Archive for: Articles and Podcasts

Psychological Forensic Evaluations

What is the difference between a clinical psychological evaluation and a forensic evaluation?

How do you pick the right expert for your evaluation?

Knowing when and how to obtain a forensic evaluation – which typically goes beyond the scope of a basic clinical interview – could make or break your case.

Following are several things you should look for in a forensic evaluation:

• In all evaluations, psychologists complete a clinical interview with the client. Some psychologists stop here, and while a clinical interview is certainly better than no evaluation, it is not the most thorough method of assessment as it is purely self-report.
• It is more helpful to use psychological testing so that the bulk of information is not based on the client’s self-report. Many psychologists administer psychological instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), which is an objective measure of personality and major categories of psychopathology. The MMPI-2 is widely used because it is well known to be a reliable, valid test. It also has a Lie Scale to help determine if someone is trying to form a favorable impression or mislead the examiner regarding severity of illness. However, though better than an interview only, this test is, again, based on the client’s self-report.
• It is therefore recommended that multiple tests be completed. A full battery should look at the client’s cognitive, emotional, and personality functioning. A battery gives added weight to your argument that the client was fully evaluated. (Tests that are specific to the situation are described below.) This may be where some psychologists end their evaluation.
• However, a full battery could still be a clinical evaluation and not a forensic evaluation. According to the American Academy of Forensic Psychology, a full forensic evaluation includes actively seeking information from more than one source that would differentially test plausible rival hypotheses. This means psychologists need to actively seek prior records. They also need to talk to people who know the client, to assess both pre- and post-functioning. These collateral contacts are not only family members with a vested interest in the client, but also professionals or disinterested parties who will provide impartial accounts of the client.

Competency to Stand Trial

• Psychologists can help determine if your client has an adequate understanding of the legal proceeding and ability to work with you. The focus of the evaluation is on current functioning and mental status. Psychologists can administer psychological instruments such as the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication. This instrument helps the psychologist determine if the client understands the charges and trial process as well as her appreciation of relevance of information for her defense. This instrument also helps uncover the client’s ability to reason during decision making tasks and her logical problem-solving abilities.
• A subset of this type of evaluation is competency to plead guilty. The psychologist helps determine if the client understands the criminal process, is able to work with the attorney, why she wants to plead guilty, and her understanding of the implication of relinquishing certain rights.

Competency of Juveniles

• The community often disagrees on the topic of whether juveniles should be tried as adults. Psychological research suggests one’s cognitive abilities are still developing in most “normal” children prior to age 14, that is, a child without mental disorders or cognitive disabilities. Therefore a child’s ability to understand information that is provided to defendants regarding the trial process, and to reason with the information that they acquire or bring to the situation, is not fully developed. It is suggested that most children under 12 be evaluated. As should children with a history of mental illness or mental retardation, borderline intellectual functioning, and learning disabilities. If you observe that your young client has deficits in memory, attention, or interpretation of reality you may consider an evaluation as well.
• A psychologist should look at psychosocial factors such as self-control, self-concept, relationships with adults in authority, and the child’s capacity for perspective taking in decision making.

The Insanity Defense

• Psychologists can help determine your client’s mental condition at the time of the offense and if they should be held responsible for the crime committed. North Carolina insanity laws are based on the McNaughton standard, which asks if the client is suffering from a mental disease (mental illness) or defect (mental retardation). If so, did it impact their ability to know and understand the nature and quality of their act?  Was the client able to understand and appreciate what they were doing was wrong? This standard emphasizes the quality of one’s thought process and their perception of reality. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
• Some psychologists use the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale which looks at brain disorders, mental disorders, behavioral control, the ability to control one’s thoughts, and reliability of the person’s report.

Malingering

• Psychological instruments can be administered such as the MMPI-2; however, as stated earlier, it is a self-report measure. More sophisticated measures of malingering are instruments such as the Structured Interview of Reports Symptoms (SIRS). The SIRS assesses a variety of areas such as defensiveness, uncommon symptoms, changes in behavior during the assessment, and common symptoms. One can determine if someone is trying to fake memory problems by using an instrument such as the Test of Memory Malingering.

Death Penalty Cases

• North Carolina has instituted laws against executing individuals with mental retardation. There is also a push to create legislature regarding execution of individuals with severe and persistent mental illness. Therefore, a psychologist may help determine if a client is competent to be executed. An assessment of mental retardation would include cognitive testing such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R) and might include neuropsychological testing regarding brain injury. In these cases, there needs to be evidence that mental retardation was present prior to age 18 so record review and speaking with collateral contacts is vitally important.

