Archive for: Articles and Podcasts

Cooperative Parenting Part III: Embracing a New Life

Sometimes during the separation period or soon after the divorce it’s hard not to hold on to the past – either wistfully, angrily, or something in between. In this third article on Cooperative Parenting we’ll look at why it’s important to let go of the past and how doing so will help you embrace your new life, especially your new parenting role.

It’s the most difficult role change for some. You might go days without seeing your child, then when they are with you, you spend a lot of time together – either because their stage requires you to or because you want to make the most of your time with them. When your child is with you, you act as both parents, making decisions on the spot that you once might have deferred to the other parent… and the same goes for your co-parent. There are bound to be situations where one person thinks a certain decision should be a joint one and the other thinks it’s a decision for the parent in charge at that moment. It’s one of the many times in co-parenting where minimal hostility and good communication is crucial. In general, there will probably be fewer shared decisions now than when you were married but be clear within yourself which decisions are up to each individual parent and which are joint decisions. Communicate with your co-parent about this (there will be opportunity to practice the skills of negotiation and compromise here) – it’ll greatly decrease conflict and hostility if both parents use the same guidelines.

You won’t just be making more decisions on your own when your child is with you – you will be doing things with or for your child that used to be in the other parent’s domain. If you’ve never been the cook in the family, you will be now. If you didn’t help with homework before, you will now. You will have to learn new skills and develop new routines which will help stabilize this new life for you and your child. Keep in mind that while the two households won’t operate identically, the more similar the rules and routines are, the easier it will be for your child to live in two places. Again, this will require respectful communication and negotiation between the parents.

Letting Go

This change in roles, as well as respectful communication and negotiation, is easier to do if you’ve let go of the past. For many people this involves grieving, a healthy process of accepting loss. Regardless of which partner initiated the divorce, you might be grieving the loss of intimacy with your ex, the loss of financial security or lifestyle, the loss of the dream of your ideal family life. Remember that your child is grieving as well – loss of routine, security, perhaps friends and school if he moved, and maybe things that can get lost in the shuffle of change and conflict – like favorite afterschool activities that don’t coordinate easily with the custody schedule. There are several stages of grief you might see in you and your child (and the other parent): shock, denial, guilt, anger, bargaining, depression, hope for the future, and finally acceptance. These stages aren’t necessarily sequential but it’s important to notice if you or your child seem to be stuck in one.

Moving forward will be easier if you are willing to acknowledge wonderful memories you had as a family. Depending in what way you are still holding on (angrily, longingly, sadly) this might feel very hard to do but those moments did happen and acknowledging them can help you heal. Forgiveness is another important component for letting go and moving forward. It doesn’t mean you condone whatever it is your ex-spouse did that hurt you, it means that you let go of the negative emotions toward them and think of them as positively as possible (this is where remembering those positive memories can come in handy). The more you hold on to anger, pain, vengefulness, being the victim, or a desire to win, the more conflict and hostility will enter the co-parenting relationship and negatively affect your child.

Think of it this way: the cost to you of holding on to the past is that the anger and sadness eat away at you, drain you of energy and happiness over time, damage your self-esteem and self-concept, and can interfere with future relationships. The cost to your child is that they will probably be caught in loyalty binds even if you try to avoid them, their relationship with one or both parents will be negatively affected, and their self-esteem and self-concept might be damaged since children view themselves as half one parent and half the other.

To let go of the past and embrace your new life you need to disengage from the other parent. People stay engaged primarily by either trying to hurt the other parent through revenge or angry conflict, or trying to take care of the other parent (outside of support agreed upon as part of divorcing, such as alimony) with the hope of reuniting or out of fear of the unknown. Both prevent you from truly moving forward wholeheartedly with your new life.

