Forensic Psychology Assessments
Mental Health Capacity Assessment
Daubert Scale
Angela A is a female client from Minnesota whose issue has been determined as an inability to parent her 14-year-old child. Based on the SA-45 test that has been used to objectively test the patient, it is unlikely that she can take care of a child in her current mental and physical state. To begin with, she exhibits issues related to an inability to instantly recognize her surroundings. This can be attributed to the fact that she is currently taking mood stabilizer pills, synonymous with tests that indicate she has a high risk of being schizophrenic (she has a score of 68 on the MMP1-2 scale). The MMP1-2 scale is effective in testing for various mental and physical issues that could lead to an inability for a person to conform to established practices of society. The method of analysis has a narrow margin of error as it entails questioning an individual in a way that can aid professionals’ assess their mental state (APA).
Interview analysis
Mrs.A is unable to currently bear the responsibility of taking care of a young child as she suffers from issues such as low education ability and substance abuse. She has reportedly used heroin within the past year (last 90 days) and is currently on mood stabilizers. Therefore, she is also at risk of becoming dependent on these substances based on her history of drugs and addiction. While she seems well oriented with her surroundings, she showcases a form of oblivion where she is at times unaware of her actions (she has issues with getting to her appointment on time) (Chandler, 2008).
Collateral information analysis
Furthermore, her dependence on drugs also impedes her ability to take care of a child as she has low education. In this manner, she cannot afford to feed her habit while raising a child. Since she has vocational training, she is likely to be paid minimum wage, alleviating her ability to provide a well-structured home for her daughter. The medication that she is currently taking could also result in issues since it is impossible to realize the extent of her mood swings when such pills cannot be provided. In such a case, it is important to consider the fact that this issue puts the child at risk of harm, regardless of her parent’s upbringing (she did not witness domestic abuse or violence) (Crighton, 2015).
Recommendations
Mrs. A exhibits the traits associated with Gamma mothers, an issue that could lead to neglect for a child in such a parent’s care. Gamma mothers have issues relating to substance abuse as Angela possesses with Heroine. It would, therefore, be prudent to start her on a program to wean her off drugs before proceeding with recalibrating her mental disposition towards life. As a former inmate in the prison system, Angela could showcase instances of delirium. This can be seen in the moments where she is unable to understand her surroundings. Moreover, a strict regimen should be imposed as she is likely to dissociate from the established treatment plan. Gamma mothers are likely to be resistant to treatment offered, as such, physicians and other medical personnel involved in her care should be patient with her progress to ensure she does not deviate from the established design of treatment (Crighton, 2015).
Ethics
To begin with, verifiable means of testing for Angela’s illness have been used. MMP1-2 is a system used in Minnesota to assess the personality of an individual. In this case, the patient resides in the state and thus proper measures have been implemented in her treatment. While it would be helpful to include other methods of assessment to solidify this claim, the physicians responsible for her assessment have considered a due process to deem Angela incapable of raising a child. Furthermore, information used in the assessment has not been derived by force, rather, it has been shared voluntarily by the patient. In this case, the patient is to be treated based on the symptoms exhibited from a voluntary test (Scott, 2010).
Offender Risk Assessment
Johnny B is a male patient currently incarcerated and awaiting parole to determine his legibility to rejoin society. He is of Pakistani origin and has a young child named Albert. The child’s mother is Indian-American, the patient’s former lover and named Jamie. He is currently in prison because of exhibiting offer risk, where he has on several occasions been charged with domestic abuse. However, in 2003, he struck his 18-month-old baby and hurt his mother, resulting in his arrest and subsequent incarceration (Chandler, 2008).
Daubert scale
The Daubert scale has been successful in analyzing the relevance of Mr. B’s claim that he does not pose a risk to his family. Based on the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3), the patient has an additive tendency as he has been caught in offenses, albeit minor, while in prison. These issues have arisen due to possession of tobacco, indicating a dependence on the substance. IORNS, a test used to measure the risk of offense has also been used in the assessment as people who have been in prison have a high chance of committing offenses and thus being jailed up again. SARA has also been used to assess the patient’s likelihood to resort to domestic violence in the future (Bartol & Bartol, 2012).
