Divorce at Altitude: A Podcast on Colorado Family Law

Work-Product Experts in Custody Evaluations with Dr. Andrew Loizeaux | Episode 98

April 07, 2022 Ryan Kalamaya & Amy Goscha Season 1 Episode 98
Divorce at Altitude: A Podcast on Colorado Family Law
Work-Product Experts in Custody Evaluations with Dr. Andrew Loizeaux | Episode 98
Show Notes Transcript

When it comes to custody evaluations, the court has to be thorough. CFI reports can prove to be inadequate if not paired with guidance and a better understanding of the nuances at play. This is where the work-product expert comes into the picture. 

Joining us to explain the invaluable role of work-product experts in custody evaluations is Dr. Andrew Loizeaux, licensed clinical psychologist and work-product expert. Dr. Loizeaux is a veteran when it comes to ethical principles and has performed over 400 custody evaluations in child and family investigations since 1988. 

In this episode, he walks us through his process and clarifies the insurmountable value his role plays in the custody evaluation process. We discover the alarming prevalence of problematic custody evaluation reports and learn about the purpose of informational and standard of care reviews. Tune in to find out more about this crucial position and how, if carried out properly, a work-product review allows for a fair and unbiased verdict.

Key Points From This Episode:

  • What a work-product expert does and the criteria by which they review.
  • Dr. Loizeaux walks us through his work-product review process.
  • A client’s options if they get an adverse CFI report.
  • Dr. Loizeaux’s protocol when dealing with conflicting PREs in custody cases. 
  • Common pitfalls of CFIs and PREs.
  • The danger of confirmation bias in a custody case.
  • The alarming prevalence of problematic custody evaluation reports.
  • The importance of experience and varied expertise in the work-product review field.
  • The value a work-product expert adds to a case.
  • Why recommendations by anyone without a court-appointed role are not accepted.
  • What informational and standard of care reviews are and the purposes they serve.
  • The best time to hire a work-product expert.
  • What a work-product expert investigates, once hired.
  • How long the work-product review generally takes.


What is Divorce at Altitude?

Ryan Kalamaya and Amy Goscha provide tips and recommendations on issues related to divorce, separation, and co-parenting in Colorado. Ryan and Amy are the founding partners of an innovative and ambitious law firm, Kalamaya | Goscha, that pushes the boundaries to discover new frontiers in family law, personal injuries, and criminal defense in Colorado.

If you have additional questions or would like to speak to one of our attorneys, give us a call at 970-429-5784 or email us at info@kalamaya.law.

************************************************************************

DISCLAIMER: THE COMMENTARY AND OPINIONS ON THIS PODCAST IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR STATE OR AREA TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES.

Ryan Kalamaya (4s):
I'm Ryan Kalamaya

Amy Goscha (6s):
And Amy, Goscha

Ryan Kalamaya (8s):
Welcome to the Divorce at Altitude, a podcast on Colorado family law.

Amy Goscha (13s):
The force is not easy. It really sucks. Trust me. I know, besides being an experienced divorce attorney, I'm also a divorce client,

Ryan Kalamaya (21s):
Whether you are someone considering divorce or a fellow family law attorney listening for weekly tips and insight into topics related to divorce, toe parenting and separation in Colorado. Welcome back to another episode of Divorce at Altitude. This week, we are talking about work Product Experts, and specifically in the realm of parenting and custody evaluations. We've had a series of recent episodes on parenting evaluations and the state of the public health crisis as described by Dr. McNamara with an episode on it with Amy.

Ryan Kalamaya (1m 2s):
And this week, we're going to talk with another reputable doctor in this space, Dr. Andrew Loizeaux. He is a licensed clinical psychologist in Colorado. He received his doctoral degree from the university of Denver school of professional psychology in 1991, since 1988, Dr. Loizeaux has performed over 400 parental responsibilities or custody evaluations in child and family investigations from 2005 to 2010 with Dr. Lez Katz. He led the 40 hour child and family investigator training program. In essence, he trained CFIs.

