Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2ed

Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
CASE SCENARIOS
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Case Scenario 1
______________________________________________________________________
Client: Angela A.
Assessment Date: 1/1/12
Assessment Tools Used:
Clinical Interview
CPS Referral Information
Symptom Assessment-45 (SA-45)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2ed. (MMPI-2)
Purpose of Referral: Diminished Capacity to Parent
The purpose of the assessment is to determine Ms. A’s mental capacity relative to child
protective services (CPS); and the potential for family reunification Ms. A. has a significant
history of child neglect. Her CPS record indicated the following: 1/1/99 Child
Abandonment, 6/2/99 Neglectful Supervision, 3/21/01 Child Injury, and 4/21/01 Child
Neglectful Supervision. Her last CPS case resulted in her mediated agreement to terminate
her parental rights.
Mental Status:
Ms. A. became lost on her arrival to her appointment and assessment. She was
approximately 15-20 minutes late. She was well-groomed and dressed appropriately when
attended. She was oriented to time, person, and place. Her speech and tone were normal.
His affect was in normal limits. Her thought processes were intact and logical with mild
psychomotor retardation present during the interview. Based on a review of intake questions
and measures, Ms. A. exhibited average intellectual functioning. In addition, she reported her
mood currently within normal limits, with no suicidal or homicidal ideations or plans.
Legal History:
Ms. A. reported that she recently became involved with CPS due to her 14 year old daughter
running away from a kinship placement in Manchester, Florida between June and July 2011.
The child protective referral data reported that she has a criminal history: 2/1/88: Drug
Possession Charge, Convicted and 7/8/89: Fraudulent Check Charge, Convicted which
resulted in state imprisonment for two years. There were no other current legal issues
reported that affect the parent-child relationship at the time of the assessment.
Psychiatric & Medical History:
Ms. A reported a significant psychiatric and chemical dependency history primarily for
heroin addiction. She reported attending state-base mental health services regularly. She also
reported a history of taking mood stabilizers and anxiolytics. Ms. A. also reported a history
of crack cocaine use in the past 90 days; but no current alcohol/drug use was reported in the
past 6 months. Lastly, Ms. A. reported a diagnosis of Hepatitis C associated with past heroin
use.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Vocational/Employment Functioning:
Vocationally, Ms. A. reported completing only the 8th grade with no additional vocational
training. She also reported currently on disability (since 2009) for her mental and physical
health conditions.
Family & Relational Functioning:
From a family perspective, Ms. A. denied a family history of child abuse. Ms. A. also denied
a history of family violence in her childhood. However, she reported a parental history of
alcohol and drug abuse. There were also no significant personal relationships reported at this
time.
Assessment Data:
The SA-45 was utilized to objectively assess Ms. A’s self-reported psychosocial functioning.
The results of the SA-45 indicated the following: (DEP, T score= 60), (ANX, T score = 55),
(PHO, T score = 58), (PSY, T scores = 55), (INT, T score = 50), (SOM, T score = 57), and
(HOS, T score = 60). Moreover, MMPI-2 indicated the following: (F, T score = 75). (L, T
score = 67), (K, T score = 80), (Hy, T score = 61), (D, T score = 59), (Hy, T score = 61),
(Pd, T score = 70), (Pa, T score = 64), (Pt, T score = 55), Schizophrenia (Sc, T score = 68),
(Ma, T score = 65), and (Si, T score = 58).
Recommendations:
According to Chandler (2013), Ms. A. is likely to meet the Type 3 or Theta
therapeutic risk typology. Theta is likely to exhibit a low therapeutic willingness for
treatment compliance, but also low dystonic risk patterns directly associated with
neglectful supervision and child abuse. Ms. A. is likely to have significant psychiatric
or rehabilitative history. On psychological evaluations, Ms. A. is likely to have a
diagnosis or exhibit symptoms of Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder,
Substance Dependence, or other chronic health conditions (e.g. Hepatitis C). Ms. A.
is likely to be aware of their psychological dysfunctions or health limitations. Due to
her psychiatric history, there is a lack of discriminatory thinking or proper judgment
that is likely to affect their parenting. Ms. A. is less likely to have an extensive
criminal or legal history in the future. However, when involved with criminal
orientated paramours or partners, the seriousness of criminal activity may increase.
