The plaintiff may request an observer, such as the attorney, a therapist, or a family member, in the examination. This is especially likely when the plaintiff is a child.
Full Answer
Good cause for a defense mental examination requires a two-step proof. First, plaintiff’s mental condition must be in controversy. Second, there must be a demonstration of specific facts justifying the discovery. For instance, in an employment action, a plaintiff may have previously been tested and interviewed by a psychologist for worker’s ...
 · The custody evaluator will not limit the investigation to your child’s other parent. Therefore, you must be ready for what could be an intrusive investigation into your parenting skills and abilities if you request a psychological evaluation. Court Appointed Child Custody Evaluators. Under California Evidence Code §730, the court may appoint a custody evaluator. The law …
 · The basis for the request would be to show the Judge the significant concerns that relate to the opposing party regarding their mental health and their ability to parent, and that a psychological evaluation would assist the court in making an appropriate determination in child custody by having this information from a professional regarding the opposing party’s potential …
 · Consult with your divorce attorney to see if he recommends filing a motion for psychological evaluation. If you suspect that your spouse has significant mental health issues …
A psychologist or evaluator conducts a custody evaluation to advise the court about various issues. The psychologist assesses the child's emotional and psychological needs. The evaluator also assesses the ability of each parent to meet the child's needs and the parenting capabilities and mental health of both parents.
Mental status tests will examine your appearance, orientation, attention span, memory, language skills, and judgment skills. Mental status testing may also be referred to as mental status examination or neurocognitive testing.
At its most basic, the evaluation of a defendant's competency to stand trial involves an assessment of the psycholegal abilities required of the defendant (as per the relevant legal statutes of the jurisdiction), an assessment of the current mental status of the defendant, and a determination of whether a linkage ...
Malingering, also called shamming illness or goldbricking, is the false and fraudulent simulation or exaggeration of physical or mental disease or defect, performed in order to obtain money or drugs or to evade duty or criminal responsibility, or for other reasons that may be readily understood by an objective observer ...
The doctor might ask questions like: What impairments do you have, and how do they affect you? How has their life changed since the onset of their mental illness? What's your ability to interact with others and your relationship with your family, friends, and the community?
The Mental Status Exam (MSE)Appearance: How does the patient look? ... Level of alertness: Is the patient conscious? ... Speech: Is it normal in tone, volume and quantity?Behavior: Pleasant? ... Awareness of environment, also referred to as orientation: Do they know where they are and what they are doing here?More items...
The MMSE includes questions that measure:Sense of date and time.Sense of location.Ability to remember a short list of common objects and later, repeat it back.Attention and ability to do basic math, like counting backward from 100 by increments of 7.Ability to name a couple of common objects.More items...
3,4 It requires about 20 minutes to administer and assesses attention, executive functioning, language, memory, orientation, and visuospatial proficiency.
General tips to keep in mind when facing a psychological evaluation in a child custody case include: Always be respectful toward the evaluator. This person is not your therapist. Do not vent your frustrations. Remain focused on your child.
General tips to keep in mind when facing a psychological evaluation in a child custody case include: 1 Always be respectful toward the evaluator. This person is not your therapist. Do not vent your frustrations. Remain focused on your child. 2 Dress appropriately and be on time for all appointments. 3 Do not talk negatively about your child’s other parent. Only refer to legitimate concerns that you can document. 4 Provide documentation and evidence of negative parental behavior. Keeping a log of visitations and proof of communication with your child can be helpful. 5 Try to avoid being defensive. The evaluator must ask very personal questions during interviews. 6 Provide the evaluator with a list of individuals who can verify your statements and allegations. Teachers, doctors, ministers, coaches, and other professionals can be more convincing than friends and family members.
A 730 Evaluation is used in contested custody matters or matters that impact the child’s best interest. Examples of cases that might require a 730 Evaluation include modifications of custody arrangements, cases involving child abuse, allegations of substance abuse, or motions to relocate children. A qualified custody evaluator uses a variety ...
Extended question and answer sessions, psychological testing, and investigation are part of the process. The length of the evaluation depends on the circumstances, issues, and parties. Throughout the process, the evaluator must consider the safety, welfare, and health of the child.
