Dr. Doyne reluctantly wrote this declaration.  He did not want to offend the other psychologist involved, Dr. Raymond Murphy, who deliberately violated the law, Family Code 3118, which states minimum requirements of his evaluation (see also Motion for FC 3118) in order to help cover up the abuse.

Stephen E. Doyne, Ph.D.

Declaration of Dr. Stephen E. Doyne
A Psychological Corporation.
Clinical and Consulting Psychology September 14 , 2004

I am a clinical psychologist in independent practice licensed in California in 1974 with a specialty in conducting custody evaluations, mediation, and psychotherapy with children from divorced families. In this regard, I have performed thousands of evaluations and mediations where custody is an issue for divorcing families. Additionally, I frequently teach mental health professionals across the state of California continuing education courses for those involved in family law matters. Topics in the required 12-hour child custody workshop (California Rules of Court rule 5.225 (3)(1)-(21)) include, among others, professional issues, domestic violence, and sexual abuse assessment and treatment. Regarding the case at bar, I have no opinion on the matter as I have not seen all parties. But it is my understanding that one of the issues in contention involves allegations of sexual abuse. In such cases. I note that Family Code, Section 3118 specifies the following guidelines: "In any contested proceeding involving child custody or visitation rights, where the Court has appointed a child custody evaluator and the Courts determine there are serious allegations of child sexual abuse, the Court shall require an evaluation pursuant to this section." When asked to perform such an assessment by the Court, it usually occurs in one of three scenarios. First the Court may request an assessment on the child alone to determine if the minor has been sexually abused. Second, the question of sexual abuse may come up in the course of a 730 custody evaluation when the entire family is seen. Third, a child may be evaluated as part of individual psychotherapy as part of the assessment phase of treatment which is usually at the commencement. It is my understanding that under Family Code 3118, if I am the Court-appointed evaluator, I have access to Juvenile Court records and must conform to the specifications, in part, as follows: "The evaluator and investigator shall, at minimum, do all of the following:

1. Consult with the agency providing child welfare services and law enforcement regarding the allegations of child sexual abuse and obtain recommendations from these professionals regarding the child's safety and the child's need for protection.
2. Review and summarize the ChiId Welfare Services agency's file...
3. Obtain from law enforcement investigator all available information obtained from the criminal background checks of the parents and any suspected perpetrator that Is not a parent including information regarding child abuse, domestic violence, or substance abuse...
4. Review the results of a multi-disciplinary child interview team, if available, or, if not, interview the child or request a multi-disciplinary child interview team...
5. Request a forensic medical examination of the child from the appropriate agency.
6. File a confidential written report with the Clerk of the Court in which the custody hearing will be conducted and which shall be served on the parties or their attorneys at least ten days prior to the hearing..."

When interviewing children about abuse allegations, I always begin with open-ended questions although children generally respond better to specific questions even though the margin of error is higher. Moreover, older children are more accurate in response to specific and/or leading questions. On balance, research indicates children are most accurate when interviewed by a neutral evaluator who ask few leading questions. There is also significant data that suggest that Interviewers who are biased or believe an allegation is either true or false may omit questions to obtain support for their position. Moreover, the assessment process for interviewing children generally takes a minimum of three to five sessions depending upon the child's developmental age. Next, the consistency of the information contained from the direct interviews are compared to that contained from Child Protective Services, not only reports, but also from collateral interviews with other mental health professionals and case workers. However, there is significant research data to indicate that children in custody conflicts are not likely to report false allegations. Although the interviewing of the child is the main index for determining the truth of allegations, psychological testing can also be an important adjunct in determining the child's emotional functioning as well as confirming or disconfirming a child's verbal report. Per Family Code 3011. referring to the best interests, the focus of the assessment is always on protecting the child. Further, any type of evaluation should include recommendations that address the major questions including alleged sexual abuse and treatment options for the minor. It is also possible to render opinions in these objective assessments that may be contrary to CPS, law enforcement, or prev1ous mental health professionals as long as that opinion is supported by sound clinical evidence... It is my understanding that the standard of care in either of the three types of assessment-custody evaluations, sexual abuse assessments, or therapy-is for the child to be interviewed by the evaluator or therapist regardless of whether they have been previously questioned. In fact, I know of no research literature that supports an assessment without asking the child directly, no matter how often that evaluator may believe the child has been interviewed. Generally, if the Court wants a neutral objective opinion on the assessment question, "Has this child been sexually abused?," I can only offer a clinical opinion based upon the consistency or inconsistency of the child's verbal report, the presenting symptoms, complaints or behavior patterns, compared to all other data including collateral sources. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above and foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge.

Signed this 14th day of September, 2004 at La Jolla, California. Stephen E Doyne, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Diplomate American College of Forensic Examiners
Scripps Memorial Hospital
Medical Office 8ulldlng
9834 Genesee Avenue, Suite 321
La Jolla, CA 92O37
858/452.5900
FAX 858/452-7610