The non-compliance of forensic psychotherapy, psychiatric medications, and/or
rehabilitation are the core factors that places Ms. A.’s child at-risk for neglectful
supervision, more so than issues of direct physical or sexual abuse. Ms. A. is likely to
have limited relationships outside of family members or relatives. She is also likely to
have limited self-sufficiency; and is likely to seek disability/assistance for housing
stability. Ms. A’s children are more likely raised or supervised by relatives (kinship).
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Ms. A is also likely to engage in high-risk relationships and misuse prescriptions,
alcohol, and drugs to maintain acceptance in her relationships. Her emotional
instability may also lead to self-medicating behaviors. Routine drug screens are
recommended for Ms. A. (Chandler, 2013). Her treatment efficacy is likely to be low
to average within the first 6 months. The treatment focus is primarily on parenting
skills, social/life skills, or rehabilitation skills. If a child is removed from Ms. A, it is
likely that the child would benefit from a guardian, kinship placement, or supervised
visitations. To the most possessory level parenting should be granted. For Ms. A.,
CPS and courts are likely to consider court ordered services, monitored sentencing
techniques, or joint custody arrangements to prevent harm to Ms. A’s child (ren).
The child (ren) are also likely to have developmental disabilities or delays; and exhibit
a disorganized attachment style (Chandler, 2013). Overall, the extensive psychiatric
history and/or diminished capacity would likely prohibit Ms. A. from possessing her
children independently. She is likely to receive reports from CPS in the future
without case management and supervision with a mental health professional.
In conjunction with Daubert standards, the forensic analysis of Ms. A’s psychosocial
assessment was based in the best interest of her child. Therefore, any subsequent therapeutic
or rehabilitative interventions should focus on her parenting and/or improving the parentchild relationship. With the use of peer-reviewed forensic research, measurable therapeutic
goals were established to address Ms. A’s parental rehabilitation if any treatment services
were to be provided in the future (Chandler, 2013). These goals were noted as the following:
Goal 1. Understand and identify the triggers to emotional/relational dysfunctions and
regulation; Goal 2: Improve and maintain parental self-sufficiency, relapse prevention,
medication management, and life skills (e.g. housing, employment, social skills); Goal 3:
Improve and maintain parent-child and family relations (parenting); Goal 4: Improve
community linkages and supportive networks (e.g. medication management); and Goal 5:
Improve safety and supervision planning for the child in relation to JMC or possessory
status (e.g. visitation). It should be noted that Ms. A’s parental rehabilitation should be
measured by progress ratings, standardized outcome measures, child protective collateral,
and service attendance within a 90 day timeframe. In accordance to standard treatment
plans, Ms. A’s estimated parental rehabilitation for visitation was calculated at 50% upon the
successful participation and completion of twenty-four (24) consecutive rehabilitative
sessions in 180 days.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Case Scenario 2
________________________________________________________________________
Client: Johnny B. Male (DOB: 8/13/75)
Assessment Date: 7/7/03
Assessment Tools Used:
Review of Records
Clinical Interview
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3)
Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, & Strengths (IORNS)
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA)
Purpose of Referral: Offender Risk Assessment
To determine Ms. B’s criminal risk potential and treatment relative to his condition
of parole. This assessment was also done to determine visitations with his child
(Albert) and his mother (Jamie).
Review of Records:
On 7/7/03-7/21/03, Mr. B. was referred for a mental health evaluation for a parole
hearing by the state courts. He was convicted of aggravated kidnapping of his exgirlfriend (Jamie) and physically injuring his 18 month old child at the time (Albert).
He reported that Jamie would “not commit to him” because of his heritage. He has
had previous misdemeanor criminal convictions for family violence and assault
involving Jamie in 2000 and 2002. Mr. B. was Indian-American (South Asiatic
descent). Jamie was of Pakistani decent. As a result of their secret relationship, Albert
was born in a hotel room with limited healthcare. Mr. B. was ashamed of the
circumstances of his child’s birth, but felt that in time, Jamie’s family would
eventually understand and accept him. Mr. B. also sold and used controlled
substances to earn income for Jamie and Albert. At the time of the offense, they
were both college students who attended Somewhere College; and had been dating
for approximately two years prior to the criminal offense. Prior to the offense, Mr. B.
considered himself the patriarch of his family since the death of his father during
high school. Mr. B’s ideas of marriage were “traditional” According to Mr. B., he and
his ex-girlfriend were planning to get married but Jamie’s father prohibited the
marriage because he was “Christian” and she was “Muslim“. (Both were born in the
United States).