The custody evaluator acts as the eyes and ears of the court.
Information the evaluator may collect includes, but is not limited to: School records; Medical records; Police records;
In some cases, a court may order a child custody evaluation to assist the court in deciding what is in the best interests of the child. Parents may request a psychological evaluation in a child custody case. Choosing to request a psychological evaluation in a child custody case can be tricky. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages thoroughly ...
In this way, the evaluation can support the position that the opposing party has no mental health concerns, and perhaps you are the one with unreasonable beliefs or opinions about the party .
The cost of the evaluation depends on how in depth the evaluation is. Psychological evaluations can range from $1,500 to $5,000.
Psychological Evaluation. If you feel your child’s parent has significant mental health issues that affect their ability to appropriately parent your children, you may want to discuss with your attorney filing a Motion for Psychological Evaluation.
Once the process begins, you may withdraw your motion for the opposing party to undergo a psychological evaluation, but if the other party files their own motion for you to undergo a psychological evaluation, you have no way to force them to withdraw the request.
Protecting your Privacy ~ Your privacy is our primary concern. At the Doyle Law Group, we understand the importance of protecting your privacy and will never share your contact information with a 3rd party. Contacting our law firm does not imply any form of attorney-client relationship.
At first blush obtaining a psychological evaluation can seem like a fantastic idea, but when you consider the practical considerations regarding cost and the repercussions of making such a request, it is very important that you discuss such a litigation strategy in detail with your attorney and share any and all concerns you may have regarding the process.
The court needs to accurately assess the parenting capability of each parent and determine whether a parent’s mental state poses a risk to the children’s safety. Some of the tests that custody evaluators may use during divorce proceedings include:
The Rorschach Inkblot Test, although many psychological experts do not take the results seriously because they believe the test is subjective.
In some situations, a parent may pose a significant risk to a child due to mental illness or psychological instability. If you are facing a divorce soon and think your spouse may have a psychological issue that could be dangerous for your child, it’s vital to understand your options and how to approach the situation.
The court does not cover the cost of testing, so in most cases a judge will decide that the costs of a psychological evaluation for either spouse must be split between them. It’s also important to realize that psychological testing may not end up reflecting any significant issues.
Psychological testing may not prove fruitful or helpful and may even backfire, but if your divorcing spouse’s mental health is cause for concern, it is better to be safe and request a psychological evaluation.
If you are considering filing a motion during your divorce proceedings for your spouse to undergo psychological evaluation, you should reasonably expect him or her to respond in kind, so you will likely need to attend an evaluation, as well.
However, the judge will not accept you calling the father a narcissist if there has not been a formal diagnosis. You have to show good cause to evaluate him. You may have that, or there may be other methods to achieve the same goal...protecting your child.
On the facts, as you have presented them, it may be difficult to convince a judge to order a psychological evaluation. However, you should retain the services of a local, experienced family law attorney to discuss this in more detail. There may be additional behavior or events that you can relay to the attorney that can assist him/her in drafting a more robust motion that can be set for hearing.
ABSTRACT: Psychological evaluations can provide information that increases the accuracy of the decision-making process of the justice system. Attorneys, however, must understand both their usefulness and their limitations. Psychological evaluations of defendants in criminal and civil cases, of plaintiffs in civil cases, and of child witnesses are discussed.
Supreme Court 1992-93 term, No. 92-102, 509 US, 113 S Ct 2786) in June, 1993 dramatically changes the criteria by which scientific testimony will be admitted as evidence in court. The ruling states that the major criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability, or testability. This, in effect, replaces the Frye test ( Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013) with the Popperian principle of falsification as the determinant of scientific knowledge.
The father’s mental health was not placed in controversy simply because he was seeking custody. Second, the court held that even if the father’s mental health was placed into controversy, the mother had not met her burden to show good cause existed for the examination.
Florida law relies on a two-part analysis to determine if such an evaluation is warranted: (1) The examination must be related to a matter in controversy and (2) the party requesting the exam must show good cause exists for it. In the case Oldham v.
The appellate court agreed with him, citing the fact that the father’s mental health was never placed in controversy, especially since the mother had answered interrogatories previously which did not place the father’s mental health at issue.