References:

American Academy of Forensic Psychology website listed below:
https://www.ap-ls.org/links/currentforensicguidelines.pdf

Wrightsman, L. & Fulero, S. (2005). Forensic Psychology, Second Edition. Thomson Wadsworth.

Click here to download this article as a PDF
Click here to return to Forensic Psychology Articles

Matthew Silliman’s death has everyone thinking; how could such a horrible crime be perpetrated by such young people? Four teenagers allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and killed Matthew, and he was thought to be their friend. A major issue brought to the forefront with this crime is the group dynamic. Would such as crime have been committed if one person objected? Would one person have committed this crime on their own?

There are several major tenants of social psychology at play with group crimes. Many of these phenomena are heightened in adolescents and young adults (12-21) given their general tendency to be concerned with how others are evaluating them, which is called evaluation apprehension.

Being around people in general arouses us. Heightened arousal increases stress, which is called social facilitation. It we experience mild to moderate levels of stress (like work or school) we may increase our level of performance. However, if there is a high level of stress (like pressure from a peer group to commit a crime), we tend to perform more poorly, i.e., our decision-making is affected.

In groups, people can experience a sense of deindividuation, a loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension. This occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, whether they are good or bad. A notorious example is the Rodney King beating. This is, in part, because people feel more anonymous in a group. This diminished self-awareness disconnects one’s behavior from one’s attitudes or values. Another component is group polarization, a group-produced enhancement of the members’ preexisting tendencies. This is a strengthening of the member’s average tendency, not a split within the group. In other words, not every person in the group will have a preexisting tendency towards crime. However, a risky shift can occur where the group is willing to make a riskier decision than they would as individuals. Group consensus may occur and after discussions individuals also alter their ways of thinking about the situation often because they want to be accepted by others.

Group think is an exaggerated example of this phenomenon. Group think occurs when an   amiable, cohesive group exists, there is relative isolation of the group from dissenting viewpoints, and there exists a directive leader who signals what decision she or he favors. Several processes occur within the group:

• They tend to overestimate their invulnerability.
• There is an unquestioned belief in the group’s morality.
• Group members rationalize their decisions and behavior and close off their minds to other possibilities.
• They tend to view their ‘opponent’ through stereotypes that the other person is too weak or unintelligent to defend themselves against the planned initiative.
• There is pressure to conform to the group.
• People censor their disagreements which creates an illusion of unanimity.
• Some members of the group become mindguards and protect the group from information that would call into question the effectiveness or mortality of its decisions.

Since not all groups of people commit acts of violence, you still may be asking, what happened? What contributes to violence? While there are always several reasons for someone to become violent, there are some general conditions in most cases. There tends to be a pattern of interactions between genetics, temperament, the family system and socioeconomic level, the school and community environments.

Family environments where there is physical abuse, sexual abuse, conflict in the home, and/or broken-families may influence the development of criminal behavior. These families tend to display a lack of warmth, have limited involvement and supervision, and/or inflict harsh corporal, lax, or inconsistent discipline. Poor parent-child relations, antisocial parents, and rigid traditional gender roles with patriarchal values has also been found to contribute to the development of violent behavior.

Genetic factors such as low IQ and being male contribute to being violent individuals.

Temperament plays a role such that some people are more prone to have high needs for stimulation, to learn slowly from consequences, and do not feel as anxious when they are doing things wrong.

Individuals with few economic resources are at higher risk of both perpetrating and being victimized by physical violence. Also, being a member of an ethnic minority group, although this is complicated with socioeconomic status in our country and related to lack of resources, also tends to elevate the chances of violence. This is further connected to criminal behavior, disorganization, and drug use in the community.

On an individual basis, there are warning signs of possible violent behavior. None of these alone suggests someone may be violent. Again, there is an interaction between the above mentioned risk factors and these behaviors.

1.      Low school grades, school failure, and drop-out.

2.      Poor social ties, delinquent peers, and gang involvement: The most important factor that distinguishes a gang from a healthy group of friends is the violent, criminal behavior of the members, for example some illicit drug activities. If a young male is involved with a gang, he will likely be violent along with other gang members.

3.      Restlessness and difficulty concentrating – Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder can be a precursor to antisocial behavior.

4.      Risk taking such as reckless driving.

5.      Substance use – Alcohol and marijuana are just as dangerous as other drug use.

6.      Victimization by others.

7.      Early sexual activity.

8.      Conduct disorder which is characterized by:

a.      Aggression toward people and animals

b.      Destruction of property

c.      Deceitfulness or theft

d.      Serious violations of rules

If you, or someone you know, have concerns about an adolescent, it is always a good idea to seek a consultation from a psychologist who specializes in teenagers. In particular, if your concern is that the teen may be prone to violence, is spending time with other teens that engage in violence, or is engaging in violent behavior him or herself, be sure to choose a psychologist experienced with delinquent teenagers and juvenile delinquency diversion.

