The Supreme Court’s assertions about differences between minors and adults that affect both minors’ culpability and their need for protection are founded in the growing body of knowledge of adolescent neurodevelopment.
Psychologists working in the area of family law are presented with a range of challenging circumstances, not least of which is that they are often presented with highly discrepant information about a child, their relationships, and their home environment. In family law, things may not always be as they first appear.
When a mentally ill person files suit regarding breach of a First Amendment right, forensic providers, evaluators, or courts are tasked with addressing this discrepancy. Had the circuit court ruled in favor of Mr. Oliver, it could have set a precedent for the exclusion of aspects of a patient’s behavior or speech from forensic evaluations. This ruling could substantially impede the tasks of risk assessment and risk management. On the other hand, ensuring that protected behaviors and expression, however provocative, are managed in a therapeutic, rather than punitive way, is an important duty of forensic evaluators and teams and is something that should be actively considered in any forensic treatment context.
Over the last few decades, psychologists have started working closely with indigenous communities to incorporate American Indian traditions into interventions. “We realized that the therapeutic tools of the day were very limited in their application to the challenges of life in Native America,” says Spero M. Manson, PhD, director of the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the Colorado School of Public Health. “Our awareness of the importance of culturally relevant care has grown, and evidence to this effect has accumulated,” says Manson, who is Pembina Chippewa.
Tenth Circuit Court found AJL erred in discounting Psychologist’s opinion.
Because Dr. Crall had evaluated Ms. Ringgold in person as opposed to basing her conclusions on a medical record review alone, her opinion is considered an “examining medical source opinion” for the purpose of benefits determinations. Such “examining source” opinions are presumptively given greater weight than doctors’ opinions based solely on record review.
Dr. Sak’s research found as juries grow smaller, in criminal cases they will make more errors of acquitting the guilty and convicting the innocent. And, in civil cases, not only will the rate of erroneous verdicts rise, but juries will render damage awards that are more unpredictable from case to case (despite similarities in plaintiffs’ losses).
Suicide is a leading cause of death among prison inmates. A recent study found that nearly half of the inmates who committed suicide in a state prison system during the study period did not have a major mental disorder.
— VADM (Ret.) Richard Carmona, 17th Surgeon General of the United States
Southwest Business Center
4500 S. Lakeshore Drive, Suite 300
Tempe, AZ 85282
2023 Behavioral Science Consulting.All Right Reserved
