- Email: [email protected]
Art psychotherapy evaluations of children in custody disputes
The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 20, pp. 153-159, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
1993 Copyright
ART PSYCHOTHERAPY
EVALUATIONS
0197-4556193 $6.00 + .OO 0 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.
OF CHILDREN
IN
CUSTODY DISPUTES
SHERRY J. LYONS, MS, A.T.R.*
the optimum solution because children tend to feel more secure when viewing their parents as having equal authority, it may not be feasible for various reasons. If the parents do not live in close proximity to one another, the expression “joint custody” is in name only, not in practice. Often children are used as pawns in a divorce battle in which each parent tries to prove the other unfit or, at least, themselves as the better parent (Kaslow & Schwartz, 1987). When custody of children is disputed, parents often seek professional and legal services to strengthen their case. Judges also are seeking the services of clinicians for help in determining the custody of children in family court matters. Because of the significant numbers of divorce and custody cases each year, more and more judges are requesting outside help to assist them in their rulings. One way that mental health professionals become involved in family matters that relate to the court is as a “friend of the court” or “amicus curiae,” as it is technically known (American Psychiatric Association, 1982; Westman & Lord, 1980). Professionals in the mental health field can conduct a comprehensive evaluation with recommendations to the court. Where the therapist has the option of interviewing all parties, the process can become lengthy and expensive. As Mansheim (in Combrinck-Graham, 1989) stated, it is critical to conduct one or more interviews with all of the adult parties in a custody dispute. Visits to each of the homes add to the weight of the evaluation. Interviews with all the children involved helps the thera-
Child custody disputes and divorce affect over 1,200,OOO new families each year in the United States (Jacobs, 1986). On the basis of these numbers alone, divorce has become a major American sociocultural issue. Divorce is deceptive. Legally it is a single event, but psychologically it is a chain of events, relocations and radically shifting relationships strung through time. This becomes a process that forever changes the lives of the people involved. Divorce can be a profound catalyst for psychological, social and economic change. This paper explores the art therapist’s role in the evaluation of children who are involved in custody litigation. Child placement in divorce and separation proceedings are never final and often are conditional. The lack of finality, which stems from the retention of jurisdiction over the custody decision, invites challenges by a disappointed or a disgruntled party claiming changed circumstances. This absence of finality, coupled with the concomitant increase in opportunities for appeal may very well be in conflict with the child’s need for continuity; nevertheless, it is the law. As a result of research into the impact of divorce on families (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), more and more states have considered a statutory preference for a joint custody arrangement. The hope is that the parents can both be involved to some extent in the raising of the children, and that this involvement will prove to be beneficial to the child’s post-divorce needs (Ilfeld, Ilfeld & Alexander, 1982; Irving, Benjamin & Trocame, 1984). Although this is seen to be
*Sherry Lyons is an art therapist in private practice, Professor at Hahnemann University in Philadelphia,
Art Therapy Director and Adjunct Professor at The University PA. 153
of the Arts and Assistant
SHERRY J. LYONS pist to come to a conclusion about the alternative prospective nuclear family. Formal psychological assessments are usually restricted to the parents and the children in the custody dispute. Mansheim went on to suggest that with so many evaluative interviews and tests to be performed, this kind of evaluation is generally done by a team of several clinicians (Combrinck-Graham, 1989). In order to make a ruling of this serious nature, affecting the lives of the children, extensive interviews of the family members are crucial. For this reason, various psychiatric and psychological services are engaged. As an art therapist, I have been a member of such an evaluation team. I am a member of a clinical association in New Jersey comprised of a psychiatrist, psychologist, two social workers and an art therapist who serve lawyers and judges in their domestic relations litigations. The psychiatrist sees each parent and the children separately for a psychiatric review. The psychologist sees each parent for psychological testing and may also test the children if they are approaching adolescence or are older. One of the social workers takes a psychosocial history from each parent, and the other social worker conducts a home visit of each domicile in which the children will live. The art psychotherapy appraisal of the child or children is conducted with each parent separately. Each clinician writes an individual report and then the psychiatrist compiles these reports, summarizes them and writes the findings for the court. If there are discrepancies among the clinicians’ findings, the associates meet to give further input and to determine final recommendations. This evaluation process, although lengthy, has been seen to be necessary to give as comprehensive a picture as possible to the court. Either parent or either parent’s counsel may engage the services of the clinical team or engagement may be through the court itself by the judge’s appointment. If only one parent is engaging the services, the other parent is contacted to give consent to the assessment because the clinical team does not promise to find for either parent. This process has worked smoothly and, in the majority of cases, both parents have consented to the assessment regardless of who had originally contacted the team. If the opposing side refuses to comply except for the examination of the child, the evaluation is somewhat limited. The clinical team is seeing only half of the picture and can state only that the parent on whose behalf he or she is testifying is an adequate parent and
enjoys a good relationship with the child. It will not, however, permit the therapist to say that one parent or the other is a better parent. It is clearly unethical for the therapist to testify or write in an evaluation report about what he or she has never seen or has never had an opportunity to test. When the evaluations are court-ordered from the judge, the family members have no recourse but to comply and both sides make themselves available to all clinicians. Advantages
to the Art Therapy Evaluation
Discovering how children, especially the young, feel and think about events in their lives is not an easy task. In forensic evaluations the issue is particularly sensitive (Schetky & Benedek, 1992). Many would agree that it is not appropriate to directly ask young children about their preference for one parent or the other in a custody evaluation. Most children, no matter what age, are very aware of why they are being interviewed and may feel anxious about what they say and how it may affect their parents or the decision of the court. Projective testing provides a forum a step removed from direct discourse and can skirt a child’s conscious intentions and permit reasonable inferences about the child’s needs and fears (Schetky & Benedek, 1992). Art is a modality that children are more comfortable with than talking. It is a natural means of communication for them; they gravitate to it spontaneously and offer little or no resistance to drawing. Some children have little conscious idea about what is happening in their family, but they are aware of conflict between their parents. Even if children are very aware of an impending divorce or change in custody arrangement, they are reluctant to talk about it. They often feel caught in the middle and guilty for siding with either parent against the other for fear of loss of love. The conflict and their feelings are therefore displaced into the artwork instead of into words. Because children most often do not realize that their artwork is expressing their feelings, they are not defensive about drawing. In the art psychotherapy interview, parents are asked to draw with their children. This has many advantages. Often adults may find it difficult to play with their children in an evaluation where they are being observed by an examiner. Some of this anxiety is often alleviated by being able to do their own artwork. On the other hand, anxiety may be increased by
