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.