2-3 page assignment. APA format, PH.d assignment

ROBERT H. ROSEN

The Need for Training in Forensic Child Psychology

In recent years the practice of forensic psychology has expanded dramatically and has opened several new routes for clinical and professional practice. Unfortunately, special training in forensic psychology has developed at a surprisingly slower pace, especially in the area of child clinical psychology and the law. This article discusses the history and philosophy of law as it relates to children and families; the language of the legal arena; the major components of the legal system; clinical assessment in the forensic setting; and the need for training in forensic child psychology. A special model for child forensic training is proposed.

In 1980 this country witnessed a major political upheaval that dramatically changed the focus of the federal government. Ultimately, these changes will affect psychology as a discipline and, more specifically, as a profession of expert practitioners. President Reagan's recent budget cuts make it likely that less federal money will be available for psychologists in the traditional work settings and that professional psychology will have to explore alternative roles and sources of income. Increasing the roles and re- sponsibilities of psychologists in the legal marketplace is one option. This article fo- cuses on one corner of that marketplace—children and their families.

The legal arena is unlike the traditional work settings of psychologists. The stage, the roles, and the players differ markedly (Wynne, Note 1). Given these conditions, how does professional psychology train the student of forensic child psychology?

Forensic psychology has recently emerged as a major subspecialty area in both clinical and academic psychology. During the 1970s, we saw an increased acceptance of clinical and research psychologists in the courtroom setting (Herman & Sales, 1977; Perlin, 1977), development of consultative services for police departments and other legal agencies (Somodevilla, 1978), emergence of several professional organizations promoting interdisciplinary activities among lawyers and psychologists, and finally, development of three major graduate training programs leading to combined JD-PhD degrees. This increasing acceptance of psychology into the legal arena signifies a major advance for professional psychologists and demonstrates the willingness of the courts to allow professional psychology to provide expert opinion concerning the mental status of its litigants (Poythress, 1979).

Several models documenting the need for forensic psychology training have been proposed (Buxton & Duhin, 1977; Fenster, Litwack, & Symonds, 1975; Poythress, 1979). It is surprising, however, that special training in this area has developed at a much slower pace. This absence is even more apparent in the area of child clinical psychology and the law.

Changes in Forensic Child Psychology: A Historical Perspective

The relationship between child mental health and the law is as old as the professions themselves; however, present-day forensic child psychology dates back to the turn of the century and the public's concern over juvenile crime. The juvenile court was created as a nonpunitive, benevolent setting in which wayward children and their

PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 481 1983, Vol. 14, No. 4,481-489

Copyright 1983 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

FORENSIC CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

parents could discuss their problems with a wise, patriarchal juvenile judge and go away redeemed, not to sin again. Throughout the 20th century, this benevolent philosophy was translated into legal presumptions that guided judges in making legal decisions concerning children and their families (Goldstein, Freud, & Solnit, 1973; 1979). In light of the traditional philosophy of the juvenile court as "reformer and regenerator" of delinquent youth, it is surprising that there has been little training in forensic child psychology.

Early attempts were made to attach to the juvenile court a child study department in which every child, before a hearing, would be subjected to a thorough psychophysical examination (Mack, 1909). The juvenile court, however, did not live up to its promise. Years later, Fortas (in re Gault'1) charged "in most juvenile courts, the child receives the worst of both worlds: that he gets neither the protection accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regeneration treatment postulated for children." Similarly, Stone (1976) commented on the failure of collaboration between the legal and mental health systems and that "the paucity and poverty of dispositional options is seen to distort, corrupt, and betray the whole system" (p. 147).

Within the last 20 years, numerous attempts have been made to remedy this situation. A series of Supreme Court cases in the mid-1960s and early 1970s declared that children in delinquency proceedings needed their own counsel, had a right to confront their accusers and to be warned that they might incriminate themselves (Gault, see Footnote 1), had a right to be adjudicated guilty only on the same "beyond a reasonable doubt" . basis as an adult offender (re Winship2), and had the right not to be put in double jeopardy by being tried in both a juvenile court and an adult court (Breed v. Jones*). In each of these cases, juveniles were afforded increasing rights to due process, whereas psychologists were asked to perform new functions in the court.

