How Do Writing Disciplines in The Field of Forensic Psychology Effect Outcomes in Family Court?

Krista Kurt

CUNY, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

ENG 201

Professor Lyndon Nicholas

04/19/2025

                                                       Cover Letter

            This research paper explores the writing disciplines used by forensic psychologists in legal proceedings and the power dynamics involved that disproportionately affect women and marginalized communities in high conflict custodial battles and family court hearings. The research shows us that cultural biases play a key role in who is believed to have access to children or who is worthy of having custodial rights. The lack of diversity and inclusion in the field of forensic psychology, and in the field of psychology overall, has had major consequences on family court outcomes that have been disadvantageous for children of color or children in queer family systems. Negative views and perceptions towards those who live in poverty, or of the “incompetence” of single mothers, can contribute certain biases being held by certain demographics and how those biases shape the way social workers, forensic psychologists and family court judges participate in child placement. After reading this paper you will understand how these cultural biases influence the writing disciplines used in high conflict family court cases such as psychiatric and psychological evaluations, child protective services assessments and even law enforcement reports. You will likely come to the same conclusion that I did, which is the solution to this issue is to have a wider range of diversity and inclusion in the field of psychology. More representation in custodial rights equates to more understanding of the varying nuances of families that may be outside cultural norms or those families who due to class, race or gender lack a voice in the power structure of our society.

The Family Court system has been problematic for many children who are faced with parents that are divorcing or fighting for custody agreements and visitation time. Prior to the laws passed for women after the Civil Rights movement, children were automatically considered property of the husband and because of this historically in a divorce men would get full custody of the children. Supposedly this is now seen as an “issue of the past”, or furthermore, seen as the “roles being reversed” in our present times where a common societal myth tells us that Family Courts favor the mothers over the fathers in custody disputes. Forensic psychologists aren’t always involved in custody disputes or divorces, however, when abuse is involved or it’s a high conflict custody battle, forensic psychologists tend to play an important role in which residence a child resides, or which parent is deemed “safe and stable”. When applicable, forensic psychologists conduct psychiatric and psychological evaluations of the parents and child, or children, involved in high conflict custody disputes. There are many writing disciplines involved in family court cases which forensic psychologists use to come to conclusions regarding a child’s welfare in the legal system aside from psychiatric evaluations such as reports from child protective services and specific protocol that must be used when interviewing children that are potentially in danger of being neglected and/or abused. In this paper we will explore the role forensic psychologists play in high conflict Family Court cases that consist of child abuse, child sexual abuse and/or neglect and the types of legal proceedings regarding the types of writing that forensic psychologists utilize to influence outcomes in custody battles. We will also investigate how biases towards specific demographics from an intersectional lens, whether racial or gender, can also affect the outcome in these cases.

Cultural considerations are especially important in present parental access matters due to families becoming increasingly diverse with very nuanced differences in lifestyles and values (Harris-Britt, Ajoku. 2025). LGBTQ families are especially susceptible to discrimination regarding parental visitation and custodial rights. In America, depending on your region or geographical location, homophobic or transphobic belief systems can contribute to biases in child services assessments and in family court rulings. Custody disputes and fights for parental rights drastically exacerbate the stress that families already face trying to navigate a new way of life or sense of normalcy after a separation, which the grieving of the family system is quite traumatic not only for the children involved but also for the parents. If abuse was involved this can contribute to the development of PTSD in the parents and/or the children amongst a whole other slew of potential mental health issues. In extreme situations it can lead to suicidal ideations and attempts at suicide or worse, homicide of the children and/or the other parent fighting for custody. This is why narcissistic, or abusive parents can weaponize the Family Court system to further abuse the children and the other parent just through the stress and mental torture that these high conflict custody disputes cause. Even after separation, through the Family Court many abusers can still maintain some level of control and this is why it’s so important for forensic psychologists involved in these cases to be objective but also knowledgeable enough to recognize these complex family dynamics that can be missed by social workers, judges, law enforcement and child protective services.       