Interview analysis
Based on an analysis of the interview information, Mr. B seems to have used the time spent in prison to better his academic qualifications. This has the result of boosting self-confidence and alleviating issues such as domestic violence in most instances. Moreover, his admittance of the problem and intent to deviate from this tendency is also helpful as it provides a step in the right direction for his healing. Since his relationship with Jamie started at a young age, it is likely that the introduction of a baby in the scenario resulted in additional stress on the individual. Since he has attained significant knowledge during his time in prison, Mr. B. has a higher chance of finding employment than a large number of former inmates, further increasing his chances of thriving outside of prison (Cronin, 2018).
Collateral information
Mr. B has faced several stressful situations in his life. To begin with, he gets a young girl pregnant while in college and delves into drugs to cater for the family. In this way, he deems himself responsible for their well-being. At such a young age, an individual can be affected by stress if they take on a lot of responsibilities. Coupled with bad coping mechanisms such as the use of drugs as the patient has admitted to, this could have disastrous effects for the person and those around them (Jamie and Albert were victims of Johnny’s outburst). He does not showcase any form of prior mental illness that could have prompted violent behavior, nevertheless, he has abused Jamie twice before law enforcement intervened. Therefore, it could be possible that his current predisposition is not related entirely to Albert’s birth. However, it is important to consider his remorse and belief that the system has altered his manner of interaction with people since it is crucial in the determination of whether he is eligible to leave prison (Cronin, 2018).
Recommendations
The prison system has indicated that Johnny’s issues relating to his interactions with people are due to stress. As such, it is important to ensure that he does not pose a risk to Jamie and his son. Before his incarceration, he believed he was his family’s head and thus had to provide sustenance for them. As they have been able to get along without his aid, he can see that he does not need to put a lot of stress on himself, issues that could lead to violent outbursts. However, Mr. B’s interaction with his child and Albert’s mother should be limited at the time of his release and monitored to ensure he does not pose a danger to either of them. It is prudent that Mr. B attends a mandatory anger management class and joins a support group for individuals dealing with these issues. The class is to help him gain new methods to cope with stressful situations rather than resulting to violence. A support group, on the other hand, is to aid the patient as they adjust to society since prison can take a huge toll on an individual. To prevent relapse, support systems are necessary as they prevent individuals from deviating from set plans (APA).
Ethics
The assessment has been presented in an impartial manner. Mr. B has been judged in a manner that reflects the results exhibited by assessment tools used. While one may take a side on the issue, it is important to remain impartial as one’s credibility is reliant on one’s ability to remain impartial when making decisions regarding a client’s status. Though the tests administered do not indicate Mr. B as a threat to himself or others, being biased could lead to wrongful conclusions. The decisions arrived at in the assessment are, however, impartial, exposing weaknesses in the patient’s recovery where seen and indicating the positive aspects in the same light. Impartial treatment of patients helps one remain objective as they develop measures to deal with a situation (Cronin, 2018).
Substance Abuse Potential
Daubert Scale
Jeannie C is a female patient from Minnesota with substance abuse issues that have led to other problems spawning in her life. She is divorced with four children and minimal sources of money, necessitating an assessment of the patient’s ability to sustain herself and her children. Moreover, it is important to ascertain the safety of Jeannie’s children in their current living environment.
Investigators conducted the assessment using the Symptom Assessment-45 test. Furthermore, there is a use of the SASSI-3 test while SARA and MMP1-2 have also been employed to comply with relevant laws. Of this nature, the assessment has yielded a lot of information regarding the nature of Jeannie while allowing an individual to develop a recommendation that protects all parties involved. Based on tests administered, the patient exhibits signs of depression and anxiety. Nevertheless, she is well in tune with her surroundings and indicates a high level of understanding. She does not appear to have any difficulty answering questions asked. Therefore, the tests administered are likely to elicit correct results and thus allow for proper treatment to be administered to Jeannie (Chandler, 2008).
Interview Analysis
Jeannie has in the past been involved in domestic abuse cases, she assaulted her husband, indicating violent tendencies. She has also admitted to occasionally fighting with her current spouse though the arguments are less heated. Nevertheless, this poses a chance for stress to be incurred by both Jeannie and the children in case the relationship status deteriorates. Jeannie’s ability to stay off drugs and alcohol use indicates a will to alleviate destructive factors from her life. She has attended mandatory drug offender meetings due to a court order. However, as her demeanor indicates, she is likely to continue abstaining from methamphetamines in the future. Jeannie’s depression and anxiety issues could have resulted from her experience with the ex-husband. She claims that there are incidences of rape within their marriage, an indicator that she was traumatized by the experiences (Chandler, 2008).