CHILDREN
IN CUSTODY
being asked to draw because adults are often resistant to creating art; they would rather use their verbal skills to communicate. The artwork that parents produce is less defended and they cannot prepare ahead of time or give pat answers. They often try to prepare their scenarios for the social worker and psychiatrist before they walk into the office, but this is less likely for the art therapy evaluation. The process of making art brings parents and children to the same level. Parents complain that they have not made a drawing since they were children or that they cannot draw at all. Often the children do draw at the same development level as their parents, which makes them equally able to communicate thoughts and feelings. The art therapy assessment gives opportunity for both verbal and nonverbal communication so that the interaction between the parent and child is examined on both of these levels. Any mixed messages between the verbal and nonverbal means of expression become apparent to the art therapist. The art therapy evaluation is important because it yields lasting tangible evidence that can be brought into court if necessary. Unlike verbal communications that must be taperecorded to be made concrete, art gives a lasting concrete response that has been produced by the artists themselves. In states where art psychotherapy assessments are a part of the evaluation procedure, the artwork produced is admissible evidence in court. Children are evaluated to ascertain their social, emotional and cognitive developmental levels. Where children appear to be having difficulty functioning in some aspects of their lives, the drawings will help the evaluating team determine if the problems are intellectually or emotionally related and direct further investigation if necessary. The images that are depicted also provide information about family dynamics, interactions and relationships. In the case of impending divorce, information relative to how the child sees the family structure and separation is imperative. In the case where the divorce has already occurred, the relationship of the child to each parent is scrutinized relative to the status quo or future change in custody status. When there is a difference in the verbal description of the family system and how it is depicted graphically, fantasies and facts can be ferreted out through discussions of these images with family members. It may also be the case that various family members differ in their viewpoints about how the family struc-
DISPUTES
ture is seen. All of these views apparent in the drawings are then taken into consideration. The Evaluation
Procedure
Each parent is seen with the child or children in this procedure. The optimum structure for this evaluation would be to see one parent with the children, then the other parent with the children in back-to-back sessions. This would reduce the amount of outside influence that might take place between the evaluation sessions. When this back-to-back procedure is not possible for any reason, separate sessions may be scheduled for each parent with the children. It is important for both parent and child to understand that they are part of this procedure. Most often, the parents have prepared the children by telling them that they will draw some pictures, but the parents are not aware that they will also be asked to participate, even though they are told that they will accompany their child in the art psychotherapy assessment. This has advantages in that the parents do not prepare ahead of time what they would consider “appropriate” drawings for the situation. Most parents are often surprised at being asked to draw, but little overt resistance is displayed as that would damage their case. Some parents even welcome the opportunity to interact with their children. In each of the two sessions, the family members are asked to draw the same pictures and in the same order. This gives a means of comparison between the artwork produced with each parent. Here, not only is an assessment made of the child’s drawings in detail and superficially the parent’s drawings, but also the behavior and the interactions of the family members with one another during the session. How the family members engage each other verbally and graphically during the session is most often indicative of how the family works in everyday situations (Landgarten, 1987). The art media that are offered provide a choice of structured to slightly less structured materials. Thus, choices and decisions must be made even at this level. There is enough variety to offer children comfortable media to work with and parents media that are considered to be on an adult level. A choice of colored pencil, marker, crayon and tray pas (oil pastel) is offered. A lead pencil and eraser are available upon request, but are not offered on the table. Twelve by eighteen-inch white drawing paper is given for the
SHERRY J. LYONS
156
individual drawings, but larger, eighteen by twentyfour-inch paper is provided for joint family drawings. The Evaluation
Format
During the evaluation the family members are requested to draw their own pictures and also to make a joint drawing, working together on a single sheet of paper. The information gathered illustrates how members respond individually to both an unstructured and structured task, as well as their response to drawing together on the same piece of paper. The basic format consists of at least three drawing tasks with each parent. Depending upon the age of the child and/or the amount of time left in the session, other drawing tasks may be added. These also would then be repeated in the session with the other parent. Task 1. Free Drawing This is an unstructured task. Each family member is asked to choose from the available media and draw anything they wish and then title the drawing. This task is meant to be non-threatening and as each member can draw what they please, it often puts the child at ease. Some adults, however, would rather be told what to draw, but are not. From this drawing one can see what is on the mind of each family member. On a manifest level it shows what the person wants the therapist to know. By what the child draws one may see what he or she has been told about the art therapy session. Task 2. Kinetic Family Drawing Projective drawings may be used with children of any age. However, not all drawing techniques are appropriate to the specific custody evaluation. It has been charged that tests such as the House-Tree-Person and the Draw A Person are too far removed from the referral question and too indefensible in court to be of much utility (Schetky & Benedek, 1992). But the Kinetic Family Drawing, which asks the child to draw a picture of his or her family doing something, appears to be quite directly related to the issues involved in much child forensic work. How the child describes the picture and answers questions about it provides provocative clinical information. Who is and is not included in the picture, the activity depicted and the interaction among family members may help generate hypotheses about the child’s view of the family.
The task asks each person to “Draw yourself and the family members present doing something.” This is a modified Kinetic Family Drawing in that it differs from the traditional one (Burns & Kaufman, 1972), which asks for the family drawing, but does not specify who to draw. The one used in this evaluation asks specifically for the family members present because the children will be drawing the other parent in the next session. This eliminates the complaint by children that they drew the same picture before. It also shows the activity that the child depicts with each parent. This activity is most often different. Observed in each drawing is (Bums & Kaufman, 1972): A. B. C. D. E. F. G.
