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...