BLANK

Tag: Psychologist

Would the divorce rate drop if the parties had to see a psychologist first?

What do you think would be the rate of divorce in marriages if psychologists were to be consulted in court by couples before proceeding to see the lawyer for divorce?

Your intentions are good, your proposal won’t work. 

Short answer: forcing people to consult a psychologist as a prerequisite to obtaining a divorce would A) likely cause no appreciable reduction in the divorce rate and B) would surely not justify the costs associated with it. 

You appear to base your idea on several false assumptions: 

  • First, that professionals are infallible. They are not. That includes psychologists. Merely consulting a psychologist does not mean you will get competent care or advice from any and all psychologists. And the purpose of psychologists isn’t to talk people in or out of anything anyway, so forcing people to speak with a psychologist with the goal of reducing divorce likely would present some ethical conflicts that would cause many psychologists to balk. 
  • Second, that nary a professional (including psychologists) is motivated by self-interest. Plenty are. Some psychologists know that if they advocate for more psychologist involvement in the court systems, then that means more work for psychologists through the court systems. And so they do and say what they need to do and say to keep the work flowing, regardless of whether they feel that what they do and say is what is needed or warranted. 
  • Third, that most divorces are due to mental illness or other mental or emotional pathologies or disorders. While many divorces can be traced to mental and/or emotional problems in one or both spouses, not every divorce can be. Thus, requiring everyone who files for divorce to consult a psychologist would be a waste of time, money, and resources. 

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277  

https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-would-be-the-rate-of-divorce-in-marriages-if-psychologists-were-to-be-consulted-in-court-by-couples-before-proceeding-to-see-the-lawyer-for-divorce/answer/Eric-Johnson-311 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Does having the judge interview the children traumatize the children?

Does having the judge interview the children traumatize the children?

 

This post is the second in series of 15 posts on the subject of custody evaluations and the appointment of guardians ad litem (“GALs” for short) in Utah child custody cases when the judge could simply interview the children instead. You do not have to read all 16 posts to benefit from this series. Read as many or as few as you wish.

The purpose of this series is to make the case for the proposition that an interview by the judge is a faster, more accurate, more particular, more reliable, and less expensive form of evidence than what a GAL and/or custody evaluator provides.

 

Does having the judge interview the children traumatize the children? You may have heard the argument along the lines of, “Having a judge interview children is tantamount to child abuse.” If you haven’t heard it yet, all you have to do to make that happen is propose that the judge interview your children. The same people who claim judges interviewing kids harms kids will, with a straight face, claim that having a child interviewed by a guardian ad litem or custody evaluator is in some way functionally and/or effectively different from and better than being interviewed by a judge. Really?

 

I submit to you that virtually no child knows or cares about the difference between a judge or a guardian ad litem or psychologist interviewing a child. And while I will be among the first to admit that a mental health professional like an LCSW or psychologist may generally be a bit more skilled than the average judge at interviewing children about child custody issues, I submit that the difference is not so great as to justify spending $3,000 to $10,000 or more on a custody evaluation with an LCSW or psychologist, especially when the custody evaluation interview, like the interviews with the GAL, are not on the record, which means there’s no way of knowing how well the interviews were conducted or what said or not said by the child, if in fact the interviews ever took place at all.

Contrastingly, an interview conducted by the judge, as authorized by the Utah legislature/Utah Code § 30-3-10(5), is free of charge to the parents, takes far less time than an interview with a custody evaluator, would take about as much time as an interview would with a GAL, is directly from the child witness’s mouth to the judge’s ear (that way there are no hearsay or other second hand information concerns), and is on the record to ensure that there is no question as to how well the interview was conducted, what the child was and was not asked, and what the child did and did not say in response.

 

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Click to listen highlighted text!