Ryan Kalamaya (1m 43s):
He has testified as an expert witness for the court in many, many cases, and including some of my own, he's also trained and has knowledge and experience in the area of ethics and standards of care for mental health professionals. He's been providing education and guidance regarding ethical principles in psychology. For many years, he's served on a number of ethics boards and committees. I could go on and on without further ado though. Let me welcome you, Dr. Loizeaux to the show

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (2m 20s):
That'd be here.

Ryan Kalamaya (2m 21s):
Yeah. So we were talking offline. You had just gotten back from a trip and you are fully booked up. So we appreciate the time and joining us.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (2m 31s):
So

Ryan Kalamaya (2m 32s):
We're here to talk about work, product reviews and work Product Experts for listeners that don't know what a work product expert is. Can you explain what does that term mean?

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (2m 44s):
What product expert is someone who we've used the work product of another professional. In other words, their report, you typically in this context that cos CFI report or a POV report, and then that work expert reviews it in light of a number of criteria, standards of care, whether they fulfilled the court order, whether they answered the relevant questions, whether they applied the right statutory criteria. And I can go into more specific, but then, well, why don't I just go through the process? I think that would be

Ryan Kalamaya (3m 20s):
Take us through it.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (3m 21s):
So what happens is often as an attorney will call me or send me an email and say, doc, I got this evaluation. I think it missed the boat. I think it was way off base. The other side has a severe alcohol problem and they didn't even address it. That's an example. So then they typically will send me the evaluation and I will look it over and see if I share their concerns. Once, if I feel there's enough there that is worth producing, I work product review. In other words, a written product on my end, they will then send me the underlying data and I will go through it, looking at it from a variety of perspectives and produce a written document that expresses both the strengths of the report, but also the weaknesses.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (4m 12s):
And with that, sometimes it can play out in a number of different ways. For example, there have been times when I look at the report and I'm not sure if there's going to be anything there. I look at the underlying data and I think the evaluator got it. Right. So often I will either write a report that says that, or I'll just give the attorney a call and say, no, this evaluation, if the evaluator nailed it, there's a couple of things. And every a that I could always point out, but as a general rule, they got most things, right. And then their attorney often, as Anne says, I kinda knew that, but I, my client is inherent it.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (4m 56s):
So I still went to get a, write a report and tell us why it's a good report. So sometimes I have to do that, but usually in those cases, my hiring and it's pretty quickly, and I don't go to court to testify.

Ryan Kalamaya (5m 9s):
Right. Well, and so Dr. <inaudible> so when, If you let's say for the listeners, they are familiar, they, they know we have this hypothetical client, Eric Wolf. So if Eric Wolf gets an adverse, let's say it's a CFI, a child and family investigator report. And I come to you and I say, drew, what are my options here? What can I do for Eric? Walk me through the options that may exist beyond just even the work product review and just how that fits in to the options that Eric has at that point.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (5m 43s):
Well, first off the most, the CFI MPRE can do is provide recommendations. So nothing's binding. And in that context, there's often a lot of wiggle room to negotiate. So I would often encourage someone to see if you can settle to get closer to what you want, that maybe isn't identical to what the pre CFI said. The other option is, if it's a CFI, you can then petition the court for a pre and the court. Most of the time, we'll appoint a pre in the case, you can, if it's a pre you can ask for a supplemental pre, and then there is also the option of the work product review, where you have the other expert come in and say, your honor, these are the concerns with the report and take that into consideration when you make your ruling.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (6m 36s):
And that's essentially what a work product review does.

Ryan Kalamaya (6m 39s):
Right? And so, and you and I have worked together on these kinds of cases. So there, there could be a pure theory that says that Melanie Wolfe should be the primary parent or in the case of, let's say there's a relocation. Cause I mean, that's the easiest, because what I describe as there's winners and losers, and it's because usually there's just a real up and down vote on whether the mom or the dad should be the primary parent. So if a Pirie comes and says, Melanie Wolf should be able to relocate with the kids, and then we get a supplemental Pirie in the supplemental Pirie says that Eric should be able to keep the kids as the primary parent.

Ryan Kalamaya (7m 20s):
Then you come in as the work product expert and do what

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (7m 24s):
Well at times I'm asked to look at both PRS and talk about the pros and cons of both of them most frequently though. I only look at one and that's the one that the tourneys client doesn't like too much.

