Children need. . . THIS?
CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS

The Cross-Referral Relationships

        Below my comments is an example of a solicitation/marketing letter by a PAS purveyor (the links and bold emphasis have been added, and the lawyer's name deleted, but the text otherwise is intact.) This is one way garbage put out by the MHP crowd in furtherance of unscientific therapeutic jurisprudence has permeated the family courts and made its way into the public discourse.
        While Joseph Goldberg, the letter's author (below), does not appear to be a licensed psychologist or expert of any legitimate kind, he is far from the only one doing this. A number of father's rights types, such as Dean Tong and Ken Pangborn have managed to convince lawyers as well as litigants to work with them as "medical legal consultants" or "forensic experts" (whatever that means -- some kind of glorified paralegal.) In addition, licensed psychs and other MHPs also do this same thing, soliciting business as "coaches" and "consultants" as well as appointments as experts for the court.
        The problem permeates the entire industry of therapeutic jurisprudence. It's particularly egregious in the area of the false-acc/abusers' defense lobbies, many of whom have an odd and interesting overlap with the "parental alienation syndrome" crowd, which seems to involve substantially the same motley activist network of PAS ringleaders, functional disciples of Richard A. Gardner. The PAS group includes psychs, lawyers, and the father's rights forensic paralegal types.
        One of the psychologists listed below, Barry Brody of Miami ("Forensic Family Services" www.drbarrybrody.com/forensicfamilyservices.html), regularly has sent out a "parental alienation" newsletter to members of the Florida Bar family law section (I haven't received one in a while; perhaps he's finally removed me from his mailing list, but if I get another one, I will scan it and upload it here). Brody as well as a number of more familiar names have chimed in to bless the nonsense of "hostile-aggressive parenting" which burst on the scene a couple of years ago to rehabilitate this discredited drivel. See the sister websites (same ownership) www.parental-alienation-awareness.com/ and www.hostile-aggressive-parenting.com/. These include an unhealthy mix of professionals, who, based on their permitting their names to be used this way, apparently support the promulgation of the unscientific crap. Although by no means exhaustive, it's a convenient list of who to stay away from in child custody cases:

Richard Austin, R. Christopher Barden, Stephen Ceci, Douglas Darnall, Stephen Herman, Jayne Major, Daniel Rybicki, S. Richard Sauber  (listed twice) , W. vonBoch-Galhau, Richard A Warshak, Michael Bone, L.F. Lowenstein, Reena Sommer, Jerry Brinegar, Katherine Andre, Ken Lewis, Catherine Swanson Cain, Monty Weinstein, Amy J. L. Baker, David Britton, Robert Evans, Debra Gordy, Christina McGhee, Harvey Shapiro (Elizabeth Loftus's "investigator"), Jose Manuel Aguilar Cuenca, Theresa K. Cooke, Jeff Opperman, Remi Thivierge, Joe Goldberg, James J. Gross, Randy Kolin, Randy Rand, David Carico, Lawrence W. Daly, Charles D. Jamieson. [from www.parental-alienation-awareness.com/experts.asp accessed 01/01/08]

