|
Some Articles From Barbara White Stack of The Pittsburg Gazette
When the bough breaks: A mother of five, a parent to none
First in a series
Sunday, December 12, 1999
By Barbara White Stack, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Two women, the mother and the adoptive mother, hugged and cried and prayed as the little children they shared looked on
one day last July.
|
|
|
Leanore Weigner says goodbye to her daughter, Mary, in Brady's Run Park in July. Mary and her
brother, Charles, were leaving the next day with their adoptive parents for Texas and Weigner didn't know when she would see
them again. (Annie O'Neill, Post-Gazette) |
The adoptive mother, Betsy Lee, was moving the next day from Beaver to Texas, half a country away. The mother, Leanore
Weigner, was losing her children for a second time. The first time, Beaver County Children and Youth Services had taken them
from her.
Lee held Weigner a long time, trying to comfort her.
Then the little ones, Mary, 6, and Charles, 5, hugged their mother goodbye, climbed into Lee's Jeep and left.
Weigner was alone. Again.
Her face crumpled in agony. She wanted her children back -- not just Mary and Charles, but three others who were living
with a foster family that intended to adopt them.
Betsy Lee and her husband, Dr. John Lee, had been willing to relinquish Mary and Charles if that's what Weigner had wanted
and if an appeal had allowed it because, Betsy Lee said, "It is a terrible injustice what happened to her."
But Weigner wouldn't appeal. She didn't want the children moved again and hurt again, not, she said, after CYS had put
them "through heck and back."
All she wanted was for someone to stop CYS from doing what it had done to her.
CYS had terminated her parental rights to five children.
It had the legal authority to do that, but the way CYS, the Beaver County courts and even Weigner 's court-appointed attorney
behaved during that painful procedure appears to have violated Weigner's rights to due process, as well as state and federal
regulations regarding abused and neglected children.
And Weigner's story is not an anomaly in Beaver County.
A troubled beginning
Her saga began long before she moved to Beaver County or met a CYS caseworker. It goes back to her hometown of Carnegie
on the last weekend of October 1983, just days after Weigner's 11th birthday.
That's when her stepfather sexually molested her. Allegheny County's Office of Children, Youth and Families placed Weigner
and her sister, Dawn Conrad, in foster care. When Dawn turned 18 and left foster care, Weigner, a mildly retarded girl, lost
her sister's support.
She ran away almost immediately. It was 1987. She was 15 and living like a nomad, sometimes with her sister, sometimes
with other relatives. She attended school for a time but dropped out after 8th grade. She never made it to high school.
A few months after running away, she met Alvin Shriver, a violent 16-year-old, who, unfortunately, took a fancy to her.
Except for the four beautiful children they produced, nothing good came of their relationship.
They traveled from one city to the next in Pennsylvania and Ohio. They were in Steubenville, Ohio, when Weigner became
pregnant with their first child. She said she was eight months along when Alvin Shriver knocked out her front teeth. Later,
he would smack the second child across the face with a hot spatula because he was crying for eggs.
The first baby, J.S., a girl, was born on June 15, 1990, when Weigner was 17. Within four years, there were three more
-- D.S., a boy, in 1991, Mary in 1993, and Charles in 1994, six days after Weigner's 22nd birthday.
At that point, she was an unskilled, undereducated mother of four, economically dependent on a violent man.
That's when she began her second fateful relationship.
Shriver had introduced her to his cousin, James Boyce, and Boyce was appalled by what he saw going on in their household.
He told Weigner it wasn't right. He encouraged her to leave.
When Weigner finally got the courage to tell Shriver she was going, he savaged the apartment, smashing, among other things,
the children's fish tank, then forcing them to watch their pets suffocate. The Beaver Falls police arrived, and Weigner and
the children escaped.
But then her trouble with CYS started. She traces it back to a jealous Shriver, who couldn't stand the idea of her and
Boyce being together.
Not long after she and Shriver had split up, he was convicted of setting his aunt's home on fire while she, Boyce, and
Shriver's grandfather slept inside. They escaped unharmed. Shriver was sentenced to four to 10 years in prison for arson and
reckless endangerment.
Before he set the fire, Weigner believes Shriver told CYS about his cousin's juvenile criminal record.
Boyce said he didn't really do anything. According to his account, he and another boy were baby-sitting, and the other
boy sexually assaulted the child while Boyce was out of the house. Boyce was charged in the case, and while he doesn't remember
exactly what crime he was accused of, he knows that he was given probation and never spent time in a juvenile detention center.
Boyce's story has some credence, because if he had been convicted of a serious sexual assault, his juvenile record would
be public information -- and it isn't.
CYS wasn't willing to take any chances, though. Weigner said a caseworker told her in the fall of 1995 that she was never
to leave the children alone with Boyce.
Weigner was unfazed by the demand, because, she said, she never left her children alone, not even with a baby-sitter. Although
she did not believe Boyce had committed a sexual assault as a juvenile, Weigner would never let him or anyone else touch her
children. She'd been a victim; she was determined not to let it happen to her children.
A few months later, as she and Boyce's mother, JoAnn Boyer, were fixing dinner for the children at Boyer's home in Freedom,
a CYS caseworker arrived.
A final meal
It was Dec. 4, 1995. That was the last day Weigner ever cooked for her children.
CYS accused Weigner of leaving the children alone with Boyce. They took the children away from her and parceled them out
to different foster homes. Mary, who was 2, and Charles, who was 1, were put in one home, while D.S., who was 4, and J.S.,
who was 5, were placed in another.
Weigner's sister tried to rescue them. Dawn Conrad called CYS and asked that her nieces and nephews be placed with her.
She felt the children should be together and remain with family, and they knew her and her husband because Weigner had spent
a month with them earlier that year.
But, she said, CYS wouldn't even consider her, telling her it would be impossible to place the children outside Pennsylvania.
Conrad and her husband own a home in Wintersville, Ohio, 18 miles from the Pennsylvania line. Both state and federal law permit
placement across state lines. Beaver County CYS has placed children outside Pennsylvania in other cases. But it refused this
time.
In addition, both state and federal law require agencies to consider placement with relatives before strangers. Yet CYS
wrote on Weigner's court papers, "At the time of placement, there were no appropriate relatives to care for the children."
CYS Director Victor Colonna said state law bars him from discussing specific cases, but he said CYS must have had a reason
if it did not place children with a relative.
Betsy Lee, the adoptive mother of Mary and Charles, was furious when she found out the agency refused to place children
with Conrad. Much as she loves Mary and Charles, she believes they belonged with family first. "It breaks my heart. All five
kids could have been together in a stable home four years ago."
The CYS decision to reject the Conrads was particularly costly to J.S. and D.S., because they would end up being passed
from one foster home to the next.
D.S. bounced through five homes in four years; J.S. went to four. Each time a child is moved, psychiatrists say, he or
she is less able to bond, less able to love, more likely to suffer debilitating emotional disorders. After what happened to
D.S. and J.S. within CYS' child protective system, it wouldn't be hard to conclude that they'd have been better off staying
with their mother, Lee said.
That is not, however, the conclusion CYS came to.
No attorney present
The agency asked Juvenile Court to declare the children abused or neglected because "Ms. Weigner left the children alone
with Mr. James Boyce, a known perpetrator of sexual abuse, despite being repeatedly warned that he is to have absolutely no
contact with any of the children."
Boyce could hardly be described as a known perpetrator, since his juvenile record was sealed, and he had no adult record.
And, Weigner said, she was only told not to leave the children alone with him.
When the Juvenile Court hearing was held, Weigner had no attorney present to argue her case, and the judge decided not
to give the children back to her.
She said she didn't know how to get a free lawyer, and she said no one told her how. Court officials say they always tell
parents how to get free lawyers.
But Weigner, because of her limitations, may not have understood. State regulations say parents are entitled to legal representation
at every hearing, yet the court didn't appoint a lawyer for Weigner until at least the third hearing, about a year later.
When CYS took her children, Weigner was four months pregnant with Boyce's baby, and terrified that CYS would take that
child. too.
But then a caseworker visited her and Boyce at his mother's house in Freedom and said they could take the baby home when
it was born, for at least a couple of weeks. Weigner and Boyce stacked up diapers and bought formula, clothes and a bassinet.
Richard Boyce was born on May 12, 1996.
Based on the caseworker's promise that she could take him home and her belief that five children were all she could handle,
Weigner got surgically sterilized immediately afterward.
The next day, the caseworker went to the hospital and took Richard. The only baby picture Weigner has of him is the one
taken there.
CYS placed Richard with George and Tamell Huffmyer, who was the volunteer foster parent liaison for CYS. Although J.S.
and D.S. had been placed in another home initially, they had been moved to the Huffmyers by the time the baby was born. Shortly
after the Huffmyers got the baby, though, they insisted that CYS move D.S. out of the home. It's not clear why, and the Huffmyers
declined to discuss it.
When the caseworker showed up at the maternity ward, Weigner had been dressing to leave. Boyce's mother, JoAnn Boyer, was
holding her infant grandson in her arms.
After the caseworker took the baby, Boyce stormed out, an omen of things to come for him and Weigner.
Shortage of help
CYS then gave Weigner and Boyce "family service plans," which are supposed to be road maps to possible reunification of
parents and children. Under the plans, parents must meet some goals so the children can return safely, and the agency is supposed
to help them achieve those objectives. The idea behind the service plans is that the quicker children go home, the less trauma
they will suffer and the less cost taxpayers will incur for keeping them in foster care.
Weigner was a parent who definitely needed help. Besides being a mildly retarded junior-high dropout who'd been a victim
of both sexual assault and domestic violence, she had only held a job or leased an apartment of her own for a few months.
Despite its duty and Weigner's clear need, CYS did virtually nothing to help her.
One of the goals she had the most difficulty meeting was getting decent, stable housing. She didn't have money for a security
deposit. And she couldn't get into a public housing apartment unless she paid $908 she owed in back rent and repairs from
a previous stay in public housing. That was an amount far beyond her means.
These, however, are problems many child welfare agencies solve.
The Allegheny County CYF, the counterpart to Beaver County CYS, does it all the time. It connects parents to agencies that
will help pay overdue utility bills and security deposits. CYF will buy a parent a refrigerator or a stove if that's the roadblock
to returning the children. And CYF has a special program to help parents get public housing.
Beaver County CYS did none of this for Weigner.
Boyce said CYS did not help him either, and in fact worked against his success. The agency required him to go to classes
for sexual offenders, which were held during times when he was supposed to be working. He lost his job because he attended
the classes. Then he didn't have the money to pay for the classes, and CYS wouldn't cover the cost, so, he said, he didn't
finish them.