Ryan Kalamaya (7m 40s):
So in that circumstance, the piri that recommended Melanie Wolfe, then Eric would hire you, or I would hire you. And then you would come in and criticize the quality of the evaluation and the work product that was done by that particular pre

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (7m 59s):
I would point out the, the positive aspects. And then in other words, I would point out what recommendations and conclusions were supported by the data, because I've looked at the data, I would then say, but these are the concerns, you know, like with relocation, you often find that with, with some CFIs, don't know anything about spammer Cieslik. And so they say, well, it's always best if parents are close together. So I don't think Melanie should move. Melanie is just stay here. Wow. That's, that's pretty straightforward.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (8m 39s):
I really don't even need to look at the underlying data. I can say they didn't honor Palmer, which is of course, to accept that Melanie wants to live where she wants to live. So it depends on the nature of the case. It depends whether it's free post decree, did the CFI follow the court orders, did CFI do enough investigation? I can go through some of the common complaints that I see or issues I see with these reports, but that would be, that would be essentially what Eric would want to do is to find bolster that I've recently had a case.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (9m 21s):
I can actually go to an example where the, the, the mother had levied false sexual abuse allegations against father that were proven and in a variety of different circumstances that were proven to be false. She had said that she wished to cut the father out of the child's life. And then she wished to relocate to a country in Europe. And as CFI said, well, she'd been the primary parent, but so she can see, she used to be able to take the child to Europe.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (10m 6s):
What the CFI didn't sufficiently address was, what does that support, what, what will happen with father's relationship with the child? And that, that is something that I would say the court needs to pay attention to this because maybe, and again, I'm not making recommendation, but maybe the court should consider the lack of support. Maybe that, that the court should consider her verbalization, that she doesn't want father in the children's life, child's life. Maybe the court should take into consideration that she's already levied false allegations against father. You know, those things might shift the needle enough that the judge says, well, let me let me do that.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (10m 53s):
So that's an example.

Ryan Kalamaya (10m 55s):
Yeah. And you know, we recently had Erika Gebhardt as a guest to talk about CFIs. And one of the things we discuss is with attorneys when they have a background and then they pivot or fill a CFI role, they're more apt. It's not guaranteed, but it makes sense, right. That they are going to be more likely to follow the law, whereas a normal CFI, or that's trained a mental health background. They may not have that appreciation for the legal standards. I mean, you've been in the game for so long that you're aware, you know, the, the intricacies of spammer versus Cieslik. So what are the, besides just the ignorance of the law on relocation, Dr.

Ryan Kalamaya (11m 38s):
Laws, what are the common pitfalls or errors that you see just as a general observation in looking at all these evaluations,

