Bruce E. Mapes, PhD Child Custody Evaluation: "The good, BAD and the ugly" West Chester Pennsylvania

Hey GM,

Sounds like the DA is working on your behalf. I sure hope that someone calles Dr. Mapes to the stand. He'll find a way to wiggle out if he's called because he must know that some very hard questions are on the way.

You may want to visit chestercountyrants as you'll find added information that is useful. Keep us informed about what happens in thiscourt case.

Stay well. Moe

Mapes spent one hour each mother/child, and father/child, during the evaluation. There was no "observation" period in which he watched us do anything but be interviewed by him. He documented my child's demeanor during both sessions, and this is what was included in the evaluation as interaction.

Emotionally Demonstrative, that is what these professionals call her father's outbursts, I call it abuse, "court ordered child abuse" if you ask me.

He'll stand trial for Indirect Criminal Contempt next week , and hopefully the DA will have the power to make the PFA order super cede the custody order. I see no reason to keep placing a victim with her perpetrator 3 times a week.

Mapes needs to be stopped.
GM

Hello GM,

I can not comment on the issues related to the PFA and the manner in which the District Attorney or other official agencies opts to get involved. If what you experienced is considered to be "child abuse" then it should be reported as such. I realize that you might have some reservations about making a report, however, safety for your child should be a primary concern. If you have an attorney working on your behalf, you need discuss this matter whith him/her.

I want to follow-up on a comment that you made. You indicated that Dr. Mapes' based his recommendation on the fact that your former spouse was "emotionally demonstrative". I wonder if Dr. Mapes would consider the sort of behavior presented in your last post as "emotionally demonstrative"?

In the vast knowledge base of child custody evaluations all report the use of an "observational period" in which the parent is observed interacting with his/her child around a task (playing cards, drawing, teaching a new task). Presumably the gives the evaluator a way to "evaluate" the quality of parent/child interact. In the absence of such an evaluative opportunity, the psychologist can only offer an unsupported statement about he "thinks" the child and parent interact.

GM, did Dr. Mapes include an "observational period" in which he directly observed how you and your former spouse interacting with your daughter? Even sociopaths can be "emotionally demonstrative" and whats more because of their manipulative qualities can even be very convincing. Clearly an "observational period" of interaction would provide an opportunity to verify if he were able to sustain this "emotionally demonstrative" pattern.

In my situation, Dr Mapes DID NOT not include as part of my child custody evaluation this "observational period". He has no clue how I or their mother interact with our children because there was no opportunity for hime to make any observations. The parent/child meeting between Dr. Mapes, included both children in an interview format and lasted less than 10 mins. In other word, he never had any direct or indirect opportunity to observe my interaction with my children. According to my oldest the same occured during her parent/child with her mother.

Whats more, he dismissed the children to the waiting room and privately expressed to me his concern about my youngest. He stated in this private (less than 5 mins) meeting that he was going to recommend to the Court that my youngest "receive a good psychological evaluation" to address his concerns. Funny thing is that this recommendation was not included in his final report. What happened Dr. Mapes?

I have my thoughts about why he FAILED TO INCLUDE THIS RECOMMENDATION IN HIS FINAL REPORT. Here is my thought: Because it would expose the "poor job" he did in gathering the facts, it would report facts that he did not report and perhaps question the integrity of his overall report and the recommendations he made. We can't have that.

Stay well---MOE

Moe,

I have one child.

After our divorce, my ex had a 17 yo daughter appear from nowhere. He claims to have never known about her. The truth is( from two different people, including the mother)...when he found out about his girlfriend being pregnant he busted her jaw and threatened her not to come after him for support.

Mapes: Tell me about your other child.

Me: Excuse me? I only have one child. (thinking to ,myself, he had plenty of time to review the packet I had to fill out)

Mapes: What about A****?

Me: That is his(ex's) other daughter. I had nothing to do with it, she was born 5 years before we met, and came into his life a month after our divorce was final. It was a surprise to me, but he had known about her and never mentioned her to me during the 12+ years we were together. He told me he was embarrassed of her because she was bi-racial (he used different language in reference to his own daughter).


So, Moe and everyone reading this, I am dealing with a man who is "not all there". And coupled with the fact that these "professionals" are allowing him to manipulate them, placing my daughter at risk is making me very upset.

Just last night, and during a supervised visit my ex grabbed our daughter by both upper arms , picked her up, and tried to force her into the house. Her arms are bruised. I called the DA (and left a message), but as you know it's a custody matter, and apparently violent abusers are allowed to abuse their children in Chester County. She is a protected party on a PFA which is a piece of paper that does not protect her in this situation.

I am up for the fight, and we have to do something. And anyone out there who thinks they can help us, please do.
GM

Moe,

I have one child.

After our divorce, my ex had a 17 yo daughter appear from nowhere. He claims to have never known about her. The truth is( from two different people, including the mother)...when he found out about his girlfriend being pregnant he busted her jaw and threatened her not to come after him for support.

Mapes: Tell me about your other child.

Me: Excuse me? I only have one child. (thinking to ,myself, he had plenty of time to review the packet I had to fill out)

Mapes: What about A****?

Me: That is his(ex's) other daughter. I had nothing to do with it, she was born 5 years before we met, and came into his life a month after our divorce was final. It was a surprise to me, but he had known about her and never mentioned her to me during the 12+ years we were together. He told me he was embarrassed of her because she was bi-racial (he used different language in reference to his own daughter).


So, Moe and everyone reading this, I am dealing with a man who is "not all there". And coupled with the fact that these "professionals" are allowing him to manipulate them, placing my daughter at risk is making me very upset.

Just last night, and during a supervised visit my ex grabbed our daughter by both upper arms , picked her up, and tried to force her into the house. Her arms are bruised. I called the DA (and left a message), but as you know it's a custody matter, and apparently violent abusers are allowed to abuse their children in Chester County. She is a protected party on a PFA which is a piece of paper that does not protect her in this situation.

I am up for the fight, and we have to do something. And anyone out there who thinks they can help us, please do.
GM

Moe,

I have one child.

After our divorce, my ex had a 17 yo daughter appear from nowhere. He claims to have never known about her. The truth is( from two different people, including the mother)...when he found out about his girlfriend being pregnant he busted her jaw and threatened her not to come after him for support.

Mapes: Tell me about your other child.

Me: Excuse me? I only have one child. (thinking to ,myself, he had plenty of time to review the packet I had to fill out)

Mapes: What about A****?

Me: That is his(ex's) other daughter. I had nothing to do with it, she was born 5 years before we met, and came into his life a month after our divorce was final. It was a surprise to me, but he had known about her and never mentioned her to me during the 12+ years we were together. He told me he was embarrassed of her because she was bi-racial (he used different language in reference to his own daughter).


So, Moe and everyone reading this, I am dealing with a man who is "not all there". And coupled with the fact that these "professionals" are allowing him to manipulate them, placing my daughter at risk is making me very upset.

Just last night, and during a supervised visit my ex grabbed our daughter by both upper arms , picked her up, and tried to force her into the house. Her arms are bruised. I called the DA (and left a message), but as you know it's a custody matter, and apparently violent abusers are allowed to abuse their children in Chester County. She is a protected party on a PFA which is a piece of paper that does not protect her in this situation.

I am up for the fight, and we have to do something. And anyone out there who thinks they can help us, please do.
GM

Moe,

I have one child.

After our divorce, my ex had a 17 yo daughter appear from nowhere. He claims to have never known about her. The truth is( from two different people, including the mother)...when he found out about his girlfriend being pregnant he busted her jaw and threatened her not to come after him for support.

Mapes: Tell me about your other child.

Me: Excuse me? I only have one child. (thinking to ,myself, he had plenty of time to review the packet I had to fill out)

Mapes: What about A****?

Me: That is his(ex's) other daughter. I had nothing to do with it, she was born 5 years before we met, and came into his life a month after our divorce was final. It was a surprise to me, but he had known about her and never mentioned her to me during the 12+ years we were together. He told me he was embarrassed of her because she was bi-racial (he used different language in reference to his own daughter).


So, Moe and everyone reading this, I am dealing with a man who is "not all there". And coupled with the fact that these "professionals" are allowing him to manipulate them, placing my daughter at risk is making me very upset.

Just last night, and during a supervised visit my ex grabbed our daughter by both upper arms , picked her up, and tried to force her into the house. Her arms are bruised. I called the DA (and left a message), but as you know it's a custody matter, and apparently violent abusers are allowed to abuse their children in Chester County. She is a protected party on a PFA which is a piece of paper that does not protect her in this situation.

I am up for the fight, and we have to do something. And anyone out there who thinks they can help us, please do.
GM

Hello GM,

One of the hallmarks of our judicial system is that the TRUTH must be told by the person giving wittness whether ON THE STAND or in a REPORT filed by an expert. The result of a witness (fact or expert witness) not telling the TRUTH can be devastating to the children, parents and families - Lives can be lost, futures disappear, relationships destroyed, potential for greatness up in smoke, and psychological/mental health ruined.

GM, should it weigh heavy on the mind and soul of any person who offer testimony that is NOT the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH? Does it matter if it's a little white lie or a real whopper? Are there gradations of the truth? Shades of gray may look nice as a paint color; however, when it's about telling the TRUTH it should be all about the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH.