Unfortunately, cultural biases and the ontological and epistemological systems we live under play a role in where social workers, law enforcement, judges and even forensic psychologists decide where a child should be placed or who can or cannot have parental access to their child.

In many cases, since these belief systems are typically religious, patriarchal and or racial in nature, these mental maps of reality that have been formed under these systems do factually determine outcomes in legal or medical writing disciplines, which are supposed to be unbiased and “fair”. In laments terms, depending on the race, gender and/or religious beliefs of the legal professionals, child protective services interviewers and/or the forensic psychologists involved in these cases, it will affect the outcome of their perception of “parental fitness” and whether they determine a child is being abused. There can even be subliminal or unprovoked vitriol and animosity towards a parent by these “trusted professionals” due to racism or sexism, especially in cases that involve children of color who the Family Court system notoriously let’s fall through the cracks with minimal advocation. This leads to a higher risk of neglect, abuse, sexual abuse and even fatalities amongst children of color whose parents are involved in high conflict divorces or custody disputes compared to other demographics.

            Forensic psychology experts must perform assessments and psychological examinations of children involved in litigation between parents to decipher the “conflict of loyalty” which is when the child has a particular loyalty to one parent over the other regardless of the circumstances (Savina, Safuanov. 2024).

In many cases children who form loyalty to one parent over the other isn’t because that parent is more “safe” or not abusive, on the contrary this is how the child’s brain protects itself by pleasing the abusive parent in a desperate attempt to minimize being abused. It’s survival. Think about it like this, if you’re a child with no agency who depends on this parent to feed you and are afraid of being abused by them, you as a child learn to avoid getting on that parent’s bad side. Hence, the conflict of loyalty creates a confusing and complex situation that can be difficult for judges and social workers to decipher, which is why forensic psychologists must perform these detailed psychological evaluations and assessments responsibly but also objectively to ensure the child’s safety in these custody disputes. In other words, forensic psychologists cannot mistake this loyalty a child may subconsciously have adapted as a coping or defense mechanism to survive living with the abusive parent as a sign that this child is “content or safe”. Abusive and narcissistic parents can manipulate their child into having a toxic loyalty that causes the child to defend the parent and even lie for them despite being abused, sexually abused or neglected by this parent.

            Only 8-10% of high conflict families resolve their issues of raising a child by going to Family court (Safuanov. 2024). Because of how many children end up abused, killed or neglected through poor outcomes in Family court and high conflict custody battles, along with cultural and societal biases that influence the writing disciplines used in such cases, in recent years there has been more judicial protections of the interests of the child. Increasingly, more forensic psychologists are working on creating a more in-depth and thorough analysis and examination of the possible negative impacts that each parent is or isn’t having on the mental development and mental state of the child. We can look at forensic psychologists beginning to try to improve the structure and quality of their forensic interview processes in cases regarding child sexual abuse and child abuse from almost 20 years ago using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol (Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Esplin, Horowitz. 2007). Experts and forensic psychologists in the field have determined that children should be interviewed as soon as possible so to have less interference by their parents and prevent the chances of the abusive parent coaching them into what to tell professionals.

Forensic psychologists are trained by this protocol to introduce as little information as possible using open-ended prompts such as, “Tell me what happened.”, to encourage children to provide as much information as they can without swaying or persuading their responses to ensure a more accurate evaluation. Any questions that insinuate abuse has occurred such as, “Did he touch you”, must be asked as late in the interview as possible and only if needed to elicit forensically relevant information that wasn’t disclosed from the prior answers the child provided. This line of questioning should not even occur if throughout the interview and based on the reports received from parents, from child protective services assessments/reports or from law enforcement, this type of abuse being present was not already initially inferred. This is to avoid a child erroneously being guided into falsely accusing a parent of abuse or neglect- which can be just as dangerous. In many high conflict cases, narcissists and abusers can use false reports to child protective services or lies about the other parent in court to unjustly take away their parental rights and depending on the cultural biases of the judge and social workers involved, without proper evaluation from an expert forensic psychologist, this “legal kidnapping” can occur more often than it should.

