IEH
Institute  for Emotional Health
  • Home
  • Services
  • Therapists
  • Len's In Focus

Len's In Focus

DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES AT DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY COURT: MAKING MATTERS WORSE

12/28/2023

0 Comments

 
As 2023 comes to an end, so too, does my 28year stint as forensic child custody evaluator. I have determined that I no longer wish to play that role in a family court system that on balance does more harm than good for families in need. What has long been apparent, but even more so to me within the past year, is the observation that the experience at court, usually unpleasant at best, is toxic at worst and more likely than not to eventuate in outcomes which exacerbate the family problems which brought the matter to court in the first place. What is supposed to lead to a resolution of conflict among family members often leads to irreparable damage beyond the reach of the prospect of conciliation so desperately needed by the subject child. Splitting, a manifestation of all good vs all bad, dichotomous thinking, placing the child in the middle of parents at war with each other, is almost always present before a family court case begins, and typically increases rather than decreases in magnitude as a direct result of what transpires at court. More pronounced splitting eventuates in iatrogenic outcomes for the child as well as for the parents. After months or years of adversarial litigation at a cost usually spiraling into the tens of thousands of dollars, the end result typically features deeply embittered, resentful parents and a child who is consequently at heightened risk for any combination of anxiety disorder, depression, conduct disorder, academic problems, social isolation, and eventual alcohol and/or substance abuse. The family court experience doesn’t cause these problems, it simply potentiates deterioration. It doesn’t have to be this way. REFORM IS NEEDED. NOW!

At the core of the problem is the adversarial nature of family court proceedings, comparable to what is found at criminal court and other judicial forums. The attorneys for one parent strive to do everything legally permissible to discredit the other parent, thereby building a case for maximizing legal, residential and financial benefits accruing to their client. The attorneys for the other parent join the battle. It is indeed A BATTLE that may continue for many years. Accusations about the missteps – true or exaggerated or false – of a parent, made in the form of verbal attacks in open court, predictably enrage the object of such attacks, leading to a round of counter-attacks. Even though the accusations are uttered by an attorney, the parent experiences it in real time as a direct attack by the other parent. If each parent regarded the other in negative terms to begin with, they are now being propelled to consider each other in malevolent, if not evil terms. When they next see their child, their angry, distrustful feelings towards each other are apparent in their demeanor and mood, even if they refrain from saying anything untoward about each other. Splitting between the parents is thereby internalized within the child, now beset with increased loyalty conflict and the challenge of how to relate to one parent without losing the love of the other.

When family court was established, no distinction was made regarding the rules of evidence applicable within this very special forum as opposed to other courts. As explained in a letter sent to me on September 8, 2023 by Richard F. Spolzino, Esq., Counsel to the Administrative Judge of the State of New York Unified Court System, New York City Family Court, “an attorney conducting a cross-examination of a witness is entitled to ask any question that he or she reasonably believes may elicit relevant, material and competent information, including questions about the qualifications or motivation of an expert witness…the questioning may be used in an attempt to discredit the witness’s testimony…the court may not prohibit such questioning because it may limit the right of the parties to probe the credibility of the witness.” An experienced consulting attorney adds that “statements made in court or in pleadings filed in court are generally protected by litigation privilege.” This seems to limit the potential protection afforded by defamation claims when exaggerated or mendacious accusations are made against either party or against any witness at family court. Michael J. Pulizotto, Esq., Chief Clerk for the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, Office of Court Administration, State of New York Unified Court System, in an October 18,2023 letter to me, points out that some protections within the law do exist, as follows: “Under the Rules of Professional Conduct (Part 1200 of the Judiciary Law, 22 NYCRR $1200.0), a lawyer may not ask any question that the lawyer has no reasonable basis to believe is relevant to the case and that is intended to degrade a witness or other person. Rule 3.4(d)(4). Also, a lawyer may not participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows, or it is obvious, that the evidence is false. Rule 3.4(a)(5). Also, a lawyer may not state or allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence. Rule 3.4(d)(1).” This seems to reduce the chances that an attorney at family court might attack the character of a parent litigant in an attempt to discredit him, her or even an expert witness. Right? WRONG!

In June, 2023, I was testifying as an expert witness in a child custody case for which I conducted forensic evaluations, when I was suddenly attacked by the mother’s attorney who cast me as being biased against her client. Couching her questions in a manner suggesting verification of established fact, the attorney alleged that I had use vile, misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ terms in reference to her client. No clearly stated basis or foundation to support her claims were offered until tentative, self-contradictory explanations were given. The attorney at first stated that she believed it was the mother’s therapist who claimed that I had referred to the mother as a “lesbian whore.” At a subsequent proceeding, the attorney stated that it was the therapist’s supervisee, who happened to be the child’s therapist, who filed an affidavit in which he refuted my denial of the initial allegation about my having made the slur. Both therapists had a motive for attacking me as I had previously recommended that the child’s therapist be changed because of an inherent conflict of interest, in combination with significant bias towards the father elicited from mother’s therapist. Ample protection was, unfortunately, not afforded by the presiding Judge who ruled two months after slanderous attack that a sufficient foundation had been given permitting the attorney to question me as she did. In my estimation, the Judge erred grievously, although she later atoned for her misstep when she finally ordered that the child’s therapist be removed in favor of a new therapist approved by both parents. If someone like myself, a professional with 55 years in the field, deemed by the court in question to be an expert in child psychology, with experience as expert witness for Special Victims Unit prosecutors at criminal courts in Brooklyn N.Y. and Queens, N.Y. and in preparing reports on child abuse for the United States Supreme Court, can be so readily abused at a family court proceeding, what hope does an unsuspecting parent litigant have?

In the case of the attack against me, the accusations could have been immediately challenged by the Judge by demanding that the attorney provide ample foundation, including the source of the allegation, the context within which it was made, and the relationship between the source and either litigant or the witness. Perhaps the pertinent rules need to be more rigorously operationalized; perhaps family court Judges require training in this area. But this alone would not solve the main problem requiring an overhaul. The adversarial model should be entirely removed from family court, to avert the crippling splitting which undermines healing at all levels. What is needed is the creation of a FAMILY CONCILIATION COURT, wherein winning and losing is replaced by conciliation on behalf of the child. This would be a place where attacks on character would be forbidden. It would be a place where the focus is on parental strengths and attributes that should be made available to the child within the parenting plan. Parental deficits and mistakes would be identified not as ammunition for winning points against an adversary, but to ensure that special training or treatment needs are addressed on behalf of the child. Family court proceedings are forever preoccupied with which parent has the most deficits. It is comparable to a baseball fan attending a game at CitiField, and keeping his or her eyes glued to the scoreboard to see which team has the most errors, as if the opposing team would win by default. We should instead be looking at the strengths of each parent just as we appreciate the strengths of each team, embodied by the totals in the runs and hits columns. 

Change in the family court structure, rules and procedures will require heavy lifting by all those who agree it is necessary. Revamping applicable rules of evidence and the parameters for cross-examination will reportedly require legislation at the state level. It would appear, however, that some mitigation of the problem of a toxic environment within the courtroom may be realized at the local court level through procedural changes as well as the application of the laws of human decency. All attorneys must learn that whenever they attack the other parent – the so-called “bad guy” – they are concurrently attacking their own client’s child. My own inclination going forward is to be very demanding in considering new referrals for court-ordered family treatment. I may find it necessary to ask that court proceedings be suspended for a period to give sufficient time for treatment, unimpeded by the effects of an adversarial court case, to gain traction. I may also require that treatment progress notes be respected as privileged information that must be withheld from the court proceedings, lest their content be used as ammunition by attorneys in search of errors to list on the scoreboard. 