In our system of justice, we ask witnesses to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. On the wall of the old Chester County Court House stand a bronze placque of the 10 Commandments. Many fought to keep the 10 Commandments Plaque on the outside wall of the Chester County Court house.

Many believe that having the 10 Commandments displayed on the Court House wall is a symbol of law. It's a symbol of order in our society.

Justifications, like he made a mistake, he misspoke or he didn't mean any harm; he really meant to say offered by elected or appointed officials should cause pause to any citizen of Chester County, PA. That's what many say about Dr. Mapes' reporting in my case.

GM, lets say if statement were written in a report that was not the TRUTH and say the author knew it was not the TRUTH, but place in the report anyway. Let's also say the misinformation was corrected with the TRUTH during the course of the interview but he went ahead an punt an UNTURTH in the report because lets say the misinformation made one party in the evaluation look better than he/she actually was. Would this be acceptable?

Dr. MAPES: Now, you are currently employed by the FIRCK-FRACK Group

Note: (The FRICK-FRACK Group is a temporary employment agency that places professionals in temporary employment situations. The FRICK-FRACK was the group that employed my former spouse at the time of the child custody evaluation and where she remained so for the following year).

REPLY: Not me.

Dr. MAPES: I'm sorry. Sorry about that. I mean the STABLE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION

DR. MAPES REPORTS READS: MayLou works for the SYNCMASTER Pharmaceutical Company.

Dr. Mapes what happened to the FRICK-FRACK Group? They are the one that pay her, issue her a W2 form and provide her with benefits. She works for the FRICK-FRACK Group.

Did he make a mistake in his report Did he mean to cause harm? Did he mean to write something else? THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND Dr. Mapes ACCURACY COUNTS. I have written Dr. Mapes about the inaccuracies of fact in his report. His reply is that he will not respond to my requests to correct the report.

GM, what he is saying is that any misinformation contained in an official report, or any misinformation used to reach his expert opinion (even if he is aware that what he is reporting in not correct, HE WILL NOT CHANGE IT.

So much for the THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR part of the 10 Commandments Plaque that so many fought to keep on the outside wall of the Chester County Court house.

Stay well, MOE

Dear GM,

Dr. Mapes testified that he has done 700 to 800 child custody evaluation. No telling how many other types of evaluations he has completed for judicial purposes, viz., termination of parental rights, assignment of some form of criminal status, etc. Should we be concerned, should the court be concerned about the continued use of the professional you bet we should. Are his practices isolated to just 1 or 2 cases probably not. More wide spread probably.

Will the Court system take any action to remove or prosecute him probably not. The reason is stated in the open line of is post 700 hundred to 800 evaluations and an unknown number of criminal cases would have to be reviewed, examined and perhaps given another chance to be heard. Should the impact on the Court system or County government be a good enough reason to let the status quo continue? I think not.

I am not a RISK MANAGER but someone on the County agency side should be looking at the potential exposure with the continued use of this professional. The case involving terminate parental rights as noted above SHOULD HAVE been a wake up call - especially if he was being paid by the tax payers at the time.

It is my opinion that a special investigator should be appointed.

GM,

Are you suggesting that Dr. Mapes ignored important information (Evidence), downplayed its importance or simply dismissed it because he din't see it as relavant? If that is the case it sound "sounds like" he "might have" been the judge and jury of relavance. If his purpose was as an "expert" and render an "expert opinion" then it would seem that EVERYTHING that was dscussed during the "evaluation" "would be" relavent. The standards (although recently changed 2/09) speak to this issue.

I am a little confused about the time line of the evaluation and Dr. apes seeing your daughter for therapy (panic attack). A rather big issues in psychology today is that of a "dual relationship". Many would suggest that a dual relationship is created by simply selling a therapy client a text book (it has to do with issues of power). The key word here is "power". Would the client feel "compelled", "forced" or "obligated" to purchase the book from the psychologist. Its all explained on the APA and PA Psych Association web site.

Dr. Mapes has provided inservice training to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas (Judges) in the past. I have a copy of his handouts from a few years ago. The content cited in the handouts was significantly dated. Surely the handout has been updated since then.

It would be worthwhile as a first step to offer Dr. Mapes opportunity to correct his report/s to reflect that facts that were discussed. His opinion as an expert is his opinion, but should be based on the facts. According to the guidelines above, he has an obligation to correct the inaccurate factual information. In my case this request was made and he responded that he would not be responding.

There a maxim that says that the "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" however, there is also another maxim that says "if the parts are not true, then the sum cannot be true".

Looking forward. MOE

Hey GM, I have plenty of evidence that I am willing to share. I can share with you some of the responses that I have already received from public officials. I think we should join forces and try to find others who have similar experiences with Dr. Mapes.

I'm hoping that others parents in Chester County, PA who have some verifiable information will step forward. Stay well, Moe

Moe, I had asked the "powers that be" to forward my personal email to you so that we may figure out what to do next. I am all about making things right and will do what I can to make certain that Mapes does not fail the children of Chester County any longer.

I will urge the courts to stop using him in custody evaluations, until there is a complete investigation into his methods, techniques, and motivation.

Is your case still active ?

I am thinking about reporting the Judge who said that after my ex beat me in front of my daughter( admitted by guilty plea), sexually assaulted me (allegedly)also in front of her, Tried to abduct my daughter against her will. and violated a "no contact order";;;; The same Judge that gave him a $10 fine for punching me in the face brought me back into his chambers and told me that I should put him on a pedestal to my daughter.

I am also thinking about reporting the Master conciliator too. He over stepped his Judicial bounds by going against medical advice when my daughter became suicidal I provided him with two doctor's notes stating after this last panic attack that she needed to see a Psychiatrist.He ordered her NOT to be able to have a Psychiatric evaluation because she was already seen by Dr. Mapes who is a PHD not and MD...This was the second time her father denied her mental health treatment, I have notes to prove that as well.

I believe that a call for a Psychiatric evaluation was out of the scope of Dr mapes recommendation because he was not allowed to enlist any outside professionals according to the outline provided to him by the court.

Mapes was supplied with most of this information, however, he does not see that many of the actions of my ex are done out of control. He is still abusing us through the court system and Mapes did not pick up on it.

Like I said "allegedly", Mapes cannot recognize a sociopath when he's sitting right in front of him.


GM

GM,

In my case, Dr. Mapes responded to an ATTORNEY SENT SUBPOENA and correspondence marked personal and confidential and in so doing released the name of a confidential health care provider which up to this point was unknown to anyone but me and the provider. The records were sent to him directly from the provider with the strict warning that the records and their contents were not to be released without MY written consent.

Long story short all of my personal and confidential correspondence, including the name of that confidential health care provider now sits in an unprotected (read that anyone can access) court file. It's all now a matter of public record so I'm not saying anything that is privileged, protected or under court seal. Three points of interest emerge out of Dr. Mapes direct testimony (while under oath):

1) He lacked a signed and acceptable informed consent on the date that he made the release.

2) That he responded to a subpoena issued to him by an attorney and that he released personal and confidential correspondence, including the name of that confidential health care provider to the attorney. This information is now a part of a public record.

3) That the child custody evaluation DID NOT BEGIN until he received back the informed consent form. I think he left the impression that his informed consent form was an APA approved form. Here is what he told the Judge:

THE COURT: What do you mean start the Evaluation?

Dr. MAPES: I actually have the --- packet out. No, actually have face to face.

NO authorization or informed consent was signed by me or my attorney prior to the release and NO assurances were given to me or my attorney about how he intended to protect my information.

Here is my opionion about what happened, other are free to make their own determination:

1) Mapes released information about a potential receipant of his service client to a public source
2) He lacked the proper authorization to make this release; and
3) He made this release prior to the start of his Court appointed services. He clearly informed the Court when his service was to start).

GM, I recognize that these matters are complicated and often time we have to rely on professional materials to help with our understanding. I found an interesting article that has special relevance to my situation and wanted to share it with you. Its written by a very well respected source The PA Psychological Association of which Dr. Mapes is a member and serves as a board member. The article is entitled Forensic Psychology for Non-Forensic Psychologists: Issues and Pitfalls. It gives some wonderful insight into what I present above.

Subpoenas
There are a number of fairly common pitfalls that trip up psychologists. Responding to subpoenas is a common question. A subpoena looks very official with fancy print and a fancy seal on it. It will demand that you produce your records under penalty of being in contempt of court. The wording may vary from one jurisdiction to another, but the effect is the same; it looks very official and intimidating. HOWEVER, A SUBPOENA DOES NOT EXEMPT US FROM THE NEED TO HAVE PROPER CONSENT FROM OUR CLIENTS TO RELEASE THOSE RECORDS. WE MUST RESPOND TO A SUBPOENA, BUT THE RESPONSE DOES NOT MEAN SENDING RECORDS WITHOUT A RELEASE. If the patient does not consent to the release of records, one can inform the attorney who issued the subpoena (and a copy to the opposing attorney if there is one) that under the laws governing the practice of psychology in Pennsylvania you are not permitted to release the records without the consent of the client. Some attorneys will argue that the subpoena is a Court Order and we must comply. But there is a difference between a subpoena and a direct order from a judge. If there is a direct order from a judge to release records without patient consent then we must comply with that order or risk being in contempt of court. Any lawyer can obtain a subpoena by going to the prothonotary's office and taking a subpoena from the stack. But a direct order from a judge is issued from the judge's office and signed by the judge. (p.6) The Pennsylvania Psychologist Update July/August 2008

Stay well GM. Hope to hear from you soon

GM, you might get a kick out of this post in light of the thread of discussion.