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
The reported “breakup” led to Mr. B’s mental health deterioration and subsequent
criminal offense. He was also “tired of hearing Albert crying all of the time” because
Jamie failed to provide discipline necessary for him to be obedient. His cognitive
assessment at the time indicated that there were no signs of psychosis (no
hallucinations or delusions). His MMPI-2 profile at the time, indicated underlying
emotional problems that were consistent with an Adjustment Disorder or Mood
Disorder. During his initial evaluation, he denied any homicidal ideations or plans
during the offense. He also denied an intent or action to sexually assault his exgirlfriend or harm his Albert, but his emotions were “running too high at the time”.
Mr. B’s MMPI-2 profile revealed the following psychopathic deviate score: (Pd, T
score = 80). Specifically, Mr. B. had no prior psychiatric history.
Clinical Interview:
Mr. B’s current mini-mental status examination indicated that his affect and mood
were in normal limits, with no suicidal/homicidal ideations or plans. His cognitive
functioning was also in normal limits, with no reports of psychotic symptoms.
During the interview, he indicated that he only committed minor violations of state
prison rules while incarcerated in the past seven years (e.g. tobacco possession). He
reported working weekly making clothing and attending school. He also reported
limited social interactions with other inmates; and the avoidance of associations that
create difficulties. Mr. B. reported the completion of an associate’s degree in business
while incarcerated; and currently taking additional college courses in business for his
bachelor’s degree. He reported remorse and responsibility for his past criminal
offense; and admitted that the state helped him understand how to handle
relationships and family in the future. He noted that his introductory course at the
state jail indicated that over 80% of his fellow inmates will be repeat offenders; and
that his intentions are not to re-offend and complete his parole successfully.
Assessment Data:
The SA-45 was utilized to objectively assess Mr. B’s self-reported psychosocial functioning.
The results of the SA-45 indicated the following: (DEP, T score= 60), (ANX, T score = 51),
(PHO, T score = 54), (PSY, T scores = 80), (INT, T score = 55), (SOM, T score = 58), and
(HOS, T score = 53). His IORNS dynamic profile indicated the following scores:
current changeable risk patterns= 28%; protective strength index = 38%; overall reoffense risk potential = 77%. His IORNS favorable impression index = 95%. The
MMPI-2 results indicated the following: (F, T score = 85). (L, T score = 77), K (K, T score
= 87), (Hy, T score = 50), (D, T score = 51), (Hy, T score = 58), (Pd, T score = 74), (Pa, T
score = 79), (Pt, T score = 55), (Sc, T score = 66), and (Ma, T score = 53), and (Si, T score
= 66). His SARA scores also indicated the following: (total raw score =50) and
(number of factors present =15)
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Mr. B is likely to exhibit a low therapeutic compliance and high dystonic risk patterns
for child abuse and domestic violence (Chandler, 2013). Mr. B. is likely to have a
chronic legal problems that places him at a high probability for CPS investigation.
Based on the assessment data, Mr. B’s criminal history is typically for assault, drug
possession, and firearm possession. Mr. B. is likely to have a series of misdemeanor
violations, probation, violations, and/or child custody/paternal issues in the future.
He is also likely to have inconsistent employment due to his criminal record. Mr. B.
may have an initial interest in court services to avoid or manipulate legal
consequences (e.g. court ordered child support payments). Based on the assessment
data, Mr. B. is likely to have inconsistent reports or minor problems with valid
profiles. For this reason, he will often report being falsely accused of crimes and
actions that cannot be proven or lack evidence. The social networks for Mr. B. are
likely with others with similar antisocial patterns; or they will seek relationships for
dominance and control over docile paramours, thus becoming abusive to partners or
paramours. Supervised visitations are strongly recommended for Mr. B. He may also
become violent if he feels disrespected. During interviews or therapy, Mr. B. is likely
to exhibit the Professional (criminal) personality characteristics (Chandler, 2013).
