In the early months of my own divorce, I was really struck by the way that my attorney would counter any negative statement I made about my ex husband with an equally negative observation about me. He was always at pains to point out that not only did my ex husband do things wrong, so did I.
It all added up to a policy of advocating that in any divorce both parties are wrong.
Many family court victims have speculated that family court attorneys are in collusion. If there is one particular area that I believe attorneys are indeed in collusion, it is in promoting the concept that both are wrong. In the "both are wrong" world, there is endless opportunity to churn divorce cases and keep the money rolling.
Of course, I would never want to say that in some cases both are wrong doesn't make sense, but in legal abuse cases, what you have is an abuser who is making his or her victim miserable, and if you don't identify the problem right away, that suffering will continue on for years.
The Savino v. Savino case is a particularly striking example of this mindset, most particularly in regard to the parties' custody evaluation, which was conducted in the Fall 2011 after the filing for divorce.
I have heard all sorts of bad things about the author of this report, Dr. Sidney Horowitz, but in the scheme of things, I have to say the Savino Custody evaluation is not a bad report. What I believe Dr. Horowitz did in this report, and to his credit, is put the emphasis on objective standards of measurement rather than relying on subjective psychological theories or his own emotional responses.
In other words, you won't find Dr. Sidney Horowitz using hyperbole like calling one of his clients "a French whore" or something of that nature.
I actually found that very impressive.
On the other hand, Dr. Sidney Horowitz did fall into the fairly lazy intellectual framework of trying to prove "both are wrong" when there is every indication that in this case the mother was unmercifully attacked and denigrated.
In some ways what he did in the report was the medieval equivalent of stretching his short client's so their bodies can fit the rack, while chopping off the hands and legs of those who are too tall for it.
I believe this is the safe approach for a custody evaluator and is, therefore, understandable. It leaves the attorneys to take what they get from the report and battle it out in the courtroom while the evaluator can throw up his hands and say I have nothing to do with that.
On the other hand, that's not doing the job of identifying the problem so that you end up with concrete solutions that benefit the parents, and that are, what is most important, in the best interests of the children.
With this in mind, let us begin to look at this evaluation and see what we can get from it. The first aspect of this report that struck me was that Dr. Sidney Horowitz recommended that "this document not be released to the parties" for fear it could harm their son who was all of 2 years old and hardly capable of reading it.
You know, once you have a high conflict divorce in place and you have a written custody report in hand, the idea that you can put a lid on it and prevent it from seeing the light of day is rather a ridiculous expectation.
Family court litigants have the right to informed consent in regard to the decisions they make during a divorce. The idea that you are going to take a major piece of evidence which has approximately 90% influence on the outcome of the custody matter and prevent either of the parents from seeing that report, I consider outrageous.
But this is the problem not only with attorneys associated with family court, but also with mental health professionals who contribute expert opinions in family court cases. They seem to think that they have the right to treat parents like children who are not entitled to self determination in regard to their own lives.
The idea that the information in an evaluation might be upsetting to a party in the case so they shouldn't see it is nonsense. If you have a diagnosis of cancer, there is no point trying to tell a patient, we are giving you a full round of chemo but we are not authorized to tell you what your diagnosis is because you might get upset.
I mean, get real!
As for upsetting the children in the case, they are unlikely to see the evaluation until they are old enough and in their twenties, and by then they've probably heard in all, given the nature of high conflict divorces.
Another aspect of the report that struck me was the caveat placed at the beginning of the report that stated as follows:
"The psychological test interpretations presented herein are hypotheses and should not be considered in isolation from other information in this matter. From test results alone, it is impossible to tell if these patterns and/or deficits are directly or indirectly related to parental competencies. Therefore the reader should examine the test interpretations for general trends and put limited weight on any one specific statement. Where test results were unclear or in conflict, I used clinical judgment to select the most likely hypotheses for consideration."
Excuse me, you are using hypotheses to make crucial decisions in the lives of parents and vulnerable, defenseless children?
You are stating that it is "impossible" to know how the information you have gathered which will make or break a parent's custody case correlates to the ability to be a parent?
Would somebody please get me a match so that I can burn this report?
And shall we burn all these reports as little more than garbage if we cannot obtain exact scientific data from them?
But then again, I pause, and do want to say, it is quite admirable of Dr. Sidney Horowitz to acknowledge that truth and I give him credit for doing so. I wish there were more mental health professionals out there who were more like him.
It all added up to a policy of advocating that in any divorce both parties are wrong.
Many family court victims have speculated that family court attorneys are in collusion. If there is one particular area that I believe attorneys are indeed in collusion, it is in promoting the concept that both are wrong. In the "both are wrong" world, there is endless opportunity to churn divorce cases and keep the money rolling.