​
0 Comments

Data Collection in Forensic Child Custody Evaluation

9/14/2022

0 Comments

 
Clinical Child Interview
  • Central to assessment and treatment of children.
  • Use of non-directive, non-suggestive, reflective (Rogerian) interview techniques.
  • Focus is on individual child and family.
  • Competence requires education and experience. It requires skills for engaging, building trust, facilitating openness and candor in opposition to resistance.
  • Need for monitoring logical plausibility, reliability, and congruity between content of responses and affect of child.
Specialized Structured Interview
  • Tailored to assessment in targeted areas, e.g. child alienation, psychological permanence, child sexual abuse.
  • Facilitates data collection not readily tapped by clinical child interview.
  • Taps individual rather than group data about special areas of inquiry.
  • Effectiveness of M.H. clinical provider thrives upon development of specialized interview tools which enhance scope of assessment and treatment efforts.
  • Administered in accord with standard clinical child interview practices.
Standardized Testing
  • Provides group data, scientifically gathered, which may be used to measure how an individual functions or responds relative to group norms.
  • Fits in with present emphasis on Evidenced Based Practice (EBP) in clinical practice. Adopted by some health insurance companies as a standard for determining when payment for services is approved, and when payment for services utilizing methods or procedures not subjected to randomized clinical trial is rejected. This potentially excludes clinically demonstrated efficacious methods and procedures from being applied to particular clients who stand to benefit from such services.
  • Within forensic child custody evaluation, focus must be on the individual, whose history likely makes him/her an outlier relative to standardization sample.
  • Much information sought in forensic child custody evaluation is not tapped via available standardized tests, which tend to focus on diagnostic assessment.
  • Although the use of standardized tests and procedures within forensic child custody evaluation is encouraged and incorporated within published guidelines, it is not adopted as a standard mandated by any regulatory body.
  • The Frye Standard, adopted in 1923 in New York State, is a legal standard which is applicable in considering the admissibility of clinical data put forth by expert witnesses. The expert opinion in question is admissible provided that the scientific technique used in forming the basis for the opinion “is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.”
Data from Collateral Sources.
  • Data derived from record reviews of relevant documents and from interviews with parents and professionals with direct knowledge of the child, such as pediatrician, therapist, and teacher, are essential to the evaluation.
  • Such data provides additional subjective and  objective perspectives, while also offering a means of corroborating observations and impressions derived from clinical child interview, specialized structured interview and standardized testing.
 
 
 
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D.
September 14, 2022
0 Comments

The Healing Function of Investigatory Process in Sexual Victimization Cases

3/15/2021

0 Comments

 
     It’s the Ides of March, and there is a growing clamor from Democrats in Congress, as well as within the New York State Legislature for Governor Andrew Cuomo to immediately resign from office because of a number of allegations of improper sexual behavior that have been lodged against him in recent weeks. The prevailing rationale is that he has lost the capacity to govern effectively in the absence of sufficient political support. The calls for him to leave are also reflected in the announcement of impeachment proceedings in the New York State Assembly and of an investigation overseen by New York State Attorney General, Letitia James. Yesterday, we heard from President Joseph Biden on this question for the first time. In responding to a reporter’s question, he demonstrated why he is president and the rest of us are not. Alone among the state and national political leaders who are demanding Cuomo’s immediate departure, the President asks only that Ms. James’ investigation proceed without delay. In so doing he expresses much confidence in the Attorney General and underscores the importance of allowing the investigatory process to be carried out to completion. President Biden nailed it. He is absolutely right to insist that a thorough, objective investigation do the job of shedding light on what may have occurred, the degree of responsibility borne by Governor Cuomo, and the impact the entire experience may be having on those who claim to have been victimized. If the investigatory process were to be short-circuited, the answers to those three questions would be less complete, more ambiguous and likely to twist in the wind for weeks, months, years and even lifetimes. There would predictably be an interminable second round of victimization due to the failure to properly process the allegations. As a consequence, the victims may never get the opportunity for full validation of what they claim to have experienced. Absent such validation, they become easy targets for being cast as villains or social pariahs. They become more likely to suffer from Depression, PTSD, social isolation, and poor adaptive function for the rest of their lives. Absent the investigatory process, victims are less likely to receive the social and emotional support their healing requires.

     Governor Cuomo has denied committing the acts of sexual harassment, non-consensual sexual contact and abuse of power that have been claimed to have occurred. He may be lying, but it is also possible that one or more of the complainants is either lying or distorting the true nature of what might have occurred. He deserves what every other American deserves under our constitution, the right to be regarded as innocent until such time that he has been shown to be guilty. What happened at the Capitol this past January 6th is but a more dramatic, violent version of what is happening when premature calls for resignation threaten to quash our centuries long instinct for fairness within carefully crafted democratic institutions. What almost happened on January 6th was nothing less than the crushing of our democracy; when due process is denied this too is a crushing of our democracy. What seems to have taken hold over the past couple of weeks is the latest incarnation of the cancel culture mentality which gained traction a few years ago as the remedy for the heretofore almost total ignoring of victims’ rights. The remedy of cancellation of the offensive party, whether it pertain to sexual, racist, xenophobic or other socially disapproved acts has been manifested by attempts at erasing the person from our memory and awareness. So we lose a Senator Franken for offenses that pale in comparison to those perpetrated openly and defiantly by the 45th president, simply because he is a member of a political party obsessed with avoiding looking hypocritical. We decide to never listen to recordings of Kate Smith singing God Bless America. We make plans to strip schools, roadways and bridges of such names as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Our default “corrective action” is to cast away rather than to rehabilitate. In so doing we attempt to erase from memory any redeemable qualities or accomplishments associated with those destined for the cancel culture garbage heap. In the tradition of American exceptionalism, we’ve become the world’s expert at institutionalizing criminal offenders of all stripes, particularly when they are persons of color. In the present circumstance, the call for Cuomo’s immediate departure may be of great negative consequence to the people of New York and the U.S. During the darkest early days of the pandemic, last spring, when New York was the world’s catastrophic epicenter, somebody needed to step up to give direction, hope and strength. Such leadership was MIA at the White House and in many governor mansions across the country. Cuomo’s daily briefings on the status of everything COVID, was viewed religiously by millions of New Yorkers, other Americans and people throughout the world. No, that doesn’t give him a pass on any sexual transgression he may have committed or excuse him from any role he might have played in issuing misleading reports about number of nursing home deaths, but it does recognize his past, present and future importance to us in at least completing the mission of ending the pandemic and returning to normalcy. The same skills and complex personality which eventuated in monumental leadership a year ago are still needed to ensure that New Yorkers continue to practice whatever the CDC recommends, to ensure we are all vaccinated this spring, and to implement a business – economic plan for restoring normalcy to our lives. Perhaps we will need another half year or longer before we arrive at the point where our need for a leader like Cuomo will not be so dire. By then, the investigation by Ms. James will have presumably provided us with the clarity needed to secure justice and due compensation for all, be it the victims or the falsely accused. At that point, Cuomo would either be exonerated, or found to be at fault and not worthy of completing his third term in office. It is then that resignation or impeachment would be most appropriate.

     Those who viewed the HBO documentary series, Allen v. Farrow have had the opportunity of seeing what can happen when the investigatory process is sidetracked in the context of a case of child sexual abuse. In 1992 at least three investigations were initiated in response to revelations made by the 7 year-old daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, Dylan, that she had been sexually molested by her father. An investigation conducted at a children’s mental health facility in Connecticut failed to confirm the allegations, as did a parallel investigation conducted by The New York City Child Welfare Administration. A focus of the 4th and final series episode was on the criminal investigation conducted by Connecticut state attorney, Frank Maco, who, although believing there was enough evidence to conclude “probable cause,” decided to abort the process. He determined that subjecting Dylan to examination and cross-examination at trial would predictably have been traumatizing, thereby exacerbating the impact of any trauma already experienced via sexual victimization. We see a poignant conversation between Mr. Maco and Dylan, some 28 years later, who listens to his explanation about why the decision to drop the case was made. We also see Woody Allen at a press conference that took place when the charges were dropped. Dylan shows gratitude for what Mr. Maco did or didn’t do. She believed that Mr. Maco indeed acted in her best interest by shielding her from the experience of being questioned in Court, surrounded by the peering eyes of strangers and family, especially the bespectacled eyes of her father. Woody, despite being off the hook for criminal prosecution, expresses great displeasure with Mr. Maco, who essentially did a  “Comey” twenty-three years before FBI Director James Comey announced he would not be filing charges against Hillary Clinton and then proceeded to excoriate her for mishandling of emails. In each instance the message delivered by law enforcement serves to permanently tarnish the reputation of the accused who is deprived of any opportunity for exoneration at trial.

