Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
JUDGE: And attorney Brown would you like to go ahead with your cross-examination?
ATT BROWN: Thank you your honor.
Doctor Marshall did you make any independent investigation in this case?
In other words did you talk to any of the child's teachers or doctors?
MARSHALL: I did not.
ATT BROWN: You didn't. Do you know for a fact which statements were made to you that are true
and which statements made to you by the various parties are not true?
MARSHALL: By which parties are you referring to the parent or the child?
ATT BROWN: Both.
MARSHALL: My impressions are based on my overall examination of the tests and the findings
were both valid and reliable. From both the parents and the child.
There are no indications that either party's were
tryin to mislead me in any particular way.
Think clearly the parents were both, were putting both feet forward for sure.
And we did have that conversation prior which, you know, took some of the heat out of the situation.
ATT BROWN: Doctor have you done psychological evaluations for Ms. Richards before this one?
MARSHALL: From time to time yes.
ATT BROWN: Okay, now you indicated that you perform the
Bender Gestalt test on Mr and Mrs Richards. Is that correct?
MARSHALL: Yes it is.
ATT BROWN: And you indicated there were some memory problems that showed up on that test I believe with Ms Richards. Is that correct?
MARSHALL: Yes it is.
ATT BROWN: Would it be possible to conclude that Ms Richards was under a chemical dependence such as alcohol that caused the memory problem?
MARSHALL: I don't think I could reach that conclusion based on my or based on her overall performance. So no, not at this time.
ATT BROWN: You indicated also on at least four occasions that she was what you call labile, correct?
MARSHALL: Yes.
ATT BROWN: And you said that meant swings in emotions. That she's excitable.
MARSHALL: Yes, it does.
ATT BROWN: Again, could that be caused by chemical dependence such as alcohol?
MARSHALL: I think it could be,
I think what I was trying to more described was
and more than overall personality characteristic more than something that could be influenced by chemical,
but I think certainly with this type a personality that,
you know, could be influenced by chemical but
certainly in my judgment, in my best judgment, it didn't appear that she was influenced by any chemicals at all.
ATT BROWN: So you didn't smell alcohol on her breath?
MARSHALL: No I did not.
I did not smell alcohol and her overall demeanor, her capacities, her body movement, eye movement
none other indicated that she would be under the influence and chemicals.
ATT BROWN: Now doctor you performed a Thematic Apperception Test which you call T&T on Ms Richards, correct?
MARSHALL: Yes
ATT BROWN: And I believe you said that she was not overly concerned with achievement is that correct?
MARSHALL: Yes I think I was making a relative statement.
She was less concerned with achievement and achievement orientation than her husband, yes, less concerned.
ATT BROWN: Okay now we're talking today about custody of the minor child.
The fact that Mrs Richards is less achievement oriented than her husband.
Would possibly lead to the conclusion that
that can be transmitted to the child and she, the child, would be an underachiever with
as opposed to being more like her father is that correct?
CHI: A moment please.
CHI: Thank you
MARSHALL: Well this moment, in my opinion, Sarah appears to be an achiever.
And I didn't mean to make any statements to make
Mrs.Richards look as if she is an underachiever. I was just making that statement based on
on the fact that I was saying she was not motivated as Mr Richards is.
ATT BROWN: And to what degree of psychological certainty did you reach your conclusions?
MARSHALL: I'd say based on the totality of the examinations that I conducted. I would be 90 to 90 percent certain in this case.
ATT BROWN: Are the tests that you performed reliable are they valid?
MARSHALL: Yeah, I would say in my judgment they are they're reliable and valid.
They me sure what they are intended to measure and I think that the measurements could be repeatable.
ATT BROWN: Well, let me ask you this. Can can people lie on these tests, can they taint or bias their answers? For instance
let me let me take the MMPI to begin with. Is there any way you can determine whether people are lying in their answers on a MMPI.
MARSHALL: On that particular test yes. There are validity scales built into that test that, that one can make that determination.
That was not the case here and there were no indication that that in this exam, no.
ATT BROWN: And what about the other tests Doctor?
MARSHALL: The other tests really rely on the examiners judgment. Excuse me.
I look for intra test accuracy and consistency as well as the inter test consistency.
for a person to lie throughout the examination or fabricate
I'm I just i think thats quite difficult and I don't think that's the case in situation or the battery of tests that I had administered.
ATT BROWN: Now doctor you say that you performed about five hours of testing on these adults, is that correct?
MARSHALL: Yes
ATT BROWN: You also spent time testing the minor child is, that also correct?
MARSHALL: Yes.
ATT BROWN: And about how much time was spent testing the child and about how much time spent in actual interviews with them?
MARSHALL: hmmm I would suppose about an hour and 45 minutes
for the testing and then time in the playroom. So probably about another hour and 25 minutes and in 25 min intervals.
CHI: Your Honor the interpreters need a moment.
JUDGE: Please go ahead.
CHI: The interpreter needs to repeat his answer in American Sign Language to make the correction that needs to be made.
JUDGE: Please do that.
CHI: Actually your Honor it would be more effective, if the courts indulgence, to have that previous question re-answered.
The confusion centers around the amount of time. The break down of the time.
JUDGE: That's fine, council could you restate your question.
ATT BROWN: Yes your Honor. About how much time was spent testing child and how much time was spent in actual interviews with her?
MARSHALL: I would say, I'd suppose probably about an hour and 45 minutes testing and then another hour in the playroom.
In 20-25 minute intervals.
CHI: Interpreters thank the court.
JUDGE: Please proceed.
ATT BROWN: Are you telling the court that you can come to a conclusion based on testing
and then only forty-five minutes of interviews with child.
Wouldn't it be better for you have hours and hours of time in interviews with these parties?
MARSHALL: I suppose there could be some truth to that. The more time you have the better.
You're also dealing with the factor of diminishing returns and after you do such an extensive test of... or extensive test I guess
a battery of all the tests that you've done. The additional information is not warranted.
I do feel that I spent sufficient amount of time with both parties the parents and the child. To paint an accurate picture of all the parties.
ATT BROWN: In other words, are you telling me that in one hour approximately.
Ninety percent of what could be learned
would be learned. And what you learn after that would be a a lot less?
MARSHALL: No I'm not saying that within one hour. I'm saying that the totality of the hours I spent on the examinations
approximately 16 hours. I'd learned ninety percent of what could be learned.
ATT BROWN: Doctor you're not a sign language interpreter is that correct?
MARSHALL: That's correct. No I'm not.
ATT BROWN: Do you sign at all?
MARSHALL: No, very little, a few basic terms.
ATT BROWN: You're not sign language expert or an expert in the communication skills of deaf people, are you?
MARSHALL: No, by no means.
ATT BROWN: I have no other questions at this time your Honor.
JUDGE: Thank you counsel. Any redirect attorney Smith?
ATT SMITH: No your Honor. Thank you.
JUDGE: Thank you doctor. You may call your next witness.
ATT BROWN: Your honor I would like to call Mr. Phillip Richards the respondent.
The court should know we have interpreters present to interpret for Mr Richards.
JUDGE: Mr Richards.