The economic crisis in which society is immersed has generated many consequences. One of them is that the divorce rate is falling to levels of ten years ago. And there is no doubt that divorcing is costly: in addition to paying lawyers, two homes are needed, and expenses double. Who gets the house, the furniture… and the mortgage? Obviously, this does not mean that couples do not feel the need to separate and start different paths, but the current economic situation often reduces the possibilities of putting it into practice.
Despite this, there are still many couples who, after having tried by all means to save their relationship, decide to separate. And undoubtedly one of the reasons that most worries parents in this situation is how it will affect their children.
Once the decision is made, ideally, children would be kept out of the process. This is usually the case in situations of separation or divorce by mutual agreement, but often this is not what happens. If the situation becomes complicated, children may even have to testify in court or undergo a psychological expert assessment, sometimes having to state with whom they prefer to live. The role and the training of the forensic psychologist are essential for this process to be as quick as possible and for the minor to be protected.
In Catalonia, from July 2010, the term shared custody was changed to shared parental responsibility. In addition, it is established that each parent will present a parenting plan in which they must specify how they intend to exercise their responsibilities with their children, plans that the judge will try to reconcile. The judicial authority, if there is no agreement or if it has not been approved, must determine the form of exercising guardianship, adhering to the joint nature of parental responsibilities. However, there are people who, after making a decision regarding child custody, for various reasons, wish to change it. We see a custody change case.
M.P., 42 years old, files an appeal regarding the attribution of custody of her daughter L.L. (11 years old at the time of the assessment) to her former romantic partner J.L.
Coinciding with the romantic breakup and fear of J.L.’s reaction, M.P. had changed residence for a very short period, so it had been decided that the minor would continue residing in the family home with the father. Currently, M.P. had returned to her hometown due to L.L.’s manifest desire.
M.P. states that the minor remains with her father due to emotional pressure. She requests a psychological expert evaluation, which J.L. opposes, as well as the appeal of custody. The Civil Chamber admits the evidence requested by M.P., which consists of the evaluation of the minor and both parents, and on which of them guardianship and custody should be attributed.
The methodology used in this case was the following: reading the judicial file, conducting two evaluative interviews with each parent, administering a projective test to both parents (due to J.L.’s educational limitations), an individual interview with the minor, administering several psychometric tests to the minor, observing the minor’s interaction with each parent, and collecting information from the school the minor attended. Thus, the results obtained throughout the expert assessment procedure were the following:
In the evaluation of the minor, her attempt to remain balanced between her two parents at all times, making an egalitarian assessment of both, based on positive aspects, is especially significant. The hypothesis is considered that L.L. does not provide information that could harm the father, given the attitude observed during the interview both by the minor (reactions of fear of being overheard by J.L. are observed) and by the latter (negative attitude of oppositionism, lack of cooperation, destructive criticism towards M.P.’s new partner, etc.)
In the last year, serious deficiencies in L.L.’s care have been observed, a period in which she has precisely been with J.L., with a clear lack of supervision on his part. There is no record of any control over her activities and schedules. The minor has a large amount of information about her parents’ breakup and current conflicts, which is totally inappropriate for her age.
External information provided by L.P.’s school suggests that the minor’s care and attention have fallen more heavily on the mother, with a development that has always been adequate to the results. It is stated that the minor’s performance has worsened significantly this last year (absences, inappropriate behaviors, significant money handling, etc.) and it is noted that she always does her homework with her mother. Given this situation, M.P.’s contacts with the school have been repeated, appearing in person and showing interest in how the minor was progressing, and, conversely, J.L. has never appeared at the school and has only made very occasional phone contact.
Therefore, in this specific case, the following conclusions were drawn:
The mother has greater personal resources and support for the minor’s care, while the father needs to acquire greater parental skills and manage the boundaries between adult conflicts and what corresponds to L.L.’s care.
It would be positive to work with the minor on the conflict she has been immersed in and to return power to the parental figures. The fears observed in L.L. should be addressed.
Training as a forensic psychologist allows working on cases like these and proposing the best solution to a child guardianship and custody case to the judge. The Master’s in Forensic Psychology opens doors to a new professional horizon.