     A closer look at the events of the early 1990’s reveals that a much more just and emotionally healthy outcome could have been realized. Dylan could have been spared more than a quarter of a century of blaming herself for wrecking the family, for bringing shame to herself and family, for feeling socially ostracized, for feeling permanently damaged, for feeling that she must keep her true self hidden from everyone, which means to sacrifice authenticity. Her father need not have endured the protracted attack on his reputation and career, even if he were found guilty of a crime in 1993. In that instance, he would have had the opportunity to rehabilitate and to find a new path for living life without perpetually having to brace himself for the next attack. What Dylan needed back then was the opportunity to express whatever she endured within a suitable environment featuring support, and relative privacy. She would have been able to relay her personal narrative as much as she would have been capable of at age 7 or 8, and subsequently be in a better position to modify her narrative at later times in her development. Of significant importance, Dylan would have been relieved of the tremendous, toxic burden of secrecy as the core requirement of her childhood. To feel compelled to keep such secrets is to guarantee the eventuation of shame, accompanied by social avoidance, depression and diminished adaptive function. So what could have been done differently?

    It turns out that Mr.Maco might have been able to go through with a trial and still afford Dylan a considerable amount of protection from the stressors of having to testify against her father in open court. He might have been able to take advantage of a decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 2 years earlier on June 27th 1990. In the case of State of Maryland v. Craig, No. 89-478, the Court ruled that a child victim of abuse may be allowed to give her testimony via closed circuit television under certain circumstances, without that being a violation of the defendant’s 6th Amendment right to be able to confront his accuser.. It would have been Mr. Maco’s task to prove to the Court, with the assistance of expert testimony, that the child would be traumatized by having to testify in the defendant’s presence. It is conceivable that Dylan could have repeated the narrative that she previously told her therapist, probably with the extra reassurance of having the therapist nearby. Testimony could have been taken in the Judge’s chambers or in another setting much less austere than a courtroom. The swing vote in this 5 to 4 decision belonged to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who recognized the “state’s interest in the physical and psychological well-being of child abuse victims… which may be sufficiently important , at least in some cases, a defendant’s right to face his accusers in court.” With such protection in place, Dylan’s participation in search of justice, backed by her mother, other close relatives and high ranking state officials would have catalyzed her much needed journey from victim to survivor to just another lovable, normal kid focusing on the task of mastering what other 7 and 8 year olds attempt to master. In his seeming benevolent gesture of “protecting” Dylan by short-circuiting the investigatory process,  he inadvertently hindered and delayed her recovery well into adulthood. Only Mr. Maco knows whether there may have been an additional factor which convinced him to steer away from proceeding with charging Mr. Allen. In the majority of intra-familial sexual victimization cases, there is little if any physical evidence or eye-witnessed account of the alleged crimes. That makes it quite difficult to win convictions, which is not helpful to an official who might be facing the pressures of running for re-election. It is not known whether Mr. Maco was facing such pressures, nor did the documentary indicate whether a trained forensic mental health evaluator was enlisted by him to search for credible or exculpatory evidence. His commentary during the documentary implied that he served as his own evaluator, mentioning how daunting it was to elicit Dylan’s candor. An unspoken third possible reason for not pursuing the case to trial, is a paucity of clear, unambiguous, specific, disclosure, even though ample situational, incriminating evidence  was found.

      In sum, in a society such as ours, one which is supposed to nurture aspirational humanistic, democratic values, political or personal agenda which is disruptive and likely to derail due process in general and investigatory process in sexual victimization cases in particular, should be eschewed. Due process takes longer and may still fail to provide all the answers one is trying to answer, but it comes much closer to promoting the emotional health and dignity of everyone concerned. For the child sexual abuse victim or even the adult victim of childhood sexual abuse it may be regarded as a necessary component or means of realizing the most complete, enduring recovery attainable. What would have happened in 2018 if the investigatory process pertaining to allegations lodged against Brett Kavanaugh wasn’t sabotaged by the very effective, contrived tantrums of Senator Linsey Graham? A comparable question might be asked about the impact of Clarence Thomas’ contrived mini-tantrum which succeeded in distracting Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden from pursuing the investigatory process regarding sexual victimization allegations made against him to completion. When those in charge choose to prematurely abandon the investigatory process, it usually means that politics has taken over and that emotion-focused coping has replaced higher forms of intellectual problem-solving. For the most extreme recent example of the dangers of choosing emotion focused coping over problem-focused coping take another look at the videos taken at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.                             

​ Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D. The Ides of March, 2021
0 Comments

MY 55 YEARS IN PSYCHOLOGY 1965-2020 PART lV

5/31/2020

0 Comments

 
In the aftermath of the Zimbabwe case, I took an active role in advocating for the ratification by the U.S. Senate of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although completed a decade earlier, the Convention was slow in winning the support of a number of member countries. By the early 1990’s, however, only a handful of countries refused to ratify, one of which was the United States. I corresponded with several senators, including Senator Helms, and New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, and even wrote to Tipper Gore, the Vice President’s wife who had a psychology background. My efforts proved unsuccessful, as our country remains, to this day, the only U.N. member country that still refuses to ratify this important document which serves as a moral protective umbrella for the children of the world.

At various other times, I wore my advocacy hat either proactively or reactively. Between 1986 and 1989, I wrote an advice column for the Roslyn News for little league parents. In 1990, I co-authored a front-page article in the New York Law Journal, entitled, “Child Abuse: The Supreme Court Takes Steps, But There Is More To Do” in shielding the child witness from trauma when testifying about abuse allegations., (Carrieri, J., & Gries, L. 1990).  In 1998, in the lead up to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, my letter to the N.Y. Times in protest of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s insistence on forcing the mother of Monica Lewinsky to testify against her own daughter, in violation of the most sacred of all human bonds, was published   (Gries, L., 1998). From 1989 through 1997, I lectured on matters pertaining to child abuse, neglect, psychological permanence and decision-making in foster care at annual seminars of the Practising Law Institute. The multi-disciplined audiences consisted of a cross-section of all professionals involved in foster care. In one of the early seminars, a co-panelist was none other than the future Judge Judy, a couple of years before she stepped down from the bench as a family court judge. (Who could compete with her?) My lectures were one part educational, but an equal part advocacy. My subsequent advocacy, pertaining to the maintenance of high standards in clinical work, took various forms. In 1996 I was a co-presenter on “Models of Mental Health Intervention” at a symposium sponsored by the organization currently known as Clinicians in Child Welfare (CCW) (Gries, L., & Fribourg, A., 1996). I  later served as chairman of  CCW from 2004 through 2011, placing me in a leadership role advocating for children in foster care. In 1998, I helped write “ Mental Health Services for Children in Out-of-Home Care,” published in Child Welfare (Schneiderman, M., Conners, M., Fribourg, A., Gries, L., & Gonzales, M., 1998). In2002 and 2003, I was a member of the Foster Care Workgroup of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Division ll, which published standards for the medical and psychological care of children in foster care. In 2009, I was honored to contribute to a national panel in identifying “Best Practices for Mental Health in Child Welfare: Screening, Assessment and Treatment Guidelines,” published in a special issue of Child Welfare, (Romanelli, L.H., Landsverk, J., Levitt, J.M., Bellonci,C., Gries, L.T., Pecora, P.J., & Jensen, P.S., 2009). This was followed by a workshop entitled, “Best Practice Guidelines for Mental Health in Child Welfare: Contest for Reform” presented at the Annual Conference on Treatment Foster Care, (Gries, L.T. & Jensen, P.S., 2009).

More recently I’ve spoken out about issues of interest to the general public, including the impact of the Kavanaugh hearings on the principal witness, discussed in an article entitled,  “Dr. Blasey’s Path to Healing following Sexual Victimization: Gaining Comprehensive Support After Disclosing”, which appeared in the Len’s In Focus Blog on WWW.IEHSERVICES.COM,  (Gries, L.T., 2018). In my article, “The Best Way to Respond to Political Bullying,” which appeared in the October 26, 2018 edition of the Great Neck Press (Gries, L., 2018), I offered suggestions on how best to cope with the kind of tactics resorted to by President Trump. In yet another article, the plight of the children separated from their parents at the Mexican border was discussed in “Hearing The Voices of Forgotten Victims,” which appeared in the November 23, 2018 edition of the Roslyn Times (Gries, L., & Andrews, M.B., 2018). Finally, I presented a paper, “Promoting Emotional Health for Children and Families in Child Welfare” at the Annual ACS Conference on Destigmatizing Mental Health in Child Welfare, (Gries, L.T., 2019).