I interviewed a woman regarding her tragic and heartbreaking experience with forensic psychologists in the Family court and how they had a life destroying impact on her and her sons. She wants to remain anonymous and goes by the name “Birdy”. Birdy disclosed to me,

“I took my sons to be evaluated for sexual abuse by their father. The doctors found anal fissures and tears in their rectum. They were evaluated by child protective services for unusual hypersexual behavior such as claiming they wanted ‘hot dogs’ and biting on my ex-husband’s crotch area inappropriately. They found, after psychologically evaluating both of my sons, that their father was referring to his genitals as food, which is what most child predators do. I knew it was more than ‘cute fun words’ that the boys were using and there was something more going on. They were behaving violently and aggressively out of nowhere and I would even catch them trying to perform sexual acts on each other. They are teenagers now, so this is all years ago from when they were toddlers and elementary aged. My ex-husband was wealthy and knew majority of the police officers in our town. It’s a small town in Wisconsin. The forensic psychologist that testified in our custody dispute claimed my sons showed ‘no signs of sexual abuse or abuse’ from their father, which was bullshit. I had reports from doctors, and even the social workers at child protective services. There was so much evidence and due to my ex-husband having money and being connected and well respected in the community, the forensic psychologist and judge allowed my sons to continue to be raped and sexually abused until they were old enough to testify for themselves in court. This went on for years. I’m glad I have my boys back but the damage that has been done cannot be repaired. Between me and my sons our mental health has been shattered indefinitely.”

The prevalence of child sexual abuse disclosure in forensic settings, such as psychological interviews and assessments involved in high conflict custody cases conducted by forensic psychologists, was 64.1% (Azzopardi, Eirich, Rash, MacDonald, Madigan. 2019). Global and international child sexual abuse (CSA) remains high at nearly 12%. That number is not including the fact that majority of cases are not reported, especially where the victims are children of color or disabled children who cannot speak or advocate for themselves. Most cases of sexual abuse in general are grossly underreported and more so in minority communities and the disabled population. Marginalized communities receive less resources and assistance from law enforcement or other legal mediums and because of this, often most child sexual abuse in Black, Muslim, Hispanic and indigenous communities are rarely reported or held accountable. So, we can safely say the percentage and prevalence of child sexual abuse is much higher than what is statistically reported, and there is even more disparity in different racial demographics who are largely affected by this.

            What can be done to improve the safety and well-being of children who are subject to high conflict disputes by divorcing or separating parents and to avoid these terrible outcomes for children and families enduring abuse, neglect and/or sexual abuse? The quantitative study of child sexual abuse has been met with many challenges, both conceptual and methodological, these “studies and data finding” are often shaped by sophisticated perpetrator grooming tactics and broader societal denial of the scope of the problem which tends to foster shame, stigma and fear that silences victims and their families making accurate estimates few and far between (Azzopardi, Eirich, Rash, MacDonald, Madigan. 2019). Aka, people tend to prioritize protecting the abusers and “keeping the peace in the family” or to avoid “rocking the boat”, therefore the

perpetrators well-being are prioritized over the children culturally. This is why cultural biases are so relevant to the data we have from “trusted professionals” such as the psychologists and forensic psychologists who conduct these examinations and evaluations because if the psychologist is a misogynist or comes from a family where inappropriate sexual relationships were normal, this can skew the information we have on child sexual abuse and make it harder for the Family courts to be operating based on integrity and the best interests of the child. As we know Western psychology has been dominated by White males for over a century and pedophilia and rape were not once considered crime under the laws made by these same people. The solution is to have more diversity in the forensic psychology field to give a more nuanced, detailed and accurate analysis of spotting potential abuse, neglect and/or sexual abuse in these high conflict custody cases. There is a lot of ambiguous and inconsistent flawed literature of what constitutes or defines sexual abuse and disclosure of sexual abuse with reliance on small or selective samples, biased data collection methods and weak control of extraneous variables therefore precluding generalizable findings (2019). It has even been found that more than three-quarters of adults from a sample set reported either never disclosing they were sexually abused in childhood or delaying their disclosure by more than 5 years from the first incident. There are many children who get the short end of the straw in these high conflict disputes involving abusive parents due to biases in the writing disciplines of forensic psychologists and the cultural biases that exist in most current Western psychology data and findings that we have today.

