I was very disappointed to read your article regarding child custody [“Dealing From the Bottom,” September]. As an attorney who practices exclusively in the area of family law, I felt that the article did a great disservice to attorneys, the court, mediators, and child psychologists who try to assist couples in resolving their parenting issues. I also believe it provided misleading information to the public. First, it is the rare attorney who encourages her client to “say every horrible thing that you can come up with about the other person.” Most attorneys know that the courts discourage these types of statements/affidavits in custody cases. Experienced family law attorneys know that if you start off a case in this manner, there is little hope of reaching an amicable resolution on any issue. A custody evaluation is only one part of the evidence that a court considers in making a determination of child custody in those few cases where parents do not reach agreement. Minnesota statute 518.17 lists thirteen criteria for the court to consider when making a decision. While I think most attorneys and judges would agree that the custody evaluation is important, I don’t know of any judges in the metro area that rely solely on the custody study. Also, it should be noted that many litigants agree to having one psychologist do the study (and many psychologists will only do a study if both parents hire them). Further, it is rare that a custody study would cost $25,000. I also found it interesting that the reporter only cites out-of-state psychologists and “experts” for her proposition that psychologists are “hired guns.” While that may be true in other states, the custody evaluators that I have worked with in the metro area do their very best to remain neutral. While some of the evaluators have preferences on different issues, they are diligent in obtaining accurate information and they present the information in a neutral and unbiased fashion. I wonder why the reporter did not talk to a single psychological expert in the metro area. I appreciated the information on collaborative law; I am a collaborative law attorney. However, the reporter’s dismissive statement regarding mediation does a disservice to the alternative dispute resolution process, which is very advanced in Minnesota. Mediation is not a “pit stop” on the way to court. I am sure if the reporter had taken the time to research the issue, speak to the chief judges in family court, and interview some respected mediators, she would have found out otherwise. The people getting divorced are in charge, from the criteria they use in hiring an attorney, to the process they want to use to resolve their case—litigation, mediation, or collaborative law. My advice to people is not to listen to horror stories, or rely on unresearched articles, but to decide how they want their divorce to proceed, and then do the research to find a competent attorney to assist them in reaching their goals.
Kathleen M. Picotte Newman Minneapolis
Thank you for the extremely thorough, gender-neutral, and well-researched article on child-custody problems. These problems are further damaging already fractured families. While I disagree with many of the opinions of Sarah Ramsey, you did a good job of balancing her comments with another expert opinion, to provide one of the most impartial articles describing this problem that I have ever read. You were able to take the emotion out of it and create an “intellectual” look at the problem. Your analysis was right on target.
Molly K. Olson
executive director
Center for Parental Responsibility
Roseville
Leave a Reply