Collateral Information
Jeannie does not exhibit any evidence of homicidal tendencies and thus does not pose a danger to her children and spouse. Nevertheless, she has been in an abusive relationship prior to her current relationship where she is engaged. She is quick to rush into relationships, an aspect that could confuse the children. In this way, children living in such a household are at risk of being neglected as their principle guardian showcases a minimal interest in the children’s welfare when making decisions such as choice of spouse. She has admitted to occasional fights which could potentially affect the children as they are at risk of being exposed to domestic violence to the point where they develop issues of their own which manifest well into adulthood (Davies, 2017).
Recommendations
The patient is a Beta mother and thus is at risk of neglectful actions towards her children. She is also lax about relationships as she is currently engaged after being married before. Therefore, she does not take into account the children’s thoughts when making huge decisions such as being married. In this way, the children could be confused and left in the hands of strangers (she is willing to introduce a new father figure in their lives in a fast manner and thus is not apprehensive of the role models she allows to meet her children). It is important to motivate Jeannie to study more and thus improve her position at work. She may be feeling inadequate in terms of career exploits since her work does not require her skill-set obtained in education. Therefore, it would be prudent to ask the patient to consider joining an academic institution as it affords her the opportunity to advance her skills and thus gain better revenues to sustain her family (Davies, 2017).
Ethics
Jeannie has provided information regarding her health status in a voluntary manner. Well-established tests that are considered viable under Minnesota jurisdiction have been used to come up with an effective analysis of Jeannie. Based on recommendations drawn from the assessment, there is a high chance that the patient could be aided in her integration in society. While she is not incarcerated, Jeannie does not have stable relationships as evidenced by arguments posed within the household. She has been responsible for these fights and thus could be deemed a bad influence towards her children. Nevertheless, it is important to consider each party’s take on an issue before making a conclusion. In this instance, Jeannie cannot be wholly accountable for the damage in her first relationship. She has even stated that there were instances of rape by the ex-husband. Such information is, however, confidential and will remain in this state unless dictated otherwise by the law.
Trauma Symptoms among Children
Daubert Scale
Little Alberta is a six-year-old female client that suffered a major incident a year prior to the assessment. She was involved in a car accident a year before foster care placed her with the Brady family. However, since her inception, she has showcased a lot of signs that indicate some form of abuse as having taken place such as withdrawal and confusion.
There is a very small chance that the results elicited in the tests administered to Little Alberta are false. This is because they have been continually tested across many states in the U.S.A. when compared to others. In this manner, the TSCYC scale employed to measure Little Alberta’s personality for signs of mental and physical distress could aid in developing accurate recommendations. Moreover, the investigation employs the use of CAPI in analyzing the potential of patents to affect child behavior through an analysis of their attributes. The tests used in this analysis are, therefore, both viable and reliable, in terms of their application in Little Alberta’s case (Chandler, 2008).
Interview Information
Little Alberta is under the care of the Brady family, a strict Christian home that does not tolerate disobedience. They, therefore, expect the child to behave as an adult, ignoring the fact that they should help her deal with the parents’ deaths. As such, she seems to have formed some form of delusion as she has not been addressed regarding the matter. In this way, she continues to live in the past, where she claims that the accident that killed her parents affected her head. There are no indications that she was hurt in this manner, prompting an investigation into the reason for her behavior. Moreover, as children, it is irresponsible for parents or guardians to neglect to provide for them. Alberta is neglected once her foster parents lose their positions at work (Goldstein, 2007).
Collateral Information
Alberta is punished whenever her foster parents consider her behavior to be unacceptable. As staunch believers, the individuals conduct themselves in a way that cannot be deemed acceptable in modern society. They have admitted to spanking Little Alberta whenever she throws a tantrum or talks back to them in a rude manner. In this way, the child could retract from associating with others as her expression of emotions could indicate a deeper issue within her psyche. Traditionally, Little Alberta was a jovial child whose intellectual capacity and level of understanding soared. Recently, her concentration level and the manner in which she conducts herself indicate stress and should thus be eliminated before causing more harm (Heilbrun, Grisso & Goldstein, 2008).