That meant he and Weigner couldn't get their baby, and Weigner couldn't get her other children back.
They agreed to separate. Weigner moved to New Brighton. She completed many of the goals CYS set for her. She graduated
from the parenting school. A homemaker inspected her apartment and found it clean and well stocked with food. She never missed
a visit with her children.
But after doing all that, she still faced a huge obstacle.
A ruinous accusation
By this time, CYS had accused Boyce of molesting one or more of Weigner's children. Three months after Richard was born,
the Beaver County district attorney's office charged Boyce with a dozen counts of corrupting minors and indecent assault,
although the charges didn't specify the victims.
Boyce flatly denies any molestation. Weigner doesn't believe he did it, partly because her children never mentioned it.
When she would try to ask them about it during visits, the CYS caseworkers would tell her not to bring it up. CYS director
Colonna said a supervisor may ask parents not to discuss sexual abuse if he feels the questions are an attempt to influence
the child during an investigation.
Betsy Lee said it was clear to her that neither Mary nor Charles was a victim, because they never exhibited the sexualized
behaviors associated with it.
Despite the serious charges leveled against Boyce, the district attorney allowed him to enter a special program designed
for first-time offenders, almost all of whom are accused of nonviolent crimes. It's not clear how an option meant for nonviolent
offenders could be offered to someone charged with numerous counts of indecent assault, other than the possibility that the
prosecution felt it might not win at trial.
Boyce's public defender advised him to take the offer, rather than face the possibility of conviction and jail time. Boyce
said he agreed because the lawyer assured him that entering the program, called Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, wasn't
the same as pleading guilty or being convicted. He served one year's probation.
Boyce maintains his innocence and remains angry about the accusations.
Ten days after Boyce accepted the deal, Weigner was back in juvenile court.
It was Nov. 21, 1996, and now, CYS wanted to change the goal for her children from reunification to adoption.
Weigner didn't know it then, but CYS was abandoning her in stunningly quick time -- just 11 months after the older children
were taken, and six months after the baby was. In 1996, agencies were expected to work with parents for at least 18 months
before seeking to terminate their rights. And most tried much longer to help parents get their children back, so that the
average parent nationwide got a little more than three years to meet goals before their rights were terminated.
The speed of Weigner's termination was not unique in Beaver County.
From 1994 through 1998, the most recent statistics available, Beaver County terminated parents' rights twice as quickly
as the national average, and even faster when a baby was involved.
For the hearing on whether her children should be designated for adoption, the court finally appointed a lawyer for Weigner.
That attorney, Cathy Campbell, asked the juvenile court hearing officer, who serves in place of a judge, to give Weigner more
time.
Hearing Officer John D. McBride agreed, and refused to change the goal to adoption. He ordered CYS to continue to help
Weigner get her children back.
Despite that, CYS immediately went to an Orphans' Court judge and asked for a hearing to terminate Weigner's parental rights,
the first step necessary for adoption.
In many other places, including Allegheny County, that wouldn't occur because CYS would have to deal with a single judge
throughout a family's case.
Weigner's termination hearing was scheduled for Jan. 14, 1997, but Campbell persuaded Beaver County Common Pleas Judge
Robert C. Reed to postpone it twice.
Weigner had more time. But then CYS began pressuring her in a different way.
Seeking acquiescence
CYS started pushing Weigner to relinquish her children for adoption, which would avoid the need for a judge to involuntarily
terminate her rights.
Weigner asked Campbell about it, and Campbell said, "I told her that it was her decision and she needed to understand what
she was doing, because you can't go back. I said 'You are struggling, but this is a permanent decision.' "
Campbell said she thought Weigner understood.
But Weigner didn't. And Campbell did not offer to go with her when she talked to CYS about it.
That should not happen. Linda Ehrenreich, who directs the group of attorneys in Allegheny County who represent parents
in such cases, said she would be furious if she found out CYS had discussed relinquishment, or a similar procedure called
consent, with any of her clients without her lawyer being present, especially if the parent was mentally ill or mentally retarded.
Campbell said she didn't know her client was mildly retarded. And, she said, the law doesn't require legal counsel for
parents who sign away their rights.
Weigner signed the relinquishment on July 28, 1997 -- but she did so partly because she misunderstood what was going on.
When CYS told Weigner it would try to terminate her rights if she didn't relinquish her children, she thought termination
meant she would be criminally charged and might go to jail.
"I was scared because I was never in jail," Weigner said. "I had never even been charged with anything. They had me scared."
Colonna, the CYS director, said he can't imagine she got that idea from anyone at the agency. "I would say in no case would
a parent be told criminal charges would be filed if they don't sign a voluntary relinquishment."
In addition to lacking legal counsel when she needed it, Weigner was not given a court-appointed guardian, which she would
have had in Allegheny County, where the courts require such a second line of defense for parents who are under 18 or mentally
ill or retarded. Part of the guardian's job is to make sure the parent understands what termination means.
That doesn't happen in Beaver County, though. Court rules there require guardians only for parents under 18.
On Sept. 23, 1997, a judge severed Weigner's rights to her children forever. At the same hearing, the judge terminated
Boyce's rights, although he didn't have a lawyer and wasn't given an opportunity to speak. Now, he said, "I don't believe
in the justice system. It isn't any justice at all."
Second thoughts
Twelve days after the terminations, on Oct. 5, 1997, Joseph Shriver, an infant cousin of Weigner's children, was beaten
to death by his foster mother.
It traumatized Weigner. Her friends and family called to make sure it wasn't one of her babies. Weigner, who had assumed
foster care was safe, began to worry that her children too could be killed by foster parents.
She wrote Campbell and asked her to try to reverse the termination of her parental rights. She said she'd been pressured
into it. She said she was afraid for her children.
Campbell never responded -- despite the fact that in 1992, state Superior Court ruled that lawyers representing poor parents
like Weigner in terminations must file appeals when their clients request them. The court said that if the lawyers felt the
appeals were utterly frivolous, they could ask for permission to withdraw, but they had to file briefs pointing to any possible
appeal issues anyway.
Weigner couldn't get any help from Campbell. She was alone and fearful for her children's safety. "They told me to just
go on with my life. How could I do that without my kids?"
She tried to kill herself. She spent three weeks in the hospital.
She began taking medication for depression. But, she said, "Sometimes I get really, really depressed and I don't even want
to be around."
A year later, in the fall of 1998, Weigner looked up the phone number for John and Betsy Lee, who'd had two of her children
for two years at that point.
She had met Betsy Lee briefly during visits with Mary and Charles before the termination. Now she'd read a news article
saying that CYS had taken from the Lees a 14-month-old baby they'd hoped to adopt, and Weigner wanted to offer her sympathy.
Betsy Lee was touched by this kindness from someone who had lost so much. They began talking from time to time. Weigner
told Lee bits and pieces of her story. It didn't jibe with what the caseworker had told Lee about her.
Lee, already suspicious of CYS because the agency had placed her foster baby with someone else for adoption, began letting
Weigner talk to Mary and Charles on the phone.
Lee was careful, though, because she feared CYS would take those children away from her, too, if the agency felt she had
violated rules.
A painful parting
A year after Weigner's rights were terminated -- in the fall of 1998 -- Beaver County CYS still hadn't completed adoptions
for any of her children.
The Huffmyers were supposed to adopt J.S. and Richard, but they got a divorce, so the two children were sent to live with
their brother D.S. in his foster home. Then, last spring, the three children were moved to yet another foster family.
The move to a new foster home occurred a year-and-a-half after the termination. The three children would have to be with
the new family at least another six months before an adoption could be approved.
There was no reason, however, to delay Mary's and Charles' adoption, but it still wasn't scheduled, which was frustrating
to the Lees because they were facing a deadline.
John Lee had completed his physician's residency and had accepted a job with a practice in Texas. They had rented a house
and were to leave Beaver County in July of this year.
Betsy Lee's caseworker told her that Mary and Charles might have to stay behind if the adoptions weren't completed before
the Lees left. Betsy Lee couldn't bear for that to happen. It would devastate the children as much as it would her and John.
One problem the Lees faced was that they had filed a federal lawsuit against CYS over the agency's refusal to let them
adopt their foster baby, and they didn't want Robert Masters, the CYS solicitor they named in that suit, to serve as the lawyer
for this adoption.
CYS finally agreed to let them use a private lawyer, Albert A. Torrence of Beaver. Torrence quickly scheduled a date.
On June 29 of this year, Mary and Charles became Lees in a ceremony in which they were joyous and silly, as a 5- and 6-year-old
should be. When questioned under oath if she would love and cherish the children as she would the son born to her and John,
Betsy Lee said, "I rejoice in it."
They celebrated with breakfast at McDonald's, the children's choice. Betsy Lee then called Weigner to make sure she was
OK. "I have asked her to be honest with me about what she wanted. She has consistently said she wants what is best for the
kids. She has sweetly said we could adopt. But having gone through this situation ourselves with [the foster child], we have
to deal with how she is impacted by all of this."
|
|
|
Weeping, hugging and praying together, Leanore Weigner, left, and Betsy Lee prepare to say
goodbye in July at Brady's Run Park. Lee had adopted two of Weigner's children. (Annie O'Neill, Post-Gazette) |
After the adoption, Betsy and John Lee let Weigner take Mary and Charles to a fair by herself. Days later, the children
were still talking about it -- the popcorn, the rides, the fun with their mother.
Once they reached Texas, Betsy and John Lee planned to send Weigner plane tickets so she could visit the children.
But before they left, Betsy Lee had to take on the excruciating job of arranging another goodbye between Weigner and her
children.
She decided to take Weigner and the children to Brady's Run Park in Beaver County. They could play for hours on the swings
and slides. Weigner could hug them, kiss them and tell them goodbye again.
Both Mary and Charles wrote their mother letters.
Charles wrote, "I love you. I miss you. I like to play with you. I don't want to go away."
Weigner wrote:
"I never thought this day would come again ... when I had to say goodbye. So I had to write it because I can't say it to
your face ... when you go, please remember me and that I love you very much. And you will always be in my mind and in my heart.
I really can't explain how I feel right now.
"But I can tell you that it hurts more than anything in the world."
Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations
in Child Protection Matters
Committee on Professional Practice and Standards1 Board of Professional Affairs
Approved by the Council of Representatives American Psychological Association
February 1998
Suggested citation: American Psychological Association Committee on Professional Practice and Standards (1998).