My present professional focus is on the plight of alienated children, who are often the victims of collateral damage within highly contested and adversarial child custody proceedings. I first wrote about this topic in “Measuring Parental Alienation” in the Len’s In Focus Blog on WWW.IEHSERVICES.COM, (Gries, L.T., 2016). Then in December, 2019, the article, “Family Treatment for Moderate Child Alienation” was published in the Journal of Health Service Psychology, (Gries, L. & Gries, J., 2019). In many respects working with families featuring child alienation   may be the greatest clinical challenge of my 55 year career in psychology.

Although I’ve always identified primarily as clinician, as my professional history demonstrates, it is impossible to separate out the intertwining roles of educator, policy and social advocate, community activist and researcher. In one capacity or another I have aligned myself professionally with two dozen private and public organizations, including the Administration for Children’s Services of New York, the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, the Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children, Catholic Guardian Society, Children’s Aid Society , Forestdale, Inc., the Fresh Air fund of New York, Graham-Windham, Green Chimney’s Children’s Services, Hope for Youth, Lakeside Family and Children’s Services, the Legal Aid Society, Little Flower Children and Family Services, MercyFirst, Pius Xll Foster Care Program, Queensboro Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, The REACH Institute, Task Force on Permanency Planning for Foster Children, Inc., and Wide Horizons for Children. I have treated or supervised the treatment of over 3,000 adults, children and families, conducted over 400 specialized child sexual abuse/trauma assessments and forensic child custody/parenting plan evaluations, presented over 45 professional papers at local, national, and international forums in Canada, China and Gibraltar, authored or co-authored 13 articles in peer-reviewed journals, as well as many other articles appearing in various professional handbooks, newspapers, and online websites, and I have written one book. For 17 years, from 1994 through 2011, I served as Chairman of the SCO Agency Review Board for Research, facilitating the research efforts of scores of students and professionals from within and outside the agency. Although principally a clinician, I’ve been affiliated since 2011 with ResearchGate, a social network service for scientists based in Berlin, Germany, with 15 million users worldwide. Articles I’ve authored or co-authored have been cited in the literature 357 times, with a Total Research Interest score of 184.9, as of 5/2020, placing me in the 77th percentile relative to the entire ResearchGate membership.
 
Articles and papers referenced throughout the four-part narrative of “My 55 Years in Psychology, 1965-2020” are listed below.

Throughout my career, I’ve been blessed with the love and support of my wife of 50 years, Susanne, our three sons, James, a psychologist, Adam, an acupuncturist and doctor of Chinese medicine, and Matthew, an architect, their wives, and our eight grandchildren. I am also extremely thankful for the good fortune of having been raised, along with my brother, Phil, in a loving, stable family headed by my parents, Nathan and Lillian, who taught me all I really had to know about positive parenting long before I embarked on my study of psychology in 1965.
 
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D., DABPS
Psychologist, licensed in New York State
Diplomate, Forensic Clinical Psychology, American Board of Psychological Specialties, American College of Forensic Examiners Institute (ACFEI)
May, 2020

​

​​
                                                       Publications
 
Gries, L. & Gries, J. (2019). Family Treatment for Moderate Child Alienation. Journal of
     Health Service Psychology, 45 (3), 105-113.
                                                                           
Gries, L. & Andrews, M.B. (2018). Hearing the Voices of Forgotten Victims. Roslyn Times,
    November 23, 2018, 6 (47), p.18.
 
Gries, L. (2018). The Best Way to Respond to Political Bullying. Great Neck News,
   October 26, 2018, 93 (43), p.28.
 
Cantos, A. L. & Gries, L.T. (2010).  Therapy Outcome with Children in Foster Care: A
   Longitudinal Study.  Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 27 (2), 133-149.

 
Romanelli, L.H., Landsverk, J., Levitt, J. M., Bellonci, C., Gries, L.T., Pecora, P.J., & Jensen,
   P.S. (2009).  Best Practices for Mental Health in Child Welfare: Screening, Assessment
   and Treatment Guidelines.  Child Welfare, Special Issue, 88 (1), 163-188.
 
Gries, L., & Cantos, A. L. (2008).  Factors Associated with Time to Therapy Referral and
   Length of Placement of Children in Foster Care.  Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2 (3), 367-
   381.
 
Baker, A., Gries, L., Schneiderman, M., Parker, R., Archer, M., Friedrich, W. (2008). Children  
   with Problematic Sexualized Behaviors in the Child Welfare System. Child Welfare, 87(1).
 
Friedrich, W., Baker, A., Parker, R., Schneiderman, M., Gries, L., & Archer, M. (2005). 
   Youth with Problematic Sexualized Behaviors in the Child Welfare System: A One Year
   Longitudinal Study.  Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17 (4), 391-406.
 
Gries, L., Goh, D.S., Andrews, M.B., Gilbert, J., Praver, F., Stelzer, D. N., (2000).
   Positive Reaction to Disclosure and Recovery From Child Sexual Abuse.
   Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 9 (1), 29-51.
 
Gries, L. (1999).  Gries Assessment of Psychological Permanence (GAPP). East Hills, N.Y.
 
Schneiderman, M., Conners, M., Fribourg, A., Gries, L., & Gonzales, M. (1998).
   Mental Health Services for Children in Out-of-Home Care.  Child Welfare, 77 (1), 29-40.
 
Gries, L. (1998). Parent-Child Immunity. Letter to the Editor. New York Times, March 12, A26.
 
Gries, L. (1997).  Psychological Permanence: A Hypothetical Construct Essential to
   Permanency Planning.  In J. Carrieri (Chairman), Child Abuse, Neglect and the
   Foster Care System, 175, (pp. 659-675), New York: Practising Law Institute.
 
Cantos, A. L., Gries, L.T. & Slis, V. (1997).  Behavioral Correlates of Parental Visiting
   During Family Foster Care.  Child Welfare, 76 (2), 309-329.
 
Gries, L.T., Goh, D.S., & Cavanaugh, J. (1996).  Factors Associated With Disclosure
   During Child Sexual Abuse Assessment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5 (3), 1-19.
 
Cantos, A. L., Gries, L.T., & Slis, V. (1996).  Correlates of Therapy Referral in
   Foster Children.  Child Abuse & Neglect, 20 (10), 921-931.
 
Gries, L. (1995). Child Sexual Abuse Assessment: What Is It? What Purpose Does It
      Serve? When Should It Be Performed? In Child Abuse, Neglect and the Foster Care System,
    171, (pp. 351-365), New York: Practicing Law Institute.
 
Gries, L. (1993). Gregory of Zimbabwe. A True Story of Overcoming Child Abuse
    and the Scandal of Diplomatic Immunity. Santa Barbara, CA.: Fithian Press.      
 
Gries, L. (1992). Helping the Abused Child: A Prescription for Therapy and the Foster Care
    System, 1992 Update. In J. Carrieri (Chairman), Child Abuse, Neglect and the Foster Care
    System, 163, (pp. 283-318), New York: Practising Law Institute.
 
Gries, L. (1991).  Decision-Making in Foster Care: The Child as the Primary Source of
   Data.  In J. Carrieri (Chairman), Child Abuse, Neglect and the Foster Care System,
   158, (pp. 73-114), New York: Practising Law Institute.
 
Gries, L. (1990). Helping the Abused Child: A Prescription for Therapy and the
   Foster Care System.  In J. Carrieri (Chairman), Child Abuse, Neglect and the
   Foster Care System, 154, (pp. 49-78), New York: Practising Law Institute.
 
Gries, L. (1990). Child Sexual Abuse Validation: Removing the Barriers to
   Disclosure.  In J. Carrieri (Chairman), Child Abuse, Neglect and the Foster Care
   System, 154, (pp. 79-98), New York: Practising Law Institute.
 
Carrieri, J. & Gries, L. (1990). Child Abuse: The Supreme Court Takes Steps, But
   There Is More To Do.  New York Law Journal, 204, (31), pp. 1 & 5.
 
Gries, L. (1986). The Use of Multiple Goals In the Treatment of Foster Children
   with Emotional Disorders.  Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17,
   (5), 381-390.
 
Gries, L. (1978).  The Roles of the Psychologist in a Developmental Center.
   Professional Psychology, 9 (4), 685-691.
 