A second series of significant legal decisions affecting children required that children's interests be represented in abuse and neglect cases (Wald, 1980). As a result, there has been a strong push toward more deliberate and measured state interference with abusive and neglectful families. Similarly, in most states, professionals working with children are required by law to report all cases of physical and sexual abuse. Again, psychologists were on the ground floor in providing assessment and treatment services

1 Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). 2 Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). 3 Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975).

ROBERT H. ROSEN received his PhD in clinical psychology at the University of Pittsburgh and served for 2 years as an intern and research associate in the Department of Psychiatry, Children's Hospital National Medical Center, Washington, D.C. He is assistant professor of psychology, George Washington University School of Medicine. Currently, he is a consultant to business and industry on health promotion and mental health programming, and he practices forensic and adolescent psychology. PORTIONS OF THIS ARTICLE were presented at a symposium entitled Psychological Practice: Confronting the Legal System at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, California, August 1981. REQUESTS FOR REPRINTS should be sent to Robert H. Rosen, 2900 Connecticut Avenue, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20008.

482 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

for the courts in this area of law. Specifically, child psychologists have been asked by the court to provide expert testimony concerning both the psychological effects of abuse and neglect and decisions concerning maternal competency. In addition, the court has asked psychologists to assist in educating child attorneys on such topics as developmental issues and child interviewing skills.

By far the most controversial area in juvenile law concerns the child's rights within his or her family unit and the degree to which courts will interfere with family au- tonomy in decision making. The rights and capacities of children to be self-determining and to display competency in making decisions affecting their own welfare have raised complex legal, psychological, and social issues with which the courts have had to contend (Wei thorn, in press). As Wei thorn points out, in recent years the courts have faced the dilemma of deciding about minors' rights in treatment situations involving com- mitment by their parents to psychiatric hospital facilities (Parham v. J.L. <trj. R.*); specific treatments available to or forced on minors committed to state institutions and detention centers (Nelson v. Heyne5, Morales v. Turman6, and Prince v. Sheppard1}; availability of contraceptives (Carey v. Population Services International* and Doe v, Irwin9); access by adolescent females to abortions independent of parental consent (Bellotti v. Bairdw and Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Dansforthn); and sterilization of minors, as requested by the state or their parents (Stump v. Sparkman n

andRelfv. Weinberger^). Attention has also been given to the rights of children in other nontreatment situations

such as provision of consent or refusal for participation in research (Glantz, Annas, & Katz, 1977; Katz, 1975); waiver of Miranda rights when taken into police custody (Grisso, 1980); provision of input by the affected children into the disposition of child custody cases (Bersoff, 1976-1977; Ellsworth & Levy, 1969); and decision making regarding educational assessment and placements (Bersoff, 1982). Although few consistent standards have emerged from these recent legal decisions, researchers have begun to address the developmental question concerning the age at which children are cognitively and emotionally prepared to make such decisions (Lewis, Lewis, & Ifek- wunigue, 1978; Weithorn & Campbell, Note 2).

Most recently, on recommendation from the National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, attempts are being made to deinstitutionalize and de- judicialize status offenders such as truants, runaways, and children who are in need of supervision. Consequently, services are now being provided to these families outside the justice system. In addition, courts are attempting to regulate juvenile sentences and are distinguishing between single-act criminals, recidivists, and major and minor offenders. Each of these changes will probably alter the present role of psychologists in the juvenile justice system.

4 Parham v. J.L. & J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). 5 Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1974). 6 Morales v. Thurman, 383 F. Supp. 53 (E.D. Texas 1974). 7 Prince v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250,239 N.W. 2d.905 (1976). 8 Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977). 9 Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp 1247 (W. D. Mich. 1977). 10 Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 662 (1979). 11 Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Dansforth, 438 U.S. 52 (1976). 12 Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1979). 13 Relf v. Weinberger, 372 F. Supp. 1196 (D. of Columbia, 1974).

PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 483

FORENSIC CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

Taken together, changes in several areas of juvenile and family law have opened new routes and expanded old roles for the child psychologist inside and outside the courtroom setting. Training in this area is long overdue.

Child Forensic Training

The major goal of a training program in forensic child psychology is to provide students with a series of forensic experiences that will lead to a general understanding of the legal system and the various roles that child psychologists can play in that system. This goal can be obtained in several ways and can be applied to students at varying stages of graduate training, ranging from the beginning of graduate school to postdoctoral internship training. The objective of such a program would be threefold: First, the training program would prepare clinical child psychology students for applied work in the courtroom setting as well as in various forensic-oriented facilities; second, the program would stress the importance of research in the forensic area, foster the de- velopment of relevant psycholegal research, and promote the use of empirical research in forensic evaluations; third, training would explore new roles for the psychologist both as educator and as consultant in the legal arena.

Training in forensic child psychology would in many ways be similar to earlier models of training in the adult area. Consistent with the positions of Poythress (1979) and Fenster et al. (1975), students would acquire legal knowledge and forensic expe- rience through both interdisciplinary course work relating psychological principles to the law and ongoing practicum experiences in a number of forensic settings.

Similar to the model proposed by Poythress (1979), the graduate sequence of training would include three stages: (a) The first stage would be an introductory course de- signed to outline the general issues in forensic psychology. Special emphasis would be given to children, adolescents, and juvenile and family law. (b) The second stage would be a series of advanced seminars, each discussing one aspect of the child forensic area, for example, civil and family law (children's rights, child custody, competency, psychological effects of accidents); delinquency and juvenile justice; child abuse, neglect, and the termination of parental rights; and ethical dilemmas in the practice of forensic psychology, (c) The third area of training would involve ongoing forensic field placements in facilities such as court clinics, family or domestic court, and detention centers for delinquent youth. Special attention would be given to assessment and di- agnostic issues.

Through these academic and clinical experiences, the student would receive a general understanding of the structure and function of the legal system. Furthermore, students from other professions, such as law, social work, and the juvenile justice system, as well as faculty from both law school and psychology departments would be included to enhance the interdisciplinary quality of education.

Finally, because courts expect expert testimony consistent with the best scientific data available (Poythress, 1979), psychology training in this area must emphasize the importance of reliability and validity of test instruments and the use of single-case research methodology for assessing clinical problems (Ruzicka, 1980). Clearly, tes- timony consistent with the developmental literature and based on standardized forensic instruments will enhance psychology's reputation in the legal arena and will improve its success rate in predicting accurate outcomes.

Through a series of didactic experiences, students of forensic child psychology would

484 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

acquire this knowledge in each of three bask areas of study: the language of the legal system, the major components of the legal system, and clinical assessment in the forensic setting. Course work and practicum experience are both necessary in each of these three areas.

LANGUAGE'OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM

The forensic child psychologist can work most effectively with attorneys and other legal personnel if he or she has a clearer understanding of the framework within which the attorney operates, namely, the adversary system. Although embedded in legal concepts, statutes, and case law, this system places the psychologist in an expert position, whose testimony is frequently exposed to cross-examination. The system used for com- municating ideas in the courtroom differs dramatically from the techniques employed in graduate psychology training. Adequate understanding of this language and the tactics used in the courtroom are essential for working within this system. Open communication between the child psychologist and the attorney is important for identifying specific legal questions being addressed, for familiarizing the psychologist with pertinent legal statutes, and for preparing the psychologist for his or her expert testimony. Furthermore, introducing psychological data into the courtroom setting raises unique ethical issues with which the psychologist must contend.