Guidelines for psychological evaluations in child protection matters. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations in Child Protection Matters
The problems of abused and neglected children are epidemic in our society (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect (ABCAN), 1995) and create issues that psychologists may be called upon to address. According to the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse
and Neglect (ABCAN), conservative estimates indicate that almost two thousand infants and young children die from abuse and
neglect by parents or caretakers each year, or five children every day. McClain's research at the Center for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) suggests that abuse and neglect kills 5.4 out of every 100,000 children age four and under (McClain et al., 1993; McClain, 1995).
According to ABCAN, fatalities are not the entire story. There are tens of thousands of victims overwhelmed by lifelong
psychological trauma, thousands of traumatized siblings and family members and thousands of near-death survivors who, as adults,
continue to bear physical and psychological scars. Each year, 18,000 children are left permanently disabled (Baladerian, 1991). Some may turn to crime or domestic violence or become abusers themselves (ABCAN, 1995).
When a child is at risk for harm, psychologists may become involved. Psychologists are in a position to make significant
contributions to child welfare decisions. Psychological data and expertise may provide additional sources of information and
a perspective not otherwise readily available to the court regarding the functioning of parties, and thus may increase the
fairness of the determination by the court, state agency or other party.
As the complexity of psychological practice increases and the reciprocal involvement between psychologists and the public
broadens, the need for guidelines to educate the profession, the public and the other interested parties regarding desirable
professional practice in child protection matters has expanded and will probably continue to expand in the foreseeable future.
Although psychologists may assume various roles and responsibilities in such proceedings, the following guidelines were developed
primarily for psychologists conducting psychological evaluations in child protection matters.2 These guidelines build upon the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 1992)3 and are aspirational in intent. The term "guidelines" refers to pronouncements, statements, or declarations that suggest
or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavor, or conduct for psychologists (APA, 1992a). Guidelines differ from standards
in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism (APA, 1993).
Thus, as guidelines, they are not intended to be either mandatory or exhaustive and may not always be applicable to legal
matters. Their aspirational intent is to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and help to assure
a high level of professional practice by psychologists. These guidelines should not be construed as definitive or intended
to take precedence over the judgement of psychologists. The specific goal of the guidelines is to promote proficiency in using
psychological expertise in conducting psychological evaluations in child protection matters.
Parents4 enjoy important civil and constitutional rights regarding the care for their children. A child has a fundamental interest
in being protected from abuse and neglect. Child protection laws attempt to strike a balance between these interests. Under
the concept of parens patriae, all states have the right to intervene in cases where a child is at risk for harm. State interventions most commonly occur
in three stages. In the first stage, following a report of suspected child abuse and neglect5, an investigation occurs. In the second stage, if the findings of the investigation stage indicate the child is at sufficient
risk for harm, the state may assume care and/or custody of the child and may make recommendations for rehabilitation of the
parents. The third stage may occur if such rehabilitative conditions have failed to create a safe environment for the child's
return to the parent(s), or if the child has been returned unsuccessfully. At this point the state may request a hearing for
a final disposition. The final dispositional stage may result in involuntary termination of parental rights. Such a disposition
typically requires not only a finding of abuse and/or neglect by the parent(s), but also a finding that various rehabilitative
efforts with the parent(s) have failed. Psychologists are aware that the most extreme disposition--termination of parental
rights--has a finality requiring both due process protection and a higher standard of proof6 than may be used in other child protection matters.
Jurisdictions have statutory or case law requirements that diligent efforts must be made to rehabilitate the parent(s)
and reunite the child with his/her parent(s). Typically, these requirements must be met prior to a disposition of parental
termination. Different states may have different statutory or case law requirements. In conducting an evaluation, psychologists
should be familiar with applicable law.7
During any of the above-mentioned stages, psychologists may be asked to evaluate different parties for different purposes.
Psychologists may act as agents of the court, the child protection agency, or may be directly retained by the parent(s). Psychologists
may also be retained by a guardian ad litem if one has been appointed to represent the child.
As evaluators in child protection cases, psychologists are frequently asked to address such questions as:
1. How seriously has the child's psychological well-being been affected?
2. What therapeutic interventions would be recommended to assist the child?
3. Can the parent(s) be successfully treated to prevent harm to the child in the future? If so, how? If not, why not?
4. What would be the psychological effect upon the child if returned to the parent(s)?
5. What would be the psychological effect upon the child if separated from the parents or if parental rights are terminated?
In the course of their evaluations, and depending upon the specific needs of a given case, psychologists may wish to evaluate
the parent(s) and/or the child individually or together. Psychologists may wish to gather information on family history, assess
relevant personality functioning, assess developmental needs of the child, explore the nature and quality of the parent-child
relationship and assess evidence of trauma. Psychologists are encouraged to consider specific risk factors such as substance
abuse or chemical dependency, domestic violence, financial circumstance, health status of family members and the entire family
context. Psychologists may wish to review information from other sources including an assessment of cultural, educational,
religious and community factors.
Particular competencies and knowledge are necessary when performing psychological evaluations in child protection matters
so that adequate and appropriate psychological services can be provided to the court, state agencies or other parties. For
example, in cases involving physical disability, such as hearing impairments, orthopedic handicaps, etc., psychologists strive
to seek consultation from experts in these areas. Particular attention should also be given to other aspects of human diversity
such as, but not limited to, ethnic minority status, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status.
Conducting psychological evaluations in child protection matters can be a demanding and stressful task. The demand of such
evaluations can become heightened because the issues involved may include child abuse, neglect and/or family violence. Psychologists
are alert to these personal stressors, and when appropriate, undertake relevant study, training, supervision and/ or consultation.
Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations in Child Protection Matters
I. Orienting Guidelines
1. The primary purpose of the evaluation is to provide relevant, professionally sound results or opinions, in matters
where a child's health and welfare may have been and/or may in the future be harmed. The specific purposes of the evaluation
will be determined by the nature of the child protection matter. In investigative proceedings, a primary purpose of the evaluation
is to assist in determining whether the child's health and welfare may have been harmed. When the child is already identified
as being at risk for harm, the evaluation often focuses on rehabilitation recommendations, designed to protect the child and
help the family. An additional purpose of such an evaluation may be to make recommendations for interventions that promote
the psychological and physical well-being of the child, and if appropriate, facilitate the reunification of the family. Psychologists
appreciate the value of expediting family reunification when safe and appropriate.
In proceedings involving termination of parental rights, the primary purpose of the evaluation is to assess not only abuse
or neglect by the parent(s), but also whether rehabilitation efforts for and by the parent(s) have succeeded in creating a
safe environment for the child's return.2. In child protection cases, the child's interest and well-being are paramount.
In these cases, the state is intervening in the family based on the concern that the child's needs at that time are not being
served by the family, resulting in the child's psychological or physical harm. Thus, the child's interest and well-being are
paramount. In proceedings where involuntary termination of parental rights is being considered, there is an additional focus:
whether the parents have been or can be successfully rehabilitated.3. The evaluation addresses the particular psychological
and developmental needs of the child and/or parent(s) that are relevant to child protection issues such as physical abuse,
sexual abuse, neglect, and/or serious emotional harm. In considering psychological factors affecting the health and welfare
of the child, psychologists may focus on parental capacities in conjunction with the psychological and developmental needs
of the child. This may involve an assessment of:
(a) the adult's capacities for parenting, including those attributes, skills and abilities most relevant to abuse and/or
neglect concerns;
(b) the psychological functioning and developmental needs of the child, particularly with regard to vulnerabilities and
special needs of the child as well as the strength of the child's attachment to the parent(s) and the possible detrimental
effects of separation from the parent(s);
(c) the current and potential functional abilities of the parent(s) to meet the needs of the child, including an evaluation
of the relationship between the child and the parent(s);
(d) the need for and likelihood of success of clinical interventions for observed problems, which may include recommendations
regarding treatment focus, frequency of sessions, specialized kinds of intervention, parent education and placement.
II. General Guidelines: Preparing for a Child Protection Evaluation
4. The role of psychologists conducting evaluations is that of professional expert who strives to maintain an unbiased,
objective stance. In performing protection evaluations, psychologists do not act as judges, who make the ultimate decision
by applying the law to all relevant evidence, or as advocating attorneys for any particular party. Whether retained by the
court, the child protection agency, the parent(s) or the guardian ad litem for the child, psychologists should strive
to be objective. Psychologists rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge when making judgements and describe
fairly the bases for their testimonies and conclusions. If psychologists cannot accept this unbiased objective stance, they
should consider withdrawing from the case. If not permitted to withdraw, psychologists disclose factors that may bias their
findings and/ or compromise their objectivity.5. The serious consequences of psychological assessment in child protection
matters place a heavy burden on psychologists. Because psychologists' professional judgements have great potential to
affect the lives of others, psychologists are alert to guard against factors that might lead to misuse of their findings.
For example, in an initial dispositional hearing, psychologists' findings may be used to separate the child from her/his parent(s).
In a final dispositional hearing, the psychologists' findings may be a factor in the decision to terminate parental rights.
The gravity and potential permanence of this consequence underscore the importance for psychologists to reasonably insure
the objectivity of the assessment procedure and findings.6. Psychologists gain specialized competence.
A. Psychologists who conduct evaluations in child protection matters are aware that special competencies and knowledge
may be necessary for the undertaking of such evaluations. Competence in performing psychological assessments of children,
adults and families is necessary but not sufficient. Education, training, experience and/or supervision in the areas of forensic
practice, child and family development, child and family psychopathology, the impact of separation on the child, the nature
of various types of child abuse and the role of human differences.8 may help to prepare psychologists to participate competently in psychological evaluations in child protection matters.
B. Psychologists make reasonable effort to use current knowledge of scholarly and professional developments, consistent
with generally accepted clinical and scientific practice, in selecting evaluation methods and procedures. The current Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (APA, 1985) are adhered to in the use of psychological tests and other assessment tools.
C. Psychologists also strive to become familiar with applicable legal and regulatory standards and procedures, including
state and Federal laws governing child protection issues. These may include laws and regulations addressing child abuse, neglect
and termination of parental rights.
7. Psychologists are aware of personal and societal biases and engage in nondiscriminatory practice. Psychologists
engaging in psychological evaluations in child protection matters are aware of how biases regarding age, gender, race, ethnicity,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, culture and socioeconomic status may interfere with an
objective evaluation and recommendations. Psychologists recognize and strive to overcome any such biases or withdraw from
the evaluation. When interpreting evaluation results, psychologists strive to be aware that there are diverse cultural and
community methods of child rearing, and consider these in the context of the existing state and Federal.9 laws. Also, psychologists should use, whenever available, tests and norms based on populations similar to those evaluated.8.