Gries, L. (1972).  Race and Sex of the Examiner and the Elicited Vocabulary of
   Black Kindergarten Children.  Doctoral dissertation, Hempstead, N.Y.: Hofstra
   University.  (Dissertation Abstracts International), 1973, 34, 2867B. (University
   Microfilms No. 73-16, 677).
 
                                              Papers and Lectures
 
Gries, L.T. (2019). Promoting Emotional Health For Children and Families in Child Welfare. Paper
    Presented at “Destigmatizing Mental Health in Child Welfare.” Annual ACS Conference.  
    Administration For Children’s Services, New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L.T. (2018). Dr. Blasey’s Path To Healing Following Sexual Victimization: Gaining Comprehensive
    Support After Disclosing. Len’s In Focus, Blog. WWW.IEHSERVICES.COM East Hills, N.Y.
 
Gries, L.T. (2016). Measuring Parental Alienation. Len’s In Focus, Blog. WWW.IEHSERVICES.COM.  
    East Hills, N.Y.  
 Gries, L.T. & Jensen, P.S. (2009).  Best Practice Guidelines for Mental Health in Child Welfare:
    Context for Reform.  Workshop presented at Annual Conference on Treatment Foster Care                   
       Foster Family-Based Treatment Association, Atlanta, Ga.
 
Gries, L.T., Leichter, D., & Sanchez, R. (2008). Best Practice Mental Health Screenings.
­­­­­­­­­­   Panel discussion at “Best Practice Mental Health Screenings and Innovative Therapeutic 
   Interventions in NYC’s Child Welfare System.”  Conference sponsored by Committee of
   Mental Health and Health Care Professionals in Child Welfare and Vincent J. Fontana Center
   for Child Protection, New York Foundling, New York, N.Y.
 
Schneiderman, M. & Gries, L. (2008).  Specialized Mental Health Needs of Children in Foster
   Care: Best Practice Assessment and Therapeutic Interventions.  Paper presented at
  “Embracing Change and Achieving Positive Outcomes for Children, Families and
   Communities.”  Sr. Helen Murphy Annual Professional Conference, Association of the Bar of
   the City of New York, New York.
 
Gries, L. (2008).  The Sexually Traumatized Child: Assessment, Treatment and Recovery. 
   Workshop presented at “Mental Health throughout the Lifespan.”  International Conference
   sponsored by the Gibraltar Health Authority, Gibraltar.
 
Gries, L. (2008).  Decision-Making and Promoting Change in Working with Child Welfare
   Clients.  Paper presented at “Mental Health throughout the Lifespan.”  International
   Conference sponsored by the Gibraltar Health Authority, Gibraltar.
 
Gries, L. (Chair), (2007).  The Emergence of Evidence-Based Treatment: Implications for
   Mental Health Practice in Child Welfare.  Epstein, C., Jensen, P., Kurtz, S., Paul, H.,
   Pelcovitz, D., Rowlands, S.  Conference sponsored by Committee of Mental Health and
   Health Care Professionals in Child Welfare and Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child
   Protection, New York Foundling.  New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L.  (2004) Assessing Parental Capacity of Parents and Infants in Foster Care.  Babies  
   Can’t Wait Training Clinic, Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, Queens &
  Brooklyn Family Courts, N.Y.C.
 
Gries, L. (2004). Therapeutic Visitation in Foster Care.  Seminar and workshop presented at
   Hope For Youth Inc., Amityville N.Y.
 
Gries, L. (Moderator), (2004).  The Clinician’s Dilemma: Confidentiality and Reporting Within
   Child Welfare.  Belfort, R., Schnur, E., Vigdor, M. Panel Discussion sponsored by Committee
   of Mental Health and HealthCare Professionals in Child Welfare and the Vincent J. Fontana
   Center for Child Protection, Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L. (2003).  Helping Children Heal: Working with Survivors of Incest.  Seminar
   presented at the Child and Adolescent Issues Caucus, Columbia University School of Social
   Work, New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L. & Gries, J.  (2002). Factors Affecting Resiliency in Maltreated Children: A Holistic
   Model.  Workshop presented at “Fostering Resilience in Children & Adolescents.”  38th
   Annual School Psychology Conference, Queens College/CUNY, Flushing, N.Y
 
Gries, L. (Moderator), (2002).  Parenting Assessment in Foster Care. Cohen, R., Doyle-
   Jimenez, Sosa-Lintner, G., Wolf, P.  Panel Discussion sponsored by Committee of Physicians
    and Psychologists of Voluntary Child Care Agencies, New York Foundling Hospital,
    New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L. & Gries, J. (2000).  Foster Parent Support as Mediator of Recovery From Child Sexual
   Abuse.  Paper presented at San Diego Conference on Responding to Child Maltreatment,
   Children’s Center For Child Protection, San Diego, CA.
 
Gries, L., Andrews, M.B., Gilbert, J. (2000).  The Role of Parent Support in the Treatment of
   Child Sexual Abuse: Recent Findings and Applications.  Foster Care Grand Rounds presented
   at Sheltering Arms Children’s Service, New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L. & Pleshette, S. (1999).  Taking Custody of Child Custody/Visitation Evaluations. 
   Seminar presented at “Social Work and the Law.”  1999 Annual Conference, National
   Organization of Forensic Social Work, Reno, NV.
 
Gries, L. (1998).  Responding to the Disclosures of Maltreated Children: Pathway to Health or
   Psychopathology.  Workshop presented at "The Challenge of At-Risk Children."  4th Annual
   School Psychology Conference, Queens College/CUNY, Flushing, N.Y.
 
Gries, L., Andrews, M.B., Gilbert, J., Goh, D., Praver, F. (1998).  Positive Reaction to
   Disclosure and Recovery from Child Sexual Abuse.  Paper presented at the First
   International Conference on Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Chinese University
   of Hong Kong.
 
 Gries, L.  (1997). Clinical Child Sexual Abuse Assessment and Forensic Investigation:  Can
   They Co-exist?  Grand Rounds presented at St. John's Episcopal Hospital, Far Rockaway,
   N.Y.
 
Gries, L. (1997).  Child Sexual Abuse Assessment: Where Clinical and Legal Interests
   Meet.  Seminar presented at "Abuse in Our Families, Neighborhoods and Professional
   Communities."  1997 Annual Conference, The National Organization of Forensic Social Work,
   New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L. (1997).  Specialized Skills for Providing Services to Abused Children.  Workshop
   presented at "School Psychology in Changing Times: Making A Difference in Children's
   Lives."  33rd Annual School Psychology Conference, Queens College/CUNY, Flushing, N.Y.
 
Chaffkin, B. & Gries, L. (1997).  Psychological Permanence: A Successful Model Program for
   Preserving Adoptive Families.  Paper presented at the Fourth National Child Welfare
   Conference, Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau, Arlington, VA
 
Gries, L. & Fribourg, A. (1996). Models of Mental Health Intervention.  In Quality Health and
   Mental Health Services in Foster Care".  Symposium sponsored by Committees of Physicians
   and Psychologists of Voluntary Child Care Agencies, New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L., Fribourg, A., Goldberg, F., Gonzales, M., Kowallis, G., Schneiderman, M., & Shaw J.
   (1996).  Issues concerning the identification of children and adolescents eligible for special
   needs plans.  Unpublished paper.
 
 
Cantos, A. & Gries, L. (1995).  Congruence Between Foster Parent and Teacher Ratings of the
   Behavior of Children in Foster Care.  Paper presented at the meeting of the American
   Psychological Association, New York, N.Y.
 
Gries, L. (1994). Psychological Permanence and Adoption.  Keynote Address at "Moving
   Through the Termination and Adoption Maze."  Downstate Judicial Conference, Task Force
   on Permanency Planning for Foster Children, White Plains, N.Y.
 
Gries, L. (1994). Mental Health Issues in Permanency for Foster Children.  Featured Speaker at
   "Permanency Planning for Children in Foster Care."  Seminar of American Bar Association,
   Center on Children and the Law, Binghamton, N.Y.
 
Gries, L. (1992). Meeting the Psychological Needs of the Abused Child.  Workshop Presented
   at Children and Violence.  28th Annual School Psychology Conference, Queens College/
   CUNY, Flushing, N.Y.
 
