AFCC 61st Annual Conference Workshop 52 Evaluation

Workshop 52: Lying and Deception in Family Court Ordered Assessments: Who Knew?

Determining facts and establishing truth is one of the fundamental purposes of the family court process. Being able to distinguish facts from false allegations, vexatious accusations, and misrepresentations is a task necessary to accurately determine best interests. This session examines whether self-report questionnaires and the detection of lying and deception by parents in court ordered assessments are related to risk or best interests in any meaningful way. Discussions about the utility of assessing credibility in family court will be undertaken and psychological and legal perspectives will be provided.

Question Title

* 1. Based on the content of this session, I am able to: (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree)

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Understand the findings from psychological literature on the detection of lying and deception in forensic settings.	1. Understand the findings from psychological literature on the detection of lying and deception in forensic settings. 1	1. Understand the findings from psychological literature on the detection of lying and deception in forensic settings. 2	1. Understand the findings from psychological literature on the detection of lying and deception in forensic settings. 3	1. Understand the findings from psychological literature on the detection of lying and deception in forensic settings. 4	1. Understand the findings from psychological literature on the detection of lying and deception in forensic settings. 5
2. Develop more empirically based strategies in family court and child protection cases to deal with potential false allegations, vexatious complaints, and misrepresentations.	2. Develop more empirically based strategies in family court and child protection cases to deal with potential false allegations, vexatious complaints, and misrepresentations. 1	2. Develop more empirically based strategies in family court and child protection cases to deal with potential false allegations, vexatious complaints, and misrepresentations. 2	2. Develop more empirically based strategies in family court and child protection cases to deal with potential false allegations, vexatious complaints, and misrepresentations. 3	2. Develop more empirically based strategies in family court and child protection cases to deal with potential false allegations, vexatious complaints, and misrepresentations. 4	2. Develop more empirically based strategies in family court and child protection cases to deal with potential false allegations, vexatious complaints, and misrepresentations. 5

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Robert C. Rowe, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

	1	2	3	4	5
Level of knowledge and expertise	Level of knowledge and expertise 1	Level of knowledge and expertise 2	Level of knowledge and expertise 3	Level of knowledge and expertise 4	Level of knowledge and expertise 5
Teaching ability	Teaching ability 1	Teaching ability 2	Teaching ability 3	Teaching ability 4	Teaching ability 5
Maintained my interest	Maintained my interest 1	Maintained my interest 2	Maintained my interest 3	Maintained my interest 4	Maintained my interest 5
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 1	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 2	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 3	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 4	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 5

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Nicholas Bala, JD, LLM (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

	1	2	3	4	5
Level of knowledge and expertise	Level of knowledge and expertise 1	Level of knowledge and expertise 2	Level of knowledge and expertise 3	Level of knowledge and expertise 4	Level of knowledge and expertise 5
Teaching ability	Teaching ability 1	Teaching ability 2	Teaching ability 3	Teaching ability 4	Teaching ability 5
Maintained my interest	Maintained my interest 1	Maintained my interest 2	Maintained my interest 3	Maintained my interest 4	Maintained my interest 5
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 1	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 2	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 3	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 4	Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions 5

Question Title

* 4. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the conference brochure

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

AFCC 61st Annual Conference Workshop 52 Evaluation

Question Title

* 1. Based on the content of this session, I am able to: (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree)

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Robert C. Rowe, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Nicholas Bala, JD, LLM (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 4. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the conference brochure

Question Title

* 5. Please rate this session presentation overall (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 6. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal)

Question Title

* 7. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree)

Question Title

* 8. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development (1=Not useful, 5=Extremely useful)

Question Title

* 9. Additional Comments