This is the a description of a workshop held related to ETHICAL AND MALPRACTICE issues at the 12th Annual Forensic Rights
and Treatment Conference from WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2004.

"W07 and W17
Ethical and Malpractice Issues in Corrections Assessments
Bruce Mapes, PhD
With the growing attention being given to mental health
disorders among inmates and parolees, there is a corresponding
increase in demands for appropriate mental health and
risk assessments. This workshop will provide the participants
with an understanding of the relevant ethical and malpractice
issues which are inherent in these assessments, as well as the
limits of liability and immunity. Guidelines for conducting
ethical evaluations while minimizing exposure to liability will
be presented."

Guess he should have sat in on his own workshop cause it would seem his backside is exposed in a major way. OOPS.... Stay well, GM

GM, you might get a kick out of this post in light of the thread of discussion.

This is the a description of a workshop held related to ETHICAL AND MALPRACTICE issues at the 12th Annual Forensic Rights
and Treatment Conference from WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2004.

"W07 and W17
Ethical and Malpractice Issues in Corrections Assessments
Bruce Mapes, PhD
With the growing attention being given to mental health
disorders among inmates and parolees, there is a corresponding
increase in demands for appropriate mental health and
risk assessments. This workshop will provide the participants
with an understanding of the relevant ethical and malpractice
issues which are inherent in these assessments, as well as the
limits of liability and immunity. Guidelines for conducting
ethical evaluations while minimizing exposure to liability will
be presented."

Guess he should have sat in on his own workshop cause it would seem his backside is exposed in a major way. OOPS.... Stay well, GM

GM, you might get a kick out of this post in light of the thread of discussion.

This is the a description of a workshop held related to ETHICAL AND MALPRACTICE issues at the 12th Annual Forensic Rights
and Treatment Conference from WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2004.

"W07 and W17
Ethical and Malpractice Issues in Corrections Assessments
Bruce Mapes, PhD
With the growing attention being given to mental health
disorders among inmates and parolees, there is a corresponding
increase in demands for appropriate mental health and
risk assessments. This workshop will provide the participants
with an understanding of the relevant ethical and malpractice
issues which are inherent in these assessments, as well as the
limits of liability and immunity. Guidelines for conducting
ethical evaluations while minimizing exposure to liability will
be presented."

Guess he should have sat in on his own workshop cause it would seem his backside is exposed in a major way. OOPS.... Stay well, GM

Hi GM, below are some written statements I received from Dr. Mapes that blew me away especially in light of our current discussion on the MMPI-2:

May: "Please understand that any "guidelines" are suggestions for professional conduct but they are not standards, regulations, nor rules written in stone and they are subject to variations depending on the type of service and the context of service"

GM, that is simply not a true statement arrcording to the Pennsylvania Practice Act for Psychologists. It is written in black and white that the professional must practice within the code of ethics of the profession. This would include standards, guidelines and, the like.

When I pointed this following APA guidelines and standards was not optional he changes his tune:

August: "Let me assure you your, the the maximum extent possible, I adhere to the Pennsylvania 'Practice Act' for Psychologists, the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association, the APA Guidelines for child custody evaluations, as well as relevant case law and (legal) procedual issues." the Dr. Mapes made in a letter to me here is the sort of uninformed statemt

But here is the troubling part GM, even though he acknowleges that he follows all of this, it does not come through in practice or in his written report. He mentions the "Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings" so it might be important to look at these non-optional (read that required), written in stone guidelines. They are attached below.

GM stay well,

Moe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
Decisions regarding child custody and other parenting arrangements occur within several different legal contexts, including parental divorce, guardianship, neglect or abuse proceedings, and termination of parental rights. The following guidelines were developed for psychologists conducting child custody evaluation, specifically within the context of parental divorce. These guidelines build upon the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct ( APA, 1992 ) and are aspirational in intent. As guidelines, they are not intended to be either mandatory or exhaustive. The goal of the guidelines is to promote proficiency in using psychological expertise in conducting child custody evaluations.

Parental divorce requires a restructuring of parental rights and responsibilities in relation to children. If the parents can agree to a restructuring arrangement, which they do in the overwhelming proportion (90%) of divorce custody cases ( Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1987 ), there is no dispute for the court to decide. However, if the parents are unable to reach such an agreement, the court must help to determine the relative allocation of decision making authority and physical contact each parent will have with the child. The courts typically apply a "best interest of the child" standard in determining this restructuring of rights and responsibilities.

Psychologists provide an important service to children and the courts by providing competent, objective, impartial information in assessing the best interests of the child; by demonstrating a clear sense of direction and purpose in conducting a child custody evaluation; by performing their roles ethically; and by clarifying to all involved the nature and scope of the evaluation. The Ethics Committee of the American Psychological Association has noted that psychologists' involvement in custody disputes has at times raised questions in regard to the misuse of psychologists' influence, sometimes resulting in complaints against psychologists being brought to the attention of the APA Ethics Committee ( APA Ethics Committee, 1985 ; Hall & Hare-Mustin, 1983 ; Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 1985 ; Mills, 1984 ) and raising questions in the legal and forensic literature ( Grisso, 1986 ; Melton et al., 1987 ; Mnookin, 1975 ; Ochroch, 1982 ; Okpaku, 1976 ; Weithorn, 1987 ).

Particular competencies and knowledge are required for child custody evaluations to provide adequate and appropriate psychological services to the court. Child custody evaluation in the context of parental divorce can be an extremely demanding task. For competing parents the stakes are high as they participate in a process fraught with tension and anxiety. The stress on the psychologist/evaluator can become great. Tension surrounding child custody evaluation can become further heightened when there are accusations of child abuse, neglect, and/or family violence.

Psychology is in a position to make significant contributions to child custody decisions. Psychological data and expertise, gained through a child custody evaluation, can provide an additional source of information and an additional perspective not otherwise readily available to the court on what appears to be in a child's best interest, and thus can increase the fairness of the determination the court must make.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings

I. Orienting Guidelines: Purpose of a Child Custody Evaluation

1. The primary purpose of the evaluation is to assess the best psychological interests of the child. The primary consideration in a child custody evaluation is to assess the individual and family factors that affect the best psychological interests of the child. More specific questions may be raised by the court.

2. The child's interests and well-being are paramount. In a child custody evaluation, the child's interests and well-being are paramount. Parents competing for custody, as well as others, may have legitimate concerns, but the child's best interests must prevail.

3. The focus of the evaluation is on parenting capacity, the psychological and developmental needs of the child, and the resulting fit.
In considering psychological factors affecting the best interests of the child, the psychologist focuses on the parenting capacity of the prospective custodians in conjunction with the psychological and developmental needs of each involved child. This involves (a) an assessment of the adults' capacities for parenting, including whatever knowledge, attributes, skills, and abilities, or lack thereof, are present; (b) an assessment of the psychological functioning and developmental needs of each child and of the wishes of each child where appropriate; and (c) an assessment of the functional ability of each parent to meet these needs, including an evaluation of the interaction between each adult and child.

The values of the parents relevant to parenting, ability to plan for the child's future needs, capacity to provide a stable and loving home, and any potential for inappropriate behavior or misconduct that might negatively influence the child also are considered. Psychopathology may be relevant to such an assessment, insofar as it has impact on the child or the ability to parent, but it is not the primary focus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. General Guidelines: Preparing for a Child Custody Evaluation

4. The role of the psychologist is that of a professional expert who strives to maintain an objective, impartial stance. The role of the psychologist is as a professional expert. The psychologist does not act as a judge, who makes the ultimate decision applying the law to all relevant evidence. Neither does the psychologist act as an advocating attorney, who strives to present his or her client's best possible case. The psychologist, in a balanced, impartial manner, informs and advises the court and the prospective custodians of the child of the relevant psychological factors pertaining to the custody issue. The psychologist should be impartial regardless of whether he or she is retained by the court or by a party to the proceedings. If either the psychologist or the client cannot accept this neutral role, the psychologist should consider withdrawing from the case. If not permitted to withdraw, in such circumstances, the psychologist acknowledges past roles and other factors that could affect impartiality.

5. The psychologist gains specialized competence.
A psychologist contemplating performing child custody evaluations is aware that special competencies and knowledge are required for the undertaking of such evaluations. Competence in performing psychological assessments of children, adults, and families is necessary but not sufficient. Education, training, experience, and/or supervision in the areas of child and family development, child and family psychopathology, and the impact of divorce on children help to prepare the psychologist to participate competently in child custody evaluations. The psychologist also strives to become familiar with applicable legal standards and procedures, including laws governing divorce and custody adjudications in his or her state or jurisdiction.

The psychologist uses current knowledge of scientific and professional developments, consistent with accepted clinical and scientific standards, in selecting data collection methods and procedures. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing ( APA, 1985 ) are adhered to in the use of psychological tests and other assessment tools.