So, how to move forward? It’s simple but not necessarily easy. It starts with turning your mind – just deciding to let go of the anger, bitterness, sadness, hope, fear, and unfulfilled dreams. Start nurturing a curiosity and optimism about what your future might hold. Some people find that to do this they need to disengage physically from their ex-spouse – not see them, communicate only about the child and only through email and text, remove signs of them from the house (except for the child’s bedroom). It’s not recommended as a long-term solution since this kind of distance between parents can be damaging to your child, but it’s less damaging than hostility and constant conflict. It can be a critical first step to disengaging emotionally so that you can interact with your co-parent more effectively and healthily in the future. Many parents find that after this turning of the mind, performing a disengagement ritual eases the transition to the next stage. We have rituals for other life transitions (marriage, graduation, death) and they can be helpful with psychologically closing the last door and opening the next one. If you find that you are stuck in a stage of grief; engaged unhealthily with anger, fear, or unreasonable hope; or that the temporary disengagement from your co-parent goes on for more than a few months then you might consider seeing a divorce therapist to give you and your child the best chance of moving wholeheartedly into your new life.

Yes, you read it right, ditch the diet this holiday season- the season of parties and buffet tables filled with cookies and cake, pies, chips and dips, breads and cheeses, and hot creamy drinks spiked with alcohol. Why is this health professional encouraging you to ditch the diet during this time? Because the diet mentality causes restrictive, negative thinking that sets you up for stress, struggles, and usually guarantees defeat. Doesn’t sound very festive does it? Not to mention most people agree this time of year brings about a whole lot of stress and anxiety. Family conflicts, financial strain, finding the right gift, travel plans going awry, and unpredictable weather can wreak havoc on our minds and bodies, so why ADD to all of that by putting restrictions on what we can eat?*

Here are some ways to stay stress-free, healthy, and happy while still enjoying all the delicious food the holidays has to offer:

• Make A Game Plan. You’re most likely not going to a holiday party every night of the week, so when you’re not out, center your meals around the nutritionally dense foods (whole grains, vegetables, lean proteins, healthy fats). Have healthy foods ready and available. To avoid arriving at a party in starvation mode, eat a small meal before you go so when you get to the buffet table you can make smart choices. Having nutritious meals available for the days after the party can also help you get back into the groove of healthy eating for the rest of the week (or until the next party).
• Contribute. If you are going to someone’s home for a get-together, offer to bring a healthy appetizer or dish of your own that you would feel good eating while there.
• Indulge in Tradition. Grandma’s homemade scratch apple pie is special. The apple pie bought at the grocery store is most certainly not. Ask yourself if what you want to eat was made with love by people you know, or if someone just picked it up at the store for the sake of bringing something. Enjoy the foods of your culture, not the mass produced stores.
• Savor the food. Eat slowly and taste every bite, after all, you only eat this special holiday food once a year! It also takes our brain 20 minutes to register when our belly is full, so by eating slowly we are more likely to feel ourselves getting full and to stop. When we eat too fast, we can end up eating way more than what our stomachs can handle, leading to the uncomfortable (or painfully) full feeling (you know what I’m talking about!).
• It’s ok to say “no.” It’s ok to say “no” when you are offered another helping of the fried meatballs made with your family’s secret recipe. Like most things, when you have too much of something it becomes less special. Plan a few phrases to say to those food pushers. Sometimes you might just have to repeat yourself with a simple, “No thank you, I’m really full!” Remember, no one can make you eat anything you don’t want to and it’s not your responsibility to make them feel better by eating.
• Be Kind To Yourself. So you ended up having that eighth cookie. While your stomach may be hurting, you don’t need to add extra pain by berating yourself or feeling guilty. Acknowledge that you ate and enjoyed it, then move on to enjoying other non-food related activities.

There’s going to be a lot of stress we cannot control during the holidays, but we can help ourselves deal more effectively with the stress by eating well and allowing ourselves to enjoy the fun holiday foods.

*This is not giving you permission to ignore any health advice your doctors have given you, particularly if you have certain health conditions.

CRAZY OR CRISIS?
Evaluating mental health functioning and parenting abilities
in the midst of court crisis and litigation trauma.