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (11m 48s):
There's a whole host of them and I'll just go through them. One, one is they, didn't the statutory criteria. Maybe it's supposed to click case and they applied 14, 10, 1 24, and didn't look at 1 29, maybe it's a relocation case and they didn't take into consideration spammer. So that's often a very big glaring error. And one of the things I do in my trainings is always recommend that an inexperienced PRD or CFI that's unsure of what case law to be applying or what the statute says to get clarification to that before you do the assessment. And when, when someone doesn't, it's a real disservice to the court because the court can't really use it because they've applied the wrong statutory criteria.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (12m 34s):
So that's an example. Another common thing that I've seen recently is that they say something along the lines of the court recently got rid of domestic violence and spousal abuse from the statutory criteria. So I'm not going to address that. Well, that's not the case. They just bumped it up to the first things you need to be considering. So sometimes CFIs or PRS make that mistake. Sometimes they go beyond the court order. I've had, I had a case recently where the evaluator made recommendation for children that weren't, that were step-children, that weren't even part of the evaluation.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (13m 19s):
And that was definitely overstepping the lines. I also look for consistent inconsistency between the recommendations and the data itself. You know, it's always a big red flag when the opening paragraph say, and the research says joint decision-making and 50, 50 parenting time, the research says that's in the kids' best interests. So I can almost guarantee no matter what the data is, she's gonna, he or she is gonna recommend a 50 50 plan with joint decision-making in this highly litigated case. That's often the exception, not the rule because you often have severe pathology or you have high level of conflict.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (14m 8s):
So that's another example. Is there a congruence between the underlying data and the conclusions, and they can grow and say between the conclusions and the recommendations. Again, sometimes they conflate problems, a parent's problem with the other parent. In other words, a parent was really hostile with, with that parent toward the end of the relationship verbally. And they say, and they conflate that with his relationship with the children or her relationship with the children. And that's problematic because what it does is just colors. It unfairly colors that parent and, and blurs the boundaries between his relationship with the ax and his relationship with the children.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (14m 56s):
Oh, another thing that they, that people don't understand is the high, high threshold for endangerment. I once had a case where a parent grounded, grounded a teenager from a homecoming because they hadn't done there. Hadn't fulfilled their responsibilities at home and didn't could do their homework. And, and that, the evaluator said that was endangering the child. And therefore it was a risk and the primary parents should be moved to the other parent. And you know, that's not the threshold for endangerment.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (15m 38s):
Maybe it wasn't appropriate. Maybe what's too harsh, but that's not an endangerment. So that's an example. Oh, what you often find, not only do you find that kind of tendency toward 50, 50 and joint, decision-making you find it aspirational? You say these parents should be able to get along. You know, I think, I think if they both got some therapy there, they would be able to communicate a lot better. So they do these aspirational recommendations that aren't consistent with the data, and aren't necessarily reflective of the reality of how they actually do communicate. You look for all kinds of confirmation bias.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (16m 20s):
You also look for that. Often. One of the fascinating things about doing this work for 30 years is that when you first meet a parent, you hear their story and you say, oh my goodness, this will be an easy case. I I've got to figure it out. Yeah. The other side must be a real jerk to do what he or she gets done. And then all it takes is two days later, when you're in the view of the other parent, you realize, oh, there's another side to the story. Well, if you close yourself off to not being opened at different hypotheses and you close yourself off and you jump to conclusions, you're going to miss the boat and not really taking the consideration where which hypothesis is more robust and standing.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (17m 13s):
Sometimes I have CFI reports where they just do broad recommendations without specifics. The parents should split the time equally and try and make decisions together. And that's far that's parents need a lot more and they're expecting a lot more, they're expecting a specific parenting plan and this, and when you recommend joint decision-making, you have to be recommending alternative ways of resolving the issues and often periods and CFI don't do that. They sometimes you see, you see recommendations that are just overboard and too long standing.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (18m 2s):
They don't give parents an opportunity to do the improvements they need to do. You can have parent that comes in and says, Hey, I messed up. I wasn't good at parents that I had. And I've been reading these books, I've been taking these courses. I want to do better. And, and sometimes you can provide, okay, they're going to have supervised visitation for the first month. And then they're going to have therapeutic intervention and you can provide a path out for them to be the kind of parent they'd want to be. And, and when parents don't, when PRS and CFIs don't do that, they can often just really that's when parents get really upset with, with POS and CFIs, when they don't feel, feel their options are limited and they don't have any way out.

Ryan Kalamaya (18m 51s):
Yeah. And Dr. Eliza, for anyone listening, they hear a lot of these catchphrases. And I mean, it is, you can go really deep on this. And if anyone listening, once more information, you know, there's episode 23 and episode 50, where Johns <inaudible>, who, you know, he's a doctor psychologist and a lawyer, we unpack some of these, the confirmation bias and these other things that you referenced, but just, I'm curious, you know, obviously there's kind of a sample set or there's some bias in terms of the reports that you get, because someone's upset about them. So just in terms of how frequently do you think inadequate or problematic reports are submitted just from a general principle?

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (19m 39s):
Oh yeah. That's a good question. First off, it's important to note how hard it is to get the experience of evaluators Kate McNamara talked about and about that in her episode. And it really is. I mean, I got over 180 requests last year for pre evaluations and I do eight a year and that's just not about me. That's about the whole, that's about the whole system. There just aren't enough good people doing, doing the work these days. So I think what that leaves is, people often don't get the quality evaluators or CFIs that they'd like to get and they get less than, and so, based on my, based on my own experience, I'm doing three to four work product reviews a month.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (20m 36s):
I mean, it is, it is a concerning situation and how troublesome the evaluations are that are coming out. Have

Ryan Kalamaya (20m 47s):
You seen a market or material increase in the frequency of inadequate reports that has been correlated? I mean, correlation is not causation, but with this issue that Kate McNamara and for anyone listening that's episode 91, but have you seen an increase recently in inadequate or problematic reports?