Recommendations
The Brady family is not a good fit for Little Alberta. To begin with, they have adopted a less than perfect method for dealing with issues within the house. Spanking the child cannot be considered an appropriate method to deal with indiscipline, especially for a small child. As a Beta couple, the Bradys have been unable to cope with the loss of income and thus pose a danger for Alberta’s upbringing. Mr. Brady has been charged with domestic abuse in the past, in this way, lack of employment could lead him to take out his anger and frustrations on Alberta. This issue has also led to the child being neglected as indicated by her dwindling score on cognitive function. It is, therefore, prudent to remove Alberta from the current situation and place her in a family with stability. In her current situation, Alberta is likely to grow up with severe mental issues as her parents do not provide her with mental stimulation but rather ignore her as they focus on monetary problems facing them (Heilbrun, Grisso & Goldstein, 2008).
Ethics
Alberta’s well-being is the paramount interest when conducting the assessment. Therefore, regardless of the feelings of the Brady family, the final decision to be made regarding Alberta’s placement should ensure she grows up without any form of deficiency developing. Currently, the Brady family has shown that it cannot refrain from physical punishment when a child under their care makes a mistake. As such, it would not be ethical to send Alberta back to the family. They have demonstrated an inability to look after the child where she has been seen at night watching adult videos. To prevent further degradation of Little Alberta’s potentials, it would be prudent to alleviate her from a neglectful scenario in favor of a situation where she is looked after. This is especially in light of the current predicament where the guardian faces the challenge of making the child come to terms with the reality of her parents dying (Heilbrun, Grisso & Goldstein, 2008).
Child Abuse potential
Daubert Scale
Sue Z is a female patient whose issues related to child abuse. She exhibits several worrying traits such as an affinity to violence and thus requires professional analysis to ascertain the level of risk she poses to those affected by her actions.
Firstly, the SA-45, MMP1-2, SARA and CAPI tests have been instrumental in developing a narrative that explains the individual’s tendency to commit a crime or any other wrongful act. The tests have been used in a myriad of cases and thus illustrate a positive inclination towards proper measurement methods for testing individual viability. Through the SARA test, the patient’s violence traits towards the spouse are monitored while CAPI assesses the likelihood of a child to be harmed by the guardian in question. MMP1-2 is a test reserved for Minnesota patients and illustrates various personal issues that could be developed from certain situations such as physical abuse. Tests used in this manner do not possess a high error rate and are reliable. They can also be checked for validity and viability through scientific testing methods (Chandler, 2008).
Interview Information
Ms. Z illustrates a desire to refrain from violent tendencies as evidenced by her active participation in the programs prescribed for her. Nevertheless, she has been denied freedom to have any other child as she cannot raise her current one. As such, the court has mandated her to abstain from starting a family and instead focus on improving her life. In this way, Ms. Z is attending GED classes though as a requirement by law. This could help her gain better employment since her current education capacity is low. Ms. Z has been in police custody following an assault charge imposed on her after she shot an individual, part of a gang she thought were ‘trying to rape’ her (Chandler, 2008).
Collateral Information
Sue Z has experienced rejection all her life since her mother’s family refused to accept her as part of their own. In this way, she shares the negative trait with her mother’s family where she does not concern herself with the child’s life. As a juvenile, the patient does not have a lot of education skills. It is earlier stated that the government has currently forced her to attend GED classes. In this way, she could gain better employment upon integration in the society. Sue Z also uses marijuana as she claims to have taken some within the past seven days. Here, the emphasis lies on her tendency to lie (she initially denies using any form of drug abuse) where she has not accepted that she has a problem but instead focuses on portraying false information (Cronch, Viljoen & Hansen, 2006).
Recommendation
Sue Z is a Gamma mother based on her upbringing and other factors such as the inclination to crime and education level. She has limited education capacity and could, therefore, not support a child while dealing with addictions on her previous salary. In this way, the best approach to take would be to ensure that the patient is weaned from drug addiction. Her use of marijuana a day prior to her assessment indicates stress. She may be using drugs to cope with normal situations, a fact that could spell disaster as it would lead to dependence on drugs for normal mood. Therefore, eradication of drugs is the first step of healing for Ms. Z. she should also be enrolled in a support group to help her build a sense of belonging. This would also help her alleviate drug cravings as these result in neglect and abuse of her young child. It would also be prudent to allow her monitored access to her child. In this way, she could form a better bond than the one between her and the mother (Petrila, 2010).
