1. Who are we to judge who’s telling the truth (unless we are the judge, but even then…)? Psychologists have long known that we are not particularly good at detecting truth tellers from those who prevaricate. And while we know this, we sometimes delude ourselves into thinking we are more accurate than we are. These may be our biases at work: We are overly certain that batterers always deny, charm, and accuse the victim of being crazy. We falsely believe people with serious mental illness, or autism, or substance use disorder cannot parent. We wrongly assume sexual abuse claims during high conflict divorce are inevitably false. Worse, it may be our implicit bias at work. We may have undetected or unacknowledged gender, racial, cultural, age or religious biases. On the flip side, attempts to be over-attentive to identity issues or too politically correct, can make us tilt in directions that give culture, race, and gender too much weight for misplaced fear of offending. Finally, our own confirmatory bias can creep in when as evaluators or decision makers we do not hold open multiple potential hypotheses. Keeping bias in check is a first priority when reviewing data for its credibility. 
2. Patterns. Patterns. Patterns. When we think of reliability in a legal and forensic context we are referring to the trustworthiness of the evidence in front of us. Statistically, reliability refers to the repeatability of a finding. In psychology we talk about the consistency of a finding and in engineering reliability reflects dependability. Taken together, we are more likely to trust what we hear and see when we can count on experiencing the same thing over and over – when we see patterns. Human families are enormously complex, and one event, experience, or incident does not a pattern make. We can believe with greater confidence in the details of an account, when there are other accounts that share similar qualities. For example, the person was also [FILL IN THE BLANK] (impulsive, responsible, deceptive, flexible, assaultive, empathic, manipulative, altruistic) in other circumstances. We believe people on the stand who are consistent in their message; they have said the same thing in deposition, and they say the same thing when asked the same question from different angles. We don’t need to necessarily understand the truth of any particular incident when we zoom out to get a broader view of patterns of behavior.
3. “Objection! Hearsay!” Since we cannot rely completely on what parties in family law matters tell us, we take our pattern hunting into the world of “Multisource-Multimethod” data corroboration, and we seek third party convergent and divergent information. While yes - sometimes that third party source is hearsay - we are examining that data for its contribution to broader patterns, rather than for the truth of each piece of information. When the patterns begin to flesh themselves, based on consistent data from multiple sources, we have more confidence in the accuracy of the data we gather. 
4. Any prosecutor worth her salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. To increase the reliability of the information we are receiving, it is incumbent upon the interviewer to use appropriate interview methods. This is particularly true when gathering information from children. There are evidence-based practices for structuring interviews, asking questions, assessing subjects’ comprehension, and avoiding leading or misleading subjects. When we do not use these practices, we cannot count on the quality of the information we have gathered. For children and other vulnerable populations, we must understand how our style, interview approach, and role may impact them, and be mindful to minimize the potential for suggestibility, attempts to please, untenable anxiety, and avoidant behavior. Even with adults, it is incumbent upon us to be neutral, fair, and responsive to the individual needs of each party, to ensure that they can present their information as fully and accurately as possible.
5. Listen between the facts. What people tell us is often less important than the tone, the motives, and implications of what they tell us – the mortar between the bricks. How determined or relentless is one party to present negative information about the other? How much can the party accept any shared responsibility? What level of flexible thinking does the party have? When presented with conflicting information, can the party shift their thinking? How often are old, dismissed, or unsubstantiated allegations re-raised in an attempt to get another bite at the apple? These stylistic features lend to impressions of truthfulness and accuracy versus distortion or outright deception.
6. Who do you believe, Walter White or Ted Lasso? We tend to put more stock in people’s accounts when they do not present a story in black and white, do not over-justify problematic behavior, and do not present themselves as infallible or flawless. Balance, self-reflection, flexibility, openness, ownership of mistakes and perspective taking are more credible than rigid, inflexible, blaming, concrete certainty. Taking responsibility and self-reflection are harder to fake and risk an evaluator or a court perceiving the party in a more negative light, and thus more believable. That said, be mindful of concession tactics being used to gain the evaluator or attorney’s trust. A party who acknowledges limited responsibility in the service of winning over the family court professional, may simultaneously be unwilling to recognize, own, or acknowledge more significant problems.
7. Trending This Week! Alienation, Domestic Violence, Narcissism, Gaslighting, Trauma. When concepts are hot on social media (or even just old-fashioned media), people tend to jump on board. A person hears something that sounds like their experience, and voila, the person is married to a narcissist, the coparent is alienating the child, or the “ex” is gaslighting her. Sometimes of course, these constructs apply, and there are data to support their use. But sometimes because these constructs go viral in the divorce/custody world, “concept creep” occurs. “Concept creep” means that an idea is too broadly applied and the nuances and differentiations are missed. There is value to the legal strategy when the concept is applied, so too many behaviors are put under the concept’s umbrella. For example, not all unpleasant experiences or stressors rise to the level of trauma. Not all parenting time resistance on the part of a child is a result of alienation. Harsh or authoritarian parenting is not necessarily abusive; laissez-faire or permissive parenting does not automatically constitute neglect. And not all forms of domestic violence have the same impacts or implications for parenting. A coercive controlling batterer is likely to have longer term, potentially more harmful and more dangerous consequences to coparent and child, than a person who is abusive in the context of mutual vitriolic arguments and aggression, but who desists upon separation. As we are assessing accuracy and truthfulness, it is important that we understand these concepts, and how parties are using and misusing them.
8. If it looks like a duck, and answers questions like a duck…  It is important to know the characteristics of the population you are interviewing and the base rates of the phenomena you are describing. Coercive control and abuse victims may not tell a story in a narrative form. It may be non-linear, and important facts may come out at odd times, making their accounts seem suspect despite the fact that trauma has contributed to the poor narrative memory. Child abuse victims may recant stories making them seem like they lied in the first place, even though recanting has a reasonably high base rate in truthful children. Criminal defendants may have a vested interest in covering up facts. Child custody litigants often attempt to create overly positive images of themselves on objective psychological testing measures. False child sexual abuse allegations in child custody litigation happen at about the same frequency as they do in the general population. Base rates are an important tool for understanding how likely you are to be hearing accurate information.
9. “Thunder only happens when it’s raining.”  Though the lyric is meteorologically inaccurate, identifying variables and phenomena we might expect to observe when the allegations are true can be helpful when assessing reliability.  What do we expect to be correlated if the sexual abuse allegations are true? What might the children look like if a parent has been a victim of intimate partner violence? What would a parent’s work, relationship, medical and legal history look like if there were an active substance use disorder. Of course, correlation is not causation, and sometimes there are not always reliable correlates.
10. A rose by any other name, might just be a false allegation.  An allegation is like a flower. It can be accurate and true or twisted and distorted. Appreciating and attending to the life course of the allegation and all the influences on it are critical for understanding “truth” - at least as near as we can get to it. We need to recognize the number of forces and influences that have shaped the story we are hearing, and the behavior we are seeing. There are contributions and influences to the life of that flower long before and after it blooms. Its roots may run deep either in truth, or in the ulterior motives of the ecology surrounding the flower. The allegation blooms and changes as it is touched by the sun and rain and cultivated by the gardener and even the local dog. With time the blossom changes, and sometimes long after the flower dies, the allegation continues to gain power. Walking through the course of the allegation, its origins, its influences, its consistencies and modifications and the tone and tenor with which it is put forward is essential to understanding the import of what has happened - whether we ever know if the original allegation is true or not.