Picture this: Within the past week you were notified that you are being audited by the IRS on Friday, a hurricane just struck and caused irreparable damage to your home making it unlivable, and your closest friend suddenly passed away. Today you are told to go into a strange office and complete a bunch of tests and interviews to see if you are fit to retain custody of your children. You’ll do great, right?!

Probably not, but it is in high crisis times like these that evaluations are often ordered by the courts. Typically, individual psychological evaluations for use in a custody case or custody evaluations of the whole family are ordered when there has been extensive litigation, allegations of abuse, or one party is stating the other suffers from a mental illness.

Many marital separations are characterized by blame, shame, and criticism, often with considerable anger and resentment. There is grief over the loss of dreams, hopes, and the contract of permanent attachment. Those who have experienced childhood wounding are re-wounded. Adding ongoing litigation can create further stress and trauma.

High conflict divorce can be horrendous for all parties and mimics trauma in many ways. It is a battlefield of accusations, feelings of betrayal, deep feelings of abandonment, a sense of personal assault, a profound sense of loss and an intense distrust of your former partner. Those involved often feel out of control; external influences (courts, attorneys, GAL, therapist) are significantly influencing their lives, and emotional turmoil is high. The court system is adversarial by nature. One party “wins” while the other “loses” and there is an unwritten agenda to defeat the other parent. It is your job to make your “opponent” look bad and parents are forced to disparage each other in an effort to simply maintain their roles as parents. Fear and hostility run high when parents are threatened by the potential loss of their children. Additionally, during high conflict divorce both parents can engage in alienating behaviors at one time or another. This series of stressful events is the very definition of a crisis.

How might this look on a psychological evaluation? The experience of a crisis carries into the evaluation room and can cause the individual to appear angry, paranoid, aggressive, and anxious. The current trauma of custody disputes can very well create personality traits that distort the results of psychological testing. The natural emotions stemming from divorce and custody disputes include a combination of stress, frustration, grief, powerlessness, and numerous other emotions. These are natural reactions and have nothing to do with the basic personality of the individual or their ability to parent. Testing may show that one or both parents experience traits closely related to their concerns (e.g. anxiety/paranoia – the other party is “out to get you” or discredit you). Don’t think you are off the hook if you do not show any of these responses. This may be indicative of more antisocial and abusive attitudes and enjoyment of being able to deceive others, remain engaged with your former spouse, and create anxiety in your former spouse. It is vital the evaluator parse out traumatic reactions to the current crisis from long-standing personality issues.

Defensiveness is also common in custody evaluations. Who would not want to “look good” when they are being evaluated in order to maintain their relationship with their child? This can be misinterpreted as one parent trying to “hide” something or as lacking insight regarding their own “psychological issues.” This may be an inaccurate conclusion. In times of trauma, denial may be necessary to maintain daily functioning and again not an overriding characteristic of the individual. Disorganization and emotional flooding may also be present and interpreted as stable characteristics rather than as occurring secondary to the crisis of custody litigation.

If one parent does experience a significant mental health issue, the other parent’s evaluation may be impacted as well. It is rare to find one parent with severe mental health illness or personality problems and the other without some deficits as well. The “healthy” parent has likely developed some unhealthy coping strategies to get by, thinking has likely become distorted, and they may have lost sight of what is “normal.”

It is important to tease these issues out and determine what is long standing, what is transient and specific to the trauma/crisis associated with divorce and custody litigation, and what characteristics will likely remain moving forward. If a parent does have a long standing mental health issues, the evaluator must determine how it impacts their parenting and the best interest of the child. Their mental health may or may not be relevant to custody. A former or current mental health diagnosis does not prevent a person from being a good parent. The impact on parenting must be assessed.

When looking at testing results, be sure your evaluator has dug deeper. Look to see your evaluator has done a true forensic evaluation in which multiple sources of data are used and history is explored in depth for a full picture of past and current functioning. Be sure the evaluator has distinguished between long standing mental health issues that could impact parenting, versus current trauma reactions to the crisis that will likely pass. Clinically significant scores may not indicate “crazy,” but rather an ongoing crisis that would make us all look a little crazy. An experienced forensic evaluator should be able to parse out the difference.

