Latest / SPLITUP / Inside Family Court Psychology

Transcript

Inside Family Court Psychology · SPLITUP

• 0:07
  Speaker: This podcast is for educational purposes only, and is not legal or psychological advice.
• 0:12
  Speaker: Listening does not create a professional relationship with split up or any guests.
• 0:17
  Speaker: Launi and Robert are only licensed in the state of Arizona.
• 0:20
  Speaker: For legal or mental health concerns, please consult a licensed professional in your state.
• 0:26
  Speaker: Guest identities may be changed for privacy.
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: Hi, welcome to Split Up.
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: I'm Launi Sheldon, one of the founders of Split Up.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: And I'm Robert DiCarlo.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: I'm a licensed psychologist in the state of Arizona.
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: And the other founder.
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: So there you have it.
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: The other founder, yeah.
• 0:44
  unknown: Uh-oh.
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: Um so today I really wanted to spend time talking to Robert and letting everyone get to know him a bit.
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: I know sometimes he gets a rough time from people.
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: Look in the comments, like, geez, the stuff that you can see in the comments are crazy.
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: Uh, when he tries to give a real psychological opinion that's that's different from many people's ideas of what is in the best interest.
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: So I do want to um take this time to kind of let everyone get to know Robert in a way, in a way that I know Robert.
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: So um and to kind of show you how he, you know, the reasons that he's doing what he's doing and and his education.
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: So I just wanted to take this opportunity, and we wanted to take this opportunity to give you kind of a background.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: So today I'm interviewing Robert, and Robert has been uh kind enough to let me ask a bunch of questions, and so we'll see how it goes.
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: All right, are you ready, Robert?
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this actually feels more of like the hot seat questions than the actual family court questions.
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Mike, I do love the hot seat questions, so that you're right, this is because I mean this is more personal, right?
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: It's it's about you, so I can I can see that.
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: Okay, so I I first want you to talk a little bit about your education, how you came to sort of you have your PhD in psychology, is that correct?
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: Okay, so let's talk about that.
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: Like why that path?
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: What did you do?
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Well, yeah, so it's it was kind of a meandering path.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: I didn't follow a straight line to psychology.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: So when I did my undergraduate degree, it was in psychology.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: It was a a bachelor of science degree in psychology with a minor in criminology.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: And at that point, I was very focused on um sort of a version of forensics, but I wanted to go into the FBI.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: I thought the idea of criminal profiling sounded really interesting and meaningful.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: Um, and then as I got into my psychology degree, I was more interested in uh the sort of what they call the helping professions and in counseling and just the application of psychology to you know helping people through difficult times.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: So um unfortunately, or fortunately, I would say fortunately, I took a a um a departure from that and I applied for uh sociology programs.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: And the intent was to get a ultimately a doctoral degree in sociology because I started seeing how broader systems impact people, and that seemed a little bit more applicable and interesting in how you can help at the system level and how people interact and engage with each other.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: So I ended up doing a master's degree in applied sociology with the next step going into doctoral programs until I realized now I think psychology is really where I want to be.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: So um I went into work as a um uh in community mental health while I earned my master's degree in clinical mental health counseling.
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: And then from there I went and got my doctoral degree in counseling psychology.
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: All right, so a long way.
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that was a long way and a lot of years um of education.
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: So with the thousand, you know, different areas that you could practice with your psychology PhD, it was it's a PhD, right?
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: It's not a science.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a PhD and the the formal degree of um uh educational psychology with a counseling psychology emphasis.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: So it's a research, uh research and clinical degree.
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: With that, what made you choose family law?
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: Like why the jump?
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: Well, that was kind of happenstance, but I think it was really uh influenced again by the forensic piece.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: I I mentioned that early interest in working as an FBI profiler.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: So I really at that point in my clinical training thought that even though I'm I'm more of a therapist at heart, the problem-solving aspect and the uh the sort of solving complex issues was was deeply interesting to me.
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: And I I had the thought that I would probably be more bored just being a general psychologist that did predominantly therapy and maybe psychological testing.
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: I wanted something that had more complexity to it.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: So forensics was sort of the go-to, but I had in my mind criminal forensics.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: And quite frankly, I don't know if I understood at that point even the difference between the different applications of forensic psychology until I landed an internship that just happened to have a family court emphasis and focus.
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: So I fell into it accidentally, at least the family court domain.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: Um, and I was hooked.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: Like from the moment I started, it was interesting, it was dynamic, it was complex.
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Um, it was like nothing I'd ever seen before in um in psychology.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: And then there was this undercurrent of like pain and struggle and suffering with families.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: And you could see how, in spite of their best efforts, in spite of um them really trying to make change and impact their kids in positive ways, they just couldn't get there.
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: And from a helping professional standpoint, that was of great interest to me because one, it was a big puzzle to solve and it was complex.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: So you couldn't sort of boil these things down to a simple one side versus that side.
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: And and then the ability to kind of help people navigate that complexity, I think was really what had me hooked.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: And I I think that I should have, we should back up just a little bit because I do think I should have asked you a little bit more about your personal life, which I did not put on the thing that I was gonna ask you.
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: So you are on the hot seat, Robert, again.
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: Um, let's let's talk about just give a little bit of your background.
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: Are you married, divorced?
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: Talk about that.
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: I am divorced.
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: I was married for almost 20 years or in a relationship and married combined for almost 20 years, and have uh three wonderful children from that that marriage and that relationship.
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: Um, but all during my training uh in psychology, during my degrees, uh during early child rearing, uh, that was all in the context of me being married and in the context of me being a father and navigating uh career and family and schooling and um all the complexity that comes with that.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: So um that was sort of the basis for um informing a lot of the work that I did, which was I had um a foundation of family and parenting that was informative for the professional work, but also just me as an individual.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: Um, and then when I went through my own separation and divorce um a few years ago, it took on a whole new meaning.
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: It um all the skills and tools and assessment that I would do with families from my vantage point in a different context, now suddenly had this new layer that was not only um more challenging, but also informed the notion that some of these tools are great on paper, but they don't always work in real life.
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: And I think that was the part that was really both healing for me as an individual, but also uh really, really uh helpful as a professional to understand the struggle that I think families go through on a day-to-day basis.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: So you can have empathy and compassion for a client in any circumstance, even if you haven't experienced it, but it does add a layer of understanding and applicability when you've been through something yourself.
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I I agree.
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: I I I wish that not that like every judge had to go through it, but I I feel like like because I can tell you there are there were some judges who had horrible divorces that acted like it on the bench.
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: You know what I mean?
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: Like you could really tell it it it led over into their work.
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: Um even on the appellate court, I think there was some some problematic stuff.
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: But Steve, so for those of you who don't know, I'm married to a retired judge.
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: And it was interesting because when we became involved and we had like step parent issues, right?
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: I would say, boy, it's a bit different when you're not on the bench, isn't it?
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: And he's like, Yes, it is, you know, when you the co-parenting, you know, a judge doesn't see it necessarily from that perspective, um of like co-parenting issues and step-parenting issues.
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: And he had his um eyes opened wide.
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: Oh, for sure.