In the course of conducting child custody evaluations, allegations of child abuse, neglect, family violence, or other issues may occur that are not necessarily within the scope of a particular evaluator's expertise. If this is so, the psychologist seeks additional consultation, supervision, and/or specialized knowledge, training, or experience in child abuse, neglect, and family violence to address these complex issues. The psychologist is familiar with the laws of his or her state addressing child abuse, neglect, and family violence and acts accordingly.

6. The psychologist is aware of personal and societal biases and engages in nondiscriminatory practice. The psychologist engaging in child custody evaluations is aware of how biases regarding age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, culture, and socioeconomic status may interfere with an objective evaluation and recommendations. The psychologist recognizes and strives to overcome any such biases or withdraws from the evaluation.

7. The psychologist avoids multiple relationships. Psychologists generally avoid conducting a child custody evaluation in a case in which the psychologist served in a therapeutic role for the child or his or her immediate family or has had other involvement that may compromise the psychologist's objectivity. This should not, however, preclude the psychologist from testifying in the case as a fact witness concerning treatment of the child. In addition, during the course of a child custody evaluation, a psychologist does not accept any of the involved participants in the evaluation as a therapy client. Therapeutic contact with the child or involved participants following a child custody evaluation is undertaken with caution.

A psychologist asked to testify regarding a therapy client who is involved in a child custody case is aware of the limitations and possible biases inherent in such a role and the possible impact on the ongoing therapeutic relationship. Although the court may require the psychologist to testify as a fact witness regarding factual information he or she became aware of in a professional relationship with a client, that psychologist should generally decline the role of an expert witness who gives a professinal opinion regarding custody and visitation issues (see Ethical Standard 7.03) unless so ordered by the court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Procedural Guidelines: Conducting a Child Custody Evaluation
8. The scope of the evaluation is determined by the evaluator, based on the nature of the referral question. The scope of the custody-related evaluation is determined by the nature of the question or issue raised by the referring person or the court, or is inherent in the situation. Although comprehensive child custody evaluations generally require an evaluation of all parents or guardians and children, as well as observations of interactions between them, the scope of the assessment in a particular case may be limited to evaluating the parental capacity of one parent without attempting to compare the parents or to make recommendations. Likewise, the scope may be limited to evaluating the child. Or a psychologist may be asked to critique the assumptions and methodology of the assessment of another mental health professional. A psychologist also might serve as an expert witness in the area of child development, providing expertise to the court without relating it specifically to the parties involved in a case.

9. The psychologist obtains informed consent from all adult participants and, as appropriate, informs child participants. In undertaking child custody evaluations, the psychologist ensures that each adult participant is aware of (a) the purpose, nature, and method of the evaluation; (b) who has requested the psychologist's services; and (c) who will be paying the fees. The psychologist informs adult participants about the nature of the assessment instruments and techniques and informs those participants about the possible disposition of the data collected. The psychologist provides this information, as appropriate, to children, to the extent that they are able to understand.

10. The psychologist informs participants about the limits of confidentiality and the disclosure of information. A psychologist conducting a child custody evaluation ensures that the participants, including children to the extent feasible, are aware of the limits of confidentiality characterizing the professional relationship with the psychologist. The psychologist informs participants that in consenting to the evaluation, they are consenting to disclosure of the evaluation's findings in the context of the forthcoming litigation and in any other proceedings deemed necessary by the courts. A psychologist obtains a waiver of confidentiality from all adult participants or from their authorized legal representatives.

11. The psychologist uses multiple methods of data gathering. The psychologist strives to use the most appropriate methods available for addressing the questions raised in a specific child custody evaluation and generally uses multiple methods of data gathering, including, but not limited to, clinical interviews, observation, and/or psychological assessments. Important facts and opinions are documented from at least two sources whenever their reliability is questionable. The psychologist, for example, may review potentially relevant reports (e.g., from schools, health care providers, child care providers, agencies, and institutions). Psychologists may also interview extended family, friends, and other individuals on occasions when the information is likely to be useful. If information is gathered from third parties that is significant and may be used as a basis for conclusions, psychologists corroborate it by at least one other source wherever possible and appropriate and document this in the report.

12. The psychologist neither overinterprets nor inappropriately interprets clinical or assessment data. The psychologist refrains from drawing conclusions not adequately supported by the data. The psychologist interprets any data from interviews or tests, as well as any questions of data reliability and validity, cautiously and conservatively, seeking convergent validity. The psychologist strives to acknowledge to the court any limitations in methods or data used.

13. The psychologist does not give any opinion regarding the psychological functioning of any individual who has not been personally evaluated.
This guideline, however, does not preclude the psychologist from reporting what an evaluated individual (such as the parent or child) has stated or from addressing theoretical issues or hypothetical questions, so long as the limited basis of the information is noted.

14. Recommendations, if any, are based on what is in the best psychological interests of the child.
Although the profession has not reached consensus about whether psychologists ought to make recommendations about the final custody determination to the courts, psychologists are obligated to be aware of the arguments on both sides of this issue and to be able to explain the logic of their position concerning their own practice.

If the psychologist does choose to make custody recommendations, these recommendations should be derived from sound psychological data and must be based on the best interests of the child in the particular case. Recommendations are based on articulated assumptions, data, interpretations, and inferences based upon established professional and scientific standards. Psychologists guard against relying on their own biases or unsupported beliefs in rendering opinions in particular cases.

15. The psychologist clarifies financial arrangements. Financial arrangements are clarified and agreed upon prior to commencing a child custody evaluation. When billing for a child custody evaluation, the psychologist does not misrepresent his or her services for reimbursement purposes.

16. The psychologist maintains written records.
All records obtained in the process of conducting a child custody evaluation are properly maintained and filed in accord with the APA Record Keeping Guidelines ( APA, 1993 ) and relevant statutory guidelines.

All raw data and interview information are recorded with an eye toward their possible review by other psychologists or the court, where legally permitted. Upon request, appropriate reports are made available to the court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.

American Psychological Association. (1993). Record keeping guidelines. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association, Ethics Committee. (1985). Annual report of the American Psychological Association Ethics Committee. Washington, DC: Author.

Grisso,T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.

Hall,J. E. & Hare-Mustin,R. T. (1983). Sanctions and the diversity of ethical complaints against psychologists. American Psychologist, 38, 714-729.

Keith-Spiegel,P. & Koocher,G. P. (1985). Ethics in psychology. New York: Random House.

Melton,G. B., Petrila,J., Poythress,N. G. & Slobogin,C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford Press.

Mills,D. H. (1984). Ethics education and adjudication within psychology. American Psychologist, 39, 669-675.

Mnookin,R. H. (1975). Child-custody adjudication: Judicial functions in the face of indeterminacy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 39, 226-293.

Ochroch,R. (1982, August). Ethical pitfalls in child custody evaluations. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Okpaku,S. (1976). Psychology: Impediment or aid in child custody cases? Rugers Law Review, 29, 1117-1153.

Weithorn,L. A. (1987). Psychology and child custody determinations: Knowledge, roles, and expertise. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OTHER RESOURCES

