| FORENSIC FALLACIES IN FAMILY COURT: THE MYTHS AND THE FACTS In green: what the pundits, spin-meisters, and study summarizers SAY the studies have found (frequently interposed with could-bes, should-bes, what-ifs, comments, faulty conclusions, and suppositions without cites), and, in black: what the research actually says! Myth -- Psychology is a science. Fact: "Psychology and psychiatry have never been based in science." Myth -- It's a violation of psychology ethics to fully disclose test data and materials in discovery. Fact: It's a sanctionable violation of due process to NOT do so.
Myth -- Junk science in the courtroom can be countered by opposing expert testimony. Finding: "The presence of opposing expert testimony caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to flaws in the other expert's testimony... Thus, contrary to the assumptions in the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert, opposing expert testimony may not be an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom." (On the other hand, skepticism of all expert testimony might not be such a bad thing.)
Myth -- Psychologists and other "mental health professionals" are trained to, and better able than non-psychologists, including family court judges, to evaluate family situations and render opinions on appropriate child custody arrangements. Fact: False. They actually have no particularly special abilities by reason of their profession that enable them to investigate facts, determine credibility, see into the workings of people's minds, ascertain parenting capacity, glean the truth, make predictions, assess risks, determine what is in children's better interests, or make recommendations that will promote children's long-term well-being. And, moreover, more often than not, even to the extent individual psychologists in fact can do this better than some others, they are as likely as not to be motivated primarily by ulterior values, concerns and biases. See the THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE index at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html, and the hundreds of supporting citations at Child Custody Evaluations: Reevaluating the Evaluators and at Custody Evaluator Quotes
Myth -- The research literature cited in law journals, and/or presented at professional and interdisciplinary conferences with custody evaluators, mediators, and parenting coordinators, and other venues that prominently feature mental health trade promotion in the courts (therapeutic jurisprudence) conveys to lawyers and judges the scientific consensus about what is in children's best interests. Fact: Unfortunately, it is more likely than not that what is presented in these forums is cherry-picked and misrepresentative. Some of this is deliberate, but some of it is a result of inadvertent group think, narrow specialization that distorts perspective, or "publication bias" -- the tendency of agenda'd researchers to not present or publish findings that do not promote their agendas. See the hundreds of supporting citations at Child Custody Evaluations: Reevaluating the Evaluators, http://www.thelizlibrary.org/child-custody-evaluations.html and Custody Evaluator Quotes
Myth -- Children of never-married and divorced homes do better with frequent and continuing father involvement. Fact: It's just not necessarily true, or even usually true. Myth -- "Equality under the law" means that men and women are the same in all ways.
liz
|