Early intervention can be key in preventing escalating juvenile delinquent behavior and adult criminal behavior, and studies have shown therapy to be effective even when the adolescent or adult does not want to go (such as when parents make a child go or when the courts order therapy).

References:

Myers, D.G. (2002). Social Psychology (7^th Edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Glicken, M.D. (2004). Violent Young Children. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Click here to return to Forensic Psychology Articles

Using Psychological Testing in Child Custody Evaluations

Child custody evaluations have evolved over the years. A shift has occurred from the ‘tender years doctrine,’ which presumed it was best for young children, and girls of any age, to be in the custody of their mother, to the ‘best interest of the child’ standard. With this newer standard, neither parent is believed to have an innate right to the child. The court must consider the mental and physical health of the parents and other individuals involved in childcare; the ability to provide food, clothing, medication, and other material benefits to the child; the interaction and relationship between the child and parent; and the wishes of the parents and child. This allows fathers greater access to the custody of their children. It also makes custody decisions more complicated and conflict laden.

Psychologists are therefore often asked to conduct child custody evaluations. Psychologists are encouraged to gather multiple data on parental capacity, the child’s adjustment, and the parent-child bond. Therefore, the child is interviewed alone and each parent is interviewed separately. Both parents are observed in a separate interaction with the child. Psychological testing is also often used to objectify the process. The most commonly used instruments are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), Rorschach Inkblot Test, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). However, more traditional tests such as these do not directly assess parenting skills. For example, while most psychologists, attorneys, and judges are familiar with these tests, they were not created to assess parenting capacity and are not directly related to the parent-child relationship.

The MMPI-2 assesses truthfulness, mental illness, and maladaptive personality traits, which are important factors in parenting. However, it should not be used as a standalone test as it does not directly assess how these traits impact the individual’s parenting. The Rorschach meets professional standards in the field but is highly controversial, has limited acceptability in court, and does not directly answer questions related to parenting. Therefore, if the MMPI-2 or Rorschach are used it should be to address the mental health of the parents and the data should be interpreted appropriately to reflect mental state rather than parental capacity. Intellectual capacity, as measured by the WAIS, has no direct bearing on parenting capacity unless there is a question of mental retardation. The TAT also has limited acceptability in court, has limited validity and reliability, and does not directly answer questions related to parenting.

Therefore, several tests have been developed to more directly gauge parenting. The Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI), Parenting Stress Index (PSI), and Children’s Reports of Parental Behavior (CRPB) are valid and reliable indicators of parental abilities.

The PCRI assesses the parent’s attitudes toward parenting and their children on domains of parental support, satisfaction with parenting, involvement, communication, limit setting, autonomy, and role orientation. Parents who implement discipline well have high scores and those who are referred for court-ordered mediation, and are at risk for child abuse, have low scores. The PSI identifies stressful factors within the child such as adaptability, demandingness, mood, distractibility/hyperactivity, and how acceptable and gratifying the child is to the parent. It also measures stressful factors in the parent’s life and interactions with the child such as depression, sense of competence, level of attachment to the child, spousal support, parental health, level of role restriction, and social interaction. The PSI appears to be a good predictor of which parent feels stressed by their child. The CRPB assesses a child’s perception of their parent’s warmth, acceptance of autonomy, limit setting, positive involvement, rejection, hostile control, intrusiveness, and inconsistent discipline. This is a good measure to help assess the child’s view of the situation that does not solely rely on questions they may have been prepped by their parent to answer.

Given that tests exist which more accurately assess parenting, it is suggested that data be gathered from such tests rather than purely from traditional tests. It is also expected that information will be gathered from alternative sources of information, such as interviews, observations, record review, and psychological testing will be used as a supplement to this information. Traditional tests should be used for their intended purposes only. When they are used, they should be used in conjunction with other materials and interpreted appropriately.

References:

Abidin, R. (1990). Parenting Stress Index (3^rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Allison, J. (1998). Review of the Parenting Stress Index. In J. Conoley & J. Imapara (Eds.),The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp.722-723). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Bricklin, B. (1999). The contribution of psychological tests to child custody evaluations. In R. Galatzer-Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.). The scientific basis of child custody decisions (pp. 120-156). New York: John Wiley

Ellis, E. (2000). Divorce Wars: Interventions with families in conflict. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gerard, (1994). Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Heinze, M. & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments assessing parenting competencies used in child custody determination. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 293-313.

Keilin, W., & Bloom, L. (1986). Child custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 338-346.

Teleki, J., Powell, J., and Dodder, R. (1982). Factor analysis of reports of parental behavior in children living in divorced and married families. Journal of Psychology, 112, 295- 302.