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (21m 11s):
Yes, I have. I've seen it. It's been a steady increase, especially over the last five years. I've been doing work product reviews for probably 12 to 15 years now. And I have never had so many calls for a work product reviews as just this past year. And, and when I look at them and when I, when I look at them, I find them far more inadequate than what I would have seen 10 years ago.

Ryan Kalamaya (21m 43s):
What would you say, Dr. Loizeaux? I don't think, you know, Dr. Kate McNamara was asked this, but what would you say to the person that says, well, you guys have been in this game for a really long time and, you know, it's like everyone thinks, you know, the rolling stones were the greatest band and that today's music is just rubbish. And you know that you guys have been in this for a long time, and we're just looking down on a younger generation, I guess. What would you say to that

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (22m 10s):
Katie referred to was the important piece of this, which is that to do this work? Well, you have to have an expertise in a lot of different areas and not only that to do it really well, you've got to have a number of years of experience. So when people don't have the expertise, it's not an age thing, but when they don't have the expertise and they don't have the years of experience, that often leads to the inadequate evaluations, when I've done 400 evaluations, I can pull from those 400 evaluations in terms of recommendations and craft eight pages of detailed when transitioned to happen.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (22m 53s):
And when they shouldn't, you know, I I've learned from experience about recommendations. It didn't go so well. So I'm not going to do that again. So when the old guard is getting out of the business, I don't know how the new guard is going to sharpen their game.

Ryan Kalamaya (23m 14s):
It's a fair point. And, you know, it's been interesting. I mean, I've had conversations, there's a number of experienced divorce lawyers that I have worked with that are considering retiring or have kind of given me their kind of game plan. And, you know, there's a new generation, certainly of divorce lawyers. But I think about my own career where, you know, people used to ask me, well, do you have kids? And I would kind of shave. And I was, you know, a young arrogant lawyer. And, and I mean, someone could say that I'm still a young arrogant, they, but they, you know, I would be like, well, why does that matter? But I, I, you know, what you say is I agree with is that, you know, I have seen the transitions, I've gotten the calls about Christmas Eve and because the parenting plan was not specific.

Ryan Kalamaya (24m 2s):
And, you know, then you see what people are unfortunately capable of interpreting words, or rather bringing, you know, various issues, whether it be narcissistic personality disorders, or substance abuse. And just over time, you really kind of understand those dynamics. So with that in mind, what value do you bring as a work product expert to a case? If there is, especially, you know, there's an increased likelihood that there's going to be a problematic report, what value can you add as a work product expert to let's say Eric Wolf?

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (24m 44s):
So the value I add really is up to the judges to decide, in other words, judges will often welcome my input because I'm trying to be fair and balanced. I can say the Poe did this well, but these are the concerns. The court needs to be pay attention to with a WPR and with an expert who can a pine on that. That's a lot easier than trying to do it through prostate examination of the Poe themselves. And so I can spell out what the concerns are. I can even do a hypothetical in a typical case.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (25m 25s):
This is what my parenting recommendations would look like. I'm not applying it to this case. I'm not saying you should apply to this case. This is not a recommendation, but this is what a quality kind of parenting plan would look like. If you wanted to do a 50 50 of relationships, I will often do that. And judges are, have expressed typically first appreciation for my role in the case. Because another, another thing that, that I, I, I would hope CFIs and PRS appreciate is that they can take this critical feedback and they can say on the stand, oh, you know, I really shouldn't have talked to the kids' therapist or I, I did underestimate his, but rarely do I did that.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (26m 19s):
Usually they doubled down and they get defensive. And that is something I wish I could change in the community that I like it when people do w work product reviews on my PRS, because they can sharpen my evaluative skills. That's what I want. And I don't have a whole, I don't have a dog in the fight. So to say, so when, when CFIs and PRS double down in the recommendations, even though they've applied the wrong statutory criteria, and it doesn't make sense, it's not congruent with the data that just does a disservice to the whole process.