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce
Part II: Avoiding a Loyalty Bind

This second article on Cooperative Parenting explores how to avoid putting your child in a loyalty bind. Let’s start with the obvious: what is a loyalty bind?

A loyalty bind in divorce is where the child does not feel allowed to love both parents. He has to side with one or the other about any number of issues, big and small. His anger, sadness, and anxiety increases as he feels pushed to choose and either choice results in the loss, or fear of loss, of the other parent. He can’t win. Unfortunately, it’s easy to create a loyalty bind. We do to it every time we criticize the other parent or sigh in exasperation about something they did. We do it when we play the role of victim and solicit our child’s sympathy for ourselves against the other parent. Loyalty binds are created when we tell our child we miss them when they’re with the other parent, or ask questions about their visit with the other parent, or not allow the child to take special items to the other parent’s house. An emphasis on making things equal can also create a loyalty bind as the child feels forced to account for time, gifts, money, and affection he exchanges with each parent. More obvious examples of putting the child in the middle include using him as a courier for communication with the other parent, or refusing to attend one of his events if the other parent attends. Even attending the event but sitting far from the other parent forces the child to choose which parent to approach first afterwards. You can see how easy it is to create loyalty binds, and how keeping the child in focus is necessary to prevent them.

The effects of loyalty binds are significant. The child becomes very stressed as he tries to play accountant and anticipate and prevent his parents’ negative emotional reactions, all while grieving the loss of the intact family and fearing further loss by making either parent angry at him. Feelings of resentment build with the understanding that he is a pawn in his parents’ conflict game, and that he can’t win and can’t get out. He feels angry but is not free to express this to his parents whom he has to be cautious around now. The child becomes less happy. The spontaneity he once enjoyed with being free to love each parent as he wished is gone. Try as he might to avoid choosing sides, he is sometimes forced to (do I give Dad the message as Mom asked, and make him angry? Or do I not give it to him and make her angry?). The longer this continues the more his self-esteem suffers. Children feel connected to their parents as though they are a part of them, so each time the child experiences a parent belittling or attacking the other parent, it is as though he is belittled or attacked by them as well.

It can be tempting to fantasize life without the other parent in it. Decisions would be much easier and calmer if you could make them all and your child didn’t have to get caught in the middle. But think of all that your child would miss out on: half of the love and influence of the two people closest to him, half the shared memories of his early childhood that only parents can provide, half the learning about himself, his lineage, and his important role in the family line. Plus, for all the problems you have with the other parent, it’s possible that you experience the worst of them (either in reality or in your head) but your child gets a better version. They don’t have the same emotional history you do with the other parent, so their current experiences aren’t tainted by those past wounds. They are better able to learn from the other parent than you are at this point, and let’s face it – the other parent probably isn’t 100% ‘bad.’ You chose to connect with them for a reason and have a child. They have their own skills, knowledge, and talents to share with your child. Being exposed to more than one role model lessens the chance of ending up with a skewed view of the world.

So what can you do to turn it around if you realize you’ve unwittingly been creating loyalty binds for your child? Remember that you are the adult and bear the burden for helping your child with their difficult emotions while keeping your own in check without their help. Reach out for support from other adults when you need to. Say positive things about the other parent – remember that a compliment to them is a compliment to your child. In the same vein, demonstrate acceptance of their other parent and hold back negative feelings about them as you know they cut deep into your child’s self-concept. Above all, support your child’s need to love both their parents. In the long run this helps them love themselves.

Almost everyone has heard of post-traumatic stress and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), but a related and new area of research has been on post traumatic growth. The idea of post traumatic growth is a more recent phenomenon that offers a positive approach to dealing with traumatic events. It is both a process that people undergo after experiencing trauma and an outcome where positive changes are experienced in response to struggling and making sense of that major crisis or traumatic event. It is a new, optimistic perspective on suffering and transforms a person into someone significantly different than who they were before. The struggle, not the trauma, engenders these changes. Researchers have found when questioned about trauma, more people report growth experiences as long term effects rather than stress disorders.