Wrightsman, L. (2005). Forensic Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Click here to download this article as a PDF
Click here to return to Forensic Psychology Articles

Using Psychological Testing in Child Custody Evaluations

Child custody evaluations have evolved over the years. A shift has occurred from the ‘tender years doctrine,’ which presumed it was best for young children, and girls of any age, to be in the custody of their mother, to the ‘best interest of the child’ standard. With this newer standard, neither parent is believed to have an innate right to the child. The court must consider the mental and physical health of the parents and other individuals involved in childcare; the ability to provide food, clothing, medication, and other material benefits to the child; the interaction and relationship between the child and parent; and the wishes of the parents and child. This allows fathers greater access to the custody of their children. It also makes custody decisions more complicated and conflict laden.

Psychologists are therefore often asked to conduct child custody evaluations. Psychologists are encouraged to gather multiple data on parental capacity, the child’s adjustment, and the parent-child bond. Therefore, the child is interviewed alone and each parent is interviewed separately. Both parents are observed in a separate interaction with the child. Psychological testing is also often used to objectify the process. The most commonly used instruments are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), Rorschach Inkblot Test, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). However, more traditional tests such as these do not directly assess parenting skills. For example, while most psychologists, attorneys, and judges are familiar with these tests, they were not created to assess parenting capacity and are not directly related to the parent-child relationship.

The MMPI-2 assesses truthfulness, mental illness, and maladaptive personality traits, which are important factors in parenting. However, it should not be used as a standalone test as it does not directly assess how these traits impact the individual’s parenting. The Rorschach meets professional standards in the field but is highly controversial, has limited acceptability in court, and does not directly answer questions related to parenting. Therefore, if the MMPI-2 or Rorschach are used it should be to address the mental health of the parents and the data should be interpreted appropriately to reflect mental state rather than parental capacity. Intellectual capacity, as measured by the WAIS, has no direct bearing on parenting capacity unless there is a question of mental retardation. The TAT also has limited acceptability in court, has limited validity and reliability, and does not directly answer questions related to parenting.

Therefore, several tests have been developed to more directly gauge parenting. The Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI), Parenting Stress Index (PSI), and Children’s Reports of Parental Behavior (CRPB) are valid and reliable indicators of parental abilities.

The PCRI assesses the parent’s attitudes toward parenting and their children on domains of parental support, satisfaction with parenting, involvement, communication, limit setting, autonomy, and role orientation. Parents who implement discipline well have high scores and those who are referred for court-ordered mediation, and are at risk for child abuse, have low scores. The PSI identifies stressful factors within the child such as adaptability, demandingness, mood, distractibility/hyperactivity, and how acceptable and gratifying the child is to the parent. It also measures stressful factors in the parent’s life and interactions with the child such as depression, sense of competence, level of attachment to the child, spousal support, parental health, level of role restriction, and social interaction. The PSI appears to be a good predictor of which parent feels stressed by their child. The CRPB assesses a child’s perception of their parent’s warmth, acceptance of autonomy, limit setting, positive involvement, rejection, hostile control, intrusiveness, and inconsistent discipline. This is a good measure to help assess the child’s view of the situation that does not solely rely on questions they may have been prepped by their parent to answer.

Given that tests exist which more accurately assess parenting, it is suggested that data be gathered from such tests rather than purely from traditional tests. It is also expected that information will be gathered from alternative sources of information, such as interviews, observations, record review, and psychological testing will be used as a supplement to this information. Traditional tests should be used for their intended purposes only. When they are used, they should be used in conjunction with other materials and interpreted appropriately.

References:

Abidin, R. (1990). Parenting Stress Index (3^rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Allison, J. (1998). Review of the Parenting Stress Index. In J. Conoley & J. Imapara (Eds.),The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp.722-723). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

 Bricklin, B. (1999). The contribution of psychological tests to child custody evaluations. In R. Galatzer-Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.). The scientific basis of child custody decisions (pp. 120-156). New York: John Wiley

Ellis, E. (2000). Divorce Wars: Interventions with families in conflict. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gerard, (1994). Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI) manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Heinze, M. & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments assessing parenting competencies used in child custody determination. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 293-313.

Keilin, W., & Bloom, L. (1986). Child custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 338-346.

Teleki, J., Powell, J., and Dodder, R. (1982). Factor analysis of reports of parental behavior in children living in divorced and married families. Journal of Psychology, 112, 295- 302.

Wrightsman, L. (2005). Forensic Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Click here to download this article as a PDF
Click here to return to Forensic Psychology Articles

Sexual Offender Risk Assessment

What do you do when you have a client who has been accused of a sexual offense?

