Stop child abuse


 

stopcsa.com keyword stats



Most current MSN search phrases:

child violence

Substance Abuse Evaluations in Child Custody Cases

I make a number of assumptions whensufficient  firm  evidence.
conducting a substance use evaluation as part
of a litigation process: 1) the individual'sEven with a firm diagnostic opinion, the
use is usually not less than the individualprediction of future substance use is
reports, but it might often be more (or muchproblematic. An individual's substance use
more); 2) inaccurate accusations of substancecan change, suddenly, dramatically and
abuse are common because there is usuallywithout treatment or support group
little negative consequence for inaccurateattendance, in response to changes in the
accusations; 3) the parties to theenvironment. Litigation often produces
litigation, and those connected with them,substantial environmental changes, and
may provide biased and inaccuratetherefore has the potential to lead to
information. Therefore outside corroborationsignificant decreases (or increases) in
of their reports is essential for determiningsubstance use. The diagnostic manual
the extent and consequences of substance use.(DSM-IV-TR, page 221) recognizes that "some
individuals (perhaps 20% or more) with
As a practical matter, getting outsideAlcohol Dependence achieve long-term sobriety
corroboration (information from sources noteven  without  active  treatment."
connected with the litigation) is difficult
because such information may simply notConsequently, if the litigation has a future
exist, or obtaining it would require workfocus, my normal recommendation is to obtain
performed by other professionals (such assubstance testing on a continuous basis. I
private investigators) rather than bywill monitor the results of this testing if
psychologists. That work would be outside thethe court requests it. Random testing might
scope of the psychological evaluation thework in some cases, but it allows a
individual has consented to. An evaluationsignificant potential for delay in
that obtained outside corroboration could bediscovering problems. Such delay is
conducted at great expense, but would requireunacceptable when the best interests of
weeks to months of effort and at best wouldchildren are involved. Depending on the
only establish the history of substancesubstances of concern, testing involves the
problems (or lack of them). Such anindividual stopping at a drug testing
evaluation would be appropriate whenfacility two to three times per week to
litigation is only concerned with history andprovide a urine sample. Modifications to the
not with the future (as it is in childbasic plan need to be made if the individual
custody  litigation).tested is a reportedly moderate drinker, but
in some instances such individuals are
In my typical evaluation I document what iswilling to abstain completely for the sake of
reported by the parties, conduct basiceliminating suspicions about their having
psychological and addiction testing, reviewalcohol  problems.
documentation, and interview collaterals, as
appropriate to each case. In some cases I amI normally recommend that the testing be paid
able to identify reports that are unlikely orfor by the other party, and continued as long
impossible (e.g., consuming only 2 beersas the other party feels it is worth paying
would not result 90 minutes later in BAL offor. Solomon knew that the true mother would
.22). In some cases the information I obtainonly want what was best for her child. Even
allows me to offer a firm diagnostic opinion.Solomon did not try, simply based on the
However, in most cases I will not have a firmreports he received, to determine which
diagnostic opinion, because I will not havemother was telling the truth.



1 A B C 42 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94