Taken first, forensic child psychologists would benefit greatly from a clear knowledge of legal concepts and legal theory. Needless to say, they must know that PINS is a person in need of supervision and not a set of sharp metal objects that when inserted into a doll suggests aggression. Furthermore, as Poythress (1979) has suggested, fa- miliarity with pertinent legal statutes is most useful in orienting the clinician to the specific legal test or question to be addressed. This author states that one of the most common mistakes made in the adult forensic area is the^confusion between the legal concept of "insanity" and the mental health concept of "psychosis." In a similar way, the forensic child psychologist confronts similar problems and needs to possess rea- sonable familiarity with laws applicable to custody and adoption cases in the particular jurisdiction involved (Benedek & Benedek, 1980). Custody disputes in Michigan, for example, are decided pursuant to the Child Custody Act of 1979, which spells out 10 designated factors such as the love, affection, and other emotional ties existing be- tween the competing parties and the child to be "considered evaluated and determined by -the court." M Although these factors do not have to be weighed equally, each must be addressed by the court, and their sum total is deemed to constitute "the best interests of the child," which, in turn, must "control" the decision (Benedek & Benedek, 1980). Similar differences in state statutes exist for the criteria necessary to terminate parental rights (Schetky & Slader, 1980) and for the standards used to qualify children as witnesses or as competent to stand trial (Palombi, 1980; Terr, 1980).

Second, the forensic child psychologist needs to be able to identify the specific legal question being addressed. He or she must respond directly to this question and make proper use of the available assessment instruments. In addition, he or she must be able to utilize information resources and access data from other disciplines such as the social welfare and criminal justice systems.

Finally, and often the most difficult, the psychologist must communicate his or her

14 M.C.L.A. 722.21 it seq. (P.A. 1970, No. 91, Eff. April, 1971).

PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 485

FORENSIC CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

results in the form of a psychological report. This report should be relevant to the legal issues at hand and should be written in-language intelligible to the layman. Vague, ambiguous terminology should be avoided and substituted with precise de- scriptions and direct quotations. Most important, the material selected for the report should be used as building blocks to formulate an opinion (Schetky, 1980). Each of these points will increase communication between the psychologist and the legal per- sonnel and enhance the impact of the child psychologist as expert witness.

STRUCTURE OF THE LEGAD SYSTEM

Knowledge of the structure and the components of the legal system is a second area to be addressed in a child forensic training program. Three aspects of the legal system particularly relevant to the child psychologist include understanding the referral process, experience with the numerous settings in which child psychologists are likely to par- ticipate, and training in constructing recommendations and dispositions.

One of the most fundamental and relevant questions' the forensic child psychologist must ask is how a particular child or adolescent enters the legal system and through what channel he or she is referred. Generally, the source of this referral determines the nature of the psychological evaluation and the types of recommendations made. Private attorneys, for example, may contact the child psychologist for expert opinion in custody disputes, civil suits claiming psychic trauma, and consent to treatment or malpractice litigation. Public defense attorneys and state prosecutors may solicit the services of psychologists for other types of legal disputes such as the termination of parental rights, child and sex abuse, competency to stand trial, and delinquency ad- judication. In both types of cases, the child psychologist usually works as a consultant for either the defense or prosecuting attorney.

In a similar way, juvenile and family court judges can ask a psychologist to give expert opinion concerning a child's competence as an expert witness, to evaluate the role of psychopathology in criminal behavior, or to assess the effects of physical or psychic insult on psychological functioning. In these situations, the child psychologist has the opportunity to evaluate data presented by both the defense and prosecution and to base conclusions on additional data provided by both parties Conners (Note 3). Children can also be referred by other personnel working in the social welfare and criminal justice systems. Knowledge of this referral process will assist the child psychologist in understanding the system and will provide greater flexibility for making recommendations and marketing his or her services.

Experience with the various gatekeepers and settings servicing children and ado- lescents in the legal setting can be beneficial to the child psychologist. Children come in contact with the legal system thrqugh many sources. Such mental health facilities as child protection and sex abuse centers, forensic child guidance clinics, and inpatient forensic evaluation units provide diagnostic and assessment services for the juvenile court. Correctional and detention centers, residential treatment programs, group homes, and foster placement provide longer term shelter and/or treatment. Children and adolescents also have ongoing contact with the juvenile, family, and magistrate courts; probation officers; the police; and members of the volunteer sector. Students of forensic child psychology should have the opportunity to witness and work in each of these settings and to receive strong indoctrination by these nonmental health pro- fessionals. Indeed, this experience will assist the psychologist in making recommen-

486 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

dations that are appropriate, realistic, and in the best interests of the child. Too often psychologists recommend special services with little knowledge of the specific service offered or of its availability. Because many of the courts are the last resort for children and families where community services have been insufficient, the forensic child psychologist must make every effort to make realistic and appropriate recom- mendations.