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's such an excellent point.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: And so, you know, as an evaluator, where my the entirety of my job, like when I'm doing an evaluation, is based on in large part managing bias and and remaining neutral.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: Um, that's that's great when you haven't been through an experience like divorce or separation, because arguably it's a little bit more objective.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: I can't tell you how easy it is, having been through my own experiences, to over-identify now with an experience because I've experienced it myself.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: And that's a new layer of bias that I have to learn to manage in evaluations, which is, you know, no different than other types of biases.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: You you become aware of it, you understand, you know, what's activating that particular bias and maybe how it's contributing to your thinking, your framing, your analysis, and then you you control for that, right?
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: You have checks and balances.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: So you do that anyway.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: But this is an area where I never thought I would have to do that.
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: And and so it's been extremely humbling for one, and two, um, I think strengthening in terms of how I view dynamic family systems and co-parenting difficulties and child rearing issues across households.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: Um, but you have to you have to be able to manage that and understand how your thinking is impacted by your own experiences in a new way.
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: But I do love, I mean, I'm not happy that you're divorced because I think divorce sucks no matter who you are.
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: But I am it it's it's nice now for us for this for split up that you do have that insight too.
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: Like I have that insight, I've been through it, I've co-parented co-parented with a jerk, in my opinion.
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: Um and um and so it's it's nice that you at least have that understanding for people who use our app and who you know are like he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you do.
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: I mean, you know it from the educational part and you know it now personally.
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and I I feel very grateful because I have a very positive co-parenting relationship.
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: But um what has been very helpful for me to understand is the role of how how emotions and emotional activation impact thinking as it relates specifically to parenting and co-parenting issues.
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: So when I now see a co-parent who is responding in a really problematic way, um, I have a little bit more understanding because I know how that feels to be emotionally activated when there's a conflict and how that impacts your decision making.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: And so it's a little bit, I think, more relatable to me now to be able to coach somebody through a scenario like that and also have grace and understanding for when people make mistakes that you know, any person in that circumstance would make.
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: And then also, where do you draw that line between, okay, now it's becoming really problematic and you need to do something more specific or concrete to manage that that particular aspect of your co-parenting functioning?
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: So you have you've talked a little bit about counseling and a little bit about like evaluations.
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: Talk to me about like what services do you currently offer there?
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: And by the way, I'm trying to get them out of there forever, but um, but but until then, um what services do you offer?
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: So I I the way I I would explain it to people who aren't familiar with the work that I do or maybe have never experienced family court work is there's sort of two tiers of services.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: Um in one tier, there's uh evaluative services.
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: These would be like doing a psychological evaluation for parental fitness, or sometimes it's called an independent psychological evaluation, where that eval is applied in a forensic or court setting to parenting or parenting capacity, um, all the way up to, you know, kind of what I call sometimes the nuclear option, which is in our state we or our jurisdiction we call it a comprehensive family evaluation, a CFE.
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: Other states call them custody studies or custody evaluations.
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: Um, you're effectively making recommendations uh to the court or to the fact finder, like a judge, uh, on the ultimate issues for the case, like parenting time and legal decision making.
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: So that's sort of one tier and everything in between evaluative.
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: On the other uh tier, you have more therapeutic services.
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: So that would be doing uh counseling or therapy individually with a parent.
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: So you might be a one-on-one therapist for uh a parent in a custody case where they're going through some sort of psychological problem or issue, or they need some sort of remediation about their parenting or co-parenting, um, all the way up to full family interventions, where I'm working with an entire family system that is typically court-appointed, or I rather am court-appointed to work with the family.
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: So I'm accountable to the judge and the court to provide updates.
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: Um, and so, you know, that could range from like some people call it reunification therapy to um just overseeing like a case implementation supervisor where I'm helping the family um uh implement their parenting plan because there's some sort of challenge or there's like a resist-refuse type of dynamic going on with one or more of the children.
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: That's where a child is resisting or refusing parenting time, um, even though that's what the court order is, and that could be for a variety of reasons.
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: So it's again like getting into like the messiness of the family system and helping them navigate that.
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: Okay, so it and that includes like co-parenting counseling.
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: You do that at all?
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yep.
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: On the therapeutic tier, I would say uh co-parenting coaching or co-parenting therapy.
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: And I say those differently because sometimes you're not really a therapist in that role.
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: You're providing like a coaching, um, you know, psychoeducational, you know, here's here's what effective co-parenting looks like, down to like it's a it's almost like a form of couples counseling, but for co-parents, you're not trying to counsel them to solve their relationship problems and reconcile, you're helping them create uh a framework for effective co-parenting together and effective problem solving.
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: So for all of you listening, he's made hundreds of videos that are on our split up app and he talks about a lot of this stuff.
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: So if you're interested in that kind of stuff, download the split up app because he does walk people through things like that.
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: So what's your favorite?
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: What's your favorite part of that?
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: My favorite part of the work or yeah.
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: Well, your favorite, like is it evaluations, is it counseling?
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: Is it what's your favorite one?
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: Uh so this is interesting because it it ebbs and flows.
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: So historically in my practice, I have kind of opened the or closed the tap to different types of services.
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: So what I found, what I found in my practice is that I'll do a lot of evaluations, like 80% of my practice will be doing evaluations, whether whether it's custody evaluations or psychological evaluations.
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: Um and I do those really intensely.
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: And then 20% of the my my calendar will be therapy, you know, individual therapy or family therapy.
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: And then I get really burnt out on doing evaluations because you're the role is very different.
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: You're doing a lot of analysis and describing, but you don't get to intervene.
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: And so that leaves a little bit of a feeling of like lack of closure for the family sometimes.
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: So when I hit that wall, I'll flip it.
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: And then I may be doing 80% therapy, 20% evaluations.
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: And so there's this ebb and flow that comes.
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: And I think that's really important to vary the type of work you do in family court because if you do one area too intensely, uh, it can be really easy to burn out because these cases are so heavy.
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: And um, as I'm sure you're gonna ask me about later, we get lots of uh attacks, you know, and um and criticisms for the work we do, um, which is just it really just comes with the territory, but you can you can change the flow of the type of work that you do based on kind of your interests or just availability.
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: Evaluations, by the way, are extremely um uh flexible because you're not doing a lot of meetings with the parties themselves.
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: It's a lot of work behind the scenes.
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: So if I needed more uh flexibility in my schedule in a given year, I might take on more evals.
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: I love them all.
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: It's just it's a matter of like how intense they are and how you um uh how you kind of manage your time and balance it.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: One area that I forgot to mention that I'm doing more and more of outside of the work you and I are doing, Launi , which feels also very rewarding, is collaborative divorce.
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: And so I've I've worked on many collaborative divorce teams to affect families in a different way.
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: And and for those collaborative families, the approach seems to be more, okay, we have a shared goal and a vision.
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: We don't want to litigate, we'd like to solve these problems outside of court.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: And we assemble a team of professionals.
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: And and that has been uh a new element, an angle to my practice that has been very uh rewarding because it doesn't feel so heavy and and um and negative.
• 19:23
  Speaker 2: Well, and can you explain that a little bit to people?
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: Because I think that I know you have a couple of different like jobs that you can do in one, right?