Ryan Kalamaya (27m 1s):
Yeah. My observation is the experts, whether it be business valuation experts, or parenting experts, when they, in the most reputable, the kind of best in class, they are often the ones that will admit when they do something wrong. And they will say, you know why I hadn't considered that, but it gives them even more credibility as opposed to just being defensive. And, but you referenced something earlier that I wanted to kind of highlight for listeners. And that is the kind of role of you as a work product expert making recommendations. So can you tell our listeners a little bit more about that dynamic?

Ryan Kalamaya (27m 45s):
Can you give recommendations on a specific case and if not, what can you do and why can't you give recommendations?

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (27m 52s):
Well, there's a variety of reasons you can't give a recommendations. The first, the first one is that I haven't, this applies to the therapist by the way, this applies to not only to anyone who's not in a court appointed role as a CFI or Poe making recommendations, making parenting time or decision-making recommendations. So the principles behind why you can't do it is number one, you don't have enough direct assessment to, to make a recommendation. I haven't met these people. I haven't observed them.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (28m 33s):
I haven't interacted with them. I haven't given them an opportunity to challenge my perceptions and or to, you know, for them to defend themselves. So there's not a sufficient basis for me to make recommendations. Secondly, the court has consistently frowned on. And so as the department of regulatory agencies found on anybody, who's not in that court appointed role making recommendations because it's below the standard of care. And the standard of care that really is, is covers. A war to fund is 12 43, 2 2 2, and that's prohibited activities.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (29m 17s):
And it's broad enough that it goes, goes toward this issue has acted or failed to act in a manner that does not meet the generally accepted standards of professional discipline under which such person practices. So those are the reasons that I don't make recommendations. Now I can say the pre should have considered this option. I can say, this is what a parenting plan would look like in a typical situation. I can say, here are some options for the court to consider around substance abuse, monitoring that the CFI didn't consider.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (30m 6s):
I can do all of those things and give the court more understanding about what would be an, a more appropriate recommendation, but I can't make the recommendation itself.

Ryan Kalamaya (30m 16s):
Right. And I think I want to make sure that people picked up on that because I can tell you as a practicing lawyer, I get it all the time where Eric Wolf comes into my office and says, well, my therapist says that Melanie should not have the kids and I should go for full custody, or that Melanie is a narcissist, and there'll be some sort of, you know, diagnosis or that I am a great parent. And neither you as a work product expert nor Eric Wolf's therapist is in Colorado is, and you can, Greg may have him wrong. He's allowed to make that recommendation because Eric wolves therapist has not treated Melanie.

Ryan Kalamaya (30m 57s):
She has not seen Eric purportedly to, or presumably parent or Melanie, but you know, that is, you know, segues into, which I think is one of the most important roles as a work product expert, or maybe to augment your role as a work product expert in terms of instructional or a standard of care of you. So for people that don't know what that is, and, you know, you have been so helpful in some of my cases about relocation and really having ideas about how should they transition at an airport. Cause you've seen the different issues that have arisen. So you can bring these ideas and really guide the court on what are the issues that the court or the parties really should be thinking about.

Ryan Kalamaya (31m 44s):
So can you maybe talk about the instructional expert and then the standard of care review?

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (31m 51s):
Yes. Different than a work product review, where I'm looking at a particular report and saying the pros and cons of that a standard of care review is actually looking at a professional's behavior and have they performed in a manner that is consistent with the generally accepted practices. And for example, if a therapist has submitted an affidavit that says, mom is a narcissist and shouldn't have any parenting time yet that therapist is not in a position to do so that's below the standard of care. So they, I will often be hired to do an standard of care assessment of another professional's behavior.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (32m 34s):
So that's what a standard of care review is. And that's what the department of regulatory agencies concerned about. You know, they're going to come down hard if, if you are performing below the standard of care and informational one is Dr. Loizeaux, this is a new judge. I don't think they understand very much about alienation. Can you present a three page document that kind of summarizes the highlights of alienation and the research, and then come and testify about what the judge maybe should be paying attention to in this case? So that's an example.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (33m 15s):
It can be on a number of things, child development suggested parenting plans for young children, overnights for infants, all kinds of different kind of very specific educational information that I can provide the court.

