Case 1

As described in Case 1, the family is undergoing a child custody dispute. The therapist
was asked to testify for his client he has been working with for six months, also the mother of the
child, to receive the 7-year-old child custody. However, the therapist lacks experience in the
forensic and child developmental field, and he did not provide services to the child in this case.
Additionally, he did not seek opinions and information from the therapist working with the child
and the child’s father. His opinions are only based on his client, who is the mother’s child.
Despite the lack of training and information collected, he still offers his opinions to the courts
regarding the mother’s and the child’s adjustment issues.
According to the case, the therapist has violated Ethics Code, Standard 2.01 Boundaries
of competence (a), in which psychologists are restricted to providing services, teaching, and
conducting research with specific populations and areas of their competence, according to their
educational background, supervision training, and professional practices (Fisher, 2017). As in the
case, the therapist who treated the woman does not have professional training in treating children
and the 7-year-old child, whom he had offered opinions on for the custody lawsuit. As stated by
the Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation in Law Proceedings (APA, 2010), a series of
evaluations are required to assess the psychological best interests of the child, adults, and family
and the impacts of divorce on the child. In addition, psychologists also need to be competent in
assessing abuse, neglect, and domestic violence. This information is essential for the court to
consider in reaching a verdict. Nevertheless, the therapist is not competent to conduct an
assessment or evaluation with the child before providing information to the court. Hence, he has
violated Standard 2.01 (b), which requires psychologists to uphold three obligations, which
include obtaining professional and scientific knowledge with appropriate skills and familiarity
with the process of refrain and referral (Fisher, 2017).
Furthermore, according to the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA,
2013e), the information relevant to the forensic psychologist’s legal process should not be
confused with legal advice. Therefore, the psychologist should emphasize the difference between
legal information and legal advice. The latter should consult with an attorney. In this case, the
therapist failed to state the differences to the court overtly when providing his opinions. Hence,
the therapist has violated Standard 2.01 (f), which indicates that psychologists should be familiar
with the legal procedures and judicial rules, such as the differences between criminal and civil
laws, and always strive to achieve the best interests of the child in child custody disputes (Fisher,
2017). Thus, the therapist has crossed the ethical boundaries by providing legal information that
is out of his competency, which is to testify in the courts and provide opinions on the child’s
adjustment issue without treating the children and with his lack of training and experience in
working with children. Hence, the child’s adjustment issue was not supported and evidenced as
the therapist has not assessed and interviewed the child nor sought information from the child’s
father and therapist.
As such, the therapist had breached Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility when he
crossed the ethical boundaries by involving in the forensic field without competency (Fisher,
2017). As stated by Principle B, psychologists should maintain a professional identity, uphold
the moral values of the profession when providing any services, bear the responsibilities for their
actions, and resolve challenging issues by withholding integrity (Fisher, 2017). For example,
psychologists involved in the forensic or legal field should be familiarized with their obligations
and competency in providing their service, legal information, and interacting with clients.
Besides, the therapist breached Principle D: Justice when he decided to offer opinions on
behalf of his client and her child’s adjustment issue without conducting complete assessments
and evaluations with other family members such as the child and the child’s father before
providing information to the court (Fisher, 2017). Hence, he has failed to practice fairness
towards the child and the child’s father by neglecting their voice and right in custody and only
testifying for his client. Thus, his action is considered biased and places prejudice toward others,
leading to the injustice of child custody.
A few guidelines can be utilized as references to resolve this issue: Guidelines for Child
Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings, Guidelines for the Practice of Parenting
Coordination, and Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. The Guidelines for Child Custody
Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings explain the child custody evaluation in decision-making
for caretaking. In addition, these guidelines aim to increase the competency in conducting the
evaluations, including differentiating the forensic evaluations and the psychotherapy and
counselling support provided by the psychologist to children, adults, and families.
The Guidelines for the Practice of Parenting Coordination help to define the parenting
coordination interventions for divorce families. According to the studies, divorced parents tend
to develop intense negative feelings due to consistent engagement in conflicts which might cause
psychological problems and eventually interfere with their parenting style and high exposure to
domestic violence (Johnston, 2014). Hence, this guideline recommends the parenting
coordination psychologist in educating, assisting, and mediating high-conflict parents in
parenting their children in a healthy way. At the same time, the Guidelines for Forensic
Psychology focus on the psychologist who applies their professions in a law case.
The suggestion for the therapist is to reject the request of the client’s attorney to testify
for the client to receive the child’s custody. A psychologist should know the boundaries of
competency even when others request help. The therapist might need to refer the request to a
more competent and experienced psychologist. The therapist did not have the knowledge and
basic understanding of forensic psychology. Hence the presentation of information was on an
opinion basis. However, if the therapist decides to assist the client in testifying for the client’s
child custody, he should interview the child, the child’s father, and the child’s therapist to
understand the child’s conditions when separated from the mother. Furthermore, a family
dynamics assessment must be carried out to understand the parenting styles and the child’s
relationships with both parents.
Case 3
The case illustrated Mr. Austin received custody of his two sons, aged 9 and 11, from his
ex-wife, Mrs. Romero, with the help of Dr. Dale’s testification. However, Mrs. Romero was
dissatisfied with the outcome and Dr. Dale’s incomplete and unreliable evaluations. According to
Mrs. Romero, Dr. Dale only evaluated the children, Mr. Austin, and his wife and retrieved Mrs.