Of course, I would never want to say that in some cases both are wrong doesn't make sense, but in legal abuse cases, what you have is an abuser who is making his or her victim miserable, and if you don't identify the problem right away, that suffering will continue on for years.
The Savino v. Savino case is a particularly striking example of this mindset, most particularly in regard to the parties' custody evaluation, which was conducted in the Fall 2011 after the filing for divorce.
I have heard all sorts of bad things about the author of this report, Dr. Sidney Horowitz, but in the scheme of things, I have to say the Savino Custody evaluation is not a bad report. What I believe Dr. Horowitz did in this report, and to his credit, is put the emphasis on objective standards of measurement rather than relying on subjective psychological theories or his own emotional responses.
In other words, you won't find Dr. Sidney Horowitz using hyperbole like calling one of his clients "a French whore" or something of that nature.
I actually found that very impressive.
On the other hand, Dr. Sidney Horowitz did fall into the fairly lazy intellectual framework of trying to prove "both are wrong" when there is every indication that in this case the mother was unmercifully attacked and denigrated.
In some ways what he did in the report was the medieval equivalent of stretching his short client's so their bodies can fit the rack, while chopping off the hands and legs of those who are too tall for it.
I believe this is the safe approach for a custody evaluator and is, therefore, understandable. It leaves the attorneys to take what they get from the report and battle it out in the courtroom while the evaluator can throw up his hands and say I have nothing to do with that.
On the other hand, that's not doing the job of identifying the problem so that you end up with concrete solutions that benefit the parents, and that are, what is most important, in the best interests of the children.
With this in mind, let us begin to look at this evaluation and see what we can get from it. The first aspect of this report that struck me was that Dr. Sidney Horowitz recommended that "this document not be released to the parties" for fear it could harm their son who was all of 2 years old and hardly capable of reading it.
You know, once you have a high conflict divorce in place and you have a written custody report in hand, the idea that you can put a lid on it and prevent it from seeing the light of day is rather a ridiculous expectation.
Family court litigants have the right to informed consent in regard to the decisions they make during a divorce. The idea that you are going to take a major piece of evidence which has approximately 90% influence on the outcome of the custody matter and prevent either of the parents from seeing that report, I consider outrageous.
But this is the problem not only with attorneys associated with family court, but also with mental health professionals who contribute expert opinions in family court cases. They seem to think that they have the right to treat parents like children who are not entitled to self determination in regard to their own lives.
The idea that the information in an evaluation might be upsetting to a party in the case so they shouldn't see it is nonsense. If you have a diagnosis of cancer, there is no point trying to tell a patient, we are giving you a full round of chemo but we are not authorized to tell you what your diagnosis is because you might get upset.
I mean, get real!
As for upsetting the children in the case, they are unlikely to see the evaluation until they are old enough and in their twenties, and by then they've probably heard in all, given the nature of high conflict divorces.
Another aspect of the report that struck me was the caveat placed at the beginning of the report that stated as follows:
"The psychological test interpretations presented herein are hypotheses and should not be considered in isolation from other information in this matter. From test results alone, it is impossible to tell if these patterns and/or deficits are directly or indirectly related to parental competencies. Therefore the reader should examine the test interpretations for general trends and put limited weight on any one specific statement. Where test results were unclear or in conflict, I used clinical judgment to select the most likely hypotheses for consideration."
Excuse me, you are using hypotheses to make crucial decisions in the lives of parents and vulnerable, defenseless children?
You are stating that it is "impossible" to know how the information you have gathered which will make or break a parent's custody case correlates to the ability to be a parent?
Would somebody please get me a match so that I can burn this report?
And shall we burn all these reports as little more than garbage if we cannot obtain exact scientific data from them?
But then again, I pause, and do want to say, it is quite admirable of Dr. Sidney Horowitz to acknowledge that truth and I give him credit for doing so. I wish there were more mental health professionals out there who were more like him.
To be continued...
The guy who writes the report recommends that the parents not be allowed to see it?! Are you kidding me? This is nuts. How are parents supposed to evaluate evidence they are not permitted to see? Or maybe that's the point -- the divorce industry will just resolve your divorce without even telling you why. The parents have been reduced to mere bill payers. I am guessing that family court in Connecticut is corrupt that some judges will go along with such requests, even though they are blatantly unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteYes, recommendations of this kind are quite standard in family court and I hear this from family court litigants frequently. In regard to the Savino report the idea that a 2 year old child would be negatively affected by the report is nonsense. In addition, what is quite noticeable about Dr. Horowitz report is that it is not what I would consider a malicious report. He may agree or disagree with Colleen or Kenneth, but he does not go barreling out all guns to destroy one or the other, and good for him. There is no need to. Also, Dr. Horowitz doesn't make any observations regarding the child that might be potentially traumatizing at a later date. In fact, I think that is great in contrast to my own custody evaluation where the evaluator made some absolutely harmful comments about my children. I would be appalled if my kids ever got a hold of my custody evaluation and I have taken concrete steps to prevent them from ever seeing it. So I have to wonder why Dr. Horowitz would try to use the child as an excuse for not allowing the parents to see the report. My attitude would be very different if an observation regarding a child were true. I see no reason why anyone would have concerns about a true observation--whatever it is you have to deal with it at some point, so no point in beating around the bush. If a child has an issue and it is a true one, the child will be dealing with it himself or herself sooner or later.