Ryan Kalamaya (33m 31s):
Yeah. I mean, as a former da, we used to do this where the inter partner violence or the cycle of violence, we would have an expert in a criminal case for a domestic violence and cause the jury, I mean, most people are, I mean, we don't have jury trials in a core, but there might be a judge and we will know that the background of the judge, or we should know, Hey, they, they were a county attorney or they were in civil litigation or they were a real estate attorney. They may not know what in measurement is. And so we'll bring you in and you can talk about what measurement is and put that in maybe the context of a work product review, where you can comment on the pre did not really investigate the issues of enmeshment

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (34m 20s):
That's right. Work, product reviews will often have informational educational components to it.

Ryan Kalamaya (34m 27s):
Right. And Dr. Louisa, what's The best time to hire a work product review. So Eric Wolf comes in to my office and you know, there's a relocation. Is it immediately when we find a CFI or a Pirie? Or is it, do we wait until we get that, you know, poor rapport or, you know, the strong report really? I mean, it doesn't, I don't think in my experience that matters because we want to know the strengths. We want to know the weaknesses. And so we'll consult with you, but when's the best time to do that?

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (34m 58s):
Well, the best time to do it is after the report is released after the CFI or Poe report is out, it's I can anticipate with some evaluators and CFIs that there's going to be problems. You know, sometimes they'll say I, you know, if they contact me mid, mid case, you know, the CFIs refusing to meet with me anymore and she's completely thrown me under the bus. I can't do much with that. I asked to be, I have to have the actual written report to know what to do with. So I'm called after the written report is submitted.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (35m 38s):
Sometimes attorneys are conflicted. Do we want to wait another six months and try and get a supplemental or get, go for a pre or do we want to keep the court date and have the work product review? That's a very strategic decision. It's not something that I can weigh in on, but, but sometimes it does make more sense to, well, let's get a thorough Val done and revisit the issue. And if that, if that's another poorly done one, then Dr. Loizeaux can do to WPIs, but hopefully not, but, but other times it does make sense.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (36m 20s):
The court isn't gonna grant the extra evaluation and the court does not want to move the court date. So you've got two weeks to give us something that's when a work product review can be helpful.

Ryan Kalamaya (36m 33s):
Yeah. For listeners, they may not understand. They, I mean, if Eric Wolf, for example, is in a relocation and he doesn't want Melanie and the children to leave, then he's incentivized to kind of drag it out. So he's going to be more inclined to get a supplemental Pirie in that context. But if it's the other way around, there might be, there's certainly going to be an analysis from Melanie where she's like, I just want to go to core. I mean, and no one wants to go to core, but there are certainly cases and relocation cases, just generally, those are the cases that are litigated and go to trial oftentimes, and where you really come in from a work product standpoint.

Ryan Kalamaya (37m 15s):
So, but once we hire you, Dr. Louisa, what are the steps that you took? You said, you get a call, you look at the rapport, but you, you talked about data in the file. So

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (37m 26s):
I want to hear, I want to hear what the attorney and the client's concerns are. I'm going to form my own opinions, of course, but I want, I want them to, to express what they feel is problematic with the report. So I will get that from the attorneys nine out of 10 times, I look at the underlying data. Sometimes it's not enough time. Sometimes it's not enough money. Sometimes the pre or CFI reports is just so off base in terms of, you can see it right there that I don't need to look at the underlying data, but usually it's a lot of time going through all of the underlying data, the evaluators notes, the submissions, the psych testing, all of those things.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (38m 13s):
And, and then preparing D the WPR. Usually it takes me between three to five weeks to do it from start to finish. But you know, it, it, it tends to be a pretty intensive process. And it's a real, it's a real shame. It's a real shame I needed at all, frankly. I mean, especially when they can't afford a PR you, so they get a CFI, they get a CFI that does a poor report, and then they have to hire me who to do a work product review. That's often more expensive than the CFI reports itself.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (38m 55s):
And that's not fair to anybody.

Ryan Kalamaya (38m 58s):
Yeah. Dr. Eliza, you're very similar. I mean, I often will tell people, you know, they'll ask me what kind of lawyer are you? And I'll say, I'm the lawyer that you never want to call. And you, you know, you're the expert that no one wants to call because it means not only are they going through a divorce, but they've gone through some sort of parenting evaluation and they are concerned enough either because it's such a poorly done reporting. And you also, I think it's worth mentioning is that some, oftentimes you will be hired to support an evaluation that is favorable to the client and, and bolster.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (39m 37s):
Yes, that's happened. That happens a few times, but honestly, Ryan at that probably is one at 20 times.