State Guidelines
Georgia Psychological Association. 1990
Recommendations for psychologists' involvement in child custody cases. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee on Child Custody. 1989
Guidelines for child custody evaluations. Denver, CO: Author.
Nebraska Psychological Association. 1986
Guidelines for child custody evaluations. Lincoln, NE: Author.
New Jersey State Board of Psychological Examiners. 1993
Specialty guidelines for psychologists in custody/visitation evaluations. Newark, NJ: Author.
North Carolina Psychological Association. 1993
Child custody guidelines. Unpublished manuscript.
Oklahoma Psychological Association. 1988
Ethical guidelines for child custody evaluations. Oklahoma City, OK: Author.
Forensic Guidelines
Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. 1991
Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 655-665.
Pertinent Literature
Ackerman M. J. Kane A. W. 1993
Psychological experts in divorce, personal injury and other civil actions. New York: Wiley.
American Psychological Association, Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs. 1991
Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association, Committee on Women in Psychology and Committee on l*****n and Gay Concerns. 1988
l*****n parents and their children: A resource paper for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beaber R. J. 1982, Fall
Custody quagmire: Some psycholegal dilemmas. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 309-326.
Bennett B. E. Bryant B. K. VandenBos G. R. Greenwood A. 1990
Professional liability and risk management. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bolocofsky D. N. 1989
Use and abuse of mental health experts in child custody determinations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7 (2), 197-213.
Bozett F. 1987
Gay and l*****n parents. New York: Praeger.
Bray J. H. 1993
What's the best interest of the child?: Children's adjustment issues in divorce. The Independent Practitioner. 13, 42-45.
Bricklin B. 1992
Data-based tests in custody evaluations. American Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 254-265.
Cantor D. W. Drake E. A. 1982
Divorced parents and their children: A guide for mental health professionals. New York: Springer.
Chesler P. 1991
Mothers on trial: The battle for children and custody. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Deed M. L. 1991
Court-ordered child custody evaluations: Helping or victimizing vulnerable families. Psychotherapy, 28, 76-84.
Falk P. J. 1989
l*****n mothers: Psychosocial assumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44, 941-947.
Gardner R. A. 1989
Family evaluation in child custody mediation, arbitration, and litigation. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner R. A. 1992
The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner R. A. 1992
True and false accusations of child abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Goldstein J. Freud A. Solnit A. J. 1980
Before the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.
Goldstein J. Freud A. Solnit A. J. 1980
Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.
Goldstein J. Freud A. Solnit A. J. Goldstein S. 1986
In the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.
Grisso T. 1990
Evolving guidelines for divorce/custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 28 (1), 35-41.
Halon R. L. 1990
The comprehensive child custody evaluation. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8 (3), 19-46.
Hetherington E. M. 1990
Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1-14.
Hetherington E. M. Stanley-Hagen M. Anderson E. R. 1988
Marital transitions: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 44, 303-312.
Johnston J. Kline M. Tschann J. 1989
Ongoing postdivorce conflict: Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 576-592.
Koocher G. P. Keith-Spiegel P. C. 1990
Children, ethics, and the law: Professional issues and cases. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kreindler S. 1986
The role of mental health professions in custody and access disputes. In R. S. Parry, E. A. Broder, E. A. G. Schmitt, E. B. Saunders, & E. Hood (Eds.), Custody disputes: Evaluation and intervention. New York:Free Press .
Martindale D. A. Martindale J. L. Broderick J. E. 1991
Providing expert testimony in child custody litigation. In P. A. Keller & S. R. Heyman (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 10, pp. 481-497). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
Patterson C. J. in press
Children of l*****n and gay parents. Child Development.
Pennsylvania Psychological Association, Clinical Division Task Force on Child Custody Evaluation. 1991
Roles for psychologists in child custody disputes. Unpublished manuscript.
Saunders T. R. 1991
An overview of some psycholegal issues in child physical and sexual abuse. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 9 (2), 61-78.
Schutz B. M. Dixon E. B. Lindenberger J. C. Ruther N. J. 1989
Solomon's sword: A practical guide to conducting child custody evaluations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stahly G. B. 1989, August 9
Testimony on child abuse policy to APA Board. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association Board of Directors, New Orleans, LA.
Thoennes N. Tjaden P. G. 1991
The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 151-163.
Wallerstein J. S. Blakeslee S. 1989
Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. New York: Ticknor & Fields.
Wallerstein J. S. Kelly J. B. 1980
Surviving the breakup. New York: Basic Books.
Weissman H. N. 1991
Child custody evaluations: Fair and unfair professional practices. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 469-476.
Weithorn L. A. Grisso T. 1987
Psychological evaluations in divorce custody: Problems, principles, and procedures. In L. A. Weithorn (Ed.), Psychology and child custody determinations (pp. 157-158). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
White S. 1990
The contamination of children's interviews. Child Youth and Family Services Quarterly, 13 (3), 6, 17-18.
Wyer M. M. Gaylord S. J. Grove E. T.
The legal context of child custody evaluations. In L. A. Weithorn (Ed.), Psychology and child custody determinations (pp. 3-23). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

2009 American Psychological Association
Practice Directorate
750 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002-4242
Phone: 202-336-5800 TDD/TTY: 202-336-6123
Fax: 202-336-5797 Email
PsychNET | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Security | Advertise with us

Hey GM,

I have had an opportunity to review the evaluation report completed by Dr. Mapes and have all of the same concerns about accuracy of the report, the completeness of quoted comments attributed to me, the general negative tone of the evaluation report and taking my responses out of context.

Let me give you some very specific examples.

1) Dr. Mapes indicated that Name removed did not provide information concerning how he and his former wife met, nor about the marriage, as he did not believe this to be relevant to the current evaluation. The remark is unsupported as indicated by Dr. Mapes'. I this information was not provided how could he use direct quotes from me concerning the marriage as indicated on page 4 of the evaluation.

So here is the question: If I did not provided this information how is it Dr. Mapes directly quote me on this subject; If I did provide the information, then one has to wonder why he would say that it was not provided. Did he just make-up this statement, is he manufacturing information, or is he withholding the information?

2) At no time during the course of the evaluation was it stated that I would not be pushing for the custody of my youngest. Dr. Mapes took a remark out of context and as a result interpreted it from his bias to be something that not was actually said.

Let me be CLEAR at no time during the course of my interview with Dr. Mapes did he ever ask what my perferred custody arrangements were for my youngest. Anything that he stated in his report concernig my desired custody arrangements and false and a confabulation on his part.

3) My comprehensive process notes made immediately following the interview with Dr. Mapes varies greatly form what now constitutes Dr. Mapes final report. As a point of reference a process recordings is a written record used to capture the content of the interview. Process recordings are widely accepted clinical tool used in the fields of social work and by other disciplines.

I have a copy of Dr. Mapes hand written notes (legally obtained and paid for from Dr. Mapes) and I am not at all impressed or convinced that he could write a comprehensive report using only his notes. Is it any wonder he sort of fills in the blanks with his version?

4) I believe that Dr. Mapes is bias in his reporting, has taken comments out of context, provides incompletely direct quotes of what was said. Even in his description of my education he mentions only that I have a graduate degree (no field mentioned) where as he goes in to great detail to describe how my former wife completed her BSN, worked part-time, etc. He fails to provide the same level of description around my education.

Dr. Mapes refers to dialogue from my former wife as she said, she indicated but when referring to my statements he uses the less affirming words, he alledges, he alledged. Is this a fair and unbiased reporter? It sounds and looks like through his language that he is a HIGHLY biased observer.

5) He offers innuendo that is not directly support by documentation or fact, viz., My oldest has been late to school because Michael drives her. While it may be a true statement that she is late to school and it is also true that I do drive her. It is a real stretch to indicate that I am the cause of the lateness because I drive her. I provided a rather extensive description of my daughters morning routine in my write up to Dr. Mapes and during the course of the interview. It is very revealing that none of this was included in Dr. Mapes' report nor did he report seeking clarification directly or indirectly from my daughter as to the cause of her lateness.

Dr. Mapes included unsubstantiated facts from my former wife concerning me and her opionion about me. However, he failed to include ANY portions of my discussion and opinions were related to my former wife. I quess my clinical discription (I am a clinically trained social worker and fully qualifed to make clinical assessments) was not all that important to include in the report. Dr. Mapes failures to accurately and fairly report what was discussed during our interview suggests that he is a HIGHLY biased observer and that he and his report lacks creditability.

While these events happened in a civil matter, it causes me to wonder if he approaches evaluations of sex offenders with the same level of integrity.

GM, I can not give you any advise on making a ethics complaint with the APA. I can tell you that the APA has no legal authority to govern his practice - its sort of a slap on his professional hands. The Commonwealth of PA mandates that all professional psychologist follow the ethical standard as well as ALL APA guidelines. Failures to abide by these guidelines can result in sanctions, fines and licience removal. The PA Department of State has a web site and all necessary forms can be obtained online. You can also file a complaint with the Attorney General.

If you are concerned about the upcoming unsupervised visitations, keep in mind that in PA custody is never viewed as a once and done thing. You can always ask that the current custody arrangement be reviewed by the Court. Furthermore, if you question the accuracy of the Mapes report, you could consider calling him in as part of the custody review process. As one attorney told me the best way to "catch a creep" is to have them say it "on the record". Inaccuracy in his story can then be viewed as a larger issue and take up with the criminal side of the court process.

Here is another secret that you should keep in mind. In PA a parent can not file a complaint with State against a mental health professional conducting a child custody evaluation until 180 days have past from the last court filing. Given that, you need to know that the Judge is required to oversee the custody evaluation process and take actions if there are questionable actions or activities of the professional. A complaint to the Judge can triger Court intervention. The Court may not want to get involved in determining the ethical status of an action, but they can and MUST. This change was advocated forand supported by the State professional association.

I have many, many other examples, as I am sure you do, concerning Dr. Mapes practices. Hopefully other parents who have concerns about the professional will also share their experiences.

Moe

Dr.Mapes, in my case, has recommended shared equal legal custody, primary custody to me, but visitation between a Convicted Violent Offender a father, and a victim in this case, my child, unsupervised visitation eventually leading up to alternating weeks in the summer.

Right now thank God they are supervised.

I supplied Dr Mapes with copies of court documents, multiple police reports, my daughter's journal entries, a 3 year PFA that lists my daughter as a protected party,Chester County Court Criminal Docket Sheets, Hospital records as well as school nurse records, 2 verbally abusive emails sent to me in response for a call to peace with this criminal and much more. BUT with all this proof he insists that most of what I said is alleged.

Meanwhile, I had nearly a full page of lies written about me as truth without any proof and no mention of the word "alleged" in sight.

I copied this page and sent the link to the APA. I hope that was OK.

About that MMPI-2 test, it was a surprise. It was like he gave me something to do so he can take a break.


GM

Perhaps there are well-grounded justifications. Lets try a few on for size:

1) It's not unethical as long as the Court required or suggested it.

2) It's not unethical if the American Psychological Association or similar organization allows it.

3) It's not unethical if an ethics code never mentions the concept, term, or act.

4) It's not unethical as long as no law was broken.

5) It's not unethical if we can nondefensively acknowledge that mistakes were made and it's time to move on.

6) It's not unethical as long as we can name others who do the same thing.

7) It's not unethical as long as we didn't mean to hurt anyone.

8) It's not unethical even if our acts have caused harm as long as the person we harmed had it coming, provoked us, deserved it, was really asking for it, or practically forced us to do it -- or, failing that, has not behaved perfectly, is in some way unlikable, or is acting unreasonably.

