Countertransference and Zebras: Forensic Obfuscation

ABSTRACT

Responding to Daniel Pickar's article entitled “Counter-transference Bias in the Child Custody Evaluator” (this issue), the authors opine that attaching new labels to familiar dynamics fails to contribute to an understanding of interpersonal dynamics with which all participants in the custody evaluation process are already familiar. The position is advanced that, in examining the reports and testimony of evaluators, biases are only relevant when they are manifested in identifiable behavior. Such behaviors include the application by the evaluator of different standards in examining and commenting on the actions of the two parents; the use of insulting terminology in describing the non-favored parent; the use of glowing terminology in describing the favored parent; assignment of minimal importance to possible parenting deficiencies in the favored parent; the assignment of much importance to reported flaws in the non-favored parent; an apparent unquestioning acceptance of the favored parent's perspective; and an apparent rejection of the non-favored parent's perspective.

KEYWORDS:

• Countertransference
• law of parsimony
• evaluator bias
• indicators of bias