Codes of Conduct the APA\'s Specialty Guidelines

Codes of Conduct

The APA's specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists help establish a good baseline for behavior for forensic psychologists, but states may have more stringent requirements. For example, in the state of Texas, the Texas Administrative Code has a particular chapter devoted to the specific rules of practice governing forensic psychologists. The provisions of that chapter have the force of law and failure to abide by them can not only subject a psychologist to professional censure, but may also impact civil and criminal liability.

The guideline that seems the most challenging to me is one found in the state specific Texas guidelines. Under Texas Administrative Code § 465.18(d)(3), "the role of the psychologist in a child custody forensic engagement is one of a professional expert. The psychologist cannot function as an advocate and must retain impartiality and objectivity, regardless of whether retained by the court or a party to the divorce. The psychologist must not perform an evaluation where there has been a prior therapeutic relationship with the child or the child's immediate family members, unless required to do so by court order." Of all of the roles that the forensic psychologist must play, providing evaluations and assessments in child custody disputes seems as if it would be the most challenging. Moreover, it seems that it may be difficult to maintain objectivity in child custody scenarios. If one of the parents appears to be a much better parent, it would be very challenging to remain in a neutral expert role and not advocating on behalf of that parent. In fact, it seems as if there might be a professional conflict to fail to advocate on behalf of what appears to be in the child's best interests. In addition, it seems puzzling that therapists who have established relationships with a child or the family are prohibited from providing evaluations and assessments in custody disputes. It seems that therapists who have established an on-going therapeutic relationship with a family would be in the best position to make assessments and evaluations about custody decisions.

Not all guidelines are concerned with what a psychologist can and cannot do in the courtroom; many guidelines are focused on how forensic psychologists should relate to their clients. Under the Specialty Guideline 1.03, "Forensic practitioners refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to impair their impartiality, competence, or effectiveness, or expose others with whom a professional relationship exists to harm (APA, 2011). I believe that this guideline is crucial in determining how a forensic professional interacts with clients. Many people think of conflicts as being clear-cut and well defined. For example, a professional who gave a forensic assessment for a client who was an opposing party in a lawsuit with an existing long-term relationship would have a clear professional conflict of interest. However, conflicts can exist in a number of different areas that may not be as easy to define. For example, a psychologist who is asked to provide a forensic examination for a substance abuser may have a conflict of interest if the psychologist has a family member who is a substance abuser. In other scenarios, the psychologist may be able to exercise enough professional discretion to separate personal feelings from professional judgments. Furthermore, forensic psychologists must be aware of when their professional opinions may provide conflict for an objective observation. For example, a forensic psychologist who believes that traumatic brain injury contributes to impulsivity and violence would need to be sure to evaluate an individual's potential for violence based on other factors, rather than using evidence to support a favored professional theory. What this guideline requires is a high level of self-awareness for the forensic examiner, so that the professional is able to honestly evaluate area of potential personal conflict and avoid scenarios where that conflict might occur.