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: You can be the the I not evaluator, but I guess the cat the best interest person to talk to the about the child and maybe what that looks like for the family, what the best interest uh for the kids would be for parenting times and things like that.
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: But then you also could like lead it, right?
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: Are there yeah?
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: So there's different like collaborative divorce schools of thought.
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: You know, there's like different team um frameworks.
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: So one is that you have like a team leader and in that person is sort of the the the sort of team captain, if you will, and they're running the meetings and conducting things, and then you will typically have like what's called a communication coach for each of the uh the parents, or if it's not a a family with children, then then just the the two um uh the two spouses that are divorcing.
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: Um, and then if you if there are kids, you can be what's called a child specialist, and you're kind of the advocate and voice for the children to bring that information back to the team.
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: And then usually you have a financial neutral who does all the financial analysis to determine, you know, funds and how things should be split up to advise the parents on, you know, these are the uh parameters of your your finances and and how you can kind of divide those equitably or however you're gonna make those decisions.
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: So um I've served in lots of different roles.
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: I would never serve in the financial role because that's usually a financial accountant expert.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: Um, but I've done the parent coach, I've done the team captain sort of role, and I've done um the child specialist as well.
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: So it's just different flavors of the same.
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: So it one thing that we didn't also talk about, but that you said when you were talking about this collaborative divorce is that it's not litigation.
• 21:21
  Speaker 2: So one thing that we didn't discuss is testifying and litigation.
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: So what are your thoughts on testifying?
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: How often after you provide a report do you testify?
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: And and then I have more questions about that because I want to know about your depositions and stuff and what your what your thoughts are about that.
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, great question.
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: And I that reminds me, I didn't even talk about that.
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: Maybe I would consider that a third tier is being an expert in a case or an expert witness or um a consultant.
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: Um, you know, when I do an evaluation, let's just say it's like a custody evaluation, there's a high likelihood that that Case will go to trial.
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: And then if that happens, they usually require or they will they will subpoena the psychologist or the evaluator to testify.
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: So that happens, I would say maybe less than half of my cases because a lot of them do end up settling based on the report.
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: But when you do go, it's a lot of preparation.
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: It's re-reviewing your work and knowing the case well enough to be able to answer questions on the stand.
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: I would say it's actually probably one of my favorite parts of the job, if I'm being honest.
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: There's something about the intensity of being in the courtroom and the preparation and knowing a case well enough to be able to kind of come in and talk about it on the fly.
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: Granted, sometimes you're given questions in advance so you can somewhat prepare, but um you don't always know what they're gonna ask you about.
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: So um, so in evaluation cases, I'd say it's more likely.
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: There are cases where you're specifically hired as a consulting expert for an attorney or for a parent litigant, um, in which case uh they're asking you to testify to some sort of content or expertise area.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: And mine would be, you know, custody issues and in particular parent-child contact problems or resist refuse dynamics or parenting time schedules, that sort of stuff.
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: And how often are you deposed?
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: I love deposing, by the way.
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: I love deposing mental health experts.
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: But so you've asked me this before, and uh what just in our our um sort of casual conversations, and I think I shared with you, I probably have been deposed formally three times in my entire career, which you said was kind of unusual.
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: And I don't know why that is.
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: I will say though, I do tend to be really collaborative with attorneys.
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: So if they have questions post-evaluation, I have no problem getting on a call with them, um, like both attorneys or both sides, um, to clarify findings, to clarify uh recommendations.
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: Um, but they're usually really boundaried and respectful and not sort of drifting this into like a deposition where I'm being grilled on my methods and challenged on my opinions.
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: It's it's usually because it's they're settlement-minded and they're trying to settle the case.
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: So as I'm saying this out loud, I'm actually shocked that I haven't been deposed more.
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: Um formally, yeah.
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I've I've I've deposed a few, and I I I've thoroughly enjoyed deposing mental health experts because I I think you get to really dig down into it, into the reports.
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: And then you get to find the resolution, right?
• 24:37
  Speaker 2: You get to go, okay, so you're saying this person, you know, has this issue, this issue, this issue.
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: Let's get specific steps down on what you think this person could do to remedy those or whatever.
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: And then guess what?
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: You have a playbook by which to help your client get back into the you know, whatever position they need to be in.
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: If if if you want to see six months of a good um sober link, you know, testing daily or whatever, guess what?
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: Start it tomorrow.
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: I mean, these are things that it just gives you the playbook.
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: So as a lawyer, I like that just because I like having the playbook, because then once you've resolved those remedies, you're like, yep, I mean, that's what I said they should do, and they've done it.
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: I mean are you sure it's not you just like seeing the mental health professionals worm?
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: I did like that also.
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: I I did I had I had one one mental health expert that I friends with, love him, I think he's great.
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: Um that we ended up having two depositions with him on.
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: And um and it was it was interesting.
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: It was it was interesting.
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: He could because it's it's hard to def it's hard to depose your friends.
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: Um I happened to have the good parent in that case.
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: And so I was just disappointed that he didn't see how good my client was.
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: Like I felt like there should have been other there should have been other stuff happening.
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: Um and then I ended up getting him to diagnose the other person while we were discussing it.
• 26:12
  Speaker 2: I said, well, let's go through all, you know, so we went through the um the DSM, I don't know if it was a four back then, um and went through all the elements and said, Would you agree that this meets that?
• 26:26
  Speaker 2: And yeah, would you agree that, you know, and so it's kind of fun just to do that too.
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: It's fun, you know.
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: I mean, trials are fun.
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: That's the one thing I do miss about um family laws, they can be fun.
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: They it's it's it's like playing chess and it's you know, I don't, I mean, I know it sucks for the people that are in there.
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: Um, and so I don't I don't want to make light of them going through a very difficult time.
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: But it is a really um litigation is very interesting, I think, for lawyers.
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: I I don't do it anymore because I it's also very stressful.
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: Um I think judges make terrible decisions sometimes and it just it makes me want to vomit.
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: So but you're in a very different role as a litigator and an attorney in terms of like that's that piece you were describing as kind of being exciting as and fun.
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: You are advocating for your client and and really trying to push, you know, I don't want to say their agenda, but like they have a perception and a theory about what's happening in their family.
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: And so you get to really do your good work, your best work, bringing that perspective to light and supporting it.
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: And uh, my role is different in that I'm not an advocate for either side, unless perhaps I'm the expert consultant.
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: But as an evaluator, I'm a neutral appointee of the court.
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: So, and I'm also kind of in the thick of the clinical part with them where I'm seeing the dysfunction, the pain, the hurting.
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: And so it doesn't feel fun or exciting, probably in the same way that it's it does to you.
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: But for me, the challenge and the um the reward comes from trying to describe and convey a really complicated family circumstance or dynamic to um, I would just say lay people in terms of non-psychologists or people who aren't familiar with mental health functioning and you know, psychological uh constructs for family um dynamics and development.
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: And so you get to communicate that in a way that's effective to non-mental health professionals like attorneys, even the parents, you know, sometimes they don't have language or even like a framework for understanding what's going on in their family.
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: And when they do, from a psychological perspective, it can promote change.