Gries, L.  PLI Lectures (1989 - 1997).  Psychological Permanence: Recent Findings (1997).
   On Being a Professional in Foster Care: Surviving the Pressures, Pursuing the Quest for
   Psychological Permanence, (1996).  Child Sexual Abuse Assessment: What Is It?  What
   Purpose Does It Serve?  When Should It Be Performed? (1995).  Mental Health Services and
   the Birth Parent: Expectations and Realities Within the Foster Care System, (1993, 1994). 
   Psychological Aspects of Physical, Sexual and Emotional Abuse, (1992).  Psychological and
   Judicial Aspects of Child Abuse (1990, 1991).  The Parent Retreat and Family Center: An
   Alternative to Traditional Foster Care, (1989).  In J. Carrieri (Chair), Child Abuse, Neglect
   and the Foster Care System.  Annual Seminars at the Practising Law Institute, New York, NY    

 
Gries, L. (1988). Mental Retardation and IQ Evaluation.  Lecture presented at session of
   continuing Medical Education offered by the Office of Disability Determinations, New York
   State Department of Social Services.
 
Gries, L. (Chair), (1979). Issues in Toilet Training of Retarded Persons in Institutions: Booth,
   D., Fox, K., Friedin, B., & Slezak, J. Symposium.  Presented at the meeting of the American
   Psychological Association, New York, N.Y.
 
Medetsky, H. & Gries, L. (1979). Social Skills Training for People with Retarded Mental
   Development.  Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
   New York, N.Y
                                                             
Gries, L. & Fox, K. (1978).  Treatment of Aggressive Biting Behavior.  Paper presented at the
   meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.
 
Gries, L. & Friedin (1976).  The Behavioral Developmental Unit: A Short-Term Intensive
   Training Unit. In D. Sorenson (Chair), An Examination of Environmental and Management
   Concerns in a Large Residential Setting. Symposium presented at the meeting of the
   American Association on Mental Deficiency, Chicago, Ill.
 
Bernstein, O., Gries, L., & Mansdorf, I. (1976). Developmental-Behavioral Progress Matrix: An 
   Evaluation Tool for Developmental Centers. Paper presented at the meeting of the 
   American Association on Mental Deficiency, Chicago, Ill.
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
0 Comments

MY 55 YEARS IN PSYCHOLOGY 1965-2020 PART lll

4/21/2020

0 Comments

 
Beginning in the late 1980’s I pursued another area of specialization, child sexual abuse, inviting Dr. Suzanne Sgroi, a pioneer in this field, and others to educate my SCO staff and me and enhance our ability to serve our clients. This eventually enabled us to develop protocols and to conduct child sexual abuse assessments without having to rely upon limited outside resources. It also permitted me to share our observations and findings with mental health and legal professionals (Gries, L., 1990, 1995) at conferences sponsored by the Practising Law Institute (PLI). Specific details of my protocol, and findings regarding disclosure of sexual abuse were subsequently published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse (Gries, L.T., Goh, D.S., & Cavanaugh, J., (1996). In 1998, I presented a paper entitled, Positive Reaction to Disclosure and Recovery from Child Sexual Abuse at the First International Conference on Child and Adolescent Mental Health in Hong Kong, (Gries, L., Andrews, M.B., Gilbert, J., Goh, D. & Praver, F., 1998). An article based upon the paper was then published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, (Gries, L. et. al., 2000). Other paper presentations and articles, based upon our clinical work, relating to various aspects of assessment and treatment of sexually abused children included, (Gries, L., 1997; Gries, L., 1997; Gries, L., 1998; Gries, L. & Gries, J., 2000; Friedrich, W., Baker, A., Parker., Schneiderman, M., Gries, L., & Archer, M., 2005; Baker, A., Gries, L., Schneiderman, M., Parker, R., Archer, M., & Friedrich, W., 2008).

As word spread of my expertise in child sexual abuse, requests for my specialized services outside of SCO prompted me to establish the Institute for Emotional Health (IEH) as a vehicle for delivering such services to clients in other foster care agencies, and eventually to clients referred by the courts. Starting in 1990, and continuing to this writing in 2020, I conducted approximately 200 child sexual abuse assessments, and treated or supervised the treatment of hundreds of sexual abuse victims as well as children or adolescents exhibiting problematic sexualized behavior. As Executive Director of IEH, I recruited and trained dozens of psychologists, certified social workers and licensed mental health counselors to provide in-home individual and family trauma focused therapy for sexually abused and otherwise traumatized youngsters in foster care. This delivery service model represented the inverse of the center-based model followed at SCO, as demand dictated. My four decades in foster care taught me there is no “one size  fits all” best model for delivering clinical services. There are distinct clinical, logistical, and financial advantages and disadvantages inherent in both a center-based service model and a home-based service model, which must be considered in each situation before making a determination on how to proceed. Along the way, attempts were made to learn about factors affecting therapy outcomes to inform agency referral practices and to learn about the efficacy of our efforts, with findings published in The Journal of Public Welfare (Gries, L., & Cantos, A.L., 2008) and Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal (Cantos, A.L. & Gries, L.T., 2010).

As a portion of  children in foster care have a permanency goal of adoption, the need for developing expertise in assessing readiness for adoption, and assessing  the need for specialized individual and family counseling was evident from the beginning of my venture in the field of foster care. To this end an unpublished scale, the Gries Assessment of Psychological Permanence (GAPP) scale, was developed (Gries, L., 1999). It focused on the degree to which a subject child achieved psychological permanence, a construct defined as “the inner subjective state of a child who feels he belongs and is at peace with his place in one or more families with which he identifies…it is a state of emotional balance or  homeostasis, durable over time…it reflects resolution of inner conflict concerning questions about separation from birth parent and about attachment to the adoptive parent.” As a non-standardized scale, the GAPP was intended to be used solely for individualized goal planning and measurement of change in client beliefs over time. Its development was informed by work subsumed within two papers presented a few years earlier on “Psychological Permanence and Adoption,” (Gries, L., 1994) and “Psychological Permanence: A Successful Model Program for Preserving Adoptive Families,” (Chaffkin, B., & Gries, L., 1997).

As already indicated, by the mid-1990’s, I began to receive court ordered referrals to conduct child sexual abuse assessments. By 1996, my experience with assessment of parenting capacity led to court requests to conduct child custody evaluations. In accordance with general standards for conducting such evaluations, I developed a protocol which maximized efficient collection of data in the least intrusive manner. In 1997, I qualified for and achieved the status of Diplomate in Forensic Clinical Psychology, through the American Board of Psychological Specialties, under the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute. Since then, I’ve conducted approximately 200 court ordered child custody/parenting plan evaluations. I’ve succeeded in convincing a number of judges and court attorney-referees to issue orders for child custody evaluation separately from orders for child sexual abuse assessment, in cases where abuse was alleged. The importance of shielding the collection of data pertaining to alleged abuse from the adversarial features of addressing child custody matters, and completing an abuse assessment first, came to be understood by at least some of the judges. To be eligible to receive referrals for forensic evaluation, I had to first be accepted on the panel of mental health professionals of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Supreme Court, First and Second Judicial Departments, and the Nassau County Assigned Counsel Defender Plan. In many instances I was required to testify at court about my findings. Over the course of my career, I’ve been qualified as Expert Forensic witness in Child Psychology, Child Custody, Child Abuse and Child Sexual Abuse at each of the five county family courts in New York City and in Nassau County. I’ve also testified as expert witness for the Special Victims Bureaus of the Kings County, Queens County and New York County District Attorney offices. Most noteworthy of the scores of experiences testifying within a legal venue was my 1988 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the matter of the case described in my book, Gregory of Zimbabwe, when I found myself going head to head with Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. The material which served as the basis of my testimony consisted of reports on child abuse of the subject child, which I prepared for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D., DABPS
4/10/2020
 

Part lV  to follow in 5/2020
0 Comments

MY 55 YEARS IN PSYCHOLOGY 1965 – 2020  PART ll

3/28/2020

0 Comments

 
In 1979, I began a professional involvement with a private, not-for -profit foster care agency called St. Christopher’s Home, eventually re-named SCO Family of Services. For several years, my role was strictly clinical, conducting individual therapy, play therapy, and group therapy to children and adolescents in foster care. Among my clinical duties was to run a parent training group. The weekly group, mandated for parents seeking reunification with their children who had been involuntarily placed in foster care, was initiated in 1982. Several years later, a parallel anger management group was added on another day. The groups continued on a regular basis until 2014. Over the course of 32 years, approximately 2500 group sessions were conducted, delivering much needed guidance and support to hundreds of parents with histories of having neglected and/or abused their children. In many instances, after completing the parenting  group training, parents attended family therapy, providing opportunities to apply lessons learned about communication, discipline, child development, anger control, and tapping into the child within themselves to facilitate play, as well as empathy in interacting with their children. My extensive work with the parents of children in foster care eventually encompassed the development of protocols and procedures for assessing parental capacity. In 2002, I convened a panel to address “Parenting Assessment in Foster Care”, for a conference sponsored by the Committee of Physicians and Psychologists of Voluntary Child Care Agencies in New York, (Gries, L., 2002). Then, two years later, I conducted separate trainings in Brooklyn Family Court and in Queens Family Court on Assessing Parental Capacity of Parents and Infants in foster Care, (Gries, L., 2004). These trainings were part of the “Babies Can’t Wait Training Clinic”, sponsored by the Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, White Plains, N.Y.