How each member is drawn; Placement in regard to both the paper and the other members drawn; The interaction of the members; Space between the family members as well as any barriers between members; What each family member is doing. Whether it is the same or different as other members; What kind, if any, environment is included; Whether other family members not present are also included in the drawing.
Task 3. Joint Family Drawing The family members are directed to “Discuss and decide on a theme for a drawing that you will all draw together on the same large piece of paper.” They are asked to plan how the drawing will be executed before they begin to draw (Bing, 1970). In this drawing the following are observed (Landgarten, 1987): A. B. C. D.
E. F.
G.
H.
Who initiated the discussion and who initiated the drawing; Which member’s suggestions were utilized and which were ignored; The level of involvement of the participants; If the members take turns, work in teams as a subgroup if there are more than two people, or work simultaneously; How much space each person occupied on the paper; Where the geographical locations of each person’s contribution were (central, comer, all over); Roles seen in the interaction; Symbolic and manifest content;
CHILDREN I.
If the working style was cooperative, ualistic or discordant.
IN CUSTODY
individ-
If the children are over the age of six and time is still available in the session the following task is often added. Dot-To-Dot Drawing
Task
Each person is asked to choose a marker and make dots anywhere on the paper without looking. They are then asked to connect as many of these dots as they wish, with the last dot being connected to first to make a closed shape. They are then asked to project into this drawing by verbalizing what this shape looks like to them. They are encouraged to turn the paper to view it from different directions if necessary. The last step is to make it look more like the projected object by adding color, line and form. This drawing task requires the ability to follow directions and can also be used as a test for organicity and neurological impairment. In this instance the art therapist looks for perceptual problems and eye-hand coordination both in the drawing of the line connecting the dots and in making a closed form. In addition, the person’s ability to abstract and project into imagery is observed (Hays, 1982). Writing Reports Lawyers and judges want as much concrete information as possible. For this reason, the drawings are described briefly in the order that they were executed because in New Jersey the drawings as well as the art therapist may be subpoenaed (Levick, Safran & Levine, 1990). Throughout the report there is a clear separation between factual data and editorial opinions, inferences and conclusions (Bolocofsky, 1989). Every effort is made to avoid bias and the appearance of bias. The art therapist avoids using the first person in reports. Lawyers believe that tentative words such as “suspect” or “possibility” should be avoided. Art therapists may find this difficult and may still use these terms in reference to symbolic content in the artwork. Psychiatric jargon and technical terms if used are explained. Embarrassing or provocative material should only be included if it is necessary to support the opinion being rendered. At the end of the report, the summary and conclusions contain the comparative information that has been gathered from each child in each session. Rarely
DISPUTES
should a hard and fast recommendation be made as to disposition. The findings from each child are listed in a comparative fashion. All findings in the evaluation are then summarized for each child. A comparison of developmental levels, cognitive skills, problem solving abilities, emotional indicators, the behavior during each session and the child’s relationship to each parent and siblings are included. Also mentioned in the report are the verbalizations and association to the drawings. A comparison of the parents’ style of relating and the emotional content of their drawings is noted, but no discussion of their individual drawings is made unless it is crucial to the case. General impressions of their drawings are given, but their interaction in the joint drawing may be fully discussed. General Findings Examination of all the drawings from the art therapy evaluation is essential. It becomes clear that all children are stressed by the family breakup and their anxiety is seen in their artwork. The first free drawing often indicates the general functioning level and what the child wants the therapist to know on a more manifest level. Children who need control in order to bind their anxiety can choose structured media and decide for themselves what they want or need to draw. Often a house is drawn, which is typical subject matter for all children, but is has special significance for children of divorce. The house is often a concrete representation of what is being fought over, who is now living in it and who will be maintaining it. Because the house symbolizes nurturance and security (Buck, 1948; Hammer, 1958) the way that the child draws this house becomes more important. Often distortion is seen within the structure of the house. Children in the schematic stage who would normally ground all of their images do not. The use of a baseline is indicative of the need and wish for structure and security. If children do not feel grounded and secure, they will not use baselines in their artwork. A five-year-old girl was evaluated prior to the separation of her parents who told the psychiatrist that she did not know of the impending separation or divorce. For the free drawing task she began by drawing a red flower. The stem of this flower was in two unconnected parts. The flower appears broken or detached from its nurturing stem. The child then began to draw red and blue dashes surrounding the flower. When these were completed she said that the dashes
158
SHERRY J. LYONS
were bricks and that she was drawing a house. She drew two peaks on the roof line with black marker. This house had no outline for walls and no baseline for support. Dynamically, it looks as if the house is falling apart with no wall boundaries and it is separated into two roofs. The child had drawn the flower, symbolically representing herself, almost in the middle of the split house. She was apparently aware of her parents’ separation on a symbolic level and saw herself caught in the split with no structure or means of support. Divorce is a difficult experience for children because they lose something that is fundamental to their development, which is the family structure. The family is the framework on which the children build successive developmental stages from infancy into adolescence. It supports their psychological, physical and emotional climb to maturity. When that structure collapses, the children’s world is temporarily without supports. Children always perceive the family as the entity that provides the support and protection that they need. With divorce, that structure breaks down, leaving children suddenly feeling alone and very frightened and vulnerable about the present and the future (Gullotta, 1981). Anger and depression are natural responses to divorce (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1990). Children, however, may be afraid to display these feelings in front of their parents for fear of losing their love. The affect is seen in the art in terms of size, color, object placement as well as the images that are drawn. Children often try to mask their depression by using vivid colors, but the isolation is still evident. For example, a six-and-a-half-year-old girl drew a house for the free drawing task. She chose orange marker and drew a schematic house in the center of the paper, using the bottom edge as the baseline. Her drawing style was slow and meticulous. The smoke coming from the chimney was drawn in dark brown and looked overworked. The house appeared barren, isolated and austere, despite the bright colors used. The heavy smoke may be indicative of her angry feelings about what was going on within the house at the time. As part of the custody dispute, the mother’s boyfriend was being accused of sexually molesting the girl. Thus, although the orange color may give a bright appearance, the rigid line quality shows the structure that the child needed to contain the negative emotions that she was feeling. As part of the art therapy evaluation an assessment of the child’s organic functioning is made. The art-