Thankfully, many professionals in the field of forensic psychology identify this crack in the foundation and are working to improve the psychological assessments and evaluations of children who are being abused while also embracing more diversity in the field to get a wider scope on a much larger picture of the areas that need improvement in our Family court system. We can’t eliminate all human biases or prejudices, but we can create more inclusion in the forensic psychology field, especially in high conflict custody cases regarding child abuse and child sexual abuse, to ensure advocacy and representation for a voiceless demographic that cannot advocate for themselves- our children.

References

• Corry Azzopardi, Rachel Eirich, Christina L. Rash, Sarah MacDonald, Sheri Madigan,

A meta-analysis of the prevalence of child sexual abuse disclosure in forensic settings,

Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 93, 2019, Pages 291-304, ISSN 0145-2134,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.11.020.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213418304411)

Abstract: Background

Identification, substantiation, prosecution, and treatment of child sexual abuse often rely heavily on a disclosure from the victim in the absence of corroborating evidence. For some, disclosure can be impeded by developmental or motivational barriers, thus compromising child safety and wellbeing. The literature on disclosure prevalence and mitigating influences does not yield a coherent picture. A more accurate estimate will help to inform investigation strategies to facilitate disclosure.

Objective

This study provides a meta-analysis of available research examining the prevalence of sexual abuse disclosure in forensic interviews with children under 18 years, and examines a range of factors that may influence the likelihood of disclosure.

Method

Databases were searched for published and unpublished studies up to May 2017. In total, 2393 abstracts were assessed for eligibility, 216 full-text articles were reviewed, and 45 samples (with 31,225 participants) provided estimates of effect sizes.

Results

The mean prevalence of child sexual abuse disclosure in forensic settings was 64.1% (95% CI: 60.0–68.1). Between-study variability was explained by: (1) child age and gender, with higher prevalence in older children and females; (2) prior disclosure, with higher prevalence when present; and (3) study year, with higher prevalence in more recent studies.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis confirms an upward trend in child sexual abuse disclosure prevalence. However, more than a third of children do not disclose when interviewed, with those who are younger, male, and without a prior disclosure at greatest risk. Important implications for forensic interviewing protocols and future research are discussed.

Keywords: Child sexual abuse; Abuse disclosure; Forensic interviews; Disclosure prevalence; Meta-analysis

• April Harris-Britt, Chioma Ajoku, Introduction: Family court review special issue on the importance of cultural considerations in parental access matters, Family Court Review, Volume 63, Issue 1, p. 8-9, 2025, https://doi-org.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/10.1111/fcre.12833
• Michael E. Lamb, Yael Orbach, Irit Hershkowitz, Phillip W. Esplin, Dvora Horowitz,

A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol,

   Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 31, Issues 11–12, 2007, Pages 1201-1231,

  ISSN 0145-2134,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213407002438)

Abstract: Objective

To show how the results of research on children’s memory, communicative skills, social knowledge, and social tendencies can be translated into guidelines that improve the quality of forensic interviews of children.

  Method

   We review studies designed to evaluate children’s capacities as witnesses, explain the development of the structured NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol, and discuss studies designed to assess whether use of the Protocol enhances the quality of investigative interviews.

Results

Controlled studies have repeatedly shown that the quality of interviewing reliably and dramatically improves when interviewers employ the NICHD Protocol. No other technique has been proven to be similarly effective.

Conclusions

     Use of the structured NICHD Protocol improves the quality of information obtained from alleged victims by investigators, thereby increasing the likelihood that interventions will be appropriate.

Keywords: Forensic interviews; Child sexual abuse; Interview strategies; Questioning styles

• Savina O.F, Safuanov F.S., Forensic Psychological Assessment of Conflict of Child’s Loyalty in Litigation between Parents on His Upbringing, Psychology and Law, 2024, Volume 14, No.3, pp. 39-49, doi:10.17759/psylaw.2024140304
  ISSN: 2222-5196 (online)