DeleteThis article shows the uselessness of custody evaluations in the real world. No honest psychologist would believe that permanent child custody determinations can be based on personality tests and watching a parent play with kids a couple of times in a mental health professional's office. However, dishonest psychologists will gleefully take the work given how profitable it is. The disclaimers in the contracts and reports themselves are telling. As is the general view that custody evaluations are only valid for 6-12 months and thereafter have to be repeated. What is the point in getting a custody evaluation to make permanent decisions about a family if the law itself admits that such evals are only valid for six months? The real point of the evals is to provide CYA to judges who often have to make difficult decisions with incomplete information. The problem, however, is that the judges and the evaluators themselves have started to believe in the evaluations, when there is no empirical basis for doing so. While their is no real evidence that evals are accurate or useful to the family, they are profitable to the divorce industry and provide CYA to judges (who do not bear the cost of the evals and do not care about the disruption to the kids' lives). And that is why they exist.
ReplyDeleteI actually checked the issue of timeliness with a psychologist. In reality, an evaluation is only relevant on the day it is done. You could obtain entirely different results on the following day -- people are that changeable in terms to their states of mind and their ability to respond to questions. A father or mother could have been really nervous about the test, maybe their blood pressure was low, perhaps one or the other didn't get a good nights sleep, perhaps one parents is very responsive to appetite issues and forgot it eat lunch. Anything could affect the results, seriously. So the validity of these tests is very questionable and pretty much everyone knows it. Plus, the question is, do the tests really address the issue of parenting itself--are there any tests that, for instance, place the parent in the position of responding to a what if question in regard to their children and what they would do in certain circumstances. Do any questions in the evaluation itself address parenting philosophy, for instance. I have a philosophy that I will not use corporeal punishment under any circumstances--how does that impact parenting style. So it is, and I believe you are correct, a serious question regarding whether these custody evaluations have any relevance whatsoever in regard to measuring parenting capabilities. What I find even more concerning is that the court and attorneys simply try to bypass these serious questions of relevance and accuracy by stating that psychiatrists and psychologists are professionals and so their actions and determinations must be accepted as is or else you are somehow disrespectful of authority and demonstrating poor character. Somehow those qualities of intelligence and critical thinking that educators purport to value so much, as soon as you step into a courtroom you are expected to relinquish under threat of being disrespectful of authority. This is absolutely wrong, and what is wrong is that a system that purports to uphold justice in our society would essentially use primitive concepts of "Do as you are told." in order to enforce compliance with what they know to be baseless policies, procedures, and psychological gobbledygood in order to justify whose ends up with primary custody of the kids.
DeleteI'm just shocked that Horowitz actually produced a written report. Several lawyers and mental health professionals I spoke to described his approach (and that of his office, which I understand includes Dr. Howard Krieger), as follows: get a friendly judge to assign them to a matter, get a big retainer, conduct the evaluation until the retainer is exhausted, come up with a series of excuses as to why the report isn't complete, drag the thing out until the family's situation resolves itself or the parents just give up out of frustration, call for a "feedback session" at which all of the parents and professionals (who gleefully bill for attending) are required to show up (because, of course, issuing the report could be "bad for kids" who might see it -- but why didn't you use that as a reason for not taking the assignment, and then weasel out of writing the report. Of course, they still get paid for writing the report. And they make sure all of the other people they do business with -- the lawyers, therapists, GALs, AMCs -- all get paid too. And, if they have to write a report, they make sure it is so hedged and wishy-washy as to be useless, and it will recommend the continued involvement of lots of other billing professionals in the family's life in perpetuity.
ReplyDeleteI contact him and This was even faster than I could dream of. Thank you for taking time to listen to me and answering all my emails Dr.Agbazara. I feel emotional strong again. My confidence is back and I see my future clearly. I am forever grateful for your help in re-uniting me with my old lover who divorce left me years ago for another woman.you will see for your self what am saying when you contact this great spell caster called Dr.Agbazara on: (agbazara@gmail.com) or call him on (+2348104102662) and get your problems solved.
ReplyDelete