Psychologists avoid multiple relationships. In conducting psychological evaluations in child protective matters, psychologists
are aware that there may be a need to avoid confusion about role boundaries. Psychologists generally do not conduct psychological
evaluations in child protection matters in which they serve in a therapeutic role for the child or the immediate family or
have had other involvement that may compromise their objectivity. This does not, however, preclude psychologists from testifying
in cases as fact or expert witnesses concerning therapeutic treatment of the children, parents or families. In addition, during
the course of a psychological evaluation in child protection matters, psychologists do not accept any of the participants
involved in the evaluation as therapy clients. Therapeutic contact with the child or involved participants following a child
protection evaluation is discouraged and when done, is undertaken with caution.
Psychologists asked to testify regarding a therapy client who is involved in a child protection case are aware of the limitations
and possible biases inherent in such a role and the possible impact on ongoing therapeutic relationships. Although the court
may order psychologists to testify as fact or expert witnesses regarding information they became aware of in a professional
relationship with a client, psychologists must appreciate the difference in roles and methods between being psychotherapists
and being child protection evaluators.
III. Procedural Guidelines: Conducting a Psychological Evaluation in Child Protection MattersIn child protection matters,
there are many different situations representing a wide variety of legal and/or ethical considerations. The appropriate procedure
in one case may not be appropriate in another. Psychologists should be alert to applicable laws which govern the evaluation,
as well as applicable sections of the Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct for Psychologists, particularly those
sections dealing with confidentiality. In addition, psychologists appreciate the need for timeliness in child protection matters
(e.g., response to evaluation referral, scheduling appointments, completion of report).9. Based on the nature of the referral
questions, the scope of the evaluation is determined by the evaluator. The scope of the protection-related evaluation
is determined by the nature of the questions or issues raised by the referring agency, person or court, or is inherent in
the situation. In child protection matters, psychologists are frequently asked to address parenting deficits. Consequently,
psychologists are often asked to propose a rehabilitation plan for the parent(s) or to discuss why prior rehabilitation attempts
have failed. The scope and methods of the assessment should be based upon consideration of the referral questions and the
appropriate methods by which to evaluate them. Sometimes the evaluation is limited to one parent without attempting to compare
the parents. Likewise, the scope may be limited to evaluating the child. At other times, psychologists may be asked to critique
the assumptions and methodology of another mental health professional's assessment. Psychologists may also identify relevant
issues not anticipated in the referral questions that could enlarge the scope of the evaluation. Also, psychologists might
serve as pure expert witnesses in such areas as child development or social psychology, providing expertise to the court without
relating it specifically to the parties involved in a particular case. 10. Psychologists performing psychological evaluations
in child protection matters obtain appropriate informed consent from all adult participants, and as appropriate, inform the
child participant. Psychologists need to be particularly sensitive to informed consent issues. Psychological evaluations
in child protection matters are often performed at the request of an agency, by order of a court or at the request of another
individual, such as an attorney. Due to the nature of child protection matters, the complexity of the legal issues involved
and the potential serious consequences of the evaluation, psychologists need to be particularly sensitive to informed consent
issues. Efforts toward obtaining informed consent should make clear to the participant the nature of the evaluation, its purpose,
to whom the results will be provided and the role of the psychologist in relation to the referring party (see APA Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Standards 1.21 and 1.216 re: third party request for services). This
information should be provided in language understandable to the recipient.
Because participants in this type of evaluation may feel compelled to cooperate, psychologists should attempt to obtain
confirmation of the participants' understanding of and agreement to the evaluation, including its purposes and its implications,
prior to the initiation of the evaluation. The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct requires
appropriate informed consent and many state laws require written consent. Should there be refusal to give consent, it may
be advisable to refer the individual back to his/her own attorney or seek the guidance of the court or referring agency before
proceeding. The purpose of the evaluation, the results and where and to whom the results are distributed are all determined
by the individual characteristics of the case as well as by legal requirements and agency regulations.
The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct suggests that psychologists provide information to the
child as appropriate, to the extent that the child is able to understand. Psychologists explain to the child the nature of
the evaluation procedures. Psychologists attempt to make it clear to the child that his/her safety is the primary interest
and because of that interest, the information will be shared with others. Psychologists allow time for questions by the child
and answer them in a developmentally and culturally appropriate fashion.11. Psychologists inform participants about the
disclosure of information and the limits of confidentiality. Psychologists conducting a psychological evaluation in child
protection matters ensure that the participants, including the child (to the extent feasible), are aware of the limits of
confidentiality for the evaluation results. Psychologists recognize that evaluation results could be sought by a child protection
investigation agency, the court, a guardian ad litem for the child or an attorney for either parent. When an evaluation
is court-ordered, there may be special considerations regarding the limits of confidentiality and the disclosure of information.
In such cases, psychologists will seek to reconcile the APA ethical standards with fulfilling the demands of the court. A
clear explanation of the nature of the evaluation and to whom it will be released takes place.12. Psychologists use multiple
methods of data gathering. Psychologists strive to use the most appropriate methods available for addressing the questions
raised in a specific child protection evaluation. Psychologists generally use multiple methods of data gathering, including
but not limited to, clinical interviews, observation and/or psychological testing that are sufficient to provide appropriate
substantiation for their findings. Psychologists may review relevant reports (e.g. from child protection agencies, social
service providers, law enforcement agencies, health care providers, child care providers, schools and institutions). In evaluating
parental capacity to care for a particular child or the child-parent interaction, psychologists make efforts to observe the
child together with the parent and recognize the value of these observations occurring in natural settings. This may not always
be possible, for example, in cases where the safety of the child is in jeopardy or parental contact with the child has been
prohibited by the court. Psychologists may also attempt to interview extended family members and other individuals when appropriate
(e.g., caretakers, grandparents and teachers). If information gathered from a third party is used as a basis for conclusions,
psychologists attempt to corroborate it from at least one other source wherever possible. The corroboration should be documented
in the report.13. Psychologists neither over-interpret nor inappropriately interpret clinical or assessment data. Psychologists
refrain from drawing conclusions not adequately supported by the data. Psychologists interpret any data from interviews or
tests cautiously and conservatively, strive to be knowledgeable about cultural norms and present findings in a form understandable
to the recipient. Psychologists strive to acknowledge to the court any limitations in methods or data used. In addition, psychologists
are aware that in compelled evaluations the situation may lend itself to defensiveness by the participant, given the potentially
serious consequences of an adverse finding. Consequently, the situational determinants should be borne in mind when interpreting
test findings.14 . Psychologists conducting a psychological evaluation in child protection matters provide an opinion regarding
the psychological functioning of an individual only after conducting an evaluation of the individual adequate to support their
statements or conclusions. This guideline does not preclude psychologists from reporting what an individual has stated
or from addressing theoretical issues or hypothetical questions, so long as any limitations of the basis of such information
are noted. When, despite reasonable effort, a personal evaluation of an individual is not feasible, psychologists report this
and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations.15. Recommendations, if offered,
are based on whether the child's health and welfare have been and/or may be seriously harmed. When conducting a psychological
evaluation in child protection matters, psychologists may choose to make a variety of recommendations, including but not limited
to, psychological treatment for the child, psychological treatment for the parent(s), and/or suggestions for parental rehabilitation
that would help create a safe environment for the child.
If recommendations are made, the primary focus must be the child's health and welfare. Recommendations are based on sound
psychological data, such as clinical data, interpretations and inferences founded on generally accepted psychological theory
and practice. Particular attention may be given to outcomes research on interventions with abusive families. Psychologists
strive to disclose relevant information and clinical data pertaining to the issues being evaluated while maintaining an awareness
of the limitations in predicting future violent behavior. They also explain the reasoning behind their conclusions.
The profession has not reached consensus about whether making dispositional recommendations in child protection evaluations
is within the purview of psychological practice. However, if psychologists choose to make dispositional recommendations, the
recommendations should be derived from sound psychological data and must be based on considerations of the child's health
and welfare in the particular case. 16. Psychologists clarify financial arrangements. Financial arrangements are clarified
and agreed upon prior to conducting a child protection evaluation. When billing for an evaluation, psychologists accurately
describe the services provided for reimbursement purposes.17. Psychologists maintain appropriate records. All data
obtained in the process of conducting a child protection evaluation are properly maintained and stored in accordance with
the APA Record Keeping Guidelines (APA, 1993). All records, including raw data and interview information, are recorded
with the understanding that they may be reviewed by other psychologists, the court or the client.
Glossary of Terms
The following definitions are written generally and are intended solely to familiarize readers to some common terms used
in child protection matters. These are not to be construed as uniformly accepted legal definitions or applied in specific
legal matters. Readers wishing to use these terms as part of their evaluations are encouraged to confer with a licensed attorney
in the state in which they are providing the evaluation..10Abuse, emotional: also referred to as 'psychological maltreatment' generally defined as a repeated pattern of behavior that
conveys to children that they are worthless, unwanted or only of value in meeting another's needs; may include serious threats
of physical or psychological violence.Abuse, physical: generally defined as the suffering by a child, or substantial risk
that a child will imminently suffer, a physical harm, inflicted non-accidentally upon him/her by his/ her parents or caretaker.Abuse,
sexual (child): generally defined as contacts between a child and an adult or other person significantly older or in a position
of power or control over the child, where the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the adult or other person.Abuse,
neglect: (see Neglect)
Burden of proof: an obligation by a party (e.g., plaintiff in civil cases, the state in a termination of parental rights
matter) to demonstrate to the court that the weight of the evidence in a legal action favors his/her side, position or argument.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: highest standard of proof used in cases where the loss of liberty interests are at stake (e.g.,
incarceration or loss of life). Generally defined as the highest degree of support or level of certainty (90-95% chance).Child
Protective Services (CPS): The social service agency (in most states) designated to receive reports, investigate and provide
rehabilitation services to children and families with problems of child maltreatment. Frequently, this agency is located within
a large public entity, such as a department of social services or human services.Clear and convincing: intermediate standard
of proof used in cases when significant liberty interests are at stake (e.g., loss of parental rights, civil commitment).