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: They can say, Oh, I I can name this problem and I understand what the contributing factors are to it, and now we can do something different.
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: Unfortunately, sometimes when they're in that place and you're in a deposition or going to trial, they're beyond the solution sometimes.
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: And it's now whose side is going to quote unquote win, you know, with their perspective.
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: Um, but hopefully on the other side of that trial, they will have at least a report and some findings from the court that will help them move forward in a way.
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and I I agree.
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: I am a hundred percent an advocate.
• 29:22
  Speaker 2: Like I couldn't be a judge and I I've done mediations and I don't even want to do mediations.
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: I just I love advocating for people.
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: I love helping them with difficult problems.
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: Like I just I I like helping people, and I I've I don't think I I think there's lots of ways you can do that.
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: Um I've covered calendars on the bench and that's not fun.
• 29:48
  Speaker 2: I don't like being the decision maker for mediations.
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: I think maybe I'm not that diplomatic because when I see something that's just blatantly crazy and dumb, I have a hard time not saying it.
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: Um and so I can say it when I'm advocating.
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: I can be like that's the most ridiculous idea.
• 30:09
  Speaker 2: Um I can say that when I'm advocating for someone.
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: So I do love advocating, and that's why I go on Facebook and I'll, you know, kind of just you know, answer people's questions.
• 30:22
  Speaker 2: And um I don't advise them because I can't do that, uh, but I do give a little, you know, direction I think for people on um on Facebook.
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: I like doing that, I like helping people.
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: So that's that's kind of um where I go with that.
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: But you are kind of a different kind of helper.
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: Um, and so when you are trying to help, I know that there's things that are difficult for you when you're trying to help families.
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: So, what are the kind of the difficult things when you're doing what you're doing?
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: Like in in family court specifically.
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: So maybe I'll break that up into two parts.
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: I'll say what's challenging, and that's not in a negative way.
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: It's challenging and it's um it's sort of a rewarding kind of way, and and sort of solving a puzzle, but there's this phenomenon that I'm aware of, and I have to be aware of it because it can lead to bias.
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: But you'll talk to the first parent that you have the interview with, and you're immediately like locked into their narrative, right?
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: It's it's plausible.
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: You start thinking, like, gosh, this sounds like this parent's really been through the ringer.
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: Um, this other co co-parent sounds like very challenging, right?
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: And you're sort of starting to develop these preliminary hypotheses.
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: Then you meet with the next parent and you're like, oh my gosh, I have such a different perspective now.
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: And their story sounds so plausible.
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: And and all the same things you thought about the first parent.
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: And so, as evaluators and clinicians, we have to be really careful about things like anchoring bias and primacy and recency effects, you know, because those all impact how we um kind of move forward in the analysis and data collection if we if we kind of like anchor our views and our hypotheses in like our initial story that we hear.
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: So we have that awareness.
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: So I'd say that's more of the challenging, interesting part because your understanding of the family continually evolves with every new person you talk to, every new data point.
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: And so it does keep you engaged in the process.
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: Where that kind of goes sideways, and the most difficulty I experience is when you start hearing, particularly from the kids, or a proxy of the kids, like the parents talking about things that the kids are saying.
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: And so the things that really tug at me are like when kids are really um entrenched in and expressing a uh either an intense anger or hatred towards a parent or a fear of that parent.
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: And and sometimes that's based in in real events that have happened, like abuse or domestic violence.
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: Other times it could be a result of alienating behaviors by the other parent.
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: Uh, multiple hypotheses are always considered, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day.
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: You see this kid really struggling with a narrative, um, and and their constant feeling and takeaway when they talk to family core professionals or or people in their life is nobody is listening to me, nobody understands, nobody hears me.
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: And that's valid because from a child's perspective, they're equating hearing and listening to a a particular outcome that they're looking for, which may or not, may or may not be the one that's in their actual best interest because they're viewing it from their childlike, you know, perspective, which may be, I don't ever want to see mommy or I don't ever want to see daddy again, and nobody's listening to me, right?
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: Those are really hard things to reconcile as a parent myself, as an evaluator, as a co-parent, because those are all things where you want to listen to the voice of the child.
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: You don't want to dismiss that, but you also know as a rational clinician that there's more to this story than just what the child is saying.
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: And one parent will be certainly advocating for that voice to be elevated above all else, and another parent may be advocating for that child's voice to be suppressed for various reasons.
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: That's a really tough spot to be in as an evaluator and as a clinician and just as a human being, because if you're wrong about your conclusions and recommendations, you can cause real harm.
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: Um, so you know, I those are the things that I would say keep me up at night that I think a lot of parents feel or have the perception that evaluators don't care about, you know, that, you know, we're just in the pocket of somebody else, like the other parent or the court, or we're just doing this for the money or the the recognition.
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: And so those types of um statements I think always hit a little bit hard because we really, at least myself and a lot of my colleagues that I know, we do this for the kids, you know, to make sure that they're safe and in the best possible scenario on the other end of the evaluation.
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: Okay, so you did say something that I did want to touch on just a little bit.
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: Only because I prep people for custody evaluations.
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: And you said something that I thought was interesting.
• 35:21
  Speaker 2: You said that you talked about the recency and uh the biases, right?
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: And um I always recommend that my clients go in first.
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: And I do that for two reasons.
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: Um the main reason is because I do want their story told first, because then that's what you're thinking about when you talk to the other person, whether you like it or not.
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: That's that's the story that's in the back of your head, right?
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: But also for their own sake, because I can't tell you how often if I've had a client that went in second, they're like, I think that they were biased because they already talked to the other parent, and I, you know, so more for them, I always recommend that they're the first one because I don't want them to think that because you've met someone, you're you know, any evaluator is gonna be biased about it.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: Does that make sense?
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: So yeah, it's really for it's really because I don't I I get that there's biases and I get that you guys kind of work your way through it and do what you need to do.
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: Um but I think for clients, I always recommend it because I don't want them to think.
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: I don't want them going in there scared and on the defense, which I think if if they go in, I feel like they think that they are on the defense just because they know the other person has gone in.
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I certainly understand it.
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: I don't know if I agree with the necessity of that, particularly because at least I know how I manage that situation, and I have to guess that other evaluators do the same, but I really don't think that it anchors my my opinion.
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: In fact, I could make an argument that, you know, the reverse could be true.
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: It could, it could actually backfire on them because then I hear the other parents' narrative.
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: If I were to anchor now the second narrative, then I might view the first narrative as manipulative or deceptive, right?
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: And so I think I understand, at least from the perspective of they may feel they need to go first because they'll be more relaxed and therefore they may be more effective at communicating their concerns.
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: My belief overall, though, is that if you handle the family fairly and respectfully throughout the entire process and they're not reliant on any one particular encounter with their evaluator to inform how they feel, they tend to relax into the process and understand that we have a method for a reason.
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: And frankly, I don't think they have any control over who goes first in my process.
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: I think it's more of a product of how my office engages with them and reaches out for scheduling and maybe who actually responds quicker.
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: But then it also depends on my own availability.
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: So it would be really hard to control who goes first, at least in my my practice.
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: Although I don't think so.
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: I think it's pretty, I think it's pretty easy to be the first one in there.
