{3:40 minutes to read} This is the second blog in a series of three. Click here to read part 1.

What is the problem with coaching a client in child custody evaluations?

It could be argued that there is nothing inherently wrong about coaching a client on what responses one should provide to the child custody evaluator. After all, attorneys prepare their witnesses for court appearances and hire psychologists to assist them in processes such as jury selection. So why should the standards on how to assist a client in preparing them for a child custody evaluation be different?  

As noted in my prior blog, the problem in coaching a client in a child custody evaluation is that it undermines the integrity of the process. Parties that present in a child custody evaluation come with an agenda (i.e. wanting to present themselves as the best possible parent), and the job of the forensic evaluator is to parse through this “fake good” set and attain an overall accurate assessment of the party’s parenting skills.  

When a psychologist is hired by an attorney to coach their client on how to respond to specific questions, it makes the job of the forensic evaluator (to detect underlying parenting strengths and weakness) all the more difficult, because the use of rehearsed responses complicates the tasks of separating “fact from fiction” to the detriment of the overall assessment.

With this in mind, the most commonly accepted methods of preparing a client include:

• Providing an overview procedure of the forensic evaluation so the litigant knows what to expect;
• Discussing the role of the evaluator and the kind of information that will be likely to be requested in the course of the evaluation;
• Providing general information about psychological testing, the limitations of a forensic evaluation, and how the forensic opinion might be used in the courtroom;
• Preparing a client by highlighting favorable facts or general themes that underlie the strength of his/her case and are likely to improve the efficacy of his/her presentation;
• Assist a client in developing themes about why he/she is likely to make the better custodial parent or what kind of access schedule would be acceptable; and
• Highlight concerns about the other party’s parenting.

In general, the best policy for mental health professionals is to prepare their clients for a forensic evaluation by providing general guidelines and basic information, as this allows them to prepare a client while continuing to protect the integrity of the evaluation process.

A different question is whether a hired mental health professional can assist the attorney, as opposed to the client, by answering specific questions that their clients might be asked. This is a more gray area on two grounds: (a) it is protected by work product privilege and (b) it could be argued that it does not directly involve coaching, given that the mental health professional is talking to the attorney and not the party involved in the evaluation. Some would consider such an option an acceptable practice while others would argue this to be a “slippery slope” as it is likely to impact on the integrity of the evaluation process.

Please contact me at nycforensics@gmail.com with questions or comments.

Dr. Alberto Yohananoff
NYC Forensics
dryohananoff@nycforensics.com
P: (646) 284-5600
F: (212) 706-9136

Posted in Forensic Evaluations