Generally defined as a high degree of support or level of certainty (75% chance).Disposition hearing: held by the Juvenile/Family
Court to determine the disposition of children after cases have been adjudicated, includes determinations regarding placement
of the child in out-of-home care when necessary and services needed by the children and family to reduce the risks and address
the effects of maltreatment.Evidence: any form of proof presented by a party for the purpose of supporting its factual allegation
or arguments before the court.Expert witness: an individual who by reason of education or specialized experience possesses
superior knowledge respecting a subject about which persons having no particular training are incapable of forming an accurate
opinion or deducing correct conclusions. A witness who has been qualified as an expert will be allowed (through his/ her answers
to questions posted) to assist the jury in understanding complicated and technical subjects not within the understanding of
the average lay person. Experts are also allowed to provide testimony based on "hypothetical" scenarios or information/opinions
which are not specifically related to the parties in particular legal action.Fact witness: generally defined as an individual
who by being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator or eyewitness. One who testifies to what
he/she has seen, heard, or otherwise observed regarding a circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually took place; a physical
object or appearance, as it usually exists or existed. Fact witnesses are generally not allowed to offer opinion, address
issues that they do not have personal knowledge of or respond to hypothetical situations.Family/Juvenile court: courts specifically
established to hear cases concerning minors and related domestic matters such as child abuse, neglect, child support, determination
of paternity, termination of parental rights, juvenile delinquency, and family domestic offenses.Family preservation/reunification:
the philosophical belief of social service agencies, established in law and policy, that children and families should be maintained
together if the safety of the children can be ensured.Guardian ad litem: generally defined as an adult appointed by the court to represent and make decisions for someone (such as a minor) legally
incapable of doing so on his/her own in a civil legal proceeding. The guardian ad litem can be any adult with a demonstrated
interest.Guardianship: legal right given to a person to be responsible for the necessities (e.g., food, shelter, health care)
of another person legally deemed incapable of providing these necessities for him/ herself.Maltreatment: generally defined
as actions that are abusive, neglectful, or otherwise threatening to a child's welfare. Commonly used as a general term for
child abuse and neglect.Neglect: generally defined as an act of omission, specifically the failure of a parent or other person
legally responsible for a child's welfare to provide for the child's basic needs and proper level of care with respect to
food, shelter, hygiene, medical attention or supervision.a. emotional: generally defined as the passive or passive-aggressive
inattention to a child's emotional needs, nurturing or emotional well-being. Also referred to as psychological unavailability
to a child.b. physical: generally defined as a child suffering, or in substantial risk of imminently suffering, physical harm
causing disfigurement, impairment of bodily functioning, or other serious physical injury as a result of conditions created
by a parent or other person legally responsible for the child's welfare, or by the failure of a parent or person legally responsible
for the child's welfare to adequately supervise or protect him/her.Out-of-home care: child care, foster care, or residential
care provided by persons, organizations, and institutions to children who are placed outside of their families, usually under
the jurisdiction of Juvenile/Family Court.
Parens patriae: refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. It is a concept of
standing utilized to protect those quasi-sovereign interests such as health, comfort and welfare of the people, interstate
water rights, general economy of the state, etc. Literally means "parent of the country."Petition: a formal written application
to the court requesting judicial action on a particular matter.Preponderance of evidence: lowest of the three standards of
proof, and applied in most civil actions; generally defined as "probable" degree of certainty (e.g., "more likely than not"
or 51% chance).Protection order: may be ordered by the judge to restrain or control the conduct of the alleged maltreating
adult or any other person who might harm the child or interfere with the disposition.Review hearing: held by the Juvenile/Family
Court to review dispositions (usually every 6 months) and to determine the need to maintain placement in out-of-home care
and/or court jurisdiction of a child. Every state requires state courts, agency panels, or citizen review boards to hold periodic
reviews to reevaluate the child's circumstances if s/he has been placed in out-of-home care. Federal law requires, as a condition
of Federal funding eligibility, that a review hearing be held within at least 18 months from disposition, and continue to
be held at regular intervals to determine the ultimate resolution of the case (i.e., whether the child will be returned home,
continued in out-of-home care for a specified period, placed for adoption, or continued in long-term foster care). Termination
of parental rights hearing: formal judicial proceeding where the legal rights and responsibility for a child are permanently
or indefinitely severed and no longer legally recognized and where the state assumes legal responsibility for the care and
welfare of the child.
References
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
American Psychological Association. (1993). Record keeping guidelines. American Psychologist, 48, 984-986.
Baladerian, N.J. (1991). Abuse causes disabilities. Disability and the Family, Culver City, California: SPECTRUM Institute.
Greenberg, S., Shuman, D.W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 28, 50-57.
McClain, P. (1995). [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] (Anne Marie Finn). Atlanta, Georgia.
McClain, P., Sacks, J., & Frohlke, R. (1993). Estimates of Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect, United States, 1979-1988. Pediatrics, 91, 338-343.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A National Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the U.S. (5th Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Bibliography
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:
Author.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist,
47, 1597-1611.
American Psychological Association. (1993). Record keeping guidelines. American Psychologist, 48, 984-986.
Butcher, J.N. & Pope, K.S. (1993). Seven issues in conducting forensic assessments: Ethical responsibilities in light of new standards
and new tests. Ethics and Behavior, 3, 267-288.
Briere, J. (Ed.). (1991). Treating victims of child sexual abuse. New Directions for Mental Health Services series, 51.
Ceci, S. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 655-665.
Conte, J.R. (1986). A look at child sexual abuse. Chicago: National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse.
Coulborn-Faller, K. (1988). Child sexual abuse: An Interdisciplinary manual for diagnosis case management and treatment. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Daro, D.H., & McCurdy, K. (1993). Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: The results of the 1993 annual fifty
state survey. Chicago: National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.
Doris, J. (Ed.). (1991). The suggestibility of children's recollection: Implications for eye witness testimony. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
English, D.J. (1989). Risk assessment: Issues and concerns. Denver: American Humane Society.
Faller, K.C., Everson, M.D. (Eds.). (1996). Child interviewing, Part I. Child Maltreatment 1, 83-175.
Faller, K.C., Everson, M.D. (Eds.). (1996). Child interviewing, Part II. Child Maltreatment 1, 187-212.
Friedreich, W.N. (1990). Psychotherapy of sexually abused children and their families. New York: Norton.
Goldstein, J., Frend A., Solnit A.J., & Goldstein, S. (1986). In the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.
Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.
Hagans, K.B., & Case, J. (1988). When your child has been molested: A parent's guide to healing and recovery. New York: Lexington
Books.
Hass, L.J. (1993). Competence and quality in the performance of forensic psychologists. Ethics and Behavior, 3, 251-266.
Helfar, R.E., & Kempe, R.S. (Eds.), (1987). The battered child (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kalichman, S.C. (1993). Mandated reporting of suspected child abuse: Ethics, law and policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Kalichman, S.C. Craig, M.E., & Follingstad, D.R. (1988). Factors influencing the reporting of father-child sexual abuse; study of licensed
practicing psychologists. Professional Psychology, 20, 84-89.
Koocher, G.P., & Keith-Spiegel, P.C. (1990). Children ethics, and the law: Professional issues and cases. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Kuehnle, K. (1996). Assessing allegations of child sexual abuse. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental
health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford Press.
Myers, J.E.B. (1997). Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases (Vols. 1-2). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Reiser, M. (1991). Recantation of child sexual abuse cases. Child Welfare, 70, 611-623.
Roane, T. (1992). Male victims of sexual abuse: A case review within a child protective team. Child Welfare, 71, 231-241.
Sales, B., & Simon, L. (1993). Institutional constraints on the ethics of expert testimony. Ethics and Behavior, 3, 231-249.
Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982).
Saunders, T.R. (1991). An overview of some psychological issues in child physical and sexual abuse. Psychotherapy in Private Practice,
9(2), 61-78.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A National Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the U.S. (5th Report). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Walker, C.E., Bonner, B.L., & Kaufman, K.L. (1988). The physically and sexually abused child: Evaluation and treatment. Elmsford,
NY: Pergamon Press.
Watson, H., & Levine, M. (1989). Psychotherapy and mandated reporting of child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59,
246-255.
Weissman, H. (1991). Forensic psychological examination of the child witness in cases of alleged sexual abuse. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, G1, 1, 48-58.
White, S. (1990). The contamination of children's interviews. Child Youth and Family Service Quarterly 13(3) 6, 17-18.
Willis, D.J., Bagwell, W., Broyhill, G.C., & Campbell, M.M. (1991). Child abuse: Abstracts of the psychological and behavioral literature: Vol. 2, 1986-1990. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Willis, D.J., Bagwell, W. & Campbell, M.M. (1991). Child abuse: Abstracts of the psychological and behavioral literature: Vol. 1, 1967-1985. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Related Journals
Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal
Child Welfare
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse
Journal of Family Violence
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American
Professional Society of the Abuse of Children
Additional Resources
American Academy of Pediatrics 141 Northwest Point Boulevard P.O. Box 927 Elk Grove, IL 60009-0927 (800) 433-9016
American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 (202)
331-2250
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children 407 South Dearborn, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60605 (312)
554-0166
Child Welfare League of America 440 First Street, NE, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20001-2085 (202) 638-2952
Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information P.O. Box 1182 Washington, DC 20013 (703) 385-7565
Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute 1310 Clinic Drive Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 534-5100
National Association of Counsel for Children 1205 Oneida Street Denver, CO 80220 (303) 321-3963
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 1182 Washington,
DC 20013 (800) FYI-3366
National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60604-4357 (312) 663-3520
National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse Information Service 2204 Whitesburg Drive, Suite 200 Huntsville,
AL 35801 (800) 543-7006
Footnotes
1These guidelines were drafted by the Committee on Professional Practice and Standards (COPPS), a committee of the Board of Professional Affairs (BPA). COPPS is responsible for developing and recommending to BPA standards
and guidelines for providers of psychological services and for monitoring, evaluating, and developing information regarding
the scientific and professional aspects of psychological services. This paper was developed under the auspices of COPPS, reviewed
by numerous APA divisions, committees, and state psychological associations, and is endorsed by the BPA. The document reflects
the contributions of many psychologists. The manuscript was drafted by COPPS members Catherine Acuff, Ph.D.; Steven Bisbing,
Ph.D.; Michael Gottlieb, Ph.D.; Lisa Grossman, Ph.D.; Jody Porter, Ph.D.; Richard Reichbart, Ph.D.; Steven Sparta, Ph.D.;
and C. Eugene Walker, Ph.D. COPPS also acknowledges and appreciates the support of APA staff members Billie Hinnefeld and
Cherie Jones. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to the
Practice Directorate, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.
2 For example, the role of psychologists acting as a psychotherapists, conducting individual or family psychotherapy, is very different from
the role of psychologists conducting formal child protection evaluations (Greenberg and Schumann, 1997).
3 At times, these guidelines refer to other APA documents such as the ethics code, test standards, and record keeping
guidelines. These documents undergo periodic review and revision. Therefore, the reader is advised to refer to the most recent
edition.
Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations
in Child Protection Matters
Committee on Professional Practice and Standards1 Board of Professional Affairs
Approved by the Council of Representatives American Psychological Association
February 1998
Suggested citation: American Psychological Association Committee on Professional Practice and Standards (1998).