9) It's not unethical as long as there is no body of universally accepted, methodologically perfect (i.e., without any flaws, weaknesses, or limitations) studies showing without any doubt whatsoever that exactly what we did was the necessary and sufficient proximate cause of harm to the client.

10) It's not unethical if we could not (or did not) anticipate the unintended consequences of our acts.

11) It's not unethical if we acknowledge the importance of judgment, consistency, and context. For example, it may seem as if a therapist who has submitted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bogus insurance claims for patients he never saw might have behaved "unethically." However, as attorneys and others representing such professionals often point out: It was simply an error in judgment, completely inconsistent with the high ethics manifest in every other part of the persons' life, and insignificant in the context of the unbelievable good that this person does.

12) It's not unethical if we can say any of the following about it (feel free to extend the list):
"What else could I do?"
"Anyone else would've done the same thing."
"It came from the heart."
"I listened to my soul."
"I went with my gut."
"It was the smart thing to do."
"It was just common sense."
"I just knew that's what the client needed."
"Look, I was just stuck between a rock and a hard place."
"I'd do the same thing again if I had it to do over."
"It worked before."
"I'm only human, you know!"
"What's the big deal?

13) It's not unethical if we have written an article, chapter, or book about it.

14) It's not unethical as long as we were under a lot of stress.

15) It's not unethical as long as no one ever complained about it.

16) It's not unethical as long as we know that the people involved in enforcing standards (e.g., licensing boards or administrative law judges) are dishonest, stupid, destructive, and extremist; are unlike us in some significant way; or are conspiring against us.

17) It's not unethical as long as it results in a higher income, more referrals or more prestige (i.e., is necessary).

18) It's not unethical if we're victims. Claiming tragic victim status is easy: we can always use one of 2 traditional scapegoats: (a) our "anything-goes" society that lacks clear standards and leaves us ethically adrift or, conversely, (b) our coercive, intolerant society that tyrannizes us with "political correctness," dumbs us down, and controls us like children. I'm the professional not them.

19) It's not unethical as long as it would be almost impossible to do things another way.

20) It's not unethical as long as there are books, articles, or papers claiming that it is the right thing to do.

21) It's not unethical as long as we can find a consultant who says its OK.

Adapted from the section on Language in the chapter on "Ethics & Critical Thinking" in Ethics in Psychotherapy & Counseling: A Practical Guide, 3rd Edition (2007) by Ken Pope, Ph.D., ABPP, & Melba Vasquez, Ph.D., ABPP.

Perhaps there are well-grounded justifications. Lets try a few on for size:

1) It's not unethical as long as the Court required or suggested it.

2) It's not unethical if the American Psychological Association or similar organization allows it.

3) It's not unethical if an ethics code never mentions the concept, term, or act.

4) It's not unethical as long as no law was broken.

5) It's not unethical if we can nondefensively acknowledge that mistakes were made and it's time to move on.

6) It's not unethical as long as we can name others who do the same thing.

7) It's not unethical as long as we didn't mean to hurt anyone.

8) It's not unethical even if our acts have caused harm as long as the person we harmed had it coming, provoked us, deserved it, was really asking for it, or practically forced us to do it -- or, failing that, has not behaved perfectly, is in some way unlikable, or is acting unreasonably.

9) It's not unethical as long as there is no body of universally accepted, methodologically perfect (i.e., without any flaws, weaknesses, or limitations) studies showing without any doubt whatsoever that exactly what we did was the necessary and sufficient proximate cause of harm to the client.

10) It's not unethical if we could not (or did not) anticipate the unintended consequences of our acts.

11) It's not unethical if we acknowledge the importance of judgment, consistency, and context. For example, it may seem as if a therapist who has submitted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bogus insurance claims for patients he never saw might have behaved "unethically." However, as attorneys and others representing such professionals often point out: It was simply an error in judgment, completely inconsistent with the high ethics manifest in every other part of the persons' life, and insignificant in the context of the unbelievable good that this person does.

12) It's not unethical if we can say any of the following about it (feel free to extend the list):
"What else could I do?"
"Anyone else would've done the same thing."
"It came from the heart."
"I listened to my soul."
"I went with my gut."
"It was the smart thing to do."
"It was just common sense."
"I just knew that's what the client needed."
"Look, I was just stuck between a rock and a hard place."
"I'd do the same thing again if I had it to do over."
"It worked before."
"I'm only human, you know!"
"What's the big deal?

13) It's not unethical if we have written an article, chapter, or book about it.

14) It's not unethical as long as we were under a lot of stress.

15) It's not unethical as long as no one ever complained about it.

16) It's not unethical as long as we know that the people involved in enforcing standards (e.g., licensing boards or administrative law judges) are dishonest, stupid, destructive, and extremist; are unlike us in some significant way; or are conspiring against us.

17) It's not unethical as long as it results in a higher income, more referrals or more prestige (i.e., is necessary).

18) It's not unethical if we're victims. Claiming tragic victim status is easy: we can always use one of 2 traditional scapegoats: (a) our "anything-goes" society that lacks clear standards and leaves us ethically adrift or, conversely, (b) our coercive, intolerant society that tyrannizes us with "political correctness," dumbs us down, and controls us like children. I'm the professional not them.

19) It's not unethical as long as it would be almost impossible to do things another way.

20) It's not unethical as long as there are books, articles, or papers claiming that it is the right thing to do.

21) It's not unethical as long as we can find a consultant who says its OK.

Adapted from the section on Language in the chapter on "Ethics & Critical Thinking" in Ethics in Psychotherapy & Counseling: A Practical Guide, 3rd Edition (2007) by Ken Pope, Ph.D., ABPP, & Melba Vasquez, Ph.D., ABPP.

Perhaps there are well-grounded justifications. Lets try a few on for size:

1) It's not unethical as long as the Court required or suggested it.

2) It's not unethical if the American Psychological Association or similar organization allows it.

3) It's not unethical if an ethics code never mentions the concept, term, or act.

4) It's not unethical as long as no law was broken.

5) It's not unethical if we can nondefensively acknowledge that mistakes were made and it's time to move on.

6) It's not unethical as long as we can name others who do the same thing.

7) It's not unethical as long as we didn't mean to hurt anyone.

8) It's not unethical even if our acts have caused harm as long as the person we harmed had it coming, provoked us, deserved it, was really asking for it, or practically forced us to do it -- or, failing that, has not behaved perfectly, is in some way unlikable, or is acting unreasonably.

9) It's not unethical as long as there is no body of universally accepted, methodologically perfect (i.e., without any flaws, weaknesses, or limitations) studies showing without any doubt whatsoever that exactly what we did was the necessary and sufficient proximate cause of harm to the client.

10) It's not unethical if we could not (or did not) anticipate the unintended consequences of our acts.

11) It's not unethical if we acknowledge the importance of judgment, consistency, and context. For example, it may seem as if a therapist who has submitted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bogus insurance claims for patients he never saw might have behaved "unethically." However, as attorneys and others representing such professionals often point out: It was simply an error in judgment, completely inconsistent with the high ethics manifest in every other part of the persons' life, and insignificant in the context of the unbelievable good that this person does.

12) It's not unethical if we can say any of the following about it (feel free to extend the list):
"What else could I do?"
"Anyone else would've done the same thing."
"It came from the heart."
"I listened to my soul."
"I went with my gut."
"It was the smart thing to do."
"It was just common sense."
"I just knew that's what the client needed."
"Look, I was just stuck between a rock and a hard place."
"I'd do the same thing again if I had it to do over."
"It worked before."
"I'm only human, you know!"
"What's the big deal?

13) It's not unethical if we have written an article, chapter, or book about it.

14) It's not unethical as long as we were under a lot of stress.

15) It's not unethical as long as no one ever complained about it.

16) It's not unethical as long as we know that the people involved in enforcing standards (e.g., licensing boards or administrative law judges) are dishonest, stupid, destructive, and extremist; are unlike us in some significant way; or are conspiring against us.

17) It's not unethical as long as it results in a higher income, more referrals or more prestige (i.e., is necessary).

18) It's not unethical if we're victims. Claiming tragic victim status is easy: we can always use one of 2 traditional scapegoats: (a) our "anything-goes" society that lacks clear standards and leaves us ethically adrift or, conversely, (b) our coercive, intolerant society that tyrannizes us with "political correctness," dumbs us down, and controls us like children. I'm the professional not them.

19) It's not unethical as long as it would be almost impossible to do things another way.

20) It's not unethical as long as there are books, articles, or papers claiming that it is the right thing to do.

21) It's not unethical as long as we can find a consultant who says its OK.

Adapted from the section on Language in the chapter on "Ethics & Critical Thinking" in Ethics in Psychotherapy & Counseling: A Practical Guide, 3rd Edition (2007) by Ken Pope, Ph.D., ABPP, & Melba Vasquez, Ph.D., ABPP.

Perhaps there are well-grounded justifications. Lets try a few on for size:

1) It's not unethical as long as the Court required or suggested it.

2) It's not unethical if the American Psychological Association or similar organization allows it.

3) It's not unethical if an ethics code never mentions the concept, term, or act.

4) It's not unethical as long as no law was broken.

5) It's not unethical if we can nondefensively acknowledge that mistakes were made and it's time to move on.

6) It's not unethical as long as we can name others who do the same thing.

7) It's not unethical as long as we didn't mean to hurt anyone.