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah, you may say that from personal experience.
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: And I do, I do think I I honestly do think it calms my clients.
• 38:23
  Speaker 2: I think that they have their own perception of not wanting to have you have all this negative information.
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: And we talk about listen, they've already got the pleadings in front of them, they've got all the information.
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: We have so much information.
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: It's not like they haven't heard everything, but I do think it makes them more comfortable.
• 38:41
  Speaker 2: Um and so that's always my recommendation.
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: I'm like, you pay now and you set up your appointment as soon as you can.
• 38:49
  Speaker 2: So um, I don't I don't know that it makes a big deal, but I I know that it makes them feel better, and that's a big part of it.
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: I think it's I I personally think if you feel better, you present your best self a little bit better.
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and and I think that's a fair point.
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: Uh my hope is that any evaluator that's speaking to a parent would give them lots of opportunities to be able to share their information in a way that is effective.
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: So if I see if and this is true of any of my cases, but if I have a parent that comes in the door pretty hot and anxious or agitated, I'm noting that as a behavioral observation and just other descriptors that I might take note of, but I haven't formed an opinion necessarily about why I'm seeing that.
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: You know, context is so important.
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: They could have gotten into a car accident on the way over, or they could have been late getting their kids to school because I had this demand on them that they have this three-hour interview in the middle of a, you know, a school morning, you know, and like there's there's lots of reasons why a parent may come in here anxious, frustrated, hurting, sad.
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: Um, I want to see it all, but I'm not gonna base an entire recommendation off of a single observation or data point.
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: So I hope that goes to comfort some clients, but some may just need that control too, and that could be part of the picture too, is they need they need the control because they're so anxious that they have to kind of control all the pieces around them.
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: And so as much as possible.
• 40:18
  Speaker 2: I I think with divorce, and I think you and I have discussed this before losing control is hard and it sucks.
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: And when you've been the person in control, it's so difficult.
• 40:28
  Speaker 2: And so now you're in control of nothing, and the court's making orders for you, and you don't know what to do, and you're you're freaking out, and you need to now tell your side of the story, and you're not quite sure that you're gonna do that appropriately because you're an anxious mess.
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: And well, yeah, and you may have like not had really great representation before, or maybe not been effective in front of a judge or the court and a and had an adverse ruling because of it, you know, because you just couldn't get the information there.
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: So it could be grounded in a real experience.
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's kind of one of the things that I think we do at Split Up too is we've made, I know I've made a bunch of videos.
• 41:07
  Speaker 2: I think you've made a bunch of videos on how to present your best self, on how to present your best self in court.
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: Um, yeah, especially when you're like hyper-vigilant after being in an abusive marriage or relationship, you might come off a little difficult.
• 41:23
  Speaker 2: Um, and that's one of the things that I I love coaching people through because it's really just presenting your best self and trying to calm some real big anxieties that you've got.
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: And and don't forget, too, most of the the folks that are doing these evaluations are psychologists and trained mental health professionals.
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: So we're human beings and we understand the impact of emotions.
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: Just as an example, I did I started an eval this morning, Launi , and the parent told me very candidly that they were very anxious about the meeting.
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: But after hearing me talk through the informed consent and the process and helping her understand it, she totally relaxed into it.
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: And it was, but just the acknowledgement shows awareness.
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: Like, hey, I have a feeling or an emotion that may be impacting the way I'm showing up today.
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: And that's helpful for me to know.
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: One, they have insight.
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: And two, now I'm cued to understand, okay, I need to give this observation a little bit more context.
• 42:20
  unknown: Yeah.
• 42:21
  Speaker 2: And I think we, and we, you and I both have made videos kind of on that whole perspective too, and how um being prepared for things like an evaluation can help you just feel a little calmer, too.
• 42:33
  Speaker 1: Well, and and this may sound a little bit derogatory, but I call them like binder parents, the parents that come in with like, you know, three six-inch, you know, three ring binders and banker boxes, and they're so um like anxious.
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: There's so much like anxious energy that they feel they just need to like dump it all out on the table for me so that I can see and understand their perspective.
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: And my awareness with those parents is you just really need to like slow down with them and like help them understand you're not gonna get everything on the record that you're gonna want to today.
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: So let's not put that expectation on on yourself, on me.
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: We'll take it slow, we'll get the information that we need.
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: And then they tend to kind of relax into it.
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: So I I want to kind of talk to you about split up.
• 43:20
  Speaker 2: And I wanted to kind of go down that that direction.
• 43:25
  Speaker 2: So I I don't know, did I text you?
• 43:27
  Speaker 2: Did I email you?
• 43:28
  Speaker 2: Do I call you?
• 43:28
  Speaker 2: I probably emailed you and said, Hey, I've got an idea.
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: Um which time?
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: Because uh you've done this multiple times with other projects too.
• 43:39
  Speaker 2: Well, this is we're talking about split up.
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: No, no, I know.
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: But just for perspective on Launi , Launi 's got a lot of great ideas.
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: And so we started many projects.
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: We're still working on Learn Law for All.
• 43:50
  Speaker 2: So Learn Law for All did not disappear, and I'm still anticipating you're gonna be participating in that.
• 43:55
  Speaker 2: It's just that split up came about because I could be unreliable and complete it because I had some family situations.
• 44:05
  Speaker 2: My mom was ill.
• 44:07
  Speaker 2: Um, and so I was working on one project that I really wanted him to work on with me.
• 44:12
  Speaker 2: Um, but then I became very unreliable because I was my mom's person for her medical stuff.
• 44:17
  Speaker 2: Um, and then I came back again and I'm like, hey, I can do this when I'm unreliable.
• 44:23
  Speaker 2: Um, because I I didn't need to record with people, I didn't need to do that kind of stuff.
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: And so, all right, so let's say now we're talking about split up.
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: And and what were your thoughts on that?
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: My first thought was like, yay, I'm going through a divorce right now, Launi .
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: Let me just add more to my plate.
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: And what did I do?
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: I I did it anyway.
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it was actually great.
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 44:46
  Speaker 2: And I think we we slowed down a bit.
• 44:48
  Speaker 2: It was easier just to kind of well listen, clearly.
• 44:52
  Speaker 2: This was like years ago.
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: So um it didn't take off as quickly as we had hoped.
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: We had been we'd had, you know, our developer promise that the app was going to be done, blah, blah, blah.
• 45:04
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 45:04
  Speaker 2: Uh, it was not done.
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: So we we but we did have these bank of this bank of um videos, and ideas, and just like the the thought and the desire to create something that was helpful.
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: And so that's actually what really interested me in the project and why I was so grateful to be involved is that I've continually run up against these frustration walls with uh the family court work because like any system, it's imperfect.
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: You know, you can't expect it to work perfectly in every case and every circumstance.
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: You know, we hope that it the family court gets it right more times than not, and even most of the time, but there's always going to be exceptions.
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: And I think the times where it has not helped families and they've also not had resources to advocate for themselves, it's sort of this perfect storm of problem, right?
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: And so the idea that you brought forward was split up to be a resource for individuals, families, parents, co-parents who don't have legal representation and they don't have access to the mental health services.