Therefore, his manipulative thinking and criminal orientation is often the core
feature that places Mr. B’s child at-risk for neglect and abuse. Mr. B. may also use
drugs recreationally and professionally; and thus, commit unsafe acts around their
children (e.g. buy, use, or deal drugs). Mr. B. may utilize corporal punishments
regularly for discipline and his bond with his child is also low or non-existent. The
emotional instability and/or drug use patterns are less likely treated without CPS or
court ordered interventions. It is essential to conduct urine and hair follicle drug
screens. For Mr. B., the core features of counseling are legal stability, relapse
prevention, safety & supervision planning, and community resources (Chandler,
2013). These services will often be described as “classes” he has to take for
probation or CPS. If a child is removed from Mr. B., it is likely that CPS or the court
will seek parental termination due to frequent violations in service planning or court
orders. Mr. B. is likely to only rehabilitate under strict CPS and court ordered
treatment regimens that are greater than 12 months in duration. The treatment
efficacy is likely to be within the moderate range within a 6-month interval. Mr. B’s
children are likely to exhibit a disorganized attachment style during observations or
family counseling sessions.

Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Case Scenario 3
______________________________________________________________________
Client: Jeannie C. Female (DOB: 10/21/88)
Assessment Date: 4/21/12
Assessment Tools Used:
Clinical Interview
CPS Referral Information
Symptom Assessment-45 (SA-45)
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-3rd ed. (SASSI-3)
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA)
Purpose of Referral:
The purpose of the assessment is to determine Ms. C’s substance dependency potential
relative to child protective services (CPS) and community supervision (probation).
Psychiatric/Rehabilitation History: Substance Abuse Potential
Ms. C. reported currently completing a drug offender class in the past two weeks for
probation requirements In November 2011, she reported psychiatric treatment for clinical
depression (prescribed Zoloft), but no consistent medication management was reported. She
reported an unspecified psychiatric history for approximately five years.
Alcohol & Drug Use History:
Ms. C. denied any current alcohol or illicit abuse patterns, but admitted to methamphetamine
abuse history nearly five years ago. Currently, she reported using hydrocodone in the past six
months for an unspecified abdominal pain.
Legal History:
Legally, Ms. C. reported only a misdemeanor theft case (under $1,500.00) and currently on
probation. She was referred to jail diversion and child protective services (family based safety
services) to determine therapeutic interventions. In 2001, Ms. C. was charged with domestic
violence against her husband.
Employment/Vocational Functioning:
Vocationally, Ms. C. reported completing her high school diploma and medical assistant
training. She reported currently cleaning houses and working as a server at local restaurants.
Family & Relational Functioning:
From a family perspective, Ms. C. reported a parental history of alcohol abuse and
depression during her childhood. Currently, she reported being divorced with four children
and currently engaged. She indicated that they occasionally fight, but nothing significant as
she has had before. She denied a family history of violence, child abuse, or neglect.
However, she admitted to a history of verbal abuse and sexual assault (raped).with an exhusband.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Mental Status & Current Functioning:
Ms. C. was compliant during the psychosocial assessment. She was timely for her
appointment and assessment. She was well-groomed and dressed appropriately. She was
oriented to time, person, and place. Her speech and tone were normal. Her affect was in
normal limits. Her thought processes were intact and logical without evidence of cognitive
impairment or memory deficits. She reported mild to moderate dysphoria (anxiousness) in
the two weeks. There were no reported history of suicidal or homicidal ideations or plans.
Assessment Data:
The SA-45 was utilized to objectively assess Ms. C’s self-reported psychosocial functioning.
The results of the SA-45 indicated the following scores: (DEP, T score= 70), (ANX, T
score = 65), (PHO, T score = 50), (PSY, T scores = 50), (INT, T score = 75), (SOM, T
score = 58), and (HOS, T score = 67). The SASSI-3 is a standardized objective measure
which measures abuse symptoms, obvious attributes, and subtle attributes. The
SASSI-3 also contains face validity scales and a defensiveness scale to assess
inconsistencies and truthfulness while completing the examination. Ms. D’s SASSI-3
life time profile indicated the following scores: (FVA, T score = 55), (FVOD, T
score = 70), (SYM, T score = 60), (OAT, T score = 81), (DEF, T score = 68),
(SAM, T score= 62), (FAM, T score = 63), and (COR, T score = 65). Her SARA
scores also indicated the following: (total raw score =30) and (number of factors
present =10)
Recommendations:
Based on assessment, Ms. C. is likely to meet the Type 2 or Beta therapeutic risk.
