(This essay is intended to be the first in a series written by DCPA members about ethical dilemmas in providing psychological services)

When I first provided forensic services as a psychologist, in 1970, there wasn't any ethical issue or conflict between my professional ethical code and the task before me. A young man, Mexican American was on trial for a capitol offense. His attorneys argued that he couldn't get a fair trial in Los Angeles County because a jury of his peers would not try him. After checking the jury rolls past and present, they had not found any Mexican Americans on jury service. It was my job to try to figure out why. I examined the criteria for jury selection. There was a test that had been standardized on undergraduates at the University of Southern California. It was obvious then that jury selection in LA County was severely biased against people who would not have been admitted to USC at the time! That was clearly a job for a psychologist to perform. It the 37 years since that case, the lines has become increasingly blurred. We now find ourselves as psychologists, engaged as expert witnesses in criminal, civil and family law cases-particularly custody conflicts and there is, in many courts, great reliance on the conclusions of psychologists. In fact, to the extent that in many cases, it seems as though the judge is delighted to abrogate his or her own responsibility in favor of the decision made my the "expert" psychologist. The problem with this picture is that too often the "expert" isn't and hasn't been explicit about is or her areas of expertise, qualifications and the scientific validity of the data on which reliance is placed. The next dilemma is how to deal with such inadequate `expertise" when confronted. Cleaj-y Ethics code 9.04 grants us the right and even the obligation, to review each other's data-but what if a colleague will not comply? The Daubert ruling requires that any professed expertise must be based in scientifically valid data, evaluated according to the criteria and guidelines of science. Otherwise, this is not an "expert opinion". It is in fact, a personal opinion which may carry some weight, but not Expert.
A psychologist, in the classic mode, is a Scientist/Practitioner. That is the distinction from an Astrologist. In order to present a psychologist as an expert in the courtroom, that scientist must be knowledgeable about the psychological tests applied, the meaning of the scores and the purpose of that test. The Psychologist ' must be knowledgeable, in a child custody or juvenile law case, with the developmental needs of the child in question and the ability of the contending parents to meet those needs. When a judge appoints a court psychologist, the judge needs to be thoroughly informed as to the scientific knowledge base requirements for that "expert'. Too often a judge assume and the lawyers do not distinguish and, here's the ethical lapse for the psychologist, the specific areas of expertise of this specific "expert".
Recently, I became aware of colleagues whose entire professional practice consists of witnessing or participating in child custody cases! They do not practice therapy, teach (Professor) nor publish in peer reviewed publications.
Even more frightening are the court appointed or lawyer appointed "parenting coordinators" whose academic background in child development is sparse and whose "evaluation" is based in their experiential judgment" which may be shallow at best.
This practice, in DC Superior and Family Court has resulted in many instances of young children of battered mothers, being assigned to the custody of the batterer. Clinicians who have worked with women who have been abused recognize the "Battered Wife syndrome". The naive parent evaluator, interprets the anger, emotional expressions and suspicions of this individual as uncooperative, toxic parenting and poor self control.
I think it is timely and, in fact, critical, that we, as psychologists, dedicated to the well being of humankind engage in serious internal debate about whether we are scientists and therefore forensic experts, or whether we are "hired hands" who will rationalize our advocacy to meet our household budget.

I am interested in your response to this essay and your ethical dilemmas. You can present them on this page of our DCPA website. Hopefully, in the future, we can develop a series of responses and reactions as well as experiences of psychologists' ethical dilemmas.

Rona M. Fields Ph.D.
President, DC Psychological Association