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT IN THE FORENSIC SETTING

The third area of study involves training in forensic clinical assessment. This area is complex and has the traditional problems inherent in performing psychological assessment as well as in presenting psychological data to the court. As Poythress (1979) notes in this proposal for training in forensic psychology, numerous problems emerge when mental health professionals without specialized forensic training practice in legal settings. He further argues that psychological testimony is often undermined by those who question "whether or not the present base of scientific knowledge supports the degree of expertise the courts have come to expect" (p. 617). In light of these problems, training in forensic child psychology must place special emphasis on integrating de- velopmental and child clinical research with assessment and treatment of children and adolescents in forensic settings.

With this in mind, training in this area should be based on a psychodiagnostic as- sessment model devised by Ruzicka (1980) for psycholegal practice. Through the use of empirical procedures, Ruzicka has suggested that any legal dispute involving mental health testimony can be evaluated. Specifically, each forensic evaluation is conceptualized as a single-case design, utilizing multimethod and multisource ap- proaches for solving clinical problems. The multimethod approach involves using a variety of assessment methods to obtain data. The multisource approach involves using a number of information sources that can provide data, corroborative or otherwise, about the individual being assessed. Ruzicka states that within the context of the single-case methodology, questions regarding the connections between psycholegal events and an individual's behavior can be answered by assessing and evaluating that individual's behavior pattern and changes, aided by accumulated research data. As a result, concerns about the reliability and validity of measures and of the evaluation are diminished.

In addition to conceptualizing forensic evaluations from an empirical perspective, the child psychologist must also learn to identify properly the legal question being addressed, to understand his or her role in the evaluation, and to make proper use of all available clinical materials. Poythress (1979) states:

A common fault here is for the clinical psychologist to administer a standard battery of psy- chological tests and then try to answer diverse legal questions with traditional test data, in spite of the fact that the tests were neither designed nor validated for answering legal questions, (p. 615)

With this in mind, the psychologist must be familiar with all relevant psychological literature related to the questions posed by the court. The child psychologist must be knowledgeable in areas such as the prediction of dangerous behavior, recidivism rates with delinquent youth, the reliability of diagnosis, and the probabilities of success

PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 487

FORENSIC CHILD PSYCHOLOGY

in various treatment modalities. The child psychologist must also be knowledgeable about developmental issues such as a child's competence as witness or defendant (Weithorn & Campbell, Note 2), a child's understanding of Miranda rights (Grisso, 1980), and the stages at which a child is able to accurately recall past events and un- derstand differences between right and wrong (Tapp, 1977).

In a similar way, the child psychologist must also be familiar with standardized assessment instruments devised specifically for use in forensic evaluations. Several examples include the Legal Dangerousness Scale (Cocozza & Steadman, 1974), Competency to Stand Trial Instruments (Lipsett & McGarry, 1971; Roesch & Golding, 1980), and Children's Understanding of Miranda Rights (Grisso, 1980).

In closing, child psychology and the law is in a state of transition. Changes in the juvenile justice system and the due process rights afforded to children, coupled with the most recent political and economic changes, are forcing child clinical psychologists to reevaluate their role in the legal arena. Clearly, increasing the roles and respon- sibilities of child psychologists in this marketplace seems to be one likely option. -If this is so, then one of the major priorities of professional psychology in,the 1980s should be a commitment to the development of forensic child psychology training.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Wynne, R. D. Personal communication, August 1981. 2. Weithorn, L. A., & Campbell, S. B. Informed consent for treatment: An empirical study

of minors' capacities. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Asso- ciation, Los Angeles, August 1981.

3. Conners, C. K. Personal communication, January 1982.

REFERENCES

Benedek, R, S., & Benedek, E. P. Participating in child custody cases. In D. H; Schetky & R. S. Benedek (Eds.), Child psychiatry and the law. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1980.

