Identifying Bias in Custody Evaluations
Matrimonial Practice columnist Timothy M. Tippins writes: Justice Potter Stewart famously quipped that although he could not define pornography, "I know it when I see it." Bias presents the opposite problem. It can be readily defined but you do not necessarily know it when you see it. Given that custody evaluators are as susceptible to bias as anyone else and because bias can destroy the reliability of their conclusions, it is imperative that lawyers and judges be able to recognize its telltale signs.
September 06, 2017 at 02:04 PM
19 minute read
Justice Potter Stewart famously quipped that although he could not define pornography, “I know it when I see it.” Jacobellis v. Ohio, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 1683 (1964). Bias presents the opposite problem. It can be readily defined but you do not necessarily know it when you see it. Given that custody evaluators are as susceptible to bias as anyone else and because bias can destroy the reliability of their conclusions, it is imperative that lawyers and judges be able to recognize its telltale signs. While “there is no blood test for evaluator bias,” (J.P. Wittmann, “Evaluating Evaluations: An Attorneys Handbook for Analyzing Child Custody Reports” (MatLaw Systems, 2013, p. 160)), it can be inferred from the evaluator's methods and behaviors. This article will delineate some key indicators that can help legal professionals spot bias in forensic assessments.
Key Indicator #1: Infidelity to Science
No small part of a psychologist's education is devoted to understanding the limitations of psychological knowledge and the overarching importance of constricting professional conclusions to those that are supportable by the published knowledge-base of the profession.
This concept of constraint is inherent in the profession's self-definition as a “scientific” field. Pick up any standard university Psych 101 textbook and you will find that psychology defines itself as “the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes.” C. G. Morris and A.A. Maisto, “Psychology: An Introduction,” (Prentice Hall, 11th Edition, 2002), at p. xii. Remove the word “scientific” from that definition and you are no longer talking about psychology. When psychology emerged in the 19th century as a distinct discipline, independent of its intellectual cousin philosophy (defined by Merriam-Webster as “a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means), its defining attribute was its commitment to the scientific method. It essentially guaranteed the public that “the conclusions about behavior that it produces derive from scientific methods” and that its work product has been “derived from and tested by scientific methods.” K.E. Stanovich, “How to Think Straight About Psychology,” 10th ed., p. 6 (Pearson, 2013).
Thus, while Socrates might speculate that behaviors “A” plus “B” warrant conclusion “C”, psychologists would assert such a conclusion only if it could be proven through scientifically conducted, replicable empirical research. As one university text aptly puts it: “In business, the motto is 'show me the money.' In science, it is 'show me the evidence.'” D.G. Myers, Psychology, 7th Edition (Worth, 2004) p. 23. The text further directs that psychologists must “persistently ask … how do you know?” Id. That is precisely the question that attorneys and judges must invoke whenever confronting psychological testimony.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFinancial Disclosures in Prenups: The Legal, Personal, and Strategic Considerations
Trending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250