Guidelines for psychological evaluations in child protection matters. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations in Child Protection Matters
The problems of abused and neglected children are epidemic in our society (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect (ABCAN), 1995) and create issues that psychologists may be called upon to address. According to the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse
and Neglect (ABCAN), conservative estimates indicate that almost two thousand infants and young children die from abuse and
neglect by parents or caretakers each year, or five children every day. McClain's research at the Center for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) suggests that abuse and neglect kills 5.4 out of every 100,000 children age four and under (McClain et al., 1993; McClain, 1995).
According to ABCAN, fatalities are not the entire story. There are tens of thousands of victims overwhelmed by lifelong
psychological trauma, thousands of traumatized siblings and family members and thousands of near-death survivors who, as adults,
continue to bear physical and psychological scars. Each year, 18,000 children are left permanently disabled (Baladerian, 1991). Some may turn to crime or domestic violence or become abusers themselves (ABCAN, 1995).
When a child is at risk for harm, psychologists may become involved. Psychologists are in a position to make significant
contributions to child welfare decisions. Psychological data and expertise may provide additional sources of information and
a perspective not otherwise readily available to the court regarding the functioning of parties, and thus may increase the
fairness of the determination by the court, state agency or other party.
As the complexity of psychological practice increases and the reciprocal involvement between psychologists and the public
broadens, the need for guidelines to educate the profession, the public and the other interested parties regarding desirable
professional practice in child protection matters has expanded and will probably continue to expand in the foreseeable future.
Although psychologists may assume various roles and responsibilities in such proceedings, the following guidelines were developed
primarily for psychologists conducting psychological evaluations in child protection matters.2 These guidelines build upon the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 1992)3 and are aspirational in intent. The term "guidelines" refers to pronouncements, statements, or declarations that suggest
or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavor, or conduct for psychologists (APA, 1992a). Guidelines differ from standards
in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism (APA, 1993).
Thus, as guidelines, they are not intended to be either mandatory or exhaustive and may not always be applicable to legal
matters. Their aspirational intent is to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and help to assure
a high level of professional practice by psychologists. These guidelines should not be construed as definitive or intended
to take precedence over the judgement of psychologists. The specific goal of the guidelines is to promote proficiency in using
psychological expertise in conducting psychological evaluations in child protection matters.
Parents4 enjoy important civil and constitutional rights regarding the care for their children. A child has a fundamental interest
in being protected from abuse and neglect. Child protection laws attempt to strike a balance between these interests. Under
the concept of parens patriae, all states have the right to intervene in cases where a child is at risk for harm. State interventions most commonly occur
in three stages. In the first stage, following a report of suspected child abuse and neglect5, an investigation occurs. In the second stage, if the findings of the investigation stage indicate the child is at sufficient
risk for harm, the state may assume care and/or custody of the child and may make recommendations for rehabilitation of the
parents. The third stage may occur if such rehabilitative conditions have failed to create a safe environment for the child's
return to the parent(s), or if the child has been returned unsuccessfully. At this point the state may request a hearing for
a final disposition. The final dispositional stage may result in involuntary termination of parental rights. Such a disposition
typically requires not only a finding of abuse and/or neglect by the parent(s), but also a finding that various rehabilitative
efforts with the parent(s) have failed. Psychologists are aware that the most extreme disposition--termination of parental
rights--has a finality requiring both due process protection and a higher standard of proof6 than may be used in other child protection matters.
Jurisdictions have statutory or case law requirements that diligent efforts must be made to rehabilitate the parent(s)
and reunite the child with his/her parent(s). Typically, these requirements must be met prior to a disposition of parental
termination. Different states may have different statutory or case law requirements. In conducting an evaluation, psychologists
should be familiar with applicable law.7
During any of the above-mentioned stages, psychologists may be asked to evaluate different parties for different purposes.
Psychologists may act as agents of the court, the child protection agency, or may be directly retained by the parent(s). Psychologists
may also be retained by a guardian ad litem if one has been appointed to represent the child.
As evaluators in child protection cases, psychologists are frequently asked to address such questions as:
1. How seriously has the child's psychological well-being been affected?
2. What therapeutic interventions would be recommended to assist the child?
3. Can the parent(s) be successfully treated to prevent harm to the child in the future? If so, how? If not, why not?
4. What would be the psychological effect upon the child if returned to the parent(s)?
5. What would be the psychological effect upon the child if separated from the parents or if parental rights are terminated?
In the course of their evaluations, and depending upon the specific needs of a given case, psychologists may wish to evaluate
the parent(s) and/or the child individually or together. Psychologists may wish to gather information on family history, assess
relevant personality functioning, assess developmental needs of the child, explore the nature and quality of the parent-child
relationship and assess evidence of trauma. Psychologists are encouraged to consider specific risk factors such as substance
abuse or chemical dependency, domestic violence, financial circumstance, health status of family members and the entire family
context. Psychologists may wish to review information from other sources including an assessment of cultural, educational,
religious and community factors.
Particular competencies and knowledge are necessary when performing psychological evaluations in child protection matters
so that adequate and appropriate psychological services can be provided to the court, state agencies or other parties. For
example, in cases involving physical disability, such as hearing impairments, orthopedic handicaps, etc., psychologists strive
to seek consultation from experts in these areas. Particular attention should also be given to other aspects of human diversity
such as, but not limited to, ethnic minority status, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status.
Conducting psychological evaluations in child protection matters can be a demanding and stressful task. The demand of such
evaluations can become heightened because the issues involved may include child abuse, neglect and/or family violence. Psychologists
are alert to these personal stressors, and when appropriate, undertake relevant study, training, supervision and/ or consultation.
Guidelines for Psychological Evaluations in Child Protection Matters
I. Orienting Guidelines
1. The primary purpose of the evaluation is to provide relevant, professionally sound results or opinions, in matters
where a child's health and welfare may have been and/or may in the future be harmed. The specific purposes of the evaluation
will be determined by the nature of the child protection matter. In investigative proceedings, a primary purpose of the evaluation
is to assist in determining whether the child's health and welfare may have been harmed. When the child is already identified
as being at risk for harm, the evaluation often focuses on rehabilitation recommendations, designed to protect the child and
help the family. An additional purpose of such an evaluation may be to make recommendations for interventions that promote
the psychological and physical well-being of the child, and if appropriate, facilitate the reunification of the family. Psychologists
appreciate the value of expediting family reunification when safe and appropriate.
In proceedings involving termination of parental rights, the primary purpose of the evaluation is to assess not only abuse
or neglect by the parent(s), but also whether rehabilitation efforts for and by the parent(s) have succeeded in creating a
safe environment for the child's return.2. In child protection cases, the child's interest and well-being are paramount.
In these cases, the state is intervening in the family based on the concern that the child's needs at that time are not being
served by the family, resulting in the child's psychological or physical harm. Thus, the child's interest and well-being are
paramount. In proceedings where involuntary termination of parental rights is being considered, there is an additional focus:
whether the parents have been or can be successfully rehabilitated.3. The evaluation addresses the particular psychological
and developmental needs of the child and/or parent(s) that are relevant to child protection issues such as physical abuse,
sexual abuse, neglect, and/or serious emotional harm. In considering psychological factors affecting the health and welfare
of the child, psychologists may focus on parental capacities in conjunction with the psychological and developmental needs
of the child. This may involve an assessment of:
(a) the adult's capacities for parenting, including those attributes, skills and abilities most relevant to abuse and/or
neglect concerns;
(b) the psychological functioning and developmental needs of the child, particularly with regard to vulnerabilities and
special needs of the child as well as the strength of the child's attachment to the parent(s) and the possible detrimental
effects of separation from the parent(s);
(c) the current and potential functional abilities of the parent(s) to meet the needs of the child, including an evaluation
of the relationship between the child and the parent(s);
(d) the need for and likelihood of success of clinical interventions for observed problems, which may include recommendations
regarding treatment focus, frequency of sessions, specialized kinds of intervention, parent education and placement.
II. General Guidelines: Preparing for a Child Protection Evaluation
4. The role of psychologists conducting evaluations is that of professional expert who strives to maintain an unbiased,
objective stance. In performing protection evaluations, psychologists do not act as judges, who make the ultimate decision
by applying the law to all relevant evidence, or as advocating attorneys for any particular party. Whether retained by the
court, the child protection agency, the parent(s) or the guardian ad litem for the child, psychologists should strive
to be objective. Psychologists rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge when making judgements and describe
fairly the bases for their testimonies and conclusions. If psychologists cannot accept this unbiased objective stance, they
should consider withdrawing from the case. If not permitted to withdraw, psychologists disclose factors that may bias their
findings and/ or compromise their objectivity.5. The serious consequences of psychological assessment in child protection
matters place a heavy burden on psychologists. Because psychologists' professional judgements have great potential to
affect the lives of others, psychologists are alert to guard against factors that might lead to misuse of their findings.
For example, in an initial dispositional hearing, psychologists' findings may be used to separate the child from her/his parent(s).
In a final dispositional hearing, the psychologists' findings may be a factor in the decision to terminate parental rights.
The gravity and potential permanence of this consequence underscore the importance for psychologists to reasonably insure
the objectivity of the assessment procedure and findings.6. Psychologists gain specialized competence.
A. Psychologists who conduct evaluations in child protection matters are aware that special competencies and knowledge
may be necessary for the undertaking of such evaluations. Competence in performing psychological assessments of children,
adults and families is necessary but not sufficient. Education, training, experience and/or supervision in the areas of forensic
practice, child and family development, child and family psychopathology, the impact of separation on the child, the nature
of various types of child abuse and the role of human differences.8 may help to prepare psychologists to participate competently in psychological evaluations in child protection matters.
B. Psychologists make reasonable effort to use current knowledge of scholarly and professional developments, consistent
with generally accepted clinical and scientific practice, in selecting evaluation methods and procedures. The current Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (APA, 1985) are adhered to in the use of psychological tests and other assessment tools.
C. Psychologists also strive to become familiar with applicable legal and regulatory standards and procedures, including
state and Federal laws governing child protection issues. These may include laws and regulations addressing child abuse, neglect
and termination of parental rights.
7. Psychologists are aware of personal and societal biases and engage in nondiscriminatory practice. Psychologists
engaging in psychological evaluations in child protection matters are aware of how biases regarding age, gender, race, ethnicity,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, culture and socioeconomic status may interfere with an
objective evaluation and recommendations. Psychologists recognize and strive to overcome any such biases or withdraw from
the evaluation. When interpreting evaluation results, psychologists strive to be aware that there are diverse cultural and
community methods of child rearing, and consider these in the context of the existing state and Federal.9 laws. Also, psychologists should use, whenever available, tests and norms based on populations similar to those evaluated.8.
