Forensic psychological practice within civil law

Full Answer Section

• • Inherent Impossibility: These roles are almost always considered incompatible. It is virtually impossible to simultaneously provide supportive, confidential therapy while conducting an objective, potentially adversarial forensic evaluation where the MHP's findings could harm one or both parents' cases.
  • Coercion/Manipulation: Individuals in therapy might feel pressured to disclose information or behave in certain ways, believing it will positively influence the custody outcome, rather than genuinely engaging in therapy for their own well-being. Conversely, the MHP might feel pressured to make recommendations that align with therapeutic goals rather than strictly forensic findings.

Ethical Principles Violated:

• Beneficence and Non-maleficence: The MHP's actions could inadvertently harm the individuals involved by compromising trust, confidentiality, or by producing biased evaluations.
• Fidelity and Responsibility: The MHP's primary allegiance in a forensic role is to the court and to the truth, while in a therapeutic role, it's to the client. These competing loyalties create a severe conflict.
• Integrity: Maintaining objectivity and avoiding misrepresentation are central to ethical practice. Dual roles inherently compromise these.

Recommendations for How the Professional Should Proceed:

The consensus in forensic psychology ethics is overwhelmingly clear on avoiding dual relationships in child custody evaluations.

1. Avoidance is Key:

   • Decline the Forensic Role if Prior Therapeutic Relationship Exists: If an MHP has had a therapeutic relationship with any party involved in the custody dispute (parent, child, or even a significant family member), they must decline the request to conduct a forensic custody evaluation for that family.
   • Decline Therapeutic Role if Forensic Evaluation is Anticipated: If an MHP is asked to provide therapy to a family that is clearly involved in or anticipating a child custody dispute, they should generally decline to take on the therapeutic role if there is any chance they will later be asked to conduct a custody evaluation.
   • No Concurrent Roles: Under no circumstances should an MHP attempt to provide therapy and conduct a forensic custody evaluation for the same family at the same time.

2. Clear Communication and Education:

   • Explain Role Limitations: If approached for a dual role, the MHP should clearly and respectfully explain why such a role is ethically untenable, citing the fundamental differences between therapeutic and forensic objectives, confidentiality limitations, and the potential for impaired objectivity.
   • Provide Referrals: Offer appropriate referrals for both therapeutic services and forensic evaluation services to other qualified professionals who do not have a pre-existing relationship with the family.

3. Consultation and Supervision:

   • If an MHP finds themselves in a situation where a potential dual relationship is not immediately clear, or if they are pressured by attorneys or parties, they should immediately consult with an experienced forensic psychology colleague, supervisor, or ethics committee. This provides an external, objective perspective and guidance.

4. Adherence to Ethical Guidelines and Professional Standards:

   • Forensic psychologists should be intimately familiar with and strictly adhere to the APA's "Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology," which explicitly address dual relationships and conflicts of interest. Specifically, Guideline 4.01 (Multiple Relationships) states: "Forensic practitioners avoid entering into multiple relationships with parties to a legal proceeding that are reasonably likely to impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness, or expose persons or organizations with whom a professional relationship exists to harm."

By strictly adhering to these recommendations, mental health professionals can uphold their ethical obligations, protect the integrity of the forensic evaluation process, and ultimately serve the best interests of the children and families involved by providing unbiased and reliable information to the court.

Sample Answer

Ethical Dilemma/Difficulty: Dual Relationships and Conflicts of Interest

Description of the Difficulty or Conflict:

Child custody evaluations are a highly sensitive and complex area of forensic psychological practice. A significant ethical dilemma arises from the potential for dual relationships and conflicts of interest, particularly when the evaluating mental health professional (MHP) has had a prior therapeutic relationship with one or both of the parents or the child, or when the MHP is pressured to provide therapeutic services concurrent with the evaluation.

Here's a breakdown of the conflict:

• Prior Therapeutic Relationship: If an MHP has previously provided therapy to a parent or child involved in the custody dispute, their role shifts from that of a therapist (whose primary allegiance is to the well-being and best interests of their client within a confidential and supportive relationship) to that of a forensic evaluator (whose primary allegiance is to the court, providing objective, impartial information to assist in legal decision-making).

  • Conflict of Roles: The goals are fundamentally different. Therapy aims to foster growth, healing, and change, often requiring empathy and an advocacy stance for the client. A forensic evaluation demands neutrality, objective data collection, and a focus on answering psycho-legal questions for the court, even if the findings are not "therapeutic" for the individuals involved.
  • Confidentiality vs. Disclosure: In therapy, confidentiality is paramount. In a forensic evaluation, information is generally not confidential and will be shared with the court and opposing parties. This creates a severe breach of trust if a former therapeutic client believes their private therapeutic disclosures will now be used in a legal context against them.
  • Impaired Objectivity: The MHP, having developed rapport and a specific therapeutic understanding of a client, may find it difficult to maintain the required level of objectivity and impartiality in the forensic role. Pre-existing biases, even unconscious ones, can influence data collection, interpretation, and ultimate recommendations.

• Concurrent Therapeutic and Forensic Roles: Less commonly, but equally problematic, is the situation where an MHP is asked to provide therapy to a family while also conducting or intending to conduct a custody evaluation.