The Taylor Frankie Paul Case and Psychological Evaluations
Compiling all of the information on this blog was an arduous process. There were many times I wanted to stop because I thought because it just brought back the most terrifying moments of my life. This post isn't exactly on that level of displeasure to write, but since I am going to be writing about a story related to reality TV, I want to get it over with as soon as possible and then go read something very intellectually dense to regenerate my brain cells.
I am normally loathe to discuss anything related to reality TV, except perhaps for the fact that I suspect there is a lot of scripting and little actual "reality" involved in it. However, the Taylor Frankie Paul custody case provides a good example of why psychological evaluations are necessary in contested custody cases. From what I have been able to ascertain (by dragging myself over to read the celebrity articles in the LA Times and People), the facts of the case are as follows:
- Taylor Frankie Paul and Dakota Mortenson have a 2 year old son together and Paul has a daughter from a previous relationship
- Paul has supervised visits with their son because of domestic violence charges stemming from an assault that took place in front of her daughter
- They have mutual restraining orders in place and can't be within 100 feet of each other
- The DA's office in Draper, Utah has declined to bring charges from a more recent incident because they can't establish who is at fault
- Mental health and domestic violence assessments have been ordered in this case
The judge in the case has said the following:
“I’m hoping that you’re not people who just thrive on the drama and the conflict ... I do want to work with both of you to try to restore some sense of normalcy. I just think right now, you two need to stay away from each other and there needs to be orders that will result in consequences if you attempt to try to engage each other because I still think you have this attraction to each other, physical or otherwise.”
Minas called their dynamic "dysfunctional" and with "toxicity," and emphasized that parents have to put their child first. “You guys have to figure out a lot here. You have to figure out how to function as co-parents," he said."I'm finding that there's been violence both ways between these parties," Minas said.
This is the kind of dysfunctional unstable behavior that characterizes far too many divorces, and these are the divorces that are most necessary because the relationship is dangerous. I think the court is on the right track here to order mental health and domestic violence assessments. But then my question is, "What kind of mental health and domestic violence assessments are these?" What are they looking for? Are they actually screening for serious mental health conditions that can affect parenting like bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder or other personality disorders? There's also the problem of lack of standardization among domestic violence screenings and the fact that many custody evaluators don't see domestic violence as a problem in custody. (There is a volume of research on these issues that I have addressed in my pages on domestic violence, bipolar disorder and personality disorders in custody cases.) While a full screening and evaluation would be necessary to make any diagnosis and I don't track reality TV very much, with the surface information I have, I see some red flags that Paul could possibly have a condition like borderline personality disorder, such as a series of intense, short lived relationships and a tendency to swing between idealizing and demonizing a person, which seems to characterize her relationship with Mortenson. The attention seeking behavior could be a sign of something like histrionic personality disorder. Again, a diagnosis would take a full and thorough professional evaluation and screening, but there are warning signs present. Is this going to end up with both parties being ordered to attend coparenting classes that talk about self-care and how domestic violence isn't a problem in parenting or coparenting rather than simply finding the most stable situation for the child and ordering treatment for the parents if needed?
I'm a little concerned that the judge still seems to want to focus on coparenting as an outcome when it doesn't seem like the parents are able to do that. If Paul or another parent like her had been convicted of drunk driving, the push from the judge wouldn't be to get her back behind the wheel of a car as soon as possible, yet courts are often eager to get parents into joint custody even after it has proven to be dangerous. Once again, the landmark study on the benefit of joint custody and coparenting specifically advised against coparenting with cases of domestic violence and parental instability. I have a hypothesis that judges might actually like cases like this better where both parents seem to be unstable and they can lecture about the need to put the child first, rather than a case where one parent is stable and the other is unstable and giving full custody to the stable parent would solve the problem and benefit the child, but would undermine the belief in joint custody for all and would jeopardize the industries that have sprung up around forced joint custody.
"Put the child first" is the battle cry of family courts and also most very well-intentioned marriage and family advocacy groups. But neither of them will adequately answer the question of "What if a parent continues to fail to put the child first?" Frequently the answer from family courts and advocacy groups is "The parents just need to figure it out". And if they don't? Well, they don't really have an answer for that. Going back to the analogy fo drunk driving, if we had a convicted drunk driver, would we simply lecture them about "putting safety first", send them to a class, and then put them back behind the wheel of a car? Of course not. It's not safe. And the benefits of public safety outweigh the benefits of the intoxicated driver. But in family courts, that's what happens all too often with unstable and abusive parents. They are lectured, sent to a class and then put back behind the wheel of joint custody. We would all love to live in a world without drunk driving and we would all love to live in a world without divorce or abuse or parental selfishness. But we don't live in that world and "figure it out" is not a solution. This why we have penalties and laws around drunk driving and why there needs to be stricter requirements and guardrails in custody cases. The Paul case seems to be an example of this. The parents don't seem to be "figuring it out" and probably have deeper issues that preclude them from effectively coparenting. That's why "joint custody for all" is not a viable option.
And of course, I have to ask, "If this case weren't in the media with a reality TV star, would anyone even be considering mental health or domestic violence assessments?" Maybe they would since domestic violence is still regarded as something of a negative thing in custody cases, but if they were an average couple, would they just get more stern lectures about "putting the child first" and then be sent to a court ordered coparenting class? I don't know. Either way, this case is an example of the unstable behavior that leads to the breakup of a relationship and isn't consistent with the ability to coparent. Hopefully it at least brings to light some of the problems with the family court system.
Comments
Post a Comment