Post traumatic growth appears to develop in five broad areas: new possibilities, change in relationships, personal strength, philosophy on life, and spiritual or religious change. People may be more open to opportunities, find that they are more resilient, and appreciate the preciousness of life. The advocates for post traumatic growth emphasize that while changes or growth can be beneficial, all problems or stress are not dissolved. Rather, post traumatic growth occurs in the context of suffering. In addition, post traumatic growth is not universal.

Dr. Talya Rabina is a psychologist who researched the experiences of the Hurricane Katrina helper population. There have been numerous studies conducted on the negative effects of participating in relief efforts, but less research on positive effects such as learning and feeling rewarded for voluntary efforts. Dr. Rabina explains that post traumatic growth involves finding meaning out of an experience that throws one’s whole understanding of the world on its head. In her experience, she found that changes in relationships and adjustments of philosophies were the most transparent. People needed other people who had the same experience to reflect and understand that event. In addition, people redefined their values and goals and thus revised their perspective on life; this especially related to developmental stages. People who were in their twenties considered how they were going to proceed in their career. An older generation who already had an established career pondered more deeply the way in which they performed their work. Traumas, such as Hurricane Katrina, instigate post traumatic growth.

How intense does a trauma need to be in order to experience post traumatic growth?

Does it have to be a natural disaster or war, or can it be divorce or something similarly common? In order for post traumatic growth to develop, the trauma needs to threaten one’s mental security and how one perceives the world. Dr. Rabina notes that trauma needs to cause a significant amount of distress and dissonance, and this dissonance leads one to a psychological process of working through and sorting out this trauma: “the brain wants to feel even and good, and when something like trauma occurs, the brain is thrown off and needs to reformulate” which generates a new understanding of the self in relation to what’s happened. Dr. Rabina also mentions that people witness violence every day, whether in direct or indirect settings. These exposures to violence are all sort of mini traumas and our capacity for post traumatic growth depends on how we approach these traumas. Essentially, what constitutes trauma depends on the person who experiences it.

Influencing Psychologists, Individuals, and Society

Dr. Rabina finds the post traumatic growth concept useful in her clinical work. She explains that it’s easy to get pulled towards focusing on the negative because people typically enter therapy with problems. While value lies in dissecting the negative, exploring the positive side is necessary and broadens the perspective: “As a therapist we have power in the way we ask questions. If you’re asking only about the pathology and not about the potential for growth and strength then you’re not seeing the whole picture. What [post traumatic growth] has done for me is allow me to see the strength in my clients in a different way and maybe help them see it in themselves. I’m grateful for that.” She also describes that she knows the potential for growth is there in her patients but that this post traumatic growth model has provided her with a way to understand and capitalize on eliciting that growth.

The implications of post traumatic growth for individuals and society can be extremely constructive and stimulate positive change in our culture. There is a certain social transformation of trauma, where the results of trauma on individuals can produce collective social change. The founding of organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Alcoholics Anonymous are indicative of this. Even closer to home, the Eve Marie Carson Scholarship (which is awarded to students who have grown significantly in areas related to academics, social justice, and leadership) was established in response to the senseless murder of Eve Carson, UNC’s Student Body President.

Ultimately, post traumatic growth allows for an alternate, more optimistic view on life despite suffering through traumatic experiences. This is not to suggest PTSD and post traumatic stress are not real as well, and people experiencing this deserve empathy and help. Post traumatic growth work can be one way to move through the stress of the trauma and regain a sense of well-being.