Psychologists avoid multiple relationships. In conducting psychological evaluations in child protective matters, psychologists
are aware that there may be a need to avoid confusion about role boundaries. Psychologists generally do not conduct psychological
evaluations in child protection matters in which they serve in a therapeutic role for the child or the immediate family or
have had other involvement that may compromise their objectivity. This does not, however, preclude psychologists from testifying
in cases as fact or expert witnesses concerning therapeutic treatment of the children, parents or families. In addition, during
the course of a psychological evaluation in child protection matters, psychologists do not accept any of the participants
involved in the evaluation as therapy clients. Therapeutic contact with the child or involved participants following a child
protection evaluation is discouraged and when done, is undertaken with caution.
Psychologists asked to testify regarding a therapy client who is involved in a child protection case are aware of the limitations
and possible biases inherent in such a role and the possible impact on ongoing therapeutic relationships. Although the court
may order psychologists to testify as fact or expert witnesses regarding information they became aware of in a professional
relationship with a client, psychologists must appreciate the difference in roles and methods between being psychotherapists
and being child protection evaluators.
III. Procedural Guidelines: Conducting a Psychological Evaluation in Child Protection MattersIn child protection matters,
there are many different situations representing a wide variety of legal and/or ethical considerations. The appropriate procedure
in one case may not be appropriate in another. Psychologists should be alert to applicable laws which govern the evaluation,
as well as applicable sections of the Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct for Psychologists, particularly those
sections dealing with confidentiality. In addition, psychologists appreciate the need for timeliness in child protection matters
(e.g., response to evaluation referral, scheduling appointments, completion of report).9. Based on the nature of the referral
questions, the scope of the evaluation is determined by the evaluator. The scope of the protection-related evaluation
is determined by the nature of the questions or issues raised by the referring agency, person or court, or is inherent in
the situation. In child protection matters, psychologists are frequently asked to address parenting deficits. Consequently,
psychologists are often asked to propose a rehabilitation plan for the parent(s) or to discuss why prior rehabilitation attempts
have failed. The scope and methods of the assessment should be based upon consideration of the referral questions and the
appropriate methods by which to evaluate them. Sometimes the evaluation is limited to one parent without attempting to compare
the parents. Likewise, the scope may be limited to evaluating the child. At other times, psychologists may be asked to critique
the assumptions and methodology of another mental health professional's assessment. Psychologists may also identify relevant
issues not anticipated in the referral questions that could enlarge the scope of the evaluation. Also, psychologists might
serve as pure expert witnesses in such areas as child development or social psychology, providing expertise to the court without
relating it specifically to the parties involved in a particular case. 10. Psychologists performing psychological evaluations
in child protection matters obtain appropriate informed consent from all adult participants, and as appropriate, inform the
child participant. Psychologists need to be particularly sensitive to informed consent issues. Psychological evaluations
in child protection matters are often performed at the request of an agency, by order of a court or at the request of another
individual, such as an attorney. Due to the nature of child protection matters, the complexity of the legal issues involved
and the potential serious consequences of the evaluation, psychologists need to be particularly sensitive to informed consent
issues. Efforts toward obtaining informed consent should make clear to the participant the nature of the evaluation, its purpose,
to whom the results will be provided and the role of the psychologist in relation to the referring party (see APA Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Standards 1.21 and 1.216 re: third party request for services). This
information should be provided in language understandable to the recipient.
Because participants in this type of evaluation may feel compelled to cooperate, psychologists should attempt to obtain
confirmation of the participants' understanding of and agreement to the evaluation, including its purposes and its implications,
prior to the initiation of the evaluation. The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct requires
appropriate informed consent and many state laws require written consent. Should there be refusal to give consent, it may
be advisable to refer the individual back to his/her own attorney or seek the guidance of the court or referring agency before
proceeding. The purpose of the evaluation, the results and where and to whom the results are distributed are all determined
by the individual characteristics of the case as well as by legal requirements and agency regulations.
The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct suggests that psychologists provide information to the
child as appropriate, to the extent that the child is able to understand. Psychologists explain to the child the nature of
the evaluation procedures. Psychologists attempt to make it clear to the child that his/her safety is the primary interest
and because of that interest, the information will be shared with others. Psychologists allow time for questions by the child
and answer them in a developmentally and culturally appropriate fashion.11. Psychologists inform participants about the
disclosure of information and the limits of confidentiality. Psychologists conducting a psychological evaluation in child
protection matters ensure that the participants, including the child (to the extent feasible), are aware of the limits of
confidentiality for the evaluation results. Psychologists recognize that evaluation results could be sought by a child protection
investigation agency, the court, a guardian ad litem for the child or an attorney for either parent. When an evaluation
is court-ordered, there may be special considerations regarding the limits of confidentiality and the disclosure of information.
In such cases, psychologists will seek to reconcile the APA ethical standards with fulfilling the demands of the court. A
clear explanation of the nature of the evaluation and to whom it will be released takes place.12. Psychologists use multiple
methods of data gathering. Psychologists strive to use the most appropriate methods available for addressing the questions
raised in a specific child protection evaluation. Psychologists generally use multiple methods of data gathering, including
but not limited to, clinical interviews, observation and/or psychological testing that are sufficient to provide appropriate
substantiation for their findings. Psychologists may review relevant reports (e.g. from child protection agencies, social
service providers, law enforcement agencies, health care providers, child care providers, schools and institutions). In evaluating
parental capacity to care for a particular child or the child-parent interaction, psychologists make efforts to observe the
child together with the parent and recognize the value of these observations occurring in natural settings. This may not always
be possible, for example, in cases where the safety of the child is in jeopardy or parental contact with the child has been
prohibited by the court. Psychologists may also attempt to interview extended family members and other individuals when appropriate
(e.g., caretakers, grandparents and teachers). If information gathered from a third party is used as a basis for conclusions,
psychologists attempt to corroborate it from at least one other source wherever possible. The corroboration should be documented
in the report.13. Psychologists neither over-interpret nor inappropriately interpret clinical or assessment data. Psychologists
refrain from drawing conclusions not adequately supported by the data. Psychologists interpret any data from interviews or
tests cautiously and conservatively, strive to be knowledgeable about cultural norms and present findings in a form understandable
to the recipient. Psychologists strive to acknowledge to the court any limitations in methods or data used. In addition, psychologists
are aware that in compelled evaluations the situation may lend itself to defensiveness by the participant, given the potentially
serious consequences of an adverse finding. Consequently, the situational determinants should be borne in mind when interpreting
test findings.14 . Psychologists conducting a psychological evaluation in child protection matters provide an opinion regarding
the psychological functioning of an individual only after conducting an evaluation of the individual adequate to support their
statements or conclusions. This guideline does not preclude psychologists from reporting what an individual has stated
or from addressing theoretical issues or hypothetical questions, so long as any limitations of the basis of such information
are noted. When, despite reasonable effort, a personal evaluation of an individual is not feasible, psychologists report this
and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations.15. Recommendations, if offered,
are based on whether the child's health and welfare have been and/or may be seriously harmed. When conducting a psychological
evaluation in child protection matters, psychologists may choose to make a variety of recommendations, including but not limited
to, psychological treatment for the child, psychological treatment for the parent(s), and/or suggestions for parental rehabilitation
that would help create a safe environment for the child.
If recommendations are made, the primary focus must be the child's health and welfare. Recommendations are based on sound
psychological data, such as clinical data, interpretations and inferences founded on generally accepted psychological theory
and practice. Particular attention may be given to outcomes research on interventions with abusive families. Psychologists
strive to disclose relevant information and clinical data pertaining to the issues being evaluated while maintaining an awareness
of the limitations in predicting future violent behavior. They also explain the reasoning behind their conclusions.
The profession has not reached consensus about whether making dispositional recommendations in child protection evaluations
is within the purview of psychological practice. However, if psychologists choose to make dispositional recommendations, the
recommendations should be derived from sound psychological data and must be based on considerations of the child's health
and welfare in the particular case. 16. Psychologists clarify financial arrangements. Financial arrangements are clarified
and agreed upon prior to conducting a child protection evaluation. When billing for an evaluation, psychologists accurately
describe the services provided for reimbursement purposes.17. Psychologists maintain appropriate records. All data
obtained in the process of conducting a child protection evaluation are properly maintained and stored in accordance with
the APA Record Keeping Guidelines (APA, 1993). All records, including raw data and interview information, are recorded
with the understanding that they may be reviewed by other psychologists, the court or the client.
Glossary of Terms
The following definitions are written generally and are intended solely to familiarize readers to some common terms used
in child protection matters. These are not to be construed as uniformly accepted legal definitions or applied in specific
legal matters. Readers wishing to use these terms as part of their evaluations are encouraged to confer with a licensed attorney
in the state in which they are providing the evaluation..10Abuse, emotional: also referred to as 'psychological maltreatment' generally defined as a repeated pattern of behavior that
conveys to children that they are worthless, unwanted or only of value in meeting another's needs; may include serious threats
of physical or psychological violence.Abuse, physical: generally defined as the suffering by a child, or substantial risk
that a child will imminently suffer, a physical harm, inflicted non-accidentally upon him/her by his/ her parents or caretaker.Abuse,
sexual (child): generally defined as contacts between a child and an adult or other person significantly older or in a position
of power or control over the child, where the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the adult or other person.Abuse,
neglect: (see Neglect)
Burden of proof: an obligation by a party (e.g., plaintiff in civil cases, the state in a termination of parental rights
matter) to demonstrate to the court that the weight of the evidence in a legal action favors his/her side, position or argument.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: highest standard of proof used in cases where the loss of liberty interests are at stake (e.g.,
incarceration or loss of life). Generally defined as the highest degree of support or level of certainty (90-95% chance).Child
Protective Services (CPS): The social service agency (in most states) designated to receive reports, investigate and provide
rehabilitation services to children and families with problems of child maltreatment. Frequently, this agency is located within
a large public entity, such as a department of social services or human services.Clear and convincing: intermediate standard
of proof used in cases when significant liberty interests are at stake (e.g., loss of parental rights, civil commitment).