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: Because, as an aside, I mean, there's no way to kind of sugarcoat this.
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: The forensic services are expensive, like obscenely expensive sometimes.
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: And that's because the risk is so high.
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: And so I don't think parents understand, you know, the liability insurance and the the technology and the equipment and all the things that go behind running a forensic practice.
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: Uh, it does cost more, but that doesn't mean it creates equitability for families.
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: And so you end up seeing families who have the resources to fund hiring a private, you know, consultant, hiring a very effective attorney who's got tons of family court experience, um, taking time off of work, you know, to manage these things.
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: They don't, they just don't have some of these, many of these families don't have those resources.
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: So split up to me was at least an approach to that solution that had really bothered me for some time because I I can only do so much pro bono work and also, you know, make a living and maintain my practice as well.
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: So um this is a way to kind of give back to the community, give back to parents, empower parents, empower families.
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: Uh, and it's just such an amazing opportunity.
• 47:31
  Speaker 2: So, yeah, I want to talk a little bit by why I thought it was so important to have you.
• 47:35
  Speaker 2: I mean, besides the fact that I wanted a psychologist, um, because I I did want this to be a really well-rounded um app.
• 47:43
  Speaker 2: I wanted I wanted to be able to give um and I don't like to say legal advice because it's not really legal advice, it's direction, it's education, it's coaching, it's it's it's short of advice, in my opinion, um, because I don't have anybody specific cases, but we do talk about some things.
• 48:02
  Speaker 2: Um and I think that I I honestly think that that the split up app was a great idea just as a as a legal service.
• 48:14
  Speaker 2: And then I thought, holy cow, what if we brought in the psychological part?
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: Because it's, you know, when you go through a divorce, I've been divorced, it sucks and it's hard, and there's all sorts of feelings, and you have feelings upon feelings, and then you're fine, and then all of a sudden, from out of nowhere, here's more feelings and uh frustrations and anger and things that you don't understand.
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: And a lot of people, I mean, 80 to 80, well, I think it's 85 to 90 percent of uh families that go through divorce and the family court um don't have uh an attorney and don't have access to someone like you or like me.
• 48:53
  Speaker 2: And and so they couldn't do that.
• 48:55
  Speaker 2: So with all the mental health experts out there, why did I pick Robert?
• 48:59
  Speaker 2: First of all, he had to be the pretty face.
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: We're gonna have Robert as the pretty face, but also he's you're Robert, you are so well spoken and you are so kind and you have some really great experiences.
• 49:13
  Speaker 2: Um I think out of the mental health experts that I know and I've worked with, I I think you were really kind of the one of the best.
• 49:24
  Speaker 2: I mean, listen, there's there's a couple other ones, one you know very well, um, who I who I really um liked working with.
• 49:31
  Speaker 2: But and I I just I I think you bring so much to this because you're so kind, you're so not judgy.
• 49:41
  Speaker 2: Um, I mean, I throw myself, you know, on the sword all the time and talk about all my mess-ups, and then you're like, you're like, let me challenge you on that.
• 49:49
  Speaker 2: You know, I I I love that you're willing to do that.
• 49:51
  Speaker 2: And I, you know, I think that's great.
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: I think that's great for um I think that's great for the app.
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: I think it's great for people to see.
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: And um so, and I've seen you present before in, you know, at AFCC and stuff.
• 50:05
  Speaker 2: So I I thought Robert would be the the perfect person, and turns out he is.
• 50:10
  Speaker 2: Um, I think he's perfect for this.
• 50:11
  Speaker 2: And I'm I am so thankful that you were willing to to jump on board and sort of trust me with all your time and effort to get this kicked off.
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: It's really great I have a filter on right now.
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: Otherwise you'd see me blushing.
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: But this is that's very kind words.
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: Thank you.
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: I'm very flattered and and honored to be part of this.
• 50:30
  Speaker 1: And and I have the same level of respect and appreciation for you as an attorney and friend and professional.
• 50:37
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 50:37
  Speaker 2: So Robert, I say I and I do say this, I want to save you from this industry because I think it's so hard on you.
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: I know that there's so many things that are difficult for you in this industry where where people attack you, where people, you know, say negative things.
• 50:58
  Speaker 2: And so that was another reason.
• 50:59
  Speaker 2: I'm like, I'm gonna save you from this.
• 51:01
  Speaker 2: I wanna, you know, I got out and I wanna save Robert from this.
• 51:04
  Speaker 2: But, you know, let's talk about the negative press.
• 51:09
  Speaker 2: And and I just I want to give you an opportunity to address some of that because I don't know that you typically have an opportunity to address um some of the negative stuff that that occurs.
• 51:23
  Speaker 2: And I I just at least want to say I've in the past had Robert as an evaluator.
• 51:31
  Speaker 2: I've had probably every evaluator that's out there currently, I've used them as evaluators or they've been, I didn't use them as evaluators, they were part of the case.
• 51:42
  Speaker 2: And they didn't always find in my favor.
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: And sometimes again, we had to depose them or we had to be not very nice to them on the stand.
• 51:49
  Speaker 2: Um and and I can tell you, I don't think that anyone out there that I've had on any of my cases purposefully try to hurt people, purposefully choose um a father over a mother or a mother over a father.
• 52:09
  Speaker 2: I've never experienced that.
• 52:12
  Speaker 2: And so I know there's some people out there that have been loud, and I know that there's been people out there who've gone to the legislature, and I know that you've gone through some stuff.
• 52:21
  Speaker 2: So I just wanted to give you kind of that opportunity to kind of talk about that.
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really um important question and and helpful, I think, and and maybe useful for families to understand this too.
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: But when you're an evaluator, when you're an appointee of the court, uh you're also becoming part of that system that's viewed by most parents in it as adversarial.
• 52:44
  Speaker 1: And it's designed that way.
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: It's set up to have a winner and a loser, right?
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: You either prevail in your case, in your case theory, or you don't.
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: And so that already creates a setting and a dynamic that that anticipates that level of uh frustration that then can be converted into uh criticisms, hurt, anger towards anybody involved in your case.
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: I've seen it directed at their own attorneys or at the court or psychology in general or the evaluator.
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: And so you do expect that level of criticism.
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: I used to joke that, you know, really the work that we have or my clients, um, 50% of them hate me.
• 53:24
  Speaker 1: And that's a little bit of an exaggeration, but truly, 50% of my clients will have an opinion that didn't favor them.
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: And that's just the math of it, right?
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: And so one type of parent will take that and they can either say, okay, well, there were some legit criticisms about me as a parent or my fitness or things like that.
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: And these are some things I want to work on.
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: And maybe he got some things wrong, but overall, like I can accept that that opinion and and they work on those things.
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: And that actually could be favorable for modification later, right?
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: Is that there was insight, awareness, growth, and then change, and then suddenly they can um, you know, make important changes to their family structure again.
• 54:08
  Speaker 1: There's another subgroup of parents that either vehemently believes that it was so wrong, that there was no truth in the findings, that the process was biased or unprofessional, that they cannot accept any of the criticisms.
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: Those are the parents that tend to really go on the attack.
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: And uh it is possible that an evaluator or myself could have gotten it that wrong.