Accurate risk assessment is crucial to proper diagnosis and treatment of sex offenders. 

Special care is required for these cases because of the serious consequences sexual offenses can have on the victims. Most sexual offenders have a strong potential to recidivate, or commit another offense. Sex offenders are just as likely to recidivate with a non-sexual offense as with a sexual offense, but the predictors of these two should be evaluated separately.

Research has also indicated that offenders who received and completed treatment were less likely to recidivate than those who did not, which has major implications for the importance of treatment.

Future incidents of sexual behavior cannot be predicted with complete certainty, but growing research suggests that sexual offense recidivism can be predicted with at least moderate accuracy. The concepts that should be included in a good risk assessment are enduring potentials to reoffend and factors that indicate the onset of new offenses.

Static risk factors, such as previous offenses and childhood abuse can predict patterns that lead to sexual offending. But many factors that change with time can also cause a person’s potential to engage in deviant sexual behavior to fluctuate, so these must also be considered.

A psychologist evaluates the level of violence used in the past, age and gender of victims, use of drugs or alcohol, sexual fantasies, urges, and behavior, history of sexual abuse, age-appropriate sexual relationships, and age of onset of deviant interests. The strongest predictors of sexual offense recidivism are found to be factors related to sexual deviance. These include deviant sexual interests, onset of sexual offenses at an early age, and targeting victims who are boys, strangers, or unrelated to them. Next are general criminological factors, such as prior offenses, age and antisocial personality disorder. These are good predictors of any kinds of crimes and not specific to sexual offenses.

Dynamic factors, or factors that can change frequently, are also important in assessing risk of sexual offense recidivism. Among these are intimacy deficits, attitudes that are tolerant of sexual assault, negative peer influences, emotional and sexual self-regulation, and general self-regulation. Sex offenders can range from low to moderate to high levels on any of these variables; high levels are associated with higher risk of recidivism.

Usually risk of recidivism is determined by a combination of relevant risk factors and not just one, so there are three methods psychologists use to evaluate a range of risk factors. They may use a clinical evaluation based on empirical evidence, pure actuarial predictions, or clinically adjusted actuarial predictions. The clinical evaluation starts with the overall recidivism base rate and adjusts the risk level by considering other factors associated with risk of recidivism.

Actuarial risk assessments attach specific statistical weighting to different variables which assess the risk. They are based on the idea that if accuracy of prediction is the most important factor, it is best to find out how members of a comparable group of individuals conducted themselves over time. There is a specific procedure to translate each variable into a risk level, which requires minimal judgment by the evaluator. Actuarial assessments are predicted to be more accurate than clinical evaluations, but as of now both are considered reliable methods of risk assessment.

Actuarial Assessment of Recidivism in Sex Offenders

Rapid Risk Assessment of Sexual Recidivism (RRASOR): The RRASOR is a brief instrument used to screen for risk of sexual recidivism among males who have been convicted of at least one sexual offense. It relies on information obtained in files and has been tested on many populations.
Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG): The SORAG is a modification of the VRAG (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide) used to assess the risk of violent and sexual recidivism of previously convicted sex offenders within a specific period of release.
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool Revised (MnSOST-R): This measure incorporates historical and institutional information, such as participation in treatment. Scores are divided into four categories, with estimated recidivism rates ranging from 16-88% over 6 years.

Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20): The SVR-20 is used to characterize an individual’s risk of committing sexual violence and for planning to manage that risk. It has three major sections: Psychosocial Adjustment, Sexual Offenses and Future Plans.

Multiphasic Sex Inventory-II (MSI-II): The MSI-II measures the sexual characteristics of people who have admitted to or been charged with committing sexual offenses. It can be used both as an evaluation of sexual deviance and to measure treatment progress.

It should be noted that an evaluator cannot determine if someone committed an offense in the past, only their likelihood of committing an offense in the future. Therefore, if you have a client who has been accused of a sexual offense, a risk assessment can look at the likelihood that the individual would commit such an offense. If your client has admitted to committing an offense, or there is strong evidence to suggest the crime has occurred, an evaluation can determine the likelihood of re-offense.

Click here to download this article as a PDF
Click here to return to Forensic Psychology Articles

Dealing with Divorce: 10 Tips to Protect Your Kids

When a family finds itself in the middle of a separation or divorce, one of the first worries is “what about the children?” Divorce has been associated with multiple problems for children and teenagers including: poorer peer relations, low self-esteem, diminished academic performance, health problems, aggression, conduct problems, noncompliance, and depression. However, research has shown that while divorce can be hard on children, it’s often the fighting of the parents that most directly affects the children, and the impact depends on how well the parents are able to isolate the children from these disruptions.