Romero and her current husband’s information from a secondary source. However, Dr. Dale
concludes with the incomprehensive evaluation that the child prefers to stay with their father.
Furthermore, Dr. Dale ignores the fact brought up by Mrs. Romero’s psychologist, who claimed
that Mr. Austin rarely visited the children and provided support since Mrs. Romero received
child custody from the past trial.
Additionally, Dr. Dale also ignores the medical records provided by Mrs. Romero that
proven Mr. Austin was an alcoholic, who was very likely to remain unchanged. Even though
with all the evidence, Dr. Dale persists with his biased evaluation, Mr. Austin and his wife won
child custody with restrictive visitation from Mrs. Romero. Later, Mrs. Romero received her
children’s letter detailing their father’s drinking habits and domestic violence toward his current
wife, which was why Mrs. Romero decided to divorce him. Mrs. Romero suspected that Dr. Dale
possesses bias and discrimination in her evaluation as Mrs. Romero is Anglo and her husband is
Mexican American.
Referring to the description, Dr. Dale’s negligence in evaluating Mrs. Romero and her
husband displayed his lack of forensic experience, irresponsible and bias in collecting and
providing legal information. As such, he displayed incompetence, resulting in negative
consequences for the children and Mrs. Romero. Hence, Dr. Dale has violated the ethical code
Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence, Standard 3.01 Unfair Discrimination, and Standard
3.04 Avoiding Harm (Fisher, 2017).
Firstly, Dr. Dale did not assess Mrs. Romero and her husband before providing legal
information revealing the incompetency of Dr. Dale regardless of his laziness or bias and
discrimination towards Mrs. Romero and her husband. The competency of a psychologist does
not solely rely on one’s educational level but also involves the professional integrity that the
psychologist upholds during decision-making. In addition, he ignores the medical report
provided by Mrs. Romero about Mr. Austin’s alcoholism history and did not interview and verify
with Mrs. Romero her reason for divorcing Mr. Austin. Thus, Dr. Dale has failed to perform his
role as a forensic psychologist competently in conducting an in-depth evaluation of the children
and the family before drawing conclusions and presenting the outcome to the court, which
violated Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence (Fisher, 2017).
Secondly, Dr. Dale’s decision might be biased and discriminate against certain ethnic and
racial groups. As Mrs. Romero believed that Dr. Dale’s negligence toward her statements and the
information provided was due to her ethnicity as she is Anglo, and her husband is Mexican
American. According to Standard 3.01 Unfair Discrimination, a psychologist should respect
human dignity and diversity by understanding their personality and characteristics based on
gender identity, religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, and socioeconomic status and making a fair
and professional clinical judgement as an ethical practitioner (Fisher, 2017). Hence, Dr. Dale
should be aware of his judgement and prejudices, which might lead to injustice toward Mrs.
Romero’s family.
Third, according to Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm, psychologists should take appropriate
methods to prevent possible harm to the clients or others they work with (Fisher, 2017). In this
case, Dr. Dale has caused harm and violated the legal rights of the children by ignoring and
neglecting the fact about Mr. Austin’s alcoholism and domestic violence.
 As of the case, Dr. Dale has breached Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence,
which states that psychologists seek to provide optimum and beneficial services to whom they
work and avoid any possible harm (Fisher, 2017). Dr. Dale was expected to resolve and verify
the statements made by Mrs. Romero’s psychologist on Mr. Austin’s infrequent visitation and
support to the child before making his clinical judgement. However, the clinical judgement has
placed the children in a harmful situation: domestic violence with restricted visitation from their
mother. As such, Dr. Dale did not strive for beneficence and nonmaleficence for the children.
Besides that, Dr. Dale’s decision has breached Principle D: Justice and Principle E:
Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity as his legal information and data collected are not fair
and unjust to Mrs. Romero and the children (Fisher, 2017). Referring to the case, Dr. Dale did
not provide equal opportunities for evaluation to Mrs. Romero and her husband regarding their
suitability to take over the child custody but instead retrieved their information from the second
party. Besides, Dr. Dale had failed to respect the child’s rights and dignity when he stated that
the child prefers to stay with their dad instead of their mother. This statement was made by a
nine and 11-year -old who are not developmentally ready for decision-making. Furthermore, he
failed to respect Mrs. Romero’s rights when he excluded her from the evaluation and ignored the
evidence, she had provided to him.
According to Johnston (2014), it is crucial to assess and intervene in a divorced family
with a history of domestic violence and abusive relationship. As listed, any allegation during
custody disputation will need to verify with a few different sources and details. For example,
verification with authorities and documents such as medical and police reports or protective
orders. In addition, reports from third parties, including teachers, neighbours, and witnesses, are
credible sources. Furthermore, psychologists need to verify the details of violence or abuse,
including the frequency, severity, and reason or motives. In addition, psychological tests are
helpful to assess the personality of the abuser and victim to understand their mental health status.
Furthermore, Johnston (2014) stated that obtaining information from victim and abuser
separately and inspect on the vocabulary used to ensure clarity, motives, and reason for the
incidents.
As described in the case, Mr. Austin is abusing his current wife, which has also placed
the children at risk of domestic violence. Hence, the court may need to intervene in this case to
protect the minorities. Firstly, Mr. Austin requires immediate treatment for his alcoholism issue,
which includes treatment for substance abuse, psychological diagnosis, and pharmacological
treatment. Next, the children’s residency and Mrs. Romero’s access plan must be reviewed and
changed.