Ryan Kalamaya (39m 45s):
Right. And I mean, it often is because there's something, you know, wrong, you know, it's, you know, someone's going through a divorce, they have to call me. And then something even worse happens in that is that they get an adverse recommendation or report. So it is kind of an unfortunate circumstance, but you're kind of like the, you know, the fourth branch of, of the government in the sense of like the media, which, which, you know, they say in terms of the transparency and the supervision of, of the government and like you're holding other professionals accountable. I think a lot of people could take these recent episodes to kind of feel skeptical or depressed or pessimistic.

Ryan Kalamaya (40m 27s):
And I think that there's certainly some validity to that feeling about the state of affairs with, you know, parenting evaluations. I mean, we're seeing a lot of conflict just as a general in our society and, and with COVID, I mean, what, whatever the case may be, but it's helpful to know that there's at least some options to do something about it. Yeah.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (40m 47s):
And judges really appreciate it when they cause they, they know too when they've gotten a good value, not a good devout. And so they, they want to, what, what, what are my other options? What are the things that CFRP, or you should have considered, and then they can make it, make the decision from the bench about what makes the most sense for the family. So it, I think we're product review is playing an important role. Often can play an important role when there's gaps in the re CFI or peer review report.

Ryan Kalamaya (41m 20s):
Well, Dr. Loizeaux I really appreciate the time. I know that our listeners, if they've gotten this far have appreciated the insight that you have provided for, you know, we'll have links to the show notes to your bio and your contact information for those that don't know where to find you. Can you tell us where what's the best way to, to reach out to you if, if they want to learn more about work product review or some sort of instructional expert or something within your, you know, or they want to fit within those one of those eight periods that you take on a year,

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (41m 55s):
The best way to get in touch with me. And also the best way to find out about the services I offer is to go to my website, which is www Dr. Loizeaux dot com. And in that I have all the forms to download. I have a description of the different services I provide. I even have a schedule about my availability for PRS. So that is really a very comprehensive, I try and I keep that updated. So that's a very comprehensive overview of my current state of practice. And, and there's also a way that they can contact me and send me an email through that website.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (42m 37s):
So that's,

Ryan Kalamaya (42m 39s):
And I'll make an observation. I mean, you've been experienced, but the other thing is that, you know, you've been willing to, you know, come on something I podcast, but for those that can't see, I mean, the video quality, you know, we, we've got, we'll have portions of this, but you know, you as a testifying expert, I commend you for really putting in the effort to having kind of quality audio and visual because you know, that really does make a difference. I know that, you know, in, in a trial that we've had the ability to see and hear, you clearly compare it to the other experts. And one of the kind of observations I've had on, you know, some of the more experienced periods is that they really struggle with technology.

Ryan Kalamaya (43m 20s):
And, you know, being able to understand text messages and Facebook, and, you know, the experienced people that you kind of mentioned are that there's a dearth of them, even then there's some limitations because, you know, we've got, you know, we're doing this remotely right now. And a lot of your experts they're testifying remotely because of the cost concerns. And so I think that that's really important for people to kind of understand the thought that you have put into not only just your education, but also the presentation that you kind of bring with you, which is one of the reasons you're the go-to for work product reviews.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (43m 57s):
Yeah. Thank you. Right.

Ryan Kalamaya (43m 59s):
Well, thanks again again, we'll have show notes, but Dr. Loizeaux until next time. Thank you for joining us on Divorce at Altitude.

Dr. Andrew Loizeaux (44m 5s):
I've enjoyed it. Thank you.

Ryan Kalamaya (44m 7s):
Hey everyone. This is Ryan again. Thank you for joining us on force at altitude. If you found our tips, insight or discussion, helpful, please tell a friend about this podcast for show notes, additional resources or links mentioned on today's episode. Visit altitude.com. Follow us on apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to it. Many of our episodes are posted on YouTube. You can also find baby and me at Kalamaya dot law or 9 7 3 1 5 2 3 6 5 that's K a L a M a Y a.law.