Substance Abuse Evaluations in Child Custody Cases

I make a number of assumptions when conducting acases I will not have a firm diagnostic opinion,
substance use evaluation as part of a litigationbecause I will not have sufficient firm evidence.
process: 1) the individual's use is usually not less thanEven with a firm diagnostic opinion, the prediction of
the individual reports, but it might often be more (orfuture substance use is problematic. An individual's
much more); 2) inaccurate accusations of substancesubstance use can change, suddenly, dramatically and
abuse are common because there is usually littlewithout treatment or support group attendance, in
negative consequence for inaccurate accusations; 3)response to changes in the environment. Litigation
the parties to the litigation, and those connected withoften produces substantial environmental changes,
them, may provide biased and inaccurate information.and therefore has the potential to lead to significant
Therefore outside corroboration of their reports isdecreases (or increases) in substance use. The
essential for determining the extent anddiagnostic manual (DSM-IV-TR, page 221) recognizes
consequences of substance use.that "some individuals (perhaps 20% or more) with
As a practical matter, getting outside corroborationAlcohol Dependence achieve long-term sobriety even
(information from sources not connected with thewithout active treatment."
litigation) is difficult because such information mayConsequently, if the litigation has a future focus, my
simply not exist, or obtaining it would require worknormal recommendation is to obtain substance
performed by other professionals (such as privatetesting on a continuous basis. I will monitor the results
investigators) rather than by psychologists. Thatof this testing if the court requests it. Random
work would be outside the scope of thetesting might work in some cases, but it allows a
psychological evaluation the individual has consentedsignificant potential for delay in discovering problems.
to. An evaluation that obtained outside corroborationSuch delay is unacceptable when the best interests
could be conducted at great expense, but wouldof children are involved. Depending on the substances
require weeks to months of effort and at bestof concern, testing involves the individual stopping at
would only establish the history of substancea drug testing facility two to three times per week
problems (or lack of them). Such an evaluation wouldto provide a urine sample. Modifications to the basic
be appropriate when litigation is only concerned withplan need to be made if the individual tested is a
history and not with the future (as it is in childreportedly moderate drinker, but in some instances
custody litigation).such individuals are willing to abstain completely for
In my typical evaluation I document what is reportedthe sake of eliminating suspicions about their having
by the parties, conduct basic psychological andalcohol problems.
addiction testing, review documentation, andI normally recommend that the testing be paid for by
interview collaterals, as appropriate to each case. Inthe other party, and continued as long as the other
some cases I am able to identify reports that areparty feels it is worth paying for. Solomon knew that
unlikely or impossible (e.g., consuming only 2 beersthe true mother would only want what was best for
would not result 90 minutes later in BAL of .22). Inher child. Even Solomon did not try, simply based on
some cases the information I obtain allows me tothe reports he received, to determine which mother
offer a firm diagnostic opinion. However, in mostwas telling the truth.