work is examined for indicators of neurologic impairment. Sometimes there are behavior problems and hyperactivity in evidence that have no organic cause. It is important to rule out organic impairment, if possible, as part of the evaluation process. In the art therapy evaluation described in this paper, a modified Kinetic Family Drawing was used. The children were asked to draw themselves with the family members present doing something. Often children show their attachment to the parent who is not present by including him or her also. This may indicate the wish for the family to be reunited, which is a common fantasy of children (Kemberg, 1983). On the other hand, it may reveal the real and honest need for this family member to remain a part of their emotional life and remain “in the picture.” The joint family drawing is used to evaluate the means that the family uses to communicate, solve problems and function on a daily basis. Often the parents take charge of this drawing and act as the unifying force for the undertaking. How much control they give to their children is important in allowing the children to have a voice in family matters. As the children were not consulted about whether the divorce should occur, they tend to feel helpless in family decisions. If the parents involve their children in decision making, it can allow them to feel empowered (Weithom & Repucci, 1984). On the other hand, there are parents who are so guilt ridden or feel so helpless themselves, they cannot guide their children, and the joint family drawing becomes a free-for-all. Each child does what he or she wishes anywhere they wish, and the finished drawing has no direction, no theme or no unity. For this family a recommendation might be made for some treatment to help them deal with parenting skills and family issues. Divorce is always graphically seen as a schism within the nuclear family. Some children have better coping skills than others and can use their defenses in order to deal with the family situation. These ego defense mechanisms are apparent in the artwork and they allow the therapist to see the emotional functioning level of the child (Levick, 1983). The amount of regression, especially in the Kinetic Family Drawing, often indicates the child’s coping ability. For example, in an evaluation with his mother and brother, an eight-year-old boy was asked to draw himself and the family members present doing something. He first drew a large red rectangle to frame the picture, thus redefining the limits and structuring himself. Within the rectangle he drew a boat containing himself, his
CHILDREN
IN CUSTODY
brother, mother, dad and grandmother. He added his father and grandmother, although he was not directed to do so. The water under and around the boat, which was originally drawn as a calm line, began to boil with an agitated line and he then drew the fins of a shark. The water level continued to rise and he regressed into a scribbling motion that almost obliterated the boat and the people in it. It was interesting to note that although this child repeated the same rectangle and boat image in his Kinetic Family Drawing when evaluated with his father, there were only three figures in the boat and the water remained calm. He also added a gun to the hands of himself and his father, apparently to arm them against any potential threat or danger. How the child handles the immediate breakup and the next years of the new family structure will certainly have lifelong effects and therefore should be examined closely. In determining the custody of children, one could certainly use the wisdom of Solomon, but no solution is easy. The therapist’s role in this case should be as the advocate for the child, to make sure that his or her best interests are truly served. The team approach with the responsibility shared with other professionals seems to work well.
Psychiatric Association (1982). Child Custody Consultation: Report of the Task Force on Clinical Assessment in Child Custody. Washington, DC: Mansheim.
American
Bing, E. (1970).The
conjomt family drawing.
Family Process,
9,
19>194.
Bolocofsky, J. (1989). Use and abuse of mental health experts in child custody determinations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7(2),
197-213.
Buck, J. N. (1948). The House-Tree ical Psychology,
4, 141-159.
DISPUTES
S. H. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in kinetic family drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Combrinck-Graham, L. (1989). Children in family contexts. New Burns, R. C., & Kaufman,
York: Guilford. Gullotta, T. (1981). Children of divorce: Easing the transition from a nuclear family. Journal of Early Adolescence, l(4), 357-364. Hammer, E. (Ed.). (1958). The clinical application of projective drawings. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Hays, R. (1982). Dot to dot: Rationale for a “New Projective” for children under ten. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual American Art Therapy Conference of 1979, AATA Publications. Ilfeld, F., Ilfeld, H., & Alexander, J. (1982). Does joint custody work? A first look at outcome data of relitigation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139( 1), 62-66. Irving, H., Benjamin, M., & Trocame, N. (1984). Shared parenting: An empirical analysis utilizing a large data base. Family Practice,
23, 561-569.
Jacobs, J. (1986). Divorce and child custody resolution: Conflicting legal and psychological paradigms. American Journal of Psychiatry,
143,
192-197.
Kaslow, F., & Schwartz, L. (1987). The dynamics of divorce. New York: Brunner/ Mazel. Kemberg, P. (1983). Introduction: The effects of divorce and custody of children. Psychiatric Hospital. Summer 14(3), 13s 132. Landgarten, H. (1987). Family art psychotherapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Levick, M. (1983). They could not talk and so they drew. Springfield IL: Charles C Thomas. Levick, M., Safran, D., & Levine, A. (1990). Art therapists as expert witnesses: A judge delivers a precedent-setting decision. The Arts in Psychotherapv, 17( 1). 49-54. Schetky, D., & Benedek, E: (1992). Clinical handbook of child psychiatry and the law. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Wallerstein, J., & Blakeslee, S. (1990). Second chances: Men, women and children a decade after divorce. New York: Ticknor & Fields. Wallerstein, I., & Kelly, J. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books. Weithom, L., & Repucci, N. (1984). Involving children in decisions. Annual Review of Community Mental Health Series: Children,
Person test. Journal of Clin-
159
Mental Health and the Law, 4, 64-69.