The following are 10 tips to keep in mind to help buffer your children from the problems they may encounter during parental divorce or marital conflict:

How do I help my preschooler or school-age child cope?

	Most importantly, try to maintain consistency. Children going through separation and divorce need a lot of stability to anchor them during the stressful times of the early stages. Change as little as possible, especially at first.
	Do not alter the way you discipline and reward your child. Keep the routines the same (bedtimes, meals). Children feel safest when things are familiar.
	Be more affectionate. A few extra hugs go a long way during times like these. Don’t overdo this, but a little more affection can make a big difference to children who are feeling scared or lonely.

How do I help my school-age or middle schooler cope?

	Help your children to stay connected. You should support your children’s friendships and activities.
	Attention should be paid to enhancing or maintaining the quality of the parent-child relationship as a way to modify children’s long-term reactions to marital disruptions.

How do I help my adolescent cope?

	For adolescents in particular, the significance of the frequency of contact with parents fades and it is the quality of the relationship that grow more central. The family, especially the parent-child relationship, has been viewed as the main source of support for the adolescent, acting as a buffer to help ameliorate some of the stress encountered during divorce.
	Do not use your teenager as an emotional confidant. Sharing the facts and feelings a child needs to know to be able to accept the divorce is not the same thing as discussing everything related to the divorce about which you may have a need to talk. Don’t make your children bear this burden. They have enough to deal with already.
	Adolescents are more likely to have financial worries than are younger children. Adolescents are more aware than younger children about the limitations imposed by money. They suspect the divorce may have direct financial ramifications for them, and they’re usually right.

Download this information as a printable PDF document

Back to Articles and Podcast on Separation & Divorce

Acknowledgement: Telling Children of the Decision to Divorce

1. If possible, plan to tell the children together, so that the messages you are giving about the decision to divorce are uniform. Do not include specific information about the reasons for the divorce, but rather explain in more general terms, and do not speak poorly about your spouse. It is also generally never a good decision to discuss adult issues, such as infidelity, financial issues, difficulty with in-laws, etc. For one, with regard to self-image, on an internal level children see themselves as “half mom” and “half dad.” Thus when parties tear one another down, it in turn tears down the child’s own internal sense of self. Second, the child is left to try to understand adult issues through a child’s or teenager’s mind, which can lead to a lot of confusion and exacerbate difficulty in their adjustment to the divorce.

2. Messages that project the reality of the situation yet protect the child’s emotions are:

• • Mom and Dad are going to get a divorce. (For younger children: That means that we aren’t going to be married anymore, and that we won’t live together.) This decision doesn’t change the fact that we are still your parents, and it is in no way at all your fault. Being married isn’t good for us anymore, but one good thing about it was that we had you, and we are so happy to have you.

• • While some things will change, like where we each live, one thing that will never change is how much we both love you, and how important you are to us.

• We know that you might be sad or angry or upset about this, and we want you to talk to us about what you think and how you feel, so we can try to help you through this.

3. Prepare and practice ahead of time what you will say. Planning makes any communication go better. Be sure to also prepare for various reactions and how you will deal with them in the moment. For example, children may cry, beg you not to divorce, be angry, yell at you, slam doors, refuse to speak to you, or try to get you to change your mind. Conversely, some children who have been aware of conflict between you may say that they are not surprised. Children are concrete thinkers and may have many practical questions they ask, such as where everyone will live, when they will see each parent, what they will do on holidays and birthdays, or if they will have to move.

New Beginnings: Transitioning a Family into Two Households

1. Keep as much routine and consistency as possible, while allowing for some flexibility to make the process flow smoothly. Similar routines, especially around getting off to school in the mornings, doing homework, and bedtime (even on weekends), make it easier for a child to go between households. Also, create a comfortable space for children in both households, to include a room of their own and toys, clothes, favorite foods, etc., that they don’t have to carry back and forth.

2. While children do best with consistency, expecting rigidity in parenting can lead to unnecessary conflict. Allow your ex-spouse to be their own parent, and respect your different parenting styles. Divorce is a time of changing roles and responsibilities with regard to parenting; pre-divorce roles and responsibilities were divided based on two parents in one household, thus post-divorce is often a time of each parent learning how to do some of the things that used to be the “job” or “area” of the other parent. Avoid the thinking trap of, “It’s always been this way.” and instead try to support one another, for the good of the child, in your respective development and strengthening of skills.

3. Time with your child used to occur by happenstance to some extent. Time now takes more planning. Both parents want quality parenting time with their child, and a healthy relationship with each parent is in the best interests of the child. Maintaining contact between each parent and child is essential. This can be a difficult topic for parents to navigate, as they are driven by love for their child and an underlying fear of losing a close bond and relationship with the child due to divisions in time. Some helpful hints:

(1) Think in terms of quality time versus exactly equal time.