        Notice in Goldberg's letter, below, the trade-promotion claim that these cases are "difficult to resolve". This is typical parenting evaluator propaganda -- it increases the appearance of some kind of need for their "expertise". Also note that not only does he make the ubiquitous misrepresentation that there is a disorder known as "parental alienation syndrome" but -- and this is fraudulent -- adds the embellishment that it is a medical disorder! (Who is infected? At its least implausible, PAS was a description of a relationship dynamic.)
        There's a big problem with this kind of thing that supersedes even the promotion of bogus parental alienation theories. The problem arises because most lawyers represent different clients taking different sides in different cases (sometimes the wife, sometimes the husband, sometimes the "good guy", sometimes the "bad guy", etc.). If Solicited Attorney runs up against Expert in another case, after they have established a "cross-referral professional relationship" and formal or informal "working partnership" (the formal kind is of dubious legal ethicity because of the inappropriate feeder of referrals in exchange for indirect compensation), and have "mutual" cases pending, Solicited will have a very difficult time shredding Expert or Expert's testimony when that is required in another case, or filing a complaint against him, if necessary, because that would place Solicited's other clients' pending cases at risk.
        In such cases, the lawyer will be tempted to rationalize to himself, as well as maintain the posture in the community at large, that Expert's horseshit is scientifically valid, and pretend that lawyer in any event can safely buy into this because lawyer is not a "scientist". Expert (who likely knows his spoutings are specious) also will know that Solicited is doing this, and thus has given clients less than competent representation (potentially damaging information to have against a lawyer).
        But because it's all ostensibly collegial, neither of them will admit to the bogus science, or what is going on, even to each other, and as people do, they both will maintain the pretext of belief in such things as the "medical disorder of parental alienation" or "the benefits of joint custody", as well as the value of their memberships in the organizations that promote these make-work ideas.
        It's almost like unacknowledged blackmail. The lawyer who naively or purposefully steps down this path and goes along with this kind of thing (encouraged by the mixed-discipline organizations, such as the AFCC) in order to obtain referrals has sold his professional soul to the devil, literally. This is true whether the cross-referral relationship is with a licensed psychologist, or, as in this case, with a paralegal-type bird dog.
        Deliberate relationships with expert witnesses such as the one sought in the below should be recognized as ethical violations and banned by state bar ethics rules. But the conflict of interest problems are inherent in the nature of the association and exist even when there is no explicit referral relationship -- a reason for banning these people from the court system altogether. Ironically, it's worse for the lawyers who are not ideologues, because they are more likely to advocate for different client perspectives. The repeated association of these "experts" into cases, however, any one of whom at any time and from time to time may show up on the wrong side of a given case, creates many of the same dilemmas that ordinary client conflict-of-interest issues do. This problem also applies to guardians ad litem, frequently a small group of lawyers or MHPs who are appointed by judges and placed over and over again in the same local group of lawyers' cases, and who similarly opine and write reports that sometimes are on the right side and sometimes on the wrong side.
        These people are witnesses in each case (or, in the case of GALs, sometimes even considered to be parties proper). They are not in fact "neutrals" (even if hired as such, once their reports are rendered, they are advocates for one or the other side, and they are never neutral when they are hired as a consultant-turned-testifying expert for one of the lawyers). Thus, at a point, they are, just as a party would be, pointedly in favor of one side and outcome, and overtly adverse to the position of the other party in a case.
        They are a special breed of friend or foe, however, because one lawyer may encounter the same expert in cases in which the fraudulent crap is disfavorable to the lawyer's client. Expert may be taking a meritless position for the lawyer's client in one case (which position the lawyer would like to bolster, being an advocate for the client), but show up in another case with the same meritless position that is against the lawyer's client in that case. Because Expert and the lawyer are in cahoots in other cases, the lawyer is placed into a conflict, unable zealously to discredit Expert and do what is necessary to protect his potentially harmed client in the adverse case -- even if the lawyer otherwise would be willing to sacrifice his own referral source or collegial association with Expert.
        Unlike lawyers in many other areas of practice, who may retain their clients for years, family lawyers typically need a steady stream of new one-shot clients. In addition, family lawyers also tend to work in smaller firms. So they value those who send them business. From what I've personally seen, I suspect that too many family lawyers, perhaps without recognizing or acknowledging the conflicts of interest that have caused their discomfort and unwillingness adequately to represent some of their clients, in fact have sacrificed these clients on the altar of maintaining their professional relationships, associations, and referral sources.
        These people are not colleagues, however. They are case witnesses and participants.
        Some lawyers admit to feeling burnout, but they've rationalized their unwillingness to zealously advocate for their clients, and their discomfort, as stemming from the "high conflict" created by unreasonable clients, or the high emotional toll the cases are taking on them. Others retain their enthusiasm by becoming ideologues, and taking only cases in which they will not encounter the conflicts (e.g. overwhelmingly their clients raise claims that the other parent is an alienator.) This conveniently furthers the propagation of the bad science.
        The rest justify their lack of vigorous representation, and the coerced settlements they've foisted on some clients as concern for the best interests of children, or as the only reasonable settlement position, or as their ideological commitment to helping people to just get along (especially when the retainer has run out).
        And they all profess to themselves and each other and everyone around a great affinity for mediation and therapy and collaborative resolution, and all manner of therapeutic jurisprudence in the interests of everyone, and similar specious posturing, encouraged in their self-delusion by a steady drip of MHP literature. This kind of thing is just not as pervasive in other areas of the law, no matter how heated the conflicts get, and it's one substantial reason the public has such a generally dim view of the family courts and family lawyers.
        Given that clients are entitled to their choice of attorneys, and are entitled to independent, unconflicted, attorneys (agents) who are committed to furthering their interests and goals (as the client, not the attorney, has defined them), the only viable solution is a disqualification of any GAL or forensic expert who previously has been associated in any case with either of the lawyers in that case, and the striking and nullification of all testimony and reports of that expert, no matter at what stage of a case the lawyer is hired. It also is time to substantially limit the use of forensic experts and GALs in family court altogether because for the most part, MHPs, including child custody evaluators and their related forensic offshoots, in fact are unneeded, unhelpful, and undesirable in the vast majority of child custody cases.
        (And any judge who would let Joe "PAS is a medical disorder" Goldberg** testify as an expert in a case should be removed from the bench for incompetence.)

        -- liz

** fka Bernard Joseph Goldberg, the guy who claimed his ex-wife was "alienating" and even the psychs didn't buy it -- except, Goldberg urges us to mention, an evaluator in his case, Glenn Caddy, Ph.D. Hmmm., well. Not surprisingly, Caddy is listed as a speaker in and among some of the usual names in the PAS promotion set at an upcoming September 2008 "Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome". See http://cspas.ca/speaker_profiles.shtml Dean Tong also is listed as a speaker at the event. That says it all. (And that Mrs. Goldberg and the children ultimately and fortuitously prevailed against this nonsense.)