Westman, J., & Lord, G. (1980). Model for a child psychiatry custody study. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 8, 253-269.
1993 Copyright
ART PSYCHOTHERAPY
EVALUATIONS
0197-4556193 $6.00 + .OO 0 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.
OF CHILDREN
IN
CUSTODY DISPUTES
SHERRY J. LYONS, MS, A.T.R.*
the optimum solution because children tend to feel more secure when viewing their parents as having equal authority, it may not be feasible for various reasons. If the parents do not live in close proximity to one another, the expression “joint custody” is in name only, not in practice. Often children are used as pawns in a divorce battle in which each parent tries to prove the other unfit or, at least, themselves as the better parent (Kaslow & Schwartz, 1987). When custody of children is disputed, parents often seek professional and legal services to strengthen their case. Judges also are seeking the services of clinicians for help in determining the custody of children in family court matters. Because of the significant numbers of divorce and custody cases each year, more and more judges are requesting outside help to assist them in their rulings. One way that mental health professionals become involved in family matters that relate to the court is as a “friend of the court” or “amicus curiae,” as it is technically known (American Psychiatric Association, 1982; Westman & Lord, 1980). Professionals in the mental health field can conduct a comprehensive evaluation with recommendations to the court. Where the therapist has the option of interviewing all parties, the process can become lengthy and expensive. As Mansheim (in Combrinck-Graham, 1989) stated, it is critical to conduct one or more interviews with all of the adult parties in a custody dispute. Visits to each of the homes add to the weight of the evaluation. Interviews with all the children involved helps the thera-
Child custody disputes and divorce affect over 1,200,OOO new families each year in the United States (Jacobs, 1986). On the basis of these numbers alone, divorce has become a major American sociocultural issue. Divorce is deceptive. Legally it is a single event, but psychologically it is a chain of events, relocations and radically shifting relationships strung through time. This becomes a process that forever changes the lives of the people involved. Divorce can be a profound catalyst for psychological, social and economic change. This paper explores the art therapist’s role in the evaluation of children who are involved in custody litigation. Child placement in divorce and separation proceedings are never final and often are conditional. The lack of finality, which stems from the retention of jurisdiction over the custody decision, invites challenges by a disappointed or a disgruntled party claiming changed circumstances. This absence of finality, coupled with the concomitant increase in opportunities for appeal may very well be in conflict with the child’s need for continuity; nevertheless, it is the law. As a result of research into the impact of divorce on families (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), more and more states have considered a statutory preference for a joint custody arrangement. The hope is that the parents can both be involved to some extent in the raising of the children, and that this involvement will prove to be beneficial to the child’s post-divorce needs (Ilfeld, Ilfeld & Alexander, 1982; Irving, Benjamin & Trocame, 1984). Although this is seen to be
*Sherry Lyons is an art therapist in private practice, Professor at Hahnemann University in Philadelphia,
Art Therapy Director and Adjunct Professor at The University PA. 153
of the Arts and Assistant
SHERRY J. LYONS pist to come to a conclusion about the alternative prospective nuclear family. Formal psychological assessments are usually restricted to the parents and the children in the custody dispute. Mansheim went on to suggest that with so many evaluative interviews and tests to be performed, this kind of evaluation is generally done by a team of several clinicians (Combrinck-Graham, 1989). In order to make a ruling of this serious nature, affecting the lives of the children, extensive interviews of the family members are crucial. For this reason, various psychiatric and psychological services are engaged. As an art therapist, I have been a member of such an evaluation team. I am a member of a clinical association in New Jersey comprised of a psychiatrist, psychologist, two social workers and an art therapist who serve lawyers and judges in their domestic relations litigations. The psychiatrist sees each parent and the children separately for a psychiatric review. The psychologist sees each parent for psychological testing and may also test the children if they are approaching adolescence or are older. One of the social workers takes a psychosocial history from each parent, and the other social worker conducts a home visit of each domicile in which the children will live. The art psychotherapy appraisal of the child or children is conducted with each parent separately. Each clinician writes an individual report and then the psychiatrist compiles these reports, summarizes them and writes the findings for the court. If there are discrepancies among the clinicians’ findings, the associates meet to give further input and to determine final recommendations. This evaluation process, although lengthy, has been seen to be necessary to give as comprehensive a picture as possible to the court. Either parent or either parent’s counsel may engage the services of the clinical team or engagement may be through the court itself by the judge’s appointment. If only one parent is engaging the services, the other parent is contacted to give consent to the assessment because the clinical team does not promise to find for either parent. This process has worked smoothly and, in the majority of cases, both parents have consented to the assessment regardless of who had originally contacted the team. If the opposing side refuses to comply except for the examination of the child, the evaluation is somewhat limited. The clinical team is seeing only half of the picture and can state only that the parent on whose behalf he or she is testifying is an adequate parent and
enjoys a good relationship with the child. It will not, however, permit the therapist to say that one parent or the other is a better parent. It is clearly unethical for the therapist to testify or write in an evaluation report about what he or she has never seen or has never had an opportunity to test. When the evaluations are court-ordered from the judge, the family members have no recourse but to comply and both sides make themselves available to all clinicians. Advantages
to the Art Therapy Evaluation
Discovering how children, especially the young, feel and think about events in their lives is not an easy task. In forensic evaluations the issue is particularly sensitive (Schetky & Benedek, 1992). Many would agree that it is not appropriate to directly ask young children about their preference for one parent or the other in a custody evaluation. Most children, no matter what age, are very aware of why they are being interviewed and may feel anxious about what they say and how it may affect their parents or the decision of the court. Projective testing provides a forum a step removed from direct discourse and can skirt a child’s conscious intentions and permit reasonable inferences about the child’s needs and fears (Schetky & Benedek, 1992). Art is a modality that children are more comfortable with than talking. It is a natural means of communication for them; they gravitate to it spontaneously and offer little or no resistance to drawing. Some children have little conscious idea about what is happening in their family, but they are aware of conflict between their parents. Even if children are very aware of an impending divorce or change in custody arrangement, they are reluctant to talk about it. They often feel caught in the middle and guilty for siding with either parent against the other for fear of loss of love. The conflict and their feelings are therefore displaced into the artwork instead of into words. Because children most often do not realize that their artwork is expressing their feelings, they are not defensive about drawing. In the art psychotherapy interview, parents are asked to draw with their children. This has many advantages. Often adults may find it difficult to play with their children in an evaluation where they are being observed by an examiner. Some of this anxiety is often alleviated by being able to do their own artwork. On the other hand, anxiety may be increased by