I remember being in my first year of therapy practicum at a local community mental health center with a supervisor who, well, let’s say was not my most favorite supervisor of graduate school. He was a bit gruff, incorrigibly stern, and often times rudely sarcastic. There are many things I would like to forget about the year I spent under his supervision, but one thing will really stick with me as a psychologist, spouse, friend, child, and parent – it’s okay to be sad and it’s okay to let others be sad. The lesson started when I played an audiotaped recording of a session for him (of note, I had client permission to do so as part of my training). The client was audibly crying, there was a pause, you could hear some movement and then I stated, “Here you go.” He asked me what had happened and I explained I had reached over to give the client a tissue. He just looked at me. Blank. After what seemed like an eternity he finally asked, “Why would you do that?” What? Why? Is he serious right now? I was fuming on the inside, but hopefully didn’t let it show. I repeated myself and explained the client was crying and I had handed her a tissue so she could wipe her face. He asked if the tissues were visible and within reach of the crying client. Yes, they had been. “Then why” he asked “did you hand one to her?”

From my perspective, I was being polite – doing what my mother raised me to do. From his perspective, I was inadvertently telling her it wasn’t “okay” for her to be sad. She should clean herself up. She should wipe the tears away from her face. I understood his point, I did. I think it might be a touch overboard, but nonetheless, an important point to learn as a budding psychologist, and even as a friend, partner, parent, child, for any and everyone really. It seems that all too often we unintentionally send messages that it’s not good, not okay, for someone to be sad. How many times have you heard someone say, “It’s ok, don’t be sad,” or “Don’t cry, everything will be alright?” Some emotions are more difficult to acknowledge and manage than others, especially emotions with a negative or painful connotation, such as sadness and anger.

I recently watched the new Disney/Pixar hit Inside Out, a film about Riley, a young, athletic girl whose family relocates from Minnesota to San Francisco. Although Riley is the central human character, the true stars of the film are Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust, Riley’s personified emotions who operate Headquarters (her brain) and manage her current emotional state and interpretation of events, which ultimately become her memories, via a switchboard type station that translates her thought process into behaviors. Headquarters is mostly operated by Joy, a spunky, pixie-ish character who lives up to her name, while Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust play supporting roles. Not long after relocating, the role Sadness plays increases as she mopes around Headquarters, with her woe-is-me demeanor and a defeated tone of voice. She begins touching Riley’s once happy memories, shifting them from a golden glow to a blue glow. In a panic to keep Riley’s memories intact, Joy runs around monitoring Sadness to keep her from touching too many memories. Eventually, Sadness runs off and Joy follows to retrieve Riley’s Core Memories, which ultimately impact her Islands of Personality. In their absence, Anger, Fear, and Disgust are left to manage Headquarters. You can imagine how this part of the story plays out, with a young girl being “operated” by Anger, Fear, and Disgust! Riley becomes curt when speaking to her parents, doesn’t enjoy the activities she previously loved, and eventually runs away from home for a day. In a series of fortunate events, Joy and Sadness make it back to Headquarters in time for Riley to realize her state of sadness and prompting her to return home to her parents, where she collapses in a loving, tear-filled embrace.

Moral of the story – it’s good to be happy, but it’s okay to be sad, too! In fact, it’s not only okay, but actually important for helping people realize their own mental state and being able to communicate that to others. In Inside Out, Riley’s situation begins to significantly change once she is able to express her sadness to her parents. So, instead of telling people, “It’s okay, don’t be sad,” we should be helping them realize they are sad, let them be sad, and help them work through it. After all, when we try to subdue a particular emotion other emotions soon take over, much like the movie, and often create a bigger problem than we started with!

Here are some quick tips for helping children identify and communicate their emotions:

1. Increase your child’s emotional vocabulary. Help them recognize their own emotions by labeling them. If your child is crying, interpret “Billy, you are sad because daddy left for work and you won’t see him until dinner time.”
2. Parents, label your own feelings. “I’m feeling frustrated because I can’t get this computer to work.”
3. Help children recognize the emotional state of another person. Using books, feeling charts, and emotion faces will help your child recognize the behaviors associated with various emotional states. Ask them how they think Farmer John is feeling in this picture where his arms are crossed over his chest and his brow is furrowed. Then have them point out behavioral cues that led them to identify Farmer John is feeling angry.
4. PRAISE your child when he or she communicates what emotion they are experiencing. Teach them emotions, all of them, are good! And, help them express their emotions in a socially-acceptable manner.