(2) Keep in mind that your children used to know that mom and dad lived at home with them, and even if mom and/or dad were busy some days, there was the underlying comfort of their presence. Make efforts during the transition phase for as much contact between each parent and child as is feasible to help them adjust.

(3) Time and contact are not only in-person. Be creative about other ways to maintain contact, such as a goodnight call between parent and child being part of the daily bedtime routine. And/or quick phone or email messages of “I love you,” “I’m thinking about you,” or “How did your test go?” Keeping contact around the little things that happen in your child’s day is a great way to stay connected. And remember that keeping contact is an adult responsibility – whether the child is age 6 or 16, it is the responsibility of the parent to take the lead in staying connected.

Co-Parenting Effectively: Developing a Positive Shared-Parenting Relationship

1. From the moment of separation you and your spouse begin functioning as co-parents, and how you manage this is vitally important to the well-being of your child. Research has shown that it is not the divorce per se but rather the amount of conflict associated with the divorce that has the most negative effects on children. If there is conflict between you and your ex-spouse, your child will be left to deal with an on-going stressful situation at an age when coping skills around stress are still in development and children are often not able to process such negativity between parents. Some hints to lessen your child’s exposure to conflict:

(1) Minimize the child’s exposure to fighting. Have your disagreements well out of earshot, and remember that kids are experts at listening in.
(2) Don’t use your children as messengers or quiz them about your ex-spouse. The less the children feel a part of their parents’ battle, the better.
(3) Your children may be tempted to act as your confidant and caretaker. Resist the temptation to let them. Let your peers, adult family members, mental health professionals, etc., be your counselors. Let your children be children.

2. Regardless of the actual split of time spent with the child, co-parenting itself is an on-going situation. Thus the time to start lessening the conflict, and build a healthy co-parenting unit is now. Try to move beyond past hurt to forge an amicable co-parenting team for the benefit of your child (and for yourself as well). Components of a positive shared-parenting relationship: focus on effective and respectful communication, navigate differences in parenting styles and agree upon difficult topics, engage in low-conflict joint decision-making, compromise, and be a united front to the child.

3. Remember that you are your child’s role model, and the message your behavior sends to your child is: This is the way people should act in this situation. Co-parenting is an opportunity to teach your child valuable lessons about how to get along with someone even when you disagree with them, how to compromise, and how to maintain positive and healthy relationships even in difficult circumstances. In building and maintaining your co-parenting relationship, think about the messages you are sending your child.

Download this information as a printable PDF document

Back to Articles and Podcast on Separation & Divorce

TIERED APPROACH TO PARENTING PLAN
CONSULTS AND CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Our unique, tiered approach meets the information and cost needs of every family.

PARENTING PLAN CONSULTS

CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Back to Articles and Podcast on Separation & Divorce

Before the fairly recent advent of “collaborative divorce” by family law attorneys, many couples had designed their own collaborative process by using psychologists, ministers, or other neutral parties to mediate the divorce process to reach a fair settlement in an amicable manner. Couples often came to these people saying that they wanted to avoid conflict as much as possible, and keep costs down by avoiding high attorney’s fees. Now, finally, the law profession has taken notice of people’s desire to move through separation and divorce in a low-conflict manner, and has developed what they call collaborative divorce. This has been a wonderful and long-awaited alternative to the traditional divorce model.

How the Collaborative Model Differs from Traditional Divorce

Collaborative divorce is a process of cooperation, not confrontation. The role of attorneys who use this model is the same as the role of mediators has always been: to help you find and focus on common interests, understand each other’s concerns, explore a wide range of possible choices, and reach mutually-acceptable solutions. They also support, encourage and guide you in treating each other with respect, listening to each other’s concerns, exploring all possible choices, and concentrating on amicable solutions. Your collaborative attorneys will adhere to a process of cooperation, not confrontation, while still advising you of the law and representing your interests, working hard with you to help both parties reach an agreement.

Traditional divorce is an adversarial process with the focus on positioning and the use of legal maneuvers, which can end in a trial to decide issues. The collaborative model empowers you to reach your own solutions to sometimes difficult issues, and parties agree not to go to trial. Typically, the collaborative process is less costly and time-consuming than litigation. A collaborative dispute will end up costing less than a typical contested dispute since none of the attorneys’ time is spent on depositions, motions or court hearings. Also, the process allows the parties to be more creative than the court in fashioning settlement terms.

Money Matters

• To most people, whether you are wealthy, middle of the road, or struggle financially, money matters. That is, we all like to feel our money was spent usefully. Consider the costs of a high conflict divorce that ends in litigation: on-line divorce calculators put the cost of litigation at between a low of $26,000 to $130,000 or more PER SPOUSE. Do you really want that much money to be spent on this conflict? Imagine all that you could do with that money: investments, vacations, children’s college funds, new home, etc. You could spend considerably less using the collaborative process.