8) It's not unethical even if our acts have caused harm as long as the person we harmed had it coming, provoked us, deserved it, was really asking for it, or practically forced us to do it -- or, failing that, has not behaved perfectly, is in some way unlikable, or is acting unreasonably.

9) It's not unethical as long as there is no body of universally accepted, methodologically perfect (i.e., without any flaws, weaknesses, or limitations) studies showing without any doubt whatsoever that exactly what we did was the necessary and sufficient proximate cause of harm to the client.

10) It's not unethical if we could not (or did not) anticipate the unintended consequences of our acts.

11) It's not unethical if we acknowledge the importance of judgment, consistency, and context. For example, it may seem as if a therapist who has submitted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bogus insurance claims for patients he never saw might have behaved "unethically." However, as attorneys and others representing such professionals often point out: It was simply an error in judgment, completely inconsistent with the high ethics manifest in every other part of the persons' life, and insignificant in the context of the unbelievable good that this person does.

12) It's not unethical if we can say any of the following about it (feel free to extend the list):
"What else could I do?"
"Anyone else would've done the same thing."
"It came from the heart."
"I listened to my soul."
"I went with my gut."
"It was the smart thing to do."
"It was just common sense."
"I just knew that's what the client needed."
"Look, I was just stuck between a rock and a hard place."
"I'd do the same thing again if I had it to do over."
"It worked before."
"I'm only human, you know!"
"What's the big deal?

13) It's not unethical if we have written an article, chapter, or book about it.

14) It's not unethical as long as we were under a lot of stress.

15) It's not unethical as long as no one ever complained about it.

16) It's not unethical as long as we know that the people involved in enforcing standards (e.g., licensing boards or administrative law judges) are dishonest, stupid, destructive, and extremist; are unlike us in some significant way; or are conspiring against us.

17) It's not unethical as long as it results in a higher income, more referrals or more prestige (i.e., is necessary).

18) It's not unethical if we're victims. Claiming tragic victim status is easy: we can always use one of 2 traditional scapegoats: (a) our "anything-goes" society that lacks clear standards and leaves us ethically adrift or, conversely, (b) our coercive, intolerant society that tyrannizes us with "political correctness," dumbs us down, and controls us like children. I'm the professional not them.

19) It's not unethical as long as it would be almost impossible to do things another way.

20) It's not unethical as long as there are books, articles, or papers claiming that it is the right thing to do.

21) It's not unethical as long as we can find a consultant who says its OK.

Adapted from the section on Language in the chapter on "Ethics & Critical Thinking" in Ethics in Psychotherapy & Counseling: A Practical Guide, 3rd Edition (2007) by Ken Pope, Ph.D., ABPP, & Melba Vasquez, Ph.D., ABPP.

Ladies, if what you say is true, you have a strong case for unethical conduct against Dr. mapes. The following is from the American Psychological Association's Code of Ethics for psychologists, and includes the section on assessment (although I omitted some of the parts that seem irrelevant to your cases):

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.

9.02 Use of Assessments
(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.




9.04 Release of Test Data
(a) The term test data refers to raw and scaled scores, client/patient responses to test questions or stimuli, and psychologists' notes and recordings concerning client/patient statements and behavior during an examination. Those portions of test materials that include client/patient responses are included in the definition of test data. Pursuant to a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data to the client/patient or other persons identified in the release. Psychologists may refrain from releasing test data to protect a client/patient or others from substantial harm or misuse or misrepresentation of the data or the test, recognizing that in many instances release of confidential information under these circumstances is regulated by law. (See also Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security.)

(b) In the absence of a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data only as required by law or court order.


9.06 Interpreting Assessment Results
When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect psychologists' judgments or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant limitations of their interpretations. (See also Standards 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence, and 3.01, Unfair Discrimination.)

9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons
Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others.)

9.10 Explaining Assessment Results
Regardless of whether the scoring and interpretation are done by psychologists, by employees or assistants, or by automated or other outside services, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are given to the individual or designated representative unless the nature of the relationship precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consulting, preemployment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations), and this fact has been clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance.

9.11. Maintaining Test Security
The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

Ladies, if what you say is true, you have a strong case for unethical conduct against Dr. mapes. The following is from the American Psychological Association's Code of Ethics for psychologists, and includes the section on assessment (although I omitted some of the parts that seem irrelevant to your cases):

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.

9.02 Use of Assessments
(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.




9.04 Release of Test Data
(a) The term test data refers to raw and scaled scores, client/patient responses to test questions or stimuli, and psychologists' notes and recordings concerning client/patient statements and behavior during an examination. Those portions of test materials that include client/patient responses are included in the definition of test data. Pursuant to a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data to the client/patient or other persons identified in the release. Psychologists may refrain from releasing test data to protect a client/patient or others from substantial harm or misuse or misrepresentation of the data or the test, recognizing that in many instances release of confidential information under these circumstances is regulated by law. (See also Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security.)

(b) In the absence of a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data only as required by law or court order.


9.06 Interpreting Assessment Results
When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect psychologists' judgments or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant limitations of their interpretations. (See also Standards 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence, and 3.01, Unfair Discrimination.)

9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons
Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others.)

9.10 Explaining Assessment Results
Regardless of whether the scoring and interpretation are done by psychologists, by employees or assistants, or by automated or other outside services, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are given to the individual or designated representative unless the nature of the relationship precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consulting, preemployment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations), and this fact has been clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance.

9.11. Maintaining Test Security
The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

Ladies, if what you say is true, you have a strong case for unethical conduct against Dr. mapes. The following is from the American Psychological Association's Code of Ethics for psychologists, and includes the section on assessment (although I omitted some of the parts that seem irrelevant to your cases):

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.

9.02 Use of Assessments
(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.




9.04 Release of Test Data
(a) The term test data refers to raw and scaled scores, client/patient responses to test questions or stimuli, and psychologists' notes and recordings concerning client/patient statements and behavior during an examination. Those portions of test materials that include client/patient responses are included in the definition of test data. Pursuant to a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data to the client/patient or other persons identified in the release. Psychologists may refrain from releasing test data to protect a client/patient or others from substantial harm or misuse or misrepresentation of the data or the test, recognizing that in many instances release of confidential information under these circumstances is regulated by law. (See also Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security.)

(b) In the absence of a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data only as required by law or court order.


9.06 Interpreting Assessment Results
When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect psychologists' judgments or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant limitations of their interpretations. (See also Standards 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence, and 3.01, Unfair Discrimination.)

9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons
Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others.)

9.10 Explaining Assessment Results
Regardless of whether the scoring and interpretation are done by psychologists, by employees or assistants, or by automated or other outside services, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are given to the individual or designated representative unless the nature of the relationship precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consulting, preemployment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations), and this fact has been clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance.

9.11. Maintaining Test Security
The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

Ladies, if what you say is true, you have a strong case for unethical conduct against Dr. mapes. The following is from the American Psychological Association's Code of Ethics for psychologists, and includes the section on assessment (although I omitted some of the parts that seem irrelevant to your cases):

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.

9.02 Use of Assessments
(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.




9.04 Release of Test Data
(a) The term test data refers to raw and scaled scores, client/patient responses to test questions or stimuli, and psychologists' notes and recordings concerning client/patient statements and behavior during an examination. Those portions of test materials that include client/patient responses are included in the definition of test data. Pursuant to a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data to the client/patient or other persons identified in the release. Psychologists may refrain from releasing test data to protect a client/patient or others from substantial harm or misuse or misrepresentation of the data or the test, recognizing that in many instances release of confidential information under these circumstances is regulated by law. (See also Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security.)

(b) In the absence of a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data only as required by law or court order.


9.06 Interpreting Assessment Results
When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect psychologists' judgments or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant limitations of their interpretations. (See also Standards 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence, and 3.01, Unfair Discrimination.)

9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons
Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others.)

9.10 Explaining Assessment Results
Regardless of whether the scoring and interpretation are done by psychologists, by employees or assistants, or by automated or other outside services, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are given to the individual or designated representative unless the nature of the relationship precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consulting, preemployment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations), and this fact has been clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance.

9.11. Maintaining Test Security
The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

GM, in a previous posting it was noted that he is a board chair (public interest) of the PA professional association whose broad mission/purpose shall be to advance psychology in Pennsylvania as a means of promoting human welfare. It is indeed strange that a Board Member of the professional association would engage in testing practices (unmonitored MMPI and leaving score sheets in an unmonitored room for an indeterminate amount of time) that are clearly NOT in keeping with the practices of his profession.

I totally agree that he should be removed from the panel of experts in Chester County, PA. Any parent who had their custody removed/changed or had their parental rights terminated based on his testimony related to the administration of an unmonitored MMPI (MMPI-2)should be granted a new hearing; a new evaluation at the expense of Chester County and he should held to answer for his actions.

No telling how many families this may involves but I am sure that the number is in the hundreds...

GM, you raise a very interesting point. Since Mapes does not administer the MMPI (or MMPI-2) in the standard fashion, one has to question the results. In his book Clinician's Guide to Child Custody Evaluation, Marc J. Ackerman offers the following:

As reported in the July 1993 issue of the American Psychological Association Monitor, the APA's Ethics Committee was asked to address whether it is a per se violation of the Ethical Principals for Psychologists and Code of Conduct' to send the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory home for administration (p.14). The response of the Committee was that it would not be an automatic ethics violation and that each case would have to be considered individually.