Ethics
The investigator ensured that they presented the patient with a question regarding their mental stability and health prior to questioning. In this manner, there is proof that the individual was in her right mind when conducting the assessment. Sue Z has also been tested using modern measures of assessing risk typologies since it would be erroneous to use methods that are deemed dated to analyze current patient characteristics.
Violence risk assessment
Daubert scale
Mr. Doug X is a patient from Minnesota with severe violent tendencies. These issues pertain to violence against women, an act that has led to his incarceration. He is currently seeking release by the parole board as he claims to have changed his erroneous ways.
The MMP1-2 has been used to conform to the state’s laws while SASSI-3 has also been used since he has in the past used drugs. IORNS and SARA are also being use in the patient’s assessment, leading to better conclusions. This is because the methods of measure employed have a low error rate and exhibit minimal variance from the mean. That is because they are accurate and thus tend to be reliable in their application to determine the mental and psychological state of a person.
Interview information
Mr. X has been in prison due to committing violent acts against his wife, Susanne. While in prison, he is often cited for continuing with this destructive behavior, further adding to his anger issues. This lack of adequate management skills has in the past led to the patient being involved in two cases (2011 and 2012) of aggravated assault. His delusional tendencies have made him force Susanne to take drugs before having sexual intercourse. In this scenario, it is clear that he does not consider his acts as negative but rather reinforces his ill-gotten belief in being superior to others (Robbé, Vogel & Douglas, 2013).
Collateral information
The manner in which Mr. X is portrayed showcases deep psychological issues. He is in denial, a fact that leads to the patient trying to justify their actions while ignoring actual adverse effects of their actions. He also believes himself to be superior to others, a delusion that is reinforced by his tendency to daydream and have visions that are not synonymous with normal thinking. Therefore, while he claims to have reformed, he has continued to exhibit violent tendencies in prison. This form of denial has led to one questioning the manner in which the prison system has helped Mr. X in his recovery since denial leads to false belief while the truth does not change (Robbé, Vogel & Douglas, 2013).
Recommendations
Mr. X does not showcase any form of remorse for his previous actions. He has a high likelihood of returning to prison as indicated by a score of 77% in a risk of re-offense test. Moreover, he does not seem to have changed any of his actions, exhibiting violent outbursts whenever he is unable to control his temper. As such, it is unlikely that releasing Mr. X will be advantageous to Susanne since he could continue to harm her as in the past. Therefore, Mr. X requires mandatory supervision if the parole board should release him. Nevertheless, it would be prudent for Mr. X to attend anger management groups and psychology sessions to alleviate delusions that he has allowed to fester in his mind. Releasing the patient would, however, require a lot of supervision while placing Susanne’s life at risk and thus it would be better to hold the patient until such a time when his violent tendencies have been dealt with (Bartol & Bartol, 2012).
Ethics
Firstly, the assessment conducted used the MMP1-2 scale, thus conforming to the state in which patients are located. The use of other measures of mental and psychological wellness could have been erroneous as states differ in terms of laws and regulations applied to assess patient inclination to mental and psychological disorders. Moreover, the patient’s best interest is focused on in the assessment and recommendations arrived at. This is because the focus should be patient-centered to elicit positive results.
References
APA. (n.d.). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology.
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2012). Current perspectives in forensic psychology and criminal behavior. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
Crighton, D. A. (2015). Forensic psychology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Cronch, L. E., Viljoen, J. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2006). Forensic interviewing in child sexual abuse cases: Current techniques and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(3), 195-207.
Cronin, C. (2018). Ethics in Forensic Psychology.
Davies, G. M. (2017). Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions. Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, John.
Goldstein, A. M. (2007). Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Heilbrun, K., Grisso, T., & Goldstein, A. M. (2008). Toward Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment. Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment, 143-156.
Petrila, J. (2010). Forensic Psychologists, Roles and Activities of. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology.
Scott, A. J. (2010). Forensic psychology.