• 54:33
  Speaker 1: Uh, but when you follow the conventions and community standards of a psychological evaluation or a custody evaluation, you're not so reliant on any one piece of data that you could get it that wrong.
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: If you've done that, then something was was seriously wrong with the process.
• 54:51
  Speaker 1: So there shouldn't be, I mean, I can think of maybe some very unique examples, but there shouldn't be one sort of smoking gun data point that dismantles your entire evaluation.
• 55:02
  Speaker 1: It may change a consideration or two.
• 55:04
  Speaker 1: Um, so when I see these criticisms, particularly when they go to the legislator or they go um, you know, doing social media campaigns against the psychologist or against me or filing board complaints, I understand their frustration and anger.
• 55:19
  Speaker 1: I really do.
• 55:20
  Speaker 1: Um, but a lot of those folks had an adverse opinion in the report or the evaluation because of typically sometimes personality functioning issues or parental fitness concerns.
• 55:32
  Speaker 1: And those are the very things that are driving their behaviors and anger towards the system to begin with.
• 55:38
  Speaker 1: Um, again, there are plenty of cases that we can cite where uh a piece of information was missed or another parent was so persuasive that, you know, and and maybe had the financial means to overpower the data and the information that, you know, something was was missed.
• 55:56
  Speaker 1: But I would say that's the exception and not the rule.
• 55:59
  Speaker 1: It doesn't account for uh the number of complaints that we get.
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: And frankly, uh most of the complaints are dismissed outright.
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: So if it's a specific board complaint, um, I don't want to put any sort of uh sort of bad energy out in the universe, but I've never had one.
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: Any complaint that's been brought before the psychology board has been screened out and dismissed because it had no merit, or it claimed something that was just so easily disproven that the board wouldn't even pick it up.
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: And that's not because the board is particularly protective of psychologists.
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: So that's another misunderstanding is that the psychology board or whoever the professional board is that oversees the professional is somehow in cahoots with the professionals.
• 56:40
  Speaker 1: They're not.
• 56:41
  Speaker 1: They are there for the community and the protection of the community.
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: They will throw me under the bus so quickly and I consult with them and I do all the things to sort of like support my profession.
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: If I did something wrong or another professional under the board did something wrong, they're going to take it seriously and they will investigate it and they will um make corrective action.
• 57:02
  Speaker 1: It happens all the time.
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: Um, so there are protections and layers to sort of help the community.
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: But, you know, the criticisms are hard to watch sometimes, especially because you can't defend yourself.
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: You could have all this private, confidential private health information data to support why you made a particular decision, but it's not like I can go on the internet and say, you know, parent A or parent B has all these difficulties or problems or diagnoses and should be um their opinions should be discounted.
• 57:31
  Speaker 1: Um they're entitled to say whatever they want.
• 57:33
  Speaker 1: And, you know, I'm I can't say anything in response.
• 57:36
  Speaker 2: So you're not gonna go put a sign on the corner.
• 57:39
  Speaker 1: No, but they have done that for me for sure.
• 57:42
  Speaker 2: No, no, and I I should take it back because I I do know I I've cross-examined some people um and taken depositions, and I think that there have been some some significant mess-ups.
• 57:57
  Speaker 2: Um, I think that there's a couple of psychologists out there, and I've prepped people, by the way, across the country, um, and been astonished at the way some of them do things.
• 58:08
  Speaker 2: So I'm not going to sit here and say that they're all perfect.
• 58:11
  Speaker 2: I know for fact there's some there's bad people in every profession, period.
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: Every profession, yeah.
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: And and there's boundary crossings and inappropriate behaviors by psychologists.
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: Absolutely.
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: And that's true.
• 58:23
  Speaker 1: And honestly, most of those individuals will either be sanctioned so heavily or they will not be practicing anymore.
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: They'll lose their license.
• 58:32
  Speaker 2: So Robert's not one of them.
• 58:33
  Speaker 2: That's my point.
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: Hopefully not yet.
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 58:37
  Speaker 2: Um, but yeah, I do I do appreciate that.
• 58:40
  Speaker 2: I I understand that there's a lot of negative stuff out there.
• 58:43
  Speaker 2: And I I at least wanted to give you that opportunity because um, and I I also want to tell anyone who's got an evaluation, if you're not represented, guess what?
• 58:53
  Speaker 2: You can depose that evaluator.
• 58:55
  Speaker 2: Now, I would suggest you be careful when you do.
• 58:59
  Speaker 2: I would suggest there's some books out there.
• 59:00
  Speaker 2: I think Phil Stahl, Dr.
• 59:02
  Speaker 2: Phil Stahl has written a couple of books that talk about um not necessarily how to cross-examine someone, but really what the evaluation's supposed to entail.
• 59:12
  Speaker 2: I and I used it against him in a cross-examination one time.
• 59:16
  Speaker 2: Um, so it was beautiful.
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: Uh, and it works.
• 59:19
  Speaker 2: So um, but yeah, I I think that you just need to understand that you can you can depose them.
• 59:25
  Speaker 2: You don't um, depending on your jurisdiction, I assume.
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: I don't know that every jurisdiction allows it.
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: I know that they do in Arizona, and it seems as if you should be able to, if an attorney is able to, you should have the same uh basic rights as they do.
• 59:36
  Speaker 2: But I don't know that that's true for every jurisdiction.
• 59:40
  Speaker 2: Um, you may have to get the court's permission or something.
• 59:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 59:43
  Speaker 2: But I mean, Robert, I I I do want to thank you for kind of addressing that because I know that that's a that's an issue that I've seen.
• 59:53
  Speaker 2: Um, you know, you do get some negative feedback on some of our podcasts and some of the things that you're saying.
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 2: So I also wanted to kind of give you I wanted people to understand your background and you're just not, you know, pulling this stuff out of your ass.
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 2: It's it makes sense.
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 2: You're educated, you've you've got the history, you've got the experience.
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 2: And and so when you're talking about when you do an evaluation and when you are trying to help parents, you're doing it because you want to help people.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 2: You have the education and what you've been taught that can help people, you've seen it help people, and you've lived through it.
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, all of the above.
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: And and you know, I also appreciate healthy criticism and dialogue.
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: I I have a thick skin, and you know, when we review those comments, I mean, some of them are amusing how um un you know, unkind people are, but um that that's true of anything on the internet.
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 1: You know, you have your trolls and your people that don't know how to dialogue and have, you know, meaningful, you know, discussions about real issues.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 1: What I will say about, you know, some of the parents' groups and individuals that have advocated for legislative changes, I think a lot of them are in um, I think they're coming from a good place.
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 1: I think they are advocating for some very real challenge, changes to some really big challenges in family court and and different circumstances.
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: And that's not just unique to our jurisdiction, but throughout the country.
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 1: Again, these are very complex issues and um they require a lot of expertise and understanding and um and sort of professionals that get these issues.
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 1: The challenge that we have is when um advocacy is made based on incorrect or false information that then could impact laws and regulations.
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: That's where it starts to get a little bit more muddy.
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: But that's why we have the legislative process.
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 1: And so um I've been very involved in helping adjust and inform some of the legislation that have been turned into laws.