In the past, the Committee has found it to be a violation to write a report based on information from a test that was sent home. The reason for the violation involved failure to protect the security of the test, failure to adequately supervise the test.

The Committee endorsed the following points in response to the question:

1. Nonmonitored administration of the MMPI does not represent sound testing practice and may result in an invalid assessment.
2. Test security cannot be guaranteed when the MMPI is allowed outside of the clinical setting [such as an unmonitored first floor copy room].
3. There is debate as to whether there is even any circumstance in which it might be reasonable or appropriate to allow the MMPI to be completed outside of the clinical setting.

Another author puts it this way:

Whereas psychologists may sometimes deviate from standardized administrations with therapy clients, it is NEVER acceptable for a forensic evaluation where the results of the evaluation are to be presented in the justice system and are to be used in making decisions about people's lives. Ziskin (1981) warns against this practice:

The "take home" MMPI should be avoided in the forensic situation. This practice can lead to questions as to whether the individual took the test in the standard way and whether all of the responses are purely his own, as highlighted by Graham's amusing anecdote about the mental hospital patient who had his ward colleagues assist him by voting on the appropriate answers. (p. 7)

If the APA and others scholars recognize that the non-monitored administration of the MMPI is an unsound testing practice, one has to wonder why Dr. Mapes continues to this practice especially in court cases where families depend on the results.

Moe

I have to agree with Moe. This Test that was conducted was in a lower level copy room. He had the same M.O. as in Moe's case, saying he had to leave and he'd be right back. I was made to leave the completed bubble test on the table an a room without any "chain of command". This is clearly NOT evidence in the sense that it was not sealed in front of me. Who interpreted the test? Was it him? If so, his evidence places my 11 year old child with a convicted violent perpetrator 3 days a week in a supervised setting. He has abused her in the past and has indicated that he will abuse her again. After the evaluation was complete, this father/perpetrator violated a Protection from Abuse order by leaving a conciliation session and screaming obscenities at me. He is under house arrest but since it did not happen prior to the evaluation no weight was given to the conviction, only to the evaluation.

During the course of my interview, Dr. Mapes referred to the information he gathered as evidence. I wonder if he withholds certain information or twists it beyond recognition if this could be considered tampering?

Here is another thing I always wondered about concerning his handling of evidence. If he is collecting evidence; and he leaved say standardized test score sheets in an unmonitored room for an indeterminate time and lets say the score sheet will produce a profile of personality or sociopathy or sex offender status or terminate a parents rights; should his test results be given any weight since the chain of evidence could not be followed?

In my case, he left me in dumpy copy room on the first floor of his office to complete the MMPI. He indicated that I should just leave the test booklet and score sheet on the table. You are free to go when you're finished. About half way through he came down to say he was stepping out to the Post office. When I finished, I was not comfortable just leaving a sensitive test form (with my name on it) in an open first floor room of a multi-occupant office building. I went up to his office only to find his office door locked. I knocked and called his name but no answer. No telling how long that score sheet sat there; if it was altered or even taken by someone.

Moe

GM,

Not only does Dr.Mapes sit on the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board, but he also serves as a Board Chair of "Public Interest" on the state profession group. Sort of reminds me about the fox and the chicken house story.

GM, Are you suggesting that Dr. Mapes recommended that a convicted violent offender receive custody of a child in Chester County, PA? Clearly, Dr. Mapes must have or should have know that this person was a convicted offender. Is there a case reference you can share?

I tend to agree with you that Dr. Mapes does not conduct a complete evaluations. He tends to ask simple questions, often closed ended questions and rarely does he probe for indepth expalantions. His interview style is totally formulaic and consistent with the skill level of an entry level human service worker.

My feeling is that he does not prepare for the interview. Although he states to review the materials "several times" to be sure that he acurately addresses the issues, my experience was that he often time confuses the facts, uses the wrong child's name and refers to circumstances unrelated to my case. Whats even more distressing is that his report contained the incorrect reference that were corrected during the interview.

I for one think that a complete investigation should be conducted by authorities outside of Chester County - perhaps the Department of Justice or the State Attorney General.

Let there be no misstake Dr. Mapes has everyone snowed.

Moe

In my opinion this "court expert" should retire. In my opinion,his evaluations are incomplete, and he minimized abusive behavior by a convicted perpetrator of a violent crime, by saying he is emotionally demonstrative.

This "alleged" professional should be thrown off of the board that oversees sexual predators. I use the word alleged because I have seen nothing from him that would indicate to me that he is educated to the level that would place him in such authority over our children.

Many people get burnt out by their jobs and positions,but very few have the good faith to retire once they realize that they are no longer working for the greater good. Once their decision's start placing innocent children in the hands of their perpetrators it's time to ask them to step down for someone more capable.

This is just one Mom's opinion.

Hey GM, there is another report on this system for Dr. Mapes. Seems there was a breach of confidentiality. The US Office of Civil Rights got involved and cited him. Moe

GM,

You were right on point when you said he never interviewed the parties. Even the SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA had a problem with his testimony.

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, BENDER, BOWES,PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN AND ALLEN, JJ.


THE OPINION BY ALLEN, J, in part reads as follows:

"In this regard however, the Majority's extensive discussion of
the testimony provided by Dr. Mapes, whose opinion was sought by the trial court and who gave his opinion based solely on his review of the agency's case file, essentially as a hypothetical situation, is not founded upon actual interaction with the parties involved. Dr. Mapes never interviewed Mother, the child or the foster parents. This in my mind is quite troubling when so much of Dr. Mapes' testimony is relied upon and in some ways is not consistent with testimony provided by agency personnel, who did interact with the parties."

GM, there is something VERY WRONG with a professional making such a serious recomendation (to terminate a parents rights) based soley on a simple chart review. I wonder if he even talked to the case worker since his opinion was "not consistent with testimony provided by agency personnel, who did interact with the parties."

We all should be very concerned about the future use of this psychologist. Moe

GM,

You were right on point when you said he never interviewed the parties. Even the SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA had a problem with his testimony.

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, BENDER, BOWES,PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN AND ALLEN, JJ.


THE OPINION BY ALLEN, J, in part reads as follows:

"In this regard however, the Majority's extensive discussion of
the testimony provided by Dr. Mapes, whose opinion was sought by the trial court and who gave his opinion based solely on his review of the agency's case file, essentially as a hypothetical situation, is not founded upon actual interaction with the parties involved. Dr. Mapes never interviewed Mother, the child or the foster parents. This in my mind is quite troubling when so much of Dr. Mapes' testimony is relied upon and in some ways is not consistent with testimony provided by agency personnel, who did interact with the parties."

GM, there is something VERY WRONG with a professional making such a serious recomendation (to terminate a parents rights) based soley on a simple chart review. I wonder if he even talked to the case worker since his opinion was "not consistent with testimony provided by agency personnel, who did interact with the parties."

We all should be very concerned about the future use of this psychologist. Moe

Yes Moe, I am saying that the testimony contained from the Supreme Court records support the fact that Dr. Mapes made a full recommendation without interviewing the key parties in person , and used second hand information when it came to the termination of parental rights.

Furthermore, after reviewing his evaluation in my case just today....I can tell he did not even look at my child in his one hour interview due to the fact that she has braces while his report states that she may need them in the future. MEANING that in my opinion he is neglectful, short sighted, and does not conduct a FULL investigation. My child represented with suicidal thoughts and plan at school, and even though I placed that counselor as a person to contact regarding my child's assessment, he did not. In fact never returned her call this counselor back after she left a message.

I can say for certain he can't tell a Sociopath when he sees one.

GM

Are you suggesting that Bruce E. Mapes, PhD filed a report with the Courts that resulted in the termination of parental rights and that his report contained was based on a limited interview and unverfied statements of others?

By the way, Chester County Children and Youth Services has Bruce E. Mapes, PhD in their 2009 operational budget for $80,000 for consultation services. If there is any question related to Dr. Mapes integrity, his ability to be a free of bias or his ability to be objective, he should not be used in these sort of cases.

It is interesting, he wrote a book in 1995 entitled Child eyewitness testimony in sexual abuse investigations. Despite his recognition of the necessity for neutrality, Mapes seems to identify more with victims than with the falsely accused. Many of the references at the end of the book are not used in the text and the book often appears unbalanced. In short, at least one reviewer back in 1995 questioned Mapes neutrality.

Is this the sort of evaluator we really want doing this very sensitive work of child custody and termination of parental rights? I for one think not. This raises serious question about the hundreds of cases this fellow worked on.

It is of further note that he sits on a State board that evaluates Sexual Predators. One has to wonder if has the ability to objectively evaluate this population and if there is any creditability to what he brings to the Courts.

I am with Moe. Please look for another evaluator. He does not spend enough time with the child. Once your time is up, it's up,and he will selectively see what he wants.


Proof:

Look at page 24 of 27.. he never even talked to the mother, adopted mother, or child according to this COURT document.

This to me would be very neglectful and in my opinion would trouble me either way concerning any custody evaluation. Especially if you are terminating a mother's parental rights.

Many of his so called expert evaulations and court testimony comes from the notes of others'. In my opinion he is a "hired hand".