Self-Determination Matters

• Judicial discretion. That is what litigation ends in. You pay tens of thousands or over a hundred thousand dollars… and you don’t even have the final say. Nor does your spouse. Nor do the attorneys you’ve been working so closely with. The irony is that the judge may come up with conditions that neither you nor your spouse is happy with. Using the collaborative process, at least you have a direct say in the negotiation of the final settlement that you and your spouse agree upon. Though it may require some compromise, you ultimately maintain shared control of the negotiation process and self-determination of the outcome.

Addressing the Concerns of High Conflict Couples

To many people going through a divorce, using the collaborative process seems an obvious choice: it costs less and is less stressful. However, couples in high conflict who cannot imagine at this moment agreeing with their estranged spouse on big issues such as children or finances wonder if this model is a good fit for them. Here’s why it is:

Conflict and Children

• Research has shown that it is not the divorce per se but rather the amount of conflict associated with the divorce that has the most negative effects on children. This is likely because of self-image issues, disruption in attachments, and coping skills around stress. With regard to self-image, on an internal level children see themselves as “half mom” and “half dad.” In a high conflict divorce, parties often tear one another down, which in turn tears down the child’s own internal sense of self. Related to that, the conflict disrupts the attachment between the child and one or both parents, either on an emotional level as they try to figure out who is “right” or who is the “bad” person in the divorce, and/or on a practical level as positive/quality time with one or both parents is interrupted with either overt conflict between the parties or an undercurrent of anger and hostility. The child is left to deal with an on-going stressful situation at an age when coping skills around stress are still in development, and the child is often not able to process such negativity between parents when it goes on over time with no end in sight. Thus the time to start lessening the conflict is during the separation and divorce.

  Research has also shown that children are healthiest and happiest when they have a positive attachment to both parents. The collaborative process can help you to develop a positive cooperative co-parenting relationship even through your anger. With the exception of the rare cases in which one parent meets criteria for “unfit” as a parent, regardless of the final custody arrangement, you will both have some joint role in parenting, just by the fact that you are both parents. Using the collaborative process, with the focus on amicable and mutually-agreed upon solutions, is a good place to start. Versus the traditional adversarial model, the collaborative model improves the chances for long-term goodwill.

Conflict and You
Intense sadness, intense anger, hopelessness, frustration, fear, confusion, a sense of betrayal… the list goes on of painful feelings experienced throughout the process of divorce. It is not surprising that people experiencing painful emotions engage in conflict. Ultimately though, people have more of a sense of contentment and well-being in their lives when they are not in constant conflict. The collaborative process can help you move through the conflict, lessen it, and enjoy more peace of mind and hope for the future. Using the collaborative process, with the focus on amicable and mutually-agreed upon solutions, is a good place to start. Versus the traditional adversarial model, the collaborative model improves the chances for long-term sense of satisfaction.

Using the Collaborative Divorce Model

There are two primary ways to utilize collaborative divorce:

(1) You can still use a mediator (psychologist, clergy, etc.) as a neutral party to mediate the divorce process to reach a fair settlement in an amicable manner. You would get legal advice from your respective attorneys who agree to use the collaborative process, that is, agree to represent you while also encouraging the peaceful resolution of issues that you are working toward with your mediator. Once an agreement has been reached, both lawyers would assist both parties to obtain any necessary court approval. This option tends to be less expensive than option 2 below; however, it is best to use a mediator who has experience mediating separation and divorce. For example, at Lepage Associates we developed Separating with Civility & Divorcing with Dignity as a facilitation and mediation process to meet the needs of people going through divorce.

(2) You can use attorneys trained in collaborative divorce for the entire process: legal advice, mediating the settlement agreement, and obtaining court approval.

(3) A final point to make is that in both 1 and 2 above, experts are brought into the collaborative process as needed. For example, a Certified Public Accountant with expertise in divorce financial planning may join the team as a neutral, to assist you in making financial decisions for the settlement. If you are not already using a psychologist as a mediator, a Psychologist may join the team as a neutral, to help you prepare for legal meetings, assist you in developing and deciding upon a parenting plan, provide coaching for cooperative co-parenting, or help you get past stuck points in the negotiations.

If you or someone you know is going to separate and divorce, consider using the collaborative approach. The professionals involved are committed to helping parties get through this difficult time in life with as little conflict as possible under the circumstances. The collaborative divorce model promotes fair agreements and healthy peace of mind.

Click here to download this article as a PDF
Back to Articles and Podcast on Separation & Divorce