Daniel W. Shuman

DISCLOSURE OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell

The empirical basis for the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS), a theoretical model that posits that sexually abused children frequently display secrecy, tentative disclosures, and retractions of abuse statements was reviewed. Two data sources were evaluated: retrospective studies of adults’ reports of having been abused as children and concurrent or chart-review studies of children undergoing evaluation or treatment for sexual abuse. The evidence indicates that the majority of abused children do not reveal abuse during childhood. However, the evidence fails to support the notion that denials, tentative disclosures, and recantations characterize the disclosure patterns of children with validated histories of sexual abuse. These results are discussed in terms of their implications governing the admissibility of expert testimony on CSAAS. Although it is widely acknowledged that the sexual assault of children is a major societal concern, it is not known how many children are victims of sexual abuse in the United States (Ceci & Friedman, 2000). There are two major reasons for this lack of data. First, present estimates of the incidence of child sexual abuse (CSA) are primarily based on reports received and validated by child protection agencies. These figures, however, do not reflect the number of unreported cases or the number of cases reported to other types of agencies (e.g., sheriff’s offices) and professionals (e.g., mental health diversion programs). Second, the accuracy of diagnosis of CSA is often difficult because definitive medical or physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive in the vast majority of cases (Bays & Chadwick, 1993; Berenson, Heger, & Andrews, 1991), and because there are no gold standard psychological symptoms specific to sexual abuse (Kendall-Tacket, Williams, & Finkelhor, 1993; Poole & Lindsay, 1998; J. M. Wood & Wright, 1995). Given these limitations of medical and psychological evidence, children’s statements typically represent the central evidence for judging the occurrence of

Irreconcilable Conflict Between Therapeutic and Forensic Roles

Despite being contrary to good patient care and existing clinical and forensic practice guidelines, some therapists nevertheless engage in dual clinical and forensic roles. Perhaps because an injured litigant seeking treatment is required to engage in 2 distinct roles (litigant and patient), care providers may be tempted to meet both sets of that persons needs. Through the presentation of 10 principles that underlie why combining these roles is conflicting and problematical, the authors stress the importance of avoiding such conflicts, avoiding the threat to the efficacy of therapy, avoiding the threat to the accuracy of judicial determinations, and avoiding deception when providing testimony. With increasing frequency, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are participating as forensic experts in litigation on behalf of their patients. Factors such as tightened insurance reimbursement rules, a growing market for forensic mental health professionals, and zealous patient advocacy by therapists have combined to induce many therapists, including those who once zealously avoided the judicial system, to appear, often willingly, as forensic expert witnesses on behalf of their patients. Although therapists’ concerns for their patients and for their own employment is understandable, this practice constitutes engaging in dual-role relationships and often leads to bad results for patients, courts, and clinicians. Although there are explicit ethical precepts about psychologists and psychiatrists engaging in these conflicting roles, they have not eliminated this conduct. One important factor contributing to this continued conduct is that psychologists and psychiatrists have not understood why these ethical precepts exist and how they affect the behavior of even the most competent therapists. When the reasons for the ethical precepts are understood, it is clear why no psychologist, psychiatrist, or other mental health professional is immune from the concerns that underlie them.

When worlds collide: Therapeutic and forensic roles.

The goal of the article “Irreconcilable Conflict Between Therapeutic and Forensic Roles” (S. A. Greenberg & D. W. Shuman, 1997) was to help chart a course for the profession that would raise the quality of assistance provided by psychologists both to courts and to patient–litigants, without compromising the quality of either forensic examinations or therapeutic relationships. One solution was conceptually simple: Do not attempt to fulfill both roles for the same person. Although an individual psychologist might be competent in both the provision of therapy and conduct of forensic examination, this does not justify a psychologist providing both services to the same patient–litigant. Knowledge is necessary to provide both types of service. Wisdom is necessary to choose not to provide both services to the same person.

The expert witness, the adversary system, and the voice of reason: Reconciling impartiality and advocacy

The legal system and the profession of psychology have differing expectations that cause psychologists who serve as expert witnesses to face fundamental conflicts. The rules of evidence demand that experts assist the trier of fact, the adversary system demands that experts serve the parties who retain them, and the ethical codes and guidelines demand that experts impartially assist the court, only in their area of competence. Psychological experts are left to sort out the competing demands, as well as their potential liability, while recognizing the importance of being persuasive. This article addresses the competing tensions expert witnesses face and offers an approach to reconciling these tensions that relies on competence, relevance, perspective, balance, and candor.

Evaluating mental health disability in the workplace

Evaluating mental health disability in the workplace : , Evaluating mental health disability in the workplace : , کتابخانه دیجیتال جندی شاپور اهواز

Experts in court: Reconciling law, science, and professional knowledge.

This book examines the use of expert testimony across the legal system, including the unique issues faced by mental health professionals when they are called upon to serve as expert witnesses. The book carefully reveals the evolution of laws regarding evidence admissability, the requirements established by specific court rulings for scientific and non-scientific expert testimony, and the new rules for submission of psychological expertise in court.

Spanish Translations of Miranda Warnings and the Totality of the Circumstances

Spanish-translated Miranda warnings are administered annually to thousands of Hispanic custodial suspects. In examining 121 Spanish translations and their English counterparts from 33 states, the lengths of Miranda warnings were generally comparable but marked differences were observed in the reading levels for individual Miranda components. The adequacy of Miranda translations varies markedly from minor variations to substantive errors. The most serious problems involved the entire omission of Miranda components; several omissions were observed in the Spanish translations for even the basic rights to silence and counsel. More commonly, Miranda discrepancies involved dissimilar content with a substantial trend toward more information in English than Spanish versions. Findings related to the Miranda translations, different word lengths, and varied reading levels are discussed using the totality of circumstances as its framework.

Consent, disclosure, and waiver for the forensic psychological evaluation: Rethinking the roles of psychologist and lawyer.

The duty to obtain consent from a litigant before beginning a forensic evaluation has fallen to the forensic psychologist. Guidelines, ethical standards, and commentators have made this assumed duty mandatory. Unfortunately, psychologists are not able to provide accurate and detailed legal information concerning the forensic evaluation. Only a person trained in the law would be qualified, and the litigant’s lawyer has the legal duty to properly inform the litigant about the legal parameters of the forensic evaluation. This article discusses the psychological and legal aspects of consent for forensic evaluation and proposes a model in which both the lawyer and the psychologist collaborate in a process initiated by the psychologist to inform the litigant about the evaluation.

Interstate forensic Psychology consultations: A call for reform and proposal of a Model Rule

Forensic psychology has made important gains in professional recognition and stature in the courts, resulting in increasing demands for mobility of expertise. Current regulations regarding the interjurisdictional temporary forensic practice of psychology, however, are characterized by variability of regulations, ambiguity and inaccessibility, and continuing total barriers. A uniform, well-reasoned policy is needed. A conceptual basis for such a policy is provided by a discussion of licensing rationales and the application of these to forensic practice. Uniformity, public and professional protection, and practicability are identified as fundamental regulatory criteria. A Model Rule Regarding the Temporary Forensic Practice of Psychology is proposed for adoption by state licensing boards on a nationwide basis.

The Problem with Empirical Examination of the Use of Court‐appointed Experts: A Report of Non‐findings

This study was designed to examine the use of court-appointed experts as an alternative to privately retained experts in Dallas, Texas. Surprisingly, there has been little empirical study of court-appointed experts. Our findings suggest one reason for the lack of research. We found that court-appointed experts are used so infrequently that it makes empirical study difficult to conduct. We discuss the implications on this problem for future research.