Berman, J., & Sales, B. D. A critical evaluation of the systematic approach injury selection. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1977, 4, 218-239.

Bersoff, D. N. Representation for children in custody decisions: All that glitters is not Gault. Journal of Family Law, 1976-1977,15, 27-44.

Bersoff, D. N. Minors' consent to educational assessment. In G. B. Mellon, G. B. Koocher, & M. J. Saks (Eds.), Children's competence to consent. New York: Plenum Press, 1982. .

Buxton, M., & Dubin, L. A. Teaching psychiatry to law students: Toward a replicable model. New England Law Review, 1977, 13, 233-245.

Cocozza, J., & Steadman, H. Some refinements in the measurement and prediction of dangerous behavior. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1974, 131,1012-1014.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Levy, R. J. Legislative reform of child custody adjudication. An effort to rely on social science data in formulating legal policies. Law and Society Review, \ 969, 4,167-233.

Fenster, A. C., Litwack, T. R., & Symonds, M. The making of a forensic psychologist: Needs and goals for doctoral training. Professional Psychology, 1975,6, 457-467.

Glantz, L. H., Annas, G. J., & Katz, B. F. Scientific research with children: Legal incapacity and proxy consent. Family Law Quarterly, 1977, 7 /, 235-295.

Golden, J., Freud, A., Solnit, A. J. Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: The Free Press, 1973.

488 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Goldstein, J., Freud, A., Solnit, A. J. Before the best interests of the child. New York: The Free Press, 1979.

Grisso, T. Juvenile's waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum Press, 1980.

Katz, B. F. Children, privacy, and nontherapeutic experimentation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1975,45,802-812.

Lewis, C. E., Lewis, M. A., & Ifekwunigue, M. Informed consent by children and participation in an influenza vaccine trial. American Journal of Public Health, 1978,68,1079-1082.

Lipsett, P. O., & McGarry, A. L. Competency for trial: A screening instrument: American Journal of Psychiatry, 1971, 128,105-109.

Mack, J. The juvenile court. Harvard Law Review, 1909,23,104-112. Palombi, J. J. Competency and criminal responsibility. In D. H. Schetky & R. S. Benedek

(Eds.), Child psychiatry and the law, New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1980. Perlin, M. L. The legal status of the psychologist in the courtroom. Journal of Psychiatry and

Law; 1977,5, 41-54. Poythress, N. G. A proposal for training in forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 1979,

34,612-621. Roesch, R., & Golding, S. L. Competency to stand trial. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,

1980. Ruzicka, W. J. Psychodiagnostic assessment procedures in psycholegal practice (Monograph

Series on Law and Applied Psychology). Palo Alto, Calif.: Psychological Health Services, 1980.

Schetky, D. H. Introduction to court evaluations. In D. H. Schetky & R. S. Benedek (Eds.), Child psychiatry and the law. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1980.

Schetky, D. H., & Slader, D. L. Termination of parental rights. In D. H. Schetky & R. S. Benedek (Eds.), Child psychiatry and the law. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1980;

Somodevilla, S. A. The psychologist's role in the police department. Police Chief, 1978,12, 21-23.

Stone, A. A. Mental health and law: A system in transition (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Publication No. ADM 76-176). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1976.

Tapp,J. L. Psychology and law: Look at interface. InB. D. Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the legal process. New York: Spectrum, 1977.

Terr, L. C. The child as a witness. In D. H. Schetky & R. S. Benedek (Eds.), Child psychiatry and the law. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1980. -

Wald, P. M. Introduction to the juvenile justice process: Rights of children and the rites of passage. In D. H. Schetky & R. S. Benedek (Eds.), Child psychiatry and the law. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1980,

Weithorn, L. A. Involving children in decisions affecting their own welfare: Guidelines for professionals. In G. B. Melton, G. P. Koocher, & M. J. Saks (Eds.), Children's competence to consent. New York: Plenum Press, in press.

Received October 18,1982

PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 489