CHILDREN
IN CUSTODY
being asked to draw because adults are often resistant to creating art; they would rather use their verbal skills to communicate. The artwork that parents produce is less defended and they cannot prepare ahead of time or give pat answers. They often try to prepare their scenarios for the social worker and psychiatrist before they walk into the office, but this is less likely for the art therapy evaluation. The process of making art brings parents and children to the same level. Parents complain that they have not made a drawing since they were children or that they cannot draw at all. Often the children do draw at the same development level as their parents, which makes them equally able to communicate thoughts and feelings. The art therapy assessment gives opportunity for both verbal and nonverbal communication so that the interaction between the parent and child is examined on both of these levels. Any mixed messages between the verbal and nonverbal means of expression become apparent to the art therapist. The art therapy evaluation is important because it yields lasting tangible evidence that can be brought into court if necessary. Unlike verbal communications that must be taperecorded to be made concrete, art gives a lasting concrete response that has been produced by the artists themselves. In states where art psychotherapy assessments are a part of the evaluation procedure, the artwork produced is admissible evidence in court. Children are evaluated to ascertain their social, emotional and cognitive developmental levels. Where children appear to be having difficulty functioning in some aspects of their lives, the drawings will help the evaluating team determine if the problems are intellectually or emotionally related and direct further investigation if necessary. The images that are depicted also provide information about family dynamics, interactions and relationships. In the case of impending divorce, information relative to how the child sees the family structure and separation is imperative. In the case where the divorce has already occurred, the relationship of the child to each parent is scrutinized relative to the status quo or future change in custody status. When there is a difference in the verbal description of the family system and how it is depicted graphically, fantasies and facts can be ferreted out through discussions of these images with family members. It may also be the case that various family members differ in their viewpoints about how the family struc-
DISPUTES
ture is seen. All of these views apparent in the drawings are then taken into consideration. The Evaluation
Procedure
Each parent is seen with the child or children in this procedure. The optimum structure for this evaluation would be to see one parent with the children, then the other parent with the children in back-to-back sessions. This would reduce the amount of outside influence that might take place between the evaluation sessions. When this back-to-back procedure is not possible for any reason, separate sessions may be scheduled for each parent with the children. It is important for both parent and child to understand that they are part of this procedure. Most often, the parents have prepared the children by telling them that they will draw some pictures, but the parents are not aware that they will also be asked to participate, even though they are told that they will accompany their child in the art psychotherapy assessment. This has advantages in that the parents do not prepare ahead of time what they would consider “appropriate” drawings for the situation. Most parents are often surprised at being asked to draw, but little overt resistance is displayed as that would damage their case. Some parents even welcome the opportunity to interact with their children. In each of the two sessions, the family members are asked to draw the same pictures and in the same order. This gives a means of comparison between the artwork produced with each parent. Here, not only is an assessment made of the child’s drawings in detail and superficially the parent’s drawings, but also the behavior and the interactions of the family members with one another during the session. How the family members engage each other verbally and graphically during the session is most often indicative of how the family works in everyday situations (Landgarten, 1987). The art media that are offered provide a choice of structured to slightly less structured materials. Thus, choices and decisions must be made even at this level. There is enough variety to offer children comfortable media to work with and parents media that are considered to be on an adult level. A choice of colored pencil, marker, crayon and tray pas (oil pastel) is offered. A lead pencil and eraser are available upon request, but are not offered on the table. Twelve by eighteen-inch white drawing paper is given for the
SHERRY J. LYONS
156
individual drawings, but larger, eighteen by twentyfour-inch paper is provided for joint family drawings. The Evaluation
Format
During the evaluation the family members are requested to draw their own pictures and also to make a joint drawing, working together on a single sheet of paper. The information gathered illustrates how members respond individually to both an unstructured and structured task, as well as their response to drawing together on the same piece of paper. The basic format consists of at least three drawing tasks with each parent. Depending upon the age of the child and/or the amount of time left in the session, other drawing tasks may be added. These also would then be repeated in the session with the other parent. Task 1. Free Drawing This is an unstructured task. Each family member is asked to choose from the available media and draw anything they wish and then title the drawing. This task is meant to be non-threatening and as each member can draw what they please, it often puts the child at ease. Some adults, however, would rather be told what to draw, but are not. From this drawing one can see what is on the mind of each family member. On a manifest level it shows what the person wants the therapist to know. By what the child draws one may see what he or she has been told about the art therapy session. Task 2. Kinetic Family Drawing Projective drawings may be used with children of any age. However, not all drawing techniques are appropriate to the specific custody evaluation. It has been charged that tests such as the House-Tree-Person and the Draw A Person are too far removed from the referral question and too indefensible in court to be of much utility (Schetky & Benedek, 1992). But the Kinetic Family Drawing, which asks the child to draw a picture of his or her family doing something, appears to be quite directly related to the issues involved in much child forensic work. How the child describes the picture and answers questions about it provides provocative clinical information. Who is and is not included in the picture, the activity depicted and the interaction among family members may help generate hypotheses about the child’s view of the family.
The task asks each person to “Draw yourself and the family members present doing something.” This is a modified Kinetic Family Drawing in that it differs from the traditional one (Burns & Kaufman, 1972), which asks for the family drawing, but does not specify who to draw. The one used in this evaluation asks specifically for the family members present because the children will be drawing the other parent in the next session. This eliminates the complaint by children that they drew the same picture before. It also shows the activity that the child depicts with each parent. This activity is most often different. Observed in each drawing is (Bums & Kaufman, 1972): A. B. C. D. E. F. G.