Through much of the 1980’s, the Department of Mental Health Services was started from scratch much like the Psychology Department I founded at BDC and expanded to keep up with the expansion of SCO. The agency was on its way to becoming the largest foster care agency in the state of New York, serving as many as 2,500 children and families at any point in time. There was a need to staff offices and group homes across 4 counties with Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Psychiatric Social Workers and Mental Health Counselors totaling 30 professionals as well as support staff. In creating a department, a solid foundation must be laid, whereby mission statements are clarified, a manual of operations is prepared, and specific ethical, procedural and oversight considerations are spelled out. The administrative tasks of staff recruitment, vetting and interviewing had to be executed without compromising the quality of “my day job” efforts, i.e. providing direct evaluation and treatment services to all in need. Then there was the question of clinical supervision. Although all mental health staff hired were either independently licensed or license eligible, more than a few required supervisory assistance, at least during the first year or so if they were new to foster care. Over the years, I was responsible for the launching of the successful careers of hundreds of staff mental health practitioners. Additionally, I served as mentor and supervisor to dozens of clinical interns and externs from graduate programs throughout the NYC metropolitan area throughout my 35 years at SCO, and my 30 years with the Institute for Emotional Health (IEH) to be described below. An important function of administrator as well as supervisor has always been the education of staff and trainees. In a more formal educational setting, the university, I also fulfilled the education mandate, serving as an Adjunct Associate Professor at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York (CUNY) in 1979 and 1980, lecturing on psychotherapy to undergraduate psychology students, and later serving as an Adjunct Associate Professor at Queens College of CUNY in 2002 through 2004, teaching developmental psychopathology to students within the graduate program in School Psychology. In 2003 and 2004, in my capacity as Clinical Supervisor, I also helped educate students of the Post Graduate Certificate Program in the Treatment of Interpersonal Trauma at Fordham University, Graduate School of Social Service. Between 1975 and 2008, I devoted significant time educating, training and supervising budding mental health practitioners enrolled at numerous colleges and universities, including, Walden University, Yeshiva University, Hofstra University, Fordham University, Brooklyn College, Queens College, and St. John’s University.

During my early years at SCO, throughout the 1980’s, I felt it incumbent upon me, as a clinician, supervisor and department head, to expand my knowledge base and areas of expertise as much as possible, so as to meet the clinical needs of the SCO foster care population. This meant becoming well versed in factors involved with separation, loss, adoption, child abuse, and child sexual abuse. This was accomplished through attending specialized postgraduate courses and conducting or facilitating applied research in studies pertinent to our client population. With enhanced knowledge came innovation in evaluation, treatment and service delivery.

In the early to mid-80’s, the professional literature offered only limited clinical guidance about child abuse, child sexual abuse, and the psychological needs of children placed in out of home care. I and my colleagues essentially had to discover for ourselves what constituted the particularized needs of children in foster care. Within a few years, sufficient insights were reached to enable me to offer some observations based upon a particularly informative case study. My article, “The Use of Multiple Goals in the Treatment of Foster Children with Emotional Disorders”, was published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, (Gries, L., 1986), and served as a useful resource to my staff and to other mental health clinicians working with foster care populations.

More specific information about the dynamics and impact of child abuse were revealed a year later when I became immersed in a case involving the plight of the 9 year old son of an attache’ to the Zimbabwean mission to the United Nations. The child was found to have been severely physically abused by his father, who was summarily exiled from the United States, but the case placed me in the middle of a colossal struggle on the world stage,  pitting prerogatives of diplomatic immunity against the rights and welfare of the child, with the involvement of the President of the U.S., the U.S. Secretary of State and State Department, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the U.S. Supreme court, and the President of Zimbabwe. At the clinical level, the case provided a first-hand account of how dissociation serves as a protective psychological factor for the child victim in the short run, while contributing to the emergence of posttraumatic stress disorder, and co-morbid depressive reactions.

At a systems level, the case was illustrative of the varied reactions to the abuse by everyone from the non-abusive parent to child protective personnel to judicial and legal individuals, and to politicians and the public at large. In the introduction to my book, “Gregory of Zimbabwe. A True Story of Overcoming Child Abuse and the Scandal of Diplomatic Immunity,” (Gries, L., 1993), I mention my “intention of illustrating how our society works effectively and ineffectively at the task of protecting its young.”

​Over the past three decades, I have referenced the case extensively in educating my audiences – parents within parent training groups, clinicians treating abused children, caseworkers and casework supervisors, family court attorneys and judges – about the many aspects of child abuse and its causes, treatment, and case management. I have maintained contact with the child victim who is now 41 years of age, married and the father of two young sons, and who has expressed his gratitude to me for saving his life. Although almost a third of a century has elapsed since the events which drew international attention at the time, the subject matter is still quite relevant in 2020. There is presently an effort underway by a producer in the film industry to dramatize the case within a movie feature or T.V. miniseries.
 
 
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D., DABPS
3/20/2020
 

 
Parts lll and lV to follow 
0 Comments

MY 55 YEARS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 1965 – 2020   Part 1

2/27/2020

0 Comments

 
My study of psychology began in February,1965. I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York in 1967, followed by a Master of Arts degree in psychology at Hofstra University in 1969, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in psychology at Hofstra University in 1972. A few months after receiving my New York State license to practice psychology, I attended the 1974 annual convention of the American Psychological Association in New Orleans, Louisiana. While at the convention, I learned of a new organization that was being created and seeking members, the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology. I immediately signed up and have been credentialled continuously with the National Register ever since. I have also concurrently been a continuous member of the APA. Over the past half century, I have devoted my professional life to children, adolescents and families in search of the fulfillment of basic human needs, including feeling safe, feeling loved and thriving on paths towards self-actualization. My work has focused on applying clinical services to several specialized populations, manifested not only through direct evaluation and treatment, but through clinical supervision to staff and students, program development and administration, applied research, promotion of education to the public and within academic institutions, and social advocacy. Information on articles and papers cited may be found on pages 5 through 11 in my resume’.

From the time I completed the doctoral program in psychology at Hofstra University in 1972, among the first dozen graduates in that program’s history, I found myself in positions and situations which commanded leadership roles. Following a three-year internship at Hofstra’s Psychological Evaluation and Research Center, I accepted a position as Associate Psychologist at Brooklyn Developmental Center (BDC), without actually being apprised that I would be expected to create and to direct the center’s Psychology Department. BDC was one of several developmental centers in New York City, created in the aftermath of the highly publicized, scandalous overcrowding and neglectful client care at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, N.Y. In compliance with the court mandated Willowbrook Consent Decree, I was immediately tasked with heading a screening/evaluation team assigned to identify developmentally disabled clients for transfer to BDC. Thus was established a professional template which guided me throughout the entirety of my career. In each instance, I created a new position for myself as head of a new program or department. By necessity, I was behooved to draw upon leadership qualities, organizational skills, personnel instincts, and innovative capability above and beyond the clinical skills I acquired at Hofstra. I was both helped and hindered by the recurring challenge of forging new positions and programs rather than building on already established structures and the efforts of predecessors.

