|
Tip of the Month: As an expert being directly examined or cross-examined on the stand, it is very frustrating to be held to answering questions with only a yes or no. Typically, experts want to share more of their expertise and explain their answers more fully. Frequently, however, one of the sides wants the expert “boxed” into “yes” or “no” answers while the other side would like the answers elaborated upon. Many areas of life cannot be answered appropriately or adequately in a “yes” and “no” format. If the expert assigned to a case is in a position to work more closely with one side, then during preparation for deposition, trial etc. this situation can be practiced. The practice may include the expert being limited in responding, with a one word answer, but followed by “let me explain”. Of course the expert won’t be permitted to elaborate and may even be ordered by the judge to limit their answers to “yes” or “no.” But the phrase “let me explain” can be a cue to the opposing attorney that elaboration is needed and when they cross or re-direct, the opportunity to provide additional information can be provided. The approach may sound something like, “well, Dr., Mr. Jones here did not want the court to hear your explanation of the test scores, perhaps you could share your concerns regarding the tests in question, or why you the test scores prove …, or why the test scores fail to prove …. Another way out of this yes/no trap is to respond to the yes/no question with something like, “Well, Mr. Jones, the question, issue, etc. does not lend itself to a yes or no response. Such a simplistic stance is not consistent with professional standards and can be misleading.” This would be part of the preparation I’ve been suggesting in the previous articles. Feature Article: Sometimes the PAS is unconscious and the alienating parent is unaware of what they are doing and other times it is fully calculated and intended. Interestingly the former is the most difficult to work with because the alienating parent is unaware of what they are doing and will deny it. So even if the expert can document the damage it is doing to the child, the “unconscious” parent does not see their role and will offer the damage as evidence of what the other parent is doing. Sometimes, in the case of the deliberate and “conscious” parent, when they finally understand what harm is being done; they may reverse themselves and try to undo their damage. Like most disorders in the behavioral sciences, PAS comes in degrees of severity. Dr. Gardner identifies mild, moderate and severe categories. With the mild PAS parent, they may on the surface encourage involvement with the other parent, but their behavior typically tries to give them a perceived advantage to the child as in I’m better then him or her. In the moderate PAS situation, the alienating parent will clearly interfere with the visitation of the other parent but on the surface support the other parent’s involvement. There are cases where the child’s time is completely filled by socially accepted activities, even enriching ones, but these of course prevent the child from being the other parent. When the other parent objects, well, he or she must not really care about the child because they want to interfere with the child’s activities! Finally, the severe PAS the children are brainwashed (Dr. Gardner stays away from that term), programmed and redirected away from a parent they typically had a relationship with before. These children will frequently be vocal in telling anyone and everyone that do not want to be with, see or even talk to that parent. Unfortunately, PAS is more frequent in adversarial disputes than we would like to admit. At the same, however, not all divorces include PAS and sometimes, there is more going on in the family than PAS and that needs to be discovered. I hope this information is helpful, sincerely, Robert A. Evans, Ph.D.
|