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 1: Uh, because I think that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: There's some good content in there, and it's coming from the right place, like the Alec and Lydia Act that um was passed here in Arizona from House Bill 2995.
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 1: Um, that came from a really good place uh in terms of protecting domestic violence survivors and children from from future abuse.
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 1: Do I think that everything in that legislat, in those uh those bills that became law will actually accomplish what it purports to?
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 1: I I have concerns about that.
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: As an evaluator and somebody who works in family court, I know how it can actually do the opposite and actually protect um perpetrators.
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 1: And so there's no perfect answer, but they require conversations and dialogue.
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 1: And that's what I'm I'm here to hopefully promote and help people understand is that we can come up with solutions that get to the heart of the problems, but it's not always going to be perfect.
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with that a hundred percent.
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 2: I also think that maybe you and I should do a podcast on not just the Alec and Lydia Act, but the domestic violence um laws out there because you know, I I watch social media.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 2: I I follow you guys.
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 2: I I I look at what's happening in family law and in the family law groups and I see people, you know, hitting their spouse the women hitting men and women being abusive to men and women going on social media and saying the terrible things that they've done to their husbands or their boyfriends or their baby daddies or whatever.
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: And I'll tell you what, if they were here and they went to court, they could lose custody.
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 2: And it freaks me out to like that they're just putting that on social media.
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 2: I just want to be like, stop, stop doing that.
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 2: You're gonna get yourself in trouble.
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 2: Because, you know, as women, we kind of think it's it's and I want to say funny, but kind of funny in some cases, on what, you know, jokingly when we do that, when we hit our husbands, you know, just jokingly like uh like a that.
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 2: If a guy did that, that's domestic violence.
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 2: It's well, guess what?
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 2: It's domestic violence for a woman too.
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 2: And you could get in trouble, you could lose your kids.
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 2: And I've had clients where they're like, Can I lose my kids?
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 2: Yes, you can lose your child for that, like especially with the new, the new rules.
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 2: And it's you can lose a lot of access.
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: Um, you're gonna need to do a lot of work to to fix that.
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 2: And that's scary.
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 2: And I I just I think at some point we need to, you know, try and figure out a really good podcast for that.
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 2: And I don't know what it is, but maybe what I'll do is I'll search some videos and maybe we can watch some of them and go, listen, guys, like take this off.
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 2: I guess we don't want to take it off.
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 2: Maybe we're then destroying evidence.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 2: I don't know, but right, right.
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 1: Um well, and and this is where, again, context is really important, you know, and and in some of these instances and examples that you're citing, those could be done purely for entertainment.
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 1: There may not even be a spouse involved, right?
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 1: They could be to, you know, generate, you know, hits and clicks and things like that.
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 1: And, you know, swatting a partner or a spouse, you know, one time may or may not qualify as domestic violence, depending on the context, right?
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 1: And so it's how it's received, what is the pattern, what is the um the trajectory of violence in families and intergenerational traumas and violence, as well as uh intimate partner violence.
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 1: These are all things that we look at as contextualizing something like a SWAT or a hit.
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: And that's really hard to do from looking at a video, but it speaks to and illustrates these very points.
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 1: If it's taken out of context correctly or incorrectly, that can be used against you in court.
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 1: It could be taken out of context by an evaluator who doesn't have the full context or picture.
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 1: If one party has uh a very high powered, experienced family court attorney and is, you know, providing a lot of data.
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: And information to the evaluator where the other side doesn't have an attorney and can't sort of counterbalance that, that could become problematic.
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it I I just I think that they I think that the pendulum is swinging.
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 2: And I think right now they're really being protective of victims of domestic violence.
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 2: And I think for a long time they weren't.
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: As they should be.
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 2: I think that there's a lot of people out there maybe committing some domestic violence that they don't understand as domestic violence.
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: And that's a really fair point.
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: And I think, yeah, and evaluators and mental health professionals, you know, this is our role to help educate.
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 1: You know, you may not be aware, for example, there's all this attention on course of control, you know, and like how many people knew before attention was brought to this that if you opened your spouse's mail, you know, and were like looking at their private mail, even if that were totally um endorsed during the relationship or marriage, or checking each other's emails, or looking at each other's phones or text messages, things that would be kind of okay and permissible in the context of the relationship, maybe in some, maybe not in others, but let's just say it was.
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 1: And now you're in a high conflict uh divorce proceeding, and maybe some of those behaviors kind of drifted over into post-separation time because you still had usernames and passwords and synced clouds and things like that.
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: That's typically against the law now.
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 2: It's not just domestic violence and coercive control.
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 2: That it is very likely against the law.
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 1: But the the evidentiary burden is different, wouldn't you agree?
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: So, like whether it's criminally uh prosecutable versus whether it's viewed by an evaluator as evidence of coercive control can have a very different impact on custody, not to say anything about criminal charges, but it could impact your custody regardless of whether or not it produced a criminal charge.
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I had a client before who did um, she took a baby, she took the the child from the other parent from her the the dad, like out of his arms.
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 2: And they'd been yelling, went up, took the baby.
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 2: Um, he called the police, she got in trouble for she got a DV hit.
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 2: And um my thought is now with this law, I'm a bit I would be a bit more concerned for her in that situation, even though the um the dad had been had had some significant domestic violence issues that just weren't caught.
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 2: You know?
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 2: I mean that was I that that worries me.
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 2: So ladies, don't do that.
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 2: I mean that worries me.
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 2: It just it worries me that that we think that we get to do things as women.
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 2: And I just I I I just think you need to be careful.
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 2: I think it's gonna be used against them now.
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 2: When the when the laws get harsher, I think I think that the I think that the women can be in more trouble in this case.
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and one of the contextual cues that we look at is is the power differential and power dynamic.
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: So you're using gender if it's a woman versus a man or a man versus a woman, but regardless of the gender, if there's a power differential and how that power is wielded and how it's received by the alleged victim, that becomes relevant to assessing the dynamic.
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 1: And and that could be a matter of how effective your attorney is in presenting your theory of of the dynamic in the case, which could also impact how the evaluator sees it.
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's it's just be just be careful.
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 2: I'm just just be careful.
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 1: Um I mean, a great approach is just like keep your hands off of each other, too.
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 2: You know, like that and don't like hide money and don't like like the exact thing.
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: There's probably a whole list of things.
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: Now that um maybe we can make a list, Launi , that we could add to uh the split up app of like here, just don't do all these things.
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 2: Here's the don't here's a list of don'ts.
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we should we should definitely have a video on it.
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we should have like red light, yellow light, green light.
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 1: Oh, I do.
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 2: I think I have I have the flags.
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 2: I have a green flag and a red flag somewhere.
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 1: The yellows would be a little bit more like open to interpretation, but probably still be cautious around those, right?
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 2: All right, Robert.
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 2: Well, thank you.
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 2: I I appreciate you uh talking about yourself and being willing to be open on that.
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 2: I think it's I think it can help some people get to know um not just you, but us as a company and uh and why we're here.
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 2: So thank you.
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you for the opportunity.
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 1: It's been really uh uh interesting conversation, and I'm just so grateful to be part of split up and educating the the community.
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 2: All right.