She is likely to exhibit an initial willingness for mandatory or voluntary services, but
also occasional high insidious dystonic risk patterns directly associated with a high
probability for neglectful supervision, abuse, and treatment relapse (Chandler, 2013).
Ms. C. is likely to exhibit a low threat control from time to time; and is likely to
patterns of hostility or volatility. She is also likely to have a diagnosis or symptoms of
Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, or Borderline Personality
Disorder. On progress reports, Ms. D. may have moderate to low levels of emotional
insight, self-sufficiency, employment, or housing stability (Chandler, 2013). Ms. C. is
likely to have a childhood history of abuse and neglect with could affect their threat
control levels during life stressors and parenting. Ms. C’s history suggests likelihood
to be a shadow parent; leaving her children with strangers or family members with
questionable criminal histories or childhood histories. She is also likely to have a
history or affiliations with others who have a history of domestic violence, assault,
drug use, or drug possession. Ms. C. may associate with others who have multiple or
serious misdemeanor violations; or court cases for unpaid tickets or fines, such as,
child support. Ms. C. may also encounter break-ups and enter into new relationships
quickly causing conflicts with the adjustment of children. Ms. C. will have difficulties
in separating from paramours or spouses who are at-risk for committing child abuse
or domestic violence. During counseling, Ms. C. is likely to exhibit low treatment
efficacy within the first 90 days.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
On the surface, Ms. C. may be misidentified from INA journaling and storytelling as
victim in relation to her criminal activity or history (Chandler, 2013). However, Ms.
C. requires longer weekly/bi-weekly intervals of counseling or rehabilitation than
other typologies with minor criminal histories (e.g. 6 months or more) to work
through core therapeutic issues relative to neglectful supervision, therapeutic
visitations, and child abuse risks. The focus of Ms. C’s therapy will be generally on
subjective knowledge (emotional regulation), self-sufficiency, employment, relational
skills, relapse prevention, and safety & supervision planning. Through long periods
or histories of probation or legal cases, Ms. C. may become therapeutically
manipulative to seek child visitations, shortened service plans, or shortened
monitored sentencing provisions by CPS, FBSS, family courts, and/or criminal
courts. Young children of Ms. C. are likely to have difficulties with parental
attachments, parental loss, and/or parental alienation. Random drug screens or
assessments are essential for Betas. Ms. C’s child (ren) will benefit from joint
managing conservatorship, kinship placement, and monitored returns with CPS,
FBSS, or court-ordered services.
In conjunction with Daubert standards, the forensic analysis of Ms. C’s psychosocial
assessment was based in the best interest of her child (ren). Therefore, any subsequent
therapeutic or rehabilitative interventions should focus on his parenting and/or improving
the parent-child relationship. With the use of peer-reviewed forensic research, measurable
therapeutic goals were established to address Ms. C’s parental rehabilitation (Chandler,
2013). These goals were noted as the following: Goal 1. Identify the triggers to
emotional/relational dysfunctions; Goal 2: improve relapse prevention skills; Goal 3:
improve and maintain parent-child and family relations; Goal 4: improve community
linkages and supportive networks (e.g. medical and supportive therapy); and Goal 5: improve
safety and supervision planning for the children. It should be noted that Ms. C’s parental
rehabilitation should be measured by progress ratings, standardized outcome measures, CPS
collateral, and service attendance within a 90 day timeframe. In accordance to standard
treatment plans, Ms. C’s estimated parental rehabilitation was calculated at 50% upon the
successful participation and completion of 24 consecutive therapeutic sessions by a licensed
mental healthcare professional.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Case Scenario 4
______________________________________________________________________
Client: Little Alberta. Female (DOB: 4/24/08)
Assessment Date: 6/25/2013
Assessment Tools Used
Parental Clinical Interview/Observation
Parental Statements
Trauma Scales for Checklist for Young Children
Preschool Interviews
Collateral Preschool Reports (Preschool Report 2011 -2013)
Purpose of Referral: Trauma Assessment:
The purpose of the assessment is to determine if Little Alberta. (6 years old female)
has experienced trauma-related symptoms due to an alleged car accident on 7/7/12;
and to determine any current functional impairment associated with trauma-related
symptoms due to her foster care placement. A child protective service (CPS)
investigation was conducted due to concerns from Little Alberta’s preschool of
anxiousness, bizarre sexual behavior towards other children, and noncompliance in
school activities. Due to observations by CPS, it was recommended that the foster
parents (the Brady’s) complete a service plan (parenting) to reduce Alberta’s risk of
harm to herself or others. According to CPS records, Mr. Brady (Alberta’s foster
father) was arrested for domestic violence in 2000.