How each member is drawn; Placement in regard to both the paper and the other members drawn; The interaction of the members; Space between the family members as well as any barriers between members; What each family member is doing. Whether it is the same or different as other members; What kind, if any, environment is included; Whether other family members not present are also included in the drawing.
Task 3. Joint Family Drawing The family members are directed to “Discuss and decide on a theme for a drawing that you will all draw together on the same large piece of paper.” They are asked to plan how the drawing will be executed before they begin to draw (Bing, 1970). In this drawing the following are observed (Landgarten, 1987): A. B. C. D.
E. F.
G.
H.
Who initiated the discussion and who initiated the drawing; Which member’s suggestions were utilized and which were ignored; The level of involvement of the participants; If the members take turns, work in teams as a subgroup if there are more than two people, or work simultaneously; How much space each person occupied on the paper; Where the geographical locations of each person’s contribution were (central, comer, all over); Roles seen in the interaction; Symbolic and manifest content;
CHILDREN I.
If the working style was cooperative, ualistic or discordant.
IN CUSTODY
individ-
If the children are over the age of six and time is still available in the session the following task is often added. Dot-To-Dot Drawing
Task
Each person is asked to choose a marker and make dots anywhere on the paper without looking. They are then asked to connect as many of these dots as they wish, with the last dot being connected to first to make a closed shape. They are then asked to project into this drawing by verbalizing what this shape looks like to them. They are encouraged to turn the paper to view it from different directions if necessary. The last step is to make it look more like the projected object by adding color, line and form. This drawing task requires the ability to follow directions and can also be used as a test for organicity and neurological impairment. In this instance the art therapist looks for perceptual problems and eye-hand coordination both in the drawing of the line connecting the dots and in making a closed form. In addition, the person’s ability to abstract and project into imagery is observed (Hays, 1982). Writing Reports Lawyers and judges want as much concrete information as possible. For this reason, the drawings are described briefly in the order that they were executed because in New Jersey the drawings as well as the art therapist may be subpoenaed (Levick, Safran & Levine, 1990). Throughout the report there is a clear separation between factual data and editorial opinions, inferences and conclusions (Bolocofsky, 1989). Every effort is made to avoid bias and the appearance of bias. The art therapist avoids using the first person in reports. Lawyers believe that tentative words such as “suspect” or “possibility” should be avoided. Art therapists may find this difficult and may still use these terms in reference to symbolic content in the artwork. Psychiatric jargon and technical terms if used are explained. Embarrassing or provocative material should only be included if it is necessary to support the opinion being rendered. At the end of the report, the summary and conclusions contain the comparative information that has been gathered from each child in each session. Rarely
DISPUTES
should a hard and fast recommendation be made as to disposition. The findings from each child are listed in a comparative fashion. All findings in the evaluation are then summarized for each child. A comparison of developmental levels, cognitive skills, problem solving abilities, emotional indicators, the behavior during each session and the child’s relationship to each parent and siblings are included. Also mentioned in the report are the verbalizations and association to the drawings. A comparison of the parents’ style of relating and the emotional content of their drawings is noted, but no discussion of their individual drawings is made unless it is crucial to the case. General impressions of their drawings are given, but their interaction in the joint drawing may be fully discussed. General Findings Examination of all the drawings from the art therapy evaluation is essential. It becomes clear that all children are stressed by the family breakup and their anxiety is seen in their artwork. The first free drawing often indicates the general functioning level and what the child wants the therapist to know on a more manifest level. Children who need control in order to bind their anxiety can choose structured media and decide for themselves what they want or need to draw. Often a house is drawn, which is typical subject matter for all children, but is has special significance for children of divorce. The house is often a concrete representation of what is being fought over, who is now living in it and who will be maintaining it. Because the house symbolizes nurturance and security (Buck, 1948; Hammer, 1958) the way that the child draws this house becomes more important. Often distortion is seen within the structure of the house. Children in the schematic stage who would normally ground all of their images do not. The use of a baseline is indicative of the need and wish for structure and security. If children do not feel grounded and secure, they will not use baselines in their artwork. A five-year-old girl was evaluated prior to the separation of her parents who told the psychiatrist that she did not know of the impending separation or divorce. For the free drawing task she began by drawing a red flower. The stem of this flower was in two unconnected parts. The flower appears broken or detached from its nurturing stem. The child then began to draw red and blue dashes surrounding the flower. When these were completed she said that the dashes
158
SHERRY J. LYONS
were bricks and that she was drawing a house. She drew two peaks on the roof line with black marker. This house had no outline for walls and no baseline for support. Dynamically, it looks as if the house is falling apart with no wall boundaries and it is separated into two roofs. The child had drawn the flower, symbolically representing herself, almost in the middle of the split house. She was apparently aware of her parents’ separation on a symbolic level and saw herself caught in the split with no structure or means of support. Divorce is a difficult experience for children because they lose something that is fundamental to their development, which is the family structure. The family is the framework on which the children build successive developmental stages from infancy into adolescence. It supports their psychological, physical and emotional climb to maturity. When that structure collapses, the children’s world is temporarily without supports. Children always perceive the family as the entity that provides the support and protection that they need. With divorce, that structure breaks down, leaving children suddenly feeling alone and very frightened and vulnerable about the present and the future (Gullotta, 1981). Anger and depression are natural responses to divorce (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1990). Children, however, may be afraid to display these feelings in front of their parents for fear of losing their love. The affect is seen in the art in terms of size, color, object placement as well as the images that are drawn. Children often try to mask their depression by using vivid colors, but the isolation is still evident. For example, a six-and-a-half-year-old girl drew a house for the free drawing task. She chose orange marker and drew a schematic house in the center of the paper, using the bottom edge as the baseline. Her drawing style was slow and meticulous. The smoke coming from the chimney was drawn in dark brown and looked overworked. The house appeared barren, isolated and austere, despite the bright colors used. The heavy smoke may be indicative of her angry feelings about what was going on within the house at the time. As part of the custody dispute, the mother’s boyfriend was being accused of sexually molesting the girl. Thus, although the orange color may give a bright appearance, the rigid line quality shows the structure that the child needed to contain the negative emotions that she was feeling. As part of the art therapy evaluation an assessment of the child’s organic functioning is made. The art-