Generally defined as a high degree of support or level of certainty (75% chance).Disposition hearing: held by the Juvenile/Family
Court to determine the disposition of children after cases have been adjudicated, includes determinations regarding placement
of the child in out-of-home care when necessary and services needed by the children and family to reduce the risks and address
the effects of maltreatment.Evidence: any form of proof presented by a party for the purpose of supporting its factual allegation
or arguments before the court.Expert witness: an individual who by reason of education or specialized experience possesses
superior knowledge respecting a subject about which persons having no particular training are incapable of forming an accurate
opinion or deducing correct conclusions. A witness who has been qualified as an expert will be allowed (through his/ her answers
to questions posted) to assist the jury in understanding complicated and technical subjects not within the understanding of
the average lay person. Experts are also allowed to provide testimony based on "hypothetical" scenarios or information/opinions
which are not specifically related to the parties in particular legal action.Fact witness: generally defined as an individual
who by being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator or eyewitness. One who testifies to what
he/she has seen, heard, or otherwise observed regarding a circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually took place; a physical
object or appearance, as it usually exists or existed. Fact witnesses are generally not allowed to offer opinion, address
issues that they do not have personal knowledge of or respond to hypothetical situations.Family/Juvenile court: courts specifically
established to hear cases concerning minors and related domestic matters such as child abuse, neglect, child support, determination
of paternity, termination of parental rights, juvenile delinquency, and family domestic offenses.Family preservation/reunification:
the philosophical belief of social service agencies, established in law and policy, that children and families should be maintained
together if the safety of the children can be ensured.Guardian ad litem: generally defined as an adult appointed by the court to represent and make decisions for someone (such as a minor) legally
incapable of doing so on his/her own in a civil legal proceeding. The guardian ad litem can be any adult with a demonstrated
interest.Guardianship: legal right given to a person to be responsible for the necessities (e.g., food, shelter, health care)
of another person legally deemed incapable of providing these necessities for him/ herself.Maltreatment: generally defined
as actions that are abusive, neglectful, or otherwise threatening to a child's welfare. Commonly used as a general term for
child abuse and neglect.Neglect: generally defined as an act of omission, specifically the failure of a parent or other person
legally responsible for a child's welfare to provide for the child's basic needs and proper level of care with respect to
food, shelter, hygiene, medical attention or supervision.a. emotional: generally defined as the passive or passive-aggressive
inattention to a child's emotional needs, nurturing or emotional well-being. Also referred to as psychological unavailability
to a child.b. physical: generally defined as a child suffering, or in substantial risk of imminently suffering, physical harm
causing disfigurement, impairment of bodily functioning, or other serious physical injury as a result of conditions created
by a parent or other person legally responsible for the child's welfare, or by the failure of a parent or person legally responsible
for the child's welfare to adequately supervise or protect him/her.Out-of-home care: child care, foster care, or residential
care provided by persons, organizations, and institutions to children who are placed outside of their families, usually under
the jurisdiction of Juvenile/Family Court.
Parens patriae: refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. It is a concept of
standing utilized to protect those quasi-sovereign interests such as health, comfort and welfare of the people, interstate
water rights, general economy of the state, etc. Literally means "parent of the country."Petition: a formal written application
to the court requesting judicial action on a particular matter.Preponderance of evidence: lowest of the three standards of
proof, and applied in most civil actions; generally defined as "probable" degree of certainty (e.g., "more likely than not"
or 51% chance).Protection order: may be ordered by the judge to restrain or control the conduct of the alleged maltreating
adult or any other person who might harm the child or interfere with the disposition.Review hearing: held by the Juvenile/Family
Court to review dispositions (usually every 6 months) and to determine the need to maintain placement in out-of-home care
and/or court jurisdiction of a child. Every state requires state courts, agency panels, or citizen review boards to hold periodic
reviews to reevaluate the child's circumstances if s/he has been placed in out-of-home care. Federal law requires, as a condition
of Federal funding eligibility, that a review hearing be held within at least 18 months from disposition, and continue to
be held at regular intervals to determine the ultimate resolution of the case (i.e., whether the child will be returned home,
continued in out-of-home care for a specified period, placed for adoption, or continued in long-term foster care). Termination
of parental rights hearing: formal judicial proceeding where the legal rights and responsibility for a child are permanently
or indefinitely severed and no longer legally recognized and where the state assumes legal responsibility for the care and
welfare of the child.
References
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
American Psychological Association. (1993). Record keeping guidelines. American Psychologist, 48, 984-986.
Baladerian, N.J. (1991). Abuse causes disabilities. Disability and the Family, Culver City, California: SPECTRUM Institute.
Greenberg, S., Shuman, D.W. (1997). Irreconcilable conflict between therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 28, 50-57.
McClain, P. (1995). [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] (Anne Marie Finn). Atlanta, Georgia.
McClain, P., Sacks, J., & Frohlke, R. (1993). Estimates of Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect, United States, 1979-1988. Pediatrics, 91, 338-343.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A National Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the U.S. (5th Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Bibliography
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:
Author.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist,
47, 1597-1611.
American Psychological Association. (1993). Record keeping guidelines. American Psychologist, 48, 984-986.
Butcher, J.N. & Pope, K.S. (1993). Seven issues in conducting forensic assessments: Ethical responsibilities in light of new standards
and new tests. Ethics and Behavior, 3, 267-288.
Briere, J. (Ed.). (1991). Treating victims of child sexual abuse. New Directions for Mental Health Services series, 51.
Ceci, S. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 655-665.
Conte, J.R. (1986). A look at child sexual abuse. Chicago: National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse.
Coulborn-Faller, K. (1988). Child sexual abuse: An Interdisciplinary manual for diagnosis case management and treatment. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Daro, D.H., & McCurdy, K. (1993). Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: The results of the 1993 annual fifty
state survey. Chicago: National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.
Doris, J. (Ed.). (1991). The suggestibility of children's recollection: Implications for eye witness testimony. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
English, D.J. (1989). Risk assessment: Issues and concerns. Denver: American Humane Society.
Faller, K.C., Everson, M.D. (Eds.). (1996). Child interviewing, Part I. Child Maltreatment 1, 83-175.
Faller, K.C., Everson, M.D. (Eds.). (1996). Child interviewing, Part II. Child Maltreatment 1, 187-212.
Friedreich, W.N. (1990). Psychotherapy of sexually abused children and their families. New York: Norton.
Goldstein, J., Frend A., Solnit A.J., & Goldstein, S. (1986). In the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.
Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.
Hagans, K.B., & Case, J. (1988). When your child has been molested: A parent's guide to healing and recovery. New York: Lexington
Books.
Hass, L.J. (1993). Competence and quality in the performance of forensic psychologists. Ethics and Behavior, 3, 251-266.
Helfar, R.E., & Kempe, R.S. (Eds.), (1987). The battered child (4th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kalichman, S.C. (1993). Mandated reporting of suspected child abuse: Ethics, law and policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Kalichman, S.C. Craig, M.E., & Follingstad, D.R. (1988). Factors influencing the reporting of father-child sexual abuse; study of licensed
practicing psychologists. Professional Psychology, 20, 84-89.
Koocher, G.P., & Keith-Spiegel, P.C. (1990). Children ethics, and the law: Professional issues and cases. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Kuehnle, K. (1996). Assessing allegations of child sexual abuse. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental
health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford Press.
Myers, J.E.B. (1997). Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases (Vols. 1-2). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Reiser, M. (1991). Recantation of child sexual abuse cases. Child Welfare, 70, 611-623.
Roane, T. (1992). Male victims of sexual abuse: A case review within a child protective team. Child Welfare, 71, 231-241.
Sales, B., & Simon, L. (1993). Institutional constraints on the ethics of expert testimony. Ethics and Behavior, 3, 231-249.
Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982).
Saunders, T.R. (1991). An overview of some psychological issues in child physical and sexual abuse. Psychotherapy in Private Practice,
9(2), 61-78.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A National Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the U.S. (5th Report). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Walker, C.E., Bonner, B.L., & Kaufman, K.L. (1988). The physically and sexually abused child: Evaluation and treatment. Elmsford,
NY: Pergamon Press.
Watson, H., & Levine, M. (1989). Psychotherapy and mandated reporting of child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59,
246-255.
Weissman, H. (1991). Forensic psychological examination of the child witness in cases of alleged sexual abuse. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, G1, 1, 48-58.
White, S. (1990). The contamination of children's interviews. Child Youth and Family Service Quarterly 13(3) 6, 17-18.
Willis, D.J., Bagwell, W., Broyhill, G.C., & Campbell, M.M. (1991). Child abuse: Abstracts of the psychological and behavioral literature: Vol. 2, 1986-1990. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Willis, D.J., Bagwell, W. & Campbell, M.M. (1991). Child abuse: Abstracts of the psychological and behavioral literature: Vol. 1, 1967-1985. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Related Journals
Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal
Child Welfare
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse
Journal of Family Violence
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American
Professional Society of the Abuse of Children
Additional Resources
American Academy of Pediatrics 141 Northwest Point Boulevard P.O. Box 927 Elk Grove, IL 60009-0927 (800) 433-9016
American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 (202)
331-2250
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children 407 South Dearborn, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60605 (312)
554-0166
Child Welfare League of America 440 First Street, NE, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20001-2085 (202) 638-2952
Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information P.O. Box 1182 Washington, DC 20013 (703) 385-7565
Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute 1310 Clinic Drive Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 534-5100
National Association of Counsel for Children 1205 Oneida Street Denver, CO 80220 (303) 321-3963
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information U.S. Dept. Of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 1182 Washington,
DC 20013 (800) FYI-3366
National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60604-4357 (312) 663-3520
National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse Information Service 2204 Whitesburg Drive, Suite 200 Huntsville,
AL 35801 (800) 543-7006
Footnotes
1These guidelines were drafted by the Committee on Professional Practice and Standards (COPPS), a committee of the Board of Professional Affairs (BPA). COPPS is responsible for developing and recommending to BPA standards
and guidelines for providers of psychological services and for monitoring, evaluating, and developing information regarding
the scientific and professional aspects of psychological services. This paper was developed under the auspices of COPPS, reviewed
by numerous APA divisions, committees, and state psychological associations, and is endorsed by the BPA. The document reflects
the contributions of many psychologists. The manuscript was drafted by COPPS members Catherine Acuff, Ph.D.; Steven Bisbing,
Ph.D.; Michael Gottlieb, Ph.D.; Lisa Grossman, Ph.D.; Jody Porter, Ph.D.; Richard Reichbart, Ph.D.; Steven Sparta, Ph.D.;
and C. Eugene Walker, Ph.D. COPPS also acknowledges and appreciates the support of APA staff members Billie Hinnefeld and
Cherie Jones. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to the
Practice Directorate, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.
2 For example, the role of psychologists acting as a psychotherapists, conducting individual or family psychotherapy, is very different from
the role of psychologists conducting formal child protection evaluations (Greenberg and Schumann, 1997).
3 At times, these guidelines refer to other APA documents such as the ethics code, test standards, and record keeping
guidelines. These documents undergo periodic review and revision. Therefore, the reader is advised to refer to the most recent
edition.
|