In the end, how much does the truth really matter anyway? As judges and lawyers, we are aware that truth is not always synonymous with justice. Just outcomes do not completely rest on truth. Sometimes they rest more on fairness, compromise, children’s needs, and minimization of conflict no matter “who started it,” “who did it,” “who cared more,” or “who harmed who.” Of course, sometimes these things matter – when the genuine safety of children or a party is at stake - but sometimes it is just not the determinative factor for the decision. Thus, truth may have a different value in these cases. As we have seen, truths vary. Some are objective and some are subjective. They are deeply held, and almost always need to be aired and appreciated. There can be positive impact and power in hearing and acknowledging truths, even multiple truths simultaneously. 
 
By Jessica P. Greenwald O’Brien, with thoughtful and generous contributions from Robin Deutsch, Mike Kretzmer, and Hon. Mark Juhas

Jessica P. Greenwald O'Brien, PhD, is a forensic psychologist in a private consulting practice in Metrowest Boston. She earned her doctorate in clinical and forensic psychology at the Law & Psychology Program of the University of Nebraska. Her post-doctoral training was through Harvard Medical School. Her experience includes conducting evaluations for the family and juvenile courts; developing the Massachusetts standards for parenting plan evaluations, and providing statewide training on these standards; consultation and training for child welfare attorneys and juvenile defenders, and membership in the statewide oversight committee for juvenile court clinician training and certification; serving on the Conference Committee and as secretary and now President-elect of the Mass AFCC Board, the Family Court Review editorial board, providing parent coaching and coordination, and offering innovative intervention programs for parents involved in high conflict divorce/child custody proceedings. She consults on topics of trauma and child maltreatment impacts on attachment, child development, parenting, intimate partner violence, and delinquent behavior. Dr. Greenwald O’Brien has directed a post-doctoral fellowship and APA internship in child and family forensic psychology.