work is examined for indicators of neurologic impairment. Sometimes there are behavior problems and hyperactivity in evidence that have no organic cause. It is important to rule out organic impairment, if possible, as part of the evaluation process. In the art therapy evaluation described in this paper, a modified Kinetic Family Drawing was used. The children were asked to draw themselves with the family members present doing something. Often children show their attachment to the parent who is not present by including him or her also. This may indicate the wish for the family to be reunited, which is a common fantasy of children (Kemberg, 1983). On the other hand, it may reveal the real and honest need for this family member to remain a part of their emotional life and remain “in the picture.” The joint family drawing is used to evaluate the means that the family uses to communicate, solve problems and function on a daily basis. Often the parents take charge of this drawing and act as the unifying force for the undertaking. How much control they give to their children is important in allowing the children to have a voice in family matters. As the children were not consulted about whether the divorce should occur, they tend to feel helpless in family decisions. If the parents involve their children in decision making, it can allow them to feel empowered (Weithom & Repucci, 1984). On the other hand, there are parents who are so guilt ridden or feel so helpless themselves, they cannot guide their children, and the joint family drawing becomes a free-for-all. Each child does what he or she wishes anywhere they wish, and the finished drawing has no direction, no theme or no unity. For this family a recommendation might be made for some treatment to help them deal with parenting skills and family issues. Divorce is always graphically seen as a schism within the nuclear family. Some children have better coping skills than others and can use their defenses in order to deal with the family situation. These ego defense mechanisms are apparent in the artwork and they allow the therapist to see the emotional functioning level of the child (Levick, 1983). The amount of regression, especially in the Kinetic Family Drawing, often indicates the child’s coping ability. For example, in an evaluation with his mother and brother, an eight-year-old boy was asked to draw himself and the family members present doing something. He first drew a large red rectangle to frame the picture, thus redefining the limits and structuring himself. Within the rectangle he drew a boat containing himself, his
CHILDREN
IN CUSTODY
brother, mother, dad and grandmother. He added his father and grandmother, although he was not directed to do so. The water under and around the boat, which was originally drawn as a calm line, began to boil with an agitated line and he then drew the fins of a shark. The water level continued to rise and he regressed into a scribbling motion that almost obliterated the boat and the people in it. It was interesting to note that although this child repeated the same rectangle and boat image in his Kinetic Family Drawing when evaluated with his father, there were only three figures in the boat and the water remained calm. He also added a gun to the hands of himself and his father, apparently to arm them against any potential threat or danger. How the child handles the immediate breakup and the next years of the new family structure will certainly have lifelong effects and therefore should be examined closely. In determining the custody of children, one could certainly use the wisdom of Solomon, but no solution is easy. The therapist’s role in this case should be as the advocate for the child, to make sure that his or her best interests are truly served. The team approach with the responsibility shared with other professionals seems to work well.
Psychiatric Association (1982). Child Custody Consultation: Report of the Task Force on Clinical Assessment in Child Custody. Washington, DC: Mansheim.
American
Bing, E. (1970).The
conjomt family drawing.
Family Process,
9,
19>194.
Bolocofsky, J. (1989). Use and abuse of mental health experts in child custody determinations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7(2),
197-213.
Buck, J. N. (1948). The House-Tree ical Psychology,
4, 141-159.
DISPUTES
S. H. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in kinetic family drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Combrinck-Graham, L. (1989). Children in family contexts. New Burns, R. C., & Kaufman,
York: Guilford. Gullotta, T. (1981). Children of divorce: Easing the transition from a nuclear family. Journal of Early Adolescence, l(4), 357-364. Hammer, E. (Ed.). (1958). The clinical application of projective drawings. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Hays, R. (1982). Dot to dot: Rationale for a “New Projective” for children under ten. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual American Art Therapy Conference of 1979, AATA Publications. Ilfeld, F., Ilfeld, H., & Alexander, J. (1982). Does joint custody work? A first look at outcome data of relitigation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139( 1), 62-66. Irving, H., Benjamin, M., & Trocame, N. (1984). Shared parenting: An empirical analysis utilizing a large data base. Family Practice,
23, 561-569.
Jacobs, J. (1986). Divorce and child custody resolution: Conflicting legal and psychological paradigms. American Journal of Psychiatry,
143,
192-197.
Kaslow, F., & Schwartz, L. (1987). The dynamics of divorce. New York: Brunner/ Mazel. Kemberg, P. (1983). Introduction: The effects of divorce and custody of children. Psychiatric Hospital. Summer 14(3), 13s 132. Landgarten, H. (1987). Family art psychotherapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Levick, M. (1983). They could not talk and so they drew. Springfield IL: Charles C Thomas. Levick, M., Safran, D., & Levine, A. (1990). Art therapists as expert witnesses: A judge delivers a precedent-setting decision. The Arts in Psychotherapv, 17( 1). 49-54. Schetky, D., & Benedek, E: (1992). Clinical handbook of child psychiatry and the law. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Wallerstein, J., & Blakeslee, S. (1990). Second chances: Men, women and children a decade after divorce. New York: Ticknor & Fields. Wallerstein, I., & Kelly, J. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books. Weithom, L., & Repucci, N. (1984). Involving children in decisions. Annual Review of Community Mental Health Series: Children,
Person test. Journal of Clin-
159
Mental Health and the Law, 4, 64-69.
Westman, J., & Lord, G. (1980). Model for a child psychiatry custody study. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 8, 253-269.