|
Authors Erickson, et al., lead with the premise that the use of
mental health experts in family law matters is a “controversy” that must be
addressed, because the “... recommendations that flow from [its] conclusions
and subsequent opinion testimony can have persuasive authority before the
court and often encroach on the ultimate issue ....”
Divorcing spouses and their attorneys, then, must become informed consumers
when it comes to the testing and conclusions upon which their future
relationships with their children hang in the balance.
Common multiscale personality inventories are discussed here in terms of
purported purpose and appropriateness of fit vis-ŕ-vis scientific and
evidentiary standards.
-
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)
-
Millon Multiaxial Personality Inventory (MCMI-III)
-
Rorschach Inkblot Test
-
Thematic Apprehension Test (TAT)
-
Human Figure Drawings
-
Anatomical Dolls
-
Bricklin Perceptual Scales (BPS)
-
Perception of Relationships Test (PORT)
-
Parental Awareness of Skills Survey (PASS)
-
Parent Perception of Child Profile (PPCP)
In
conclusion, it is underscored that “From both a legal and scientific
perspective, the burden is on the proponent of the evidence to demonstrate
that the method used is acceptable. If the proponent is unable to do so, the
method should be recognized as nothing more than a source of hypothetical
possibilities awash in a sea of uncertainties.”
Or,
as my dad used to say: “Bad directions are worse than no directions at all.”
Note: This same issue of Family Court Review includes a
criticism of the aforementioned article by Robert E. Erard, followed by a
response from Erickson, et al.
—posted by Dell Deaton @9:09 PM EST 6/10/2008
RSD 16610
|