From 1972 through 1979, I functioned as Chief Psychologist at BDC. My department was responsible for the provision of psychological services to a client population of over 500 profoundly, severely or moderately developmentally disabled youth and young adults. Many of the residents were dysregulated emotionally and behaviorally, but they did not have the capacity to benefit from verbal therapies. This prompted the creation of a special residential unit, the Behavioral Development Unit, organized and run by the psychology department, applying the theories and practices of applied behavioral analysis in all facets of the operation. The success of the unit in reaching clients who, for example, previously required the use of restraints in preventing them from significant self-injury, was recognized within a symposium presented at the meeting of the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD), (Gries, L. & Friedin, B., 1976). At the same national conference, a paper describing another creative clinical initiative pertaining to the assessment and monitoring of client progress on an individual and group basis was presented. The monitoring tool, the Developmental-Behavioral Progress Matrix, was applicable in charting changes in behavior as well as habilitation level (Bernstein, O., Gries, L., & Mansdorf, I., 1976). Our efforts in successfully treating clients with such severely debilitating behavioral disorders as aggressive biting behavior, social skills deficits, and encopresis were shared with psychologists at meetings of the American Psychological Association in subsequent years, (Gries, L. & Fox, K., 1978; Medetsky, H. & Gries, L., 1979; Gries (Chair), Booth, D., Fox, K., Friedin, B., & Slezak, J., 1979).
                                                                     
Issues and practices in the delivery of center-based psychological services were addressed and disseminated through an article entitled The Roles of the Psychologist in a Developmental Center, published in Professional Psychology (Gries, L., 1978.) By the late 1970’s, however, de-institutionalization became the principle du jour, as programs for community-based services for developmentally disabled as well as for mentally ill clients began to be developed. One of the first community-based group home programs for developmentally disabled in N.Y.C. was established by the Federation of Puerto Rican Organizations (F.P.R.O.) Once again, the task was to create a new program from scratch, developing an organizational structure, recruiting staff and providing direction for all treatment and habilitation efforts. In this instance, the burdens and role of Director of Clinical Services were shared with Dr. Herb Medetsky. A decade long clinical specialization in services to the developmentally disabled came to an end in 1982. Several years earlier, however, I was asked to provide expert testimony for the first time in my career, in a criminal court murder case involving a developmentally delayed defendant. Drawing upon the findings of my doctoral dissertation (Gries, L., 1972, 1973), I testified about the possibility that the defendant may not have comprehended the meaning of portions of the Miranda document, which had implications for the admissibility of his statements to police as evidence.
 
Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D.
2/26/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts 2,3, and 4 to follow this spring.
             
 

0 Comments

DR. LEONARD T. GRIES RECEIVES LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

1/16/2020

0 Comments

 
In a January 9, 2020 press release, Marquis Who’s Who, the world’s premier publisher of biographical profiles, announced the presentation of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award to Dr. Leonard T. Gries for “achievements, leadership qualities, and the credentials and successes he has accrued” in his over 50 years of experience in the field of psychology. In the announcement, in recognition of his leadership in the field of psychology, it was also noted that he has been included in the first edition of Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare. For the full biographical professional narrative, google “Leonard T. Gries “, and look for “Leonard T. Gries Presented with the Albert Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award.”
This award is received with much gratitude for the myriad professional opportunities I have had and for the scores of extraordinary professionals whom I’ve been honored to know and work with over the past five decades. Not to be overlooked are the countless clients who’ve demonstrated grace and courage in confronting often daunting personal and life issues in collaborating with me.  
0 Comments

Publication of Article on Family Treatment for Child Alienation

12/15/2019

0 Comments

 
The article, “Family Treatment for Moderate Child Alienation”, authored by Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D. and James R. Gries, Psy.D. has just been published in the fall, 2019 edition of the Journal of Health Service Psychology, 45, (3), 105 – 113. As written in the synopsis, “Child alienation is manifested by significant resistance to parental contact that is disproportional to actual past experience. Individual interviews and questionnaires with all parties and structured family interactions are needed to assess presence and severity. In cases of moderate alienation, a family treatment model featuring psychoeducation, inclusive family goal setting, progressive desensitization, exposure, and development of a new family narrative is recommended.” An introduction to the family treatment model is excerpted, below from page 109 of the article.

Within a family systems approach, the entire nuclear family participates in various combinations. Each family member is seen individually, as well as in various combinations, including the parents together, the child with each parent, and the entire family together. A preliminary assessment of the factors contributing to the alienation of the child, the level of alienation that exists, and the readiness of each parent to participate in family treatment is essential. If family treatment is indicated, goals of treatment, as elucidated by Johnston (2005b), may be adopted:

  • “protecting and removing the child from parental conflict;
  • fostering the child’s healthy relationship with both parents;
  • restoring the parents’ adequate functioning and appropriate roles;
  • correcting the various cognitive distortions, polarization, and splitting present in parents and child;
  • augmenting the child’s coping skills and improving appropriate expressions of the child’s affect;
  • replacing inaccuracies and distortions with more realistic perceptions that reflect the child’s actual experience with both parents; and
  • improving the child’s peer relationships.”

The overarching objective is for the child to achieve sufficient critical thinking skills, and sense of autonomy to be empowered in reaching conclusions about each parent. What follows is a description of how each of seven critical case management and clinical components may be woven into an intensive course of treatment. The components consist of:
​
  1. Maximizing structure through written contract with the parties;
  2. Providing psycho-education on the adverse effects of child alienation;
  3. Including all family members in the goal-setting process;
  4. Desensitizing the anxious/fearful child to the rejected parent;
  5. Establishing a new family narrative through dyadic parent sessions, followed by parent-child and full family sessions;
  6. Exposing child to respectful parental interactions, exhibiting contrition, forgiveness, and determination to cooperate in behalf of the child;
  7. Meeting with family members individually to address personal, past and present issues which may be impacting response to family treatment.
References are available at National Register.org
0 Comments

​Response to NY Times 8/7/2019 front page article, “When A  Message From Mom Is Against the Law.”

8/16/2019

1 Comment

 
     The following is my letter to the editor, which was not selected for publication, but which may be of interest to professionals who work with adopted children and their families. It pertains to the long-standing controversy regarding the pros and cons of “open adoption.”

     Nikita Stewart reports on the pros and cons of “Preserving Family Bonds” legislation, which would change N.Y. state adoption law when and if it is signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. Much of the article focuses on the question of whether to extend birth parent rights at the expense of limiting adoptive parent rights in permitting contact between the child and birth parent after parental rights have been terminated. Under the proposed law, a judge would be asked to determine whether such contact is in the child’s best interests, in a case by case basis. Presumably, the judge would seek input from professionals with expertise in child development in this process. Little mention is made about the rights of the child that are at stake. These include the right to know his or her historical place in both families, the family of origin as well as the adoptive family. As the child matures from early childhood through adolescence, there is a universal quest for developing a self-identity which reflects both genealogical and experiential factors. Sooner or later, the adopted child typically becomes interested if not driven to learn about commonalities shared with family of origin. The adopted child has the right to achieve psychological permanence, a state of emotional balance, derived from the resolution of inner conflict concerning questions about separation from birth parent and attachment to adoptive parent. This fundamental right of the child should supersede the rights of birth parents as well as of adoptive parents in determining what if any level of contact with family of origin should be permitted. Despite such valid concern that contact might complicate matters in the adoptive home, or might make it more difficult for agencies to recruit new adoptive parents, they pale in comparison with what is at risk when the child’s path towards attaining a healthy sense of self is impeded.
 
Publication announcement.
The article, “Family Treatment for Moderate Child Alienation,” co-authored by Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D. and James R. Gries, Psy.D., will be appearing in the November, 2019 edition of the Journal of Health Service Psychology (JHSP), the journal of the National Register of Health Service Psychologists, Washington, D.C.
1 Comment
<<Previous

    Categories

    All
    Client Advocacy
    Delivery Of Mental Health Services In Foster Care
    Ethics/Family Court
    Family Treatment
    Introduction
    Parental Alienation
    Parenting 101
    Politics
    Trauma And Abuse Intervention

    Author

    Dr. Len Gries is a Psychologist with over 50 years of experience with child welfare, parenting skills training, forensic evaluation, and trauma assessment. Avid Mets fan. 

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    December 2023
    September 2022
    March 2021
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    August 2019
    May 2019
    November 2018
    January 2018
    May 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    February 2014

Web Hosting by StartLogic