In Cases 1 through 4, attorneys asked the forensic experts whether they could provide evidence that would bear on their clients' versions of the facts. Plaintiffs' attorneys wanted to know whether their clients were credible before they invested time, effort, and money in the cases. Defense attorneys wanted to know whether their clients were telling the truth and whether their clients' allegations that the plaintiffs were lying were credible.
Psychological testing can be helpful in determining the likely credibility of allegations by evaluating for psychological problems associated with a tendency to perceive events in unconventional ways. For example, neuropsychological testing can be used to assess for the presence of cognitive dysfunction in domains such as memory, intellectual ability, executive functioning, and language ability that may affect an individual's full comprehension of the meaning of events. The individual's performance on tests of these abilities is compared with that of normative groups, the patterns and relationships among the person's test scores are compared, and pathognomic signs of neuropsychological impairment such as aphasia are identified.
A possible explanation for a plaintiff's belief that he or she has been exploited is psychosis (i.e., inability to tell what is real or not). In this scenario, a plaintiff has a history of being unable to tell what is real and has irrational thinking and distorted perceptions. It is possible that a delusional disorder, erotomanic type, causes the plaintiff to believe falsely that someone is in love with him or her. A plaintiff's attorneys are reluctant to pursue a case if psychosis will be revealed during litigation, because an alternative explanation of the plaintiff's report of the incident may be that the plaintiff experienced hallucinations and/or delusions of having been touched inappropriately or raped. This situation is exemplified in Case 5.
If the plaintiff says that such an event never happened before, it reduces the likelihood that the plaintiff is prone to inappropriate and continual misunderstanding and distortion of the actions of others. In Cases 1 through 4, the plaintiffs denied that similar events had happened.
Cases without corroborating evidence fall into two categories: in the first, the plaintiff and the alleged perpetrator disagree on whether an event even occurred. In the second, they agree that something occurred, but their interpretation of the event differs significantly.
A benefit of psychological testing in this context is that it permits evaluation of perceptual processes in a relatively neutral setting that is not dependent on a specific fact pattern. Of course, psychological test findings that demonstrate perceptual problems do not prove whether the perception of a particular event (e.g., sexual exploitation or boundary violations) reported by the examinee is accurate. However, if patterns of perceptual problems are identified on psychological testing, they may be taken into account in assessing the credibility of reports of specific incidents.
An administrative assistant in a large firm sued for sexual harassment and for having been the victim of an episode of workplace violence. There were no witnesses, but she alleged that she had been attacked at work when a manager pulled an item from her hand. In later reports, she added that he also had twisted her arm and her hand.
In personal injury cases, for instance, the defendant’s insurance company (through the defense attorney) will almost always want to obtain the injured plaintiff’s medical records and medical bills from the injured plaintiff’s doctors and other medical care providers.
The added protection for mental health records ensures that courts provide an individualized and confidential assessment regarding the need for these very sensitive records in any particular case. If it is a personal injury case, such records should not be relevant-unless the injury victim is claiming closed head trauma with damages to mental functioning. In a divorce or custody case, the mental health of a parent is always relevant and discoverable, subject to the protections of the statute for the proper protection of this delicate information. (See I.C. §31-17-2-8 (6), which provides that the trial court must consider the mental health of all individuals involved when determining the child’s best interest in a custody dispute).
Interrogatories are written questions that must be answered in writing, fully and completely, by the responding party, under oath. Requests for production are individual requests that certain documents or other items of evidence be made available for inspection.
In any litigation, the parties are almost certain to engage in the process of “discovery.” Discovery is the stage of a lawsuit-after all parties’ claims have been filed against the other parties, and all parties have answered- in which the parties engage in the exchange of information to develop their respective cases for trial (or settlement prior to trial). There are many forms of discovery, but the most common are: (1) Interrogatories; (2) Requests for Production; and (3) Depositions. The topics covered by discovery must be relevant to the pending litigation. (Note that “relevance” is defined broadly-that is, the information sought does not have to be admissible in evidence; it only must be deemed “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”).
Litigants (and sometimes their attorneys) might not realize that some records may have extra layers of protection that must be navigated before they can be obtained. Where the records sought are mental health records, as opposed to just run-of-the-mill medical records, there are additional, special protections.