roles, and expertise. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press (p. 195).
[5]. Johnston, J.R., Campbell, L.E., & Tall, L.C. (1985). Impasses to the resolution of custody and visitation disputes. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 112-129.