Interviews & Collateral Review:
In a review of CPS written statements, both foster parents alleged a high degree of
functional impairment since the car accident that affected Alberta’s ability to
complete tasks, comply with rules, work independently, and socialize with siblings
and peers. The Brady’s were licensed as foster parent by the state New Hampshire
in the past 5 years with no reprimands or infractions by child licensing. They
described their home as loving and warm; and with a strong religious foundation as
Fundamental Christian ministers. The Brady’s also believed in structure and respect
in the home; and zero tolerance for poor discipline of children. Recently, the Brady’s
experienced a financial struggle with the home, making it difficult to sustain the
home sitter for Alberta. They admitted that Alberta would sometimes stay up at
night watching adult cable programs while the house sitter was not paying attention.
They also reported Alberta being on punishment frequently for her misbehavior. An
observation of Alberta’s with her foster parents interaction indicated mild to
moderate anxiousness, hyper-arousal, and poor concentration not associated with
attention deficit disorder or oppositional defiant disorder. A review of preschool
records was conducted for Fall 2011 to Fall 2013. The preschool reports indicated
various teacher ratings on various educational areas including gross motor
development, fine motor development, cognitive development, emotional
development, social development, responsibility and self-help skills, and work habits.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
During the school interviews, the preschool teacher reported prior to the foster care
placement (preschool year 2011), that Alberta was characterized as an independent
learner with normal intellectual and behavioral functioning; without a need for social
affiliation or contact with others. However, after the foster care placement (Fall
2012), Alberta’s functional impairment centered on her maladaptive social
functioning and poor concentration; exhibiting a need for more reassurance from
teachers and peer affiliation. The Preschool Teacher A also reported that Alberta in
the Fall of 2012 was occasionally tapping or pointing to her head stating to “pray for
her head” and that “I was in a car accident”. There were no medical reports provided
by the foster parents or teachers indicating any significant brain damage or
neurological damage due to the car accident. There was also no psychiatric or
psychological history or reported experiences of trauma-related events prior to foster
care placement. It was therefore concluded that the descriptions of Alberta’s
preschool behavior since the foster care placement was psychogenic in nature more
so a result of the Brady placement The preschool teacher and director were also
aware that Alberta’s family was involved in a car accident prior to Fall 2012. The
Preschool Director reported that she felt that the “entire family” was affected by the
accident; and that Alberta’s behavior was a consequence of her foster parents’
responses to the accident. However, there were suggestive reports from the
preschool teacher or director that Alberta’s behaviors were consistent with child
abuse or neglect. Overall, the Fall 2012 preschool report (after the car accident)
indicated significant changes in Alberta’s behavioral patterns that warranted
documentation by her preschool teachers and to her parents. The overall
descriptions of Alberta’s observations after the car accident were concluded by the
examiner as trauma-related. A follow-up investigative report indicated that the
Brady’s admitted to spanking Alberta for tantrums and talking back to them on
occasion. Counseling and other behavioral interventions were recommended for
Alberta. Based on Alberta’s progress and the Brady’s successful service plan
completion, Alberta may be removed from their home.
Assessment Data:
An objective symptom assessment utilizing the Trauma Scales for Checklist for
Young Children (TSCYC) was administered to Alberta’s parents and preschool
personnel as an assessment of trauma-related symptoms. The TSCYC is a
standardized forensic protocol which meets the Daubert standard of evidence. A
qualitative review of the TSCYC item response patterns was performed with
Alberta’s preschool teacher profiles. Preschool Teacher A TSCYC