Continuing on from Part II of the task force meeting on December 12, 2013, Judge Thomas Weissmuller said the importance is to minimize the fear component and to facilitate cooperation between parents in finalizing a divorce. You shouldn't be hearing about a fear of violence 180 days into the process.
Dr. Stephen Humphrey said the it is presumed that parents come in with a desire to be with their children and a wish to have a normative relationship with their children. It is a good idea to allay parent's fears with some mechanism. It is child centered to avoid 50/50 shared time.
Attorney Sue Cousineau said that she supports the approximation rule and does not think it is good to default to what was happening before the divorce. Dr. Humphrey agreed that this is a good rule. He stated there is an 80 page study to support this position with 40 pages of references.
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez spoke about the importance of fathers in the lives of children. Dr. Stephen Humphrey said there are similar issues with children who are denied access to the mother. However, studies mostly deal with fathers because there has always been an presumption that mothers would be involved.
Attorney Sue Cousineau said both should be involved if both are authoritative. [Of course, I would like to know what that means and what if there are degrees of being authoritative. Are there times when being too authoritative could be a problem?]
Ms. Jennifer Veraneault asked about the sixteen factors that CT uses in custody cases. Attorney Sharon Dornfeld stated that not all sixteen factors are used in custody cases, in the same way that psychological evaluations aren't used in all cases. Attorney Sue Cousineau stated that the statute makes it clear that it leaves it up to the judge to determine what weight should apply to each of the sixteen factors. Attorney Cousineau also claimed that her hands are tied regarding what kind of evidence she can present at trial.
Dr. Elizabeth Thayer spoke up to say that the American Psychological Association lists the criteria for psychological evaluations and custody evaluations. Dr. Stephen Humphrey also stated that he is bound by the guidelines for custody evaluations as established by the American Psychological Association. [Of course, from my experience, I confronted a psychologist regarding the fact that he was not acting according to the ethical guidelines of his profession and he pretty much stated he couldn't care less and the Department of Public Health is notorious for not bothering to enforce the ethical standards required of mental health professionals. So the fact that Dr. Thayer and Dr. Humphrey bring up ethical standards for custody evaluations is pretty much meaningless.]
Ms. Jennifer Veraneault asked how do you tell the parents that the psychological evaluation will be conducted?
Dr. Stephen Humphrey responded that he leaves it up to the Court on how information is disseminated to pro se parents. He might recommend that one parent not get a copy of a custody evaluation because of the threat to the children. He says that the parties will take away different interpretations of the psychological evaluation from their own perspectives. [Yes, I get that, because most psychological evaluations are written like astrology predictions--they are so broad and vague you could fit anyone's life circumstances into them!]
Attorney Sue Cousineau and Attorney Sharon Dornfeld argued for making psychological evaluations sealed and limited from other people in the same way that financials are. Judge Weissmuller stated that it is up to the judge. They must have a sealing motion. [I certainly had a sealing motion in my case, and I believe there are Connecticut Practice Book Rules about how this is done. The Court has to fill out special paperwork. However, others have reported that they never had a sealing motion and there was simply a gag order placed on the psychological evaluation.]
Attorney Linda Allard asked Dr. Stephen Humphrey about some of the extreme custody situations he has dealt with.
Dr. Humphrey stated there was one with a very young child who was prompted to lie about sexual abuse. He recommended custody go to the other parent and asked for supervised visitation for the offending parent.
With a much older child, the parent adopted the belief that the other parent was bad despite no proof that this was the case. The residential parent then engaged in gatekeeping. The judge ordered a 50/50 parenting plan, but it did not resolve the problem. Dr. Humphrey said he hoped the situation would be resolved when the child is an adult.
There was a CPS case where both parents were engaging in unhealthy practices towards the child and the child was removed from both parents.
But again, he deals with around 75 cases per year and only around 3 of these involved severe gatekeeping.
[I have to say, if you have a residential parent with strong resistance towards the other parent, why is changing custody to the other parent or increasing access an appropriate solution? Personally, I don't get that. Shouldn't the focus first be on addressing why the parent is acting that way? Isn't increasing access in the face of one parent's strong objections another way of sticking it to that parent or rubbing the parents nose in the fact that his or her concerns are not being given careful consideration? I don't find that a sensible solution to the problem of gatekeeping. Ultimately, what is necessary is cooperation between the parents, and that can only happen when you address parent's worries and take them seriously.]
No comments:
Post a Comment