What is the difference between a clinical psychological evaluation and a forensic evaluation? Knowing when and how to obtain a forensic evaluation – which typically goes beyond the scope of a basic clinical interview or a non-forensic psychological evaluation – could make or break your case. Following are several things you should look for in a forensic evaluation:

1. In all evaluations, psychologists complete a clinical interview with the client. While a clinical interview is certainly better than no evaluation by a doctor, it is not a thorough method of assessment as it is purely self-report.

2. Psychological testing must be used so 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.

3. 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. This may be where some psychologists end their evaluation, which would still mean this is not a forensic evaluation.

4. 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 may at times be family members or friends with a vested interest in the client, but better collaterals are professionals or disinterested parties who will provide impartial accounts of the client.

5. In summary, be sure when sending your client for a ‘psychological evaluation’ to be used in court the evaluation meets the standards of a forensic psychological evaluation. This type of comprehensive approach, testing alternative hypotheses by using multiple testing and data sources, creates a strong evaluation useful to the courts. Be sure the psychologist you use knows to do a forensic evaluation and not a simple psych evaluation.

No one person can own it. It’s a movement of terms, phrases, articles, blogs and books. But it’s there. An inanimate cloud of cliché, opinion and advice that takes on a life of its own. A favored ubiquitous phrase is ‘work-life balance’ so as to not point fingers or leave anything out. ‘Leaning In’ and ‘Having It All’ often invoke strong feelings about the life choices of women and men. It’s hard not to arrive quickly at an opinion or take offense at a perceived standard of judgment. So, how does one navigate with all the conflict and debate?

There are standout pieces to point to for reference. Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote a 2012 article in the Atlantic entitled “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” in which she recounts her own story of choosing family over career. In 2013, Sheryl Sandburg wrote Lean In which found enough following to support a foundation and website promoting women’s equality in the workplace and male equality at home. In January 2015, Jennifer Szalai with the New York Times tried to help us understand “The Complicated Origins of Having It All”. Pointing back at least to the late 70s, there is a suspicious finger that flips through a wide variety of topics including feminism, parenting, corporate structure, entrepreneurial spirit, leadership and the American dream. But before you dig your heels any further into confirmation bias, let’s take a moment to think about how we apply information presented to us as ‘normative’ to our individual choices and life decisions.

First it is necessary to accept that we are all conformists to some degree, as conformity exists in any group. The negative connotation of conformity comes when choices are made without objectivity and lead to harm. This can be described as part of a concept called Groupthink. The term was popularized in research by Irving Lester Janis in his 1972 book Victims of Groupthink and again in 1982 with a revised Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. But the term goes back much further in popular literature including a definitive 1952 article by Willliam H. Whyte, Jr in Fortune magazine. Whyte and Janis both reference the similar concept of ‘doublethink’ described in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

For the sake of irony, let’s hear the definition from Wikipedia. “Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.” And for the sake of scientific validity, Janis defines Groupthink as “the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action…the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures.”

While Groupthink can easily become a scapegoat for bad personal decisions, the value is to avoid harmful decisions by objective reasoning and multiple sources of information. People often go astray into Groupthink when they feel they are upholding a universal value. Some values often associated with the discussion of ‘work-life balance’, ‘leaning in’ and ‘having it all’ are equality, freedom of choice, optimal health and quality parenting. Who can argue against these things? But the argument comes in how these values are upheld and what methods are used to achieve them. Two people who think they are upholding the same value can find themselves with opposing choices and methods.

In life, liberty and the pursuit of work-life balance, there are a few ways Groupthink can sneak up on you. The most obvious one is to accept someone else’s standard as normal. The essence of the warning to avoid Groupthink is that people can become so blind that they do not question a given standard of normalcy. A perfect example of this is the prolific nature in which women are asked how they achieve work-life balance but men rarely are asked the same question. Even more ironic is that these questions are often asked by other women who are intending to advance the cause of women’s equality. Another trap of Groupthink is to believe that ‘everyone thinks this way’ or to lump different voices together in agreement. An example is the thought that all feminists believe you can have it all and that women should push themselves to extreme measures of achievement to demonstrate this fact. This type of erroneous thought is often believed on opposite sides, by women who want to uphold feminist values and feel guilty if they don’t measure up and by those who criticize feminism and perceive the movement as a planned attack by feminists on traditional gender roles.

Equally important is not to blame Groupthink where it doesn’t exist. Such as to wrongly personalize one option as a standard by which there is judgment. A good example of this is the vilification of Lean In as an anthem against the choice of a woman to raise her children while not simultaneously in the workforce. Instead, Sandberg promotes that the option should exist for women to advance in careers without sexism or penalty for choosing to simultaneously have children. To advocate for one choice is not necessarily judgment against those who make other choices.

There are many voices on leaning in, having it all and work-life balance. Remember that while you are a member of various groups, you are an individual. You may choose to lean in or not, but be sure you are not leaning in to Groupthink.

Bibliography:

Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote the article “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” in The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

Sheryl Sandburg wrote the book Lean In and subsequently created a foundation and website

https://leanin.org/

Jennifer Szalai wrote “The Complicated Origins of Having It All” in the New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/magazine/the-complicated-origins-of-having-it-all.html?_r=0

Irving Lester Janis wrote 2 books: Victims of Groupthink and Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes

https://books.google.com/books/about/Groupthink.html?id=ZB0bAAAAIAAJ&hl=en

William H. Whyte, Jr. wrote the article “Groupthink” in Fortune magazine

https://fortune.com/2012/07/22/groupthink-fortune-1952/

We often get clients referred to us who are asked to undergo an evaluation related to a DUI/DWI offense. We thought we’d share a little about what that entails, so you can know what your clients may expect when they seek an evaluation from a private practice following a DUI.

Our evaluation involves a clinical interview with the person to get a sense of the event that led to their arrest. We’ll also ask questions about their background, history of substance use, and current use. We’ll look into any risk factors that literature tells us is a predictor of substance problems, as well as any resilience factors which may indicate substances may not be much of a problem in one’s life. The client should bring with them an official copy of their driving record from the DMV, and a copy of their recorded BAC.

We’ll then ask the client to undergo some psychological testing. This generally involves a look at their current psychological functioning, as well as some testing specifically focusing on their relationship to substances. In order to ensure we’re getting a clear and accurate picture of their usage pattern, the testing will involve clinical validity indices that parse out dishonest reporting.

The assessment results in recommendations that generally take two forms: (1) completing a substance abuse education class, i.e., Alcohol and Drug Education Traffic School (ADETS), and/or (2) completing a treatment program (usually outpatient). The state requires that evaluators always recommend one of these two forms of intervention following a DUI.

Education

The criteria by which a person may be recommended for ADETS are:

1. The results of the substance abuse assessment shows that the person does not have a substance abuse diagnosis,
2. The person has never, in his or her life, had another DUI/DWI conviction anywhere,
3. The person’s BAC was 0.14% or less, and
4. The person did not refuse to submit to a chemical test.

Those clients who do not meet the criteria for ADETS must be referred to treatment.

Treatment

There are four progressive levels of treatment, determined by the degree of diagnosis:

1. Outpatient, Short Term: a minimum of 20 hours of treatment that must last over a period of at least 30 days.
2. Outpatient, Longer Term: a minimum of 40 hours of treatment that must last over a period of at least 60 days.
3. Day Treatment/Intensive Outpatient: must last for a minimum of 90 hours for a minimum of 90 days.
4. Inpatient: composed of both an inpatient stay coupled with an Aftercare (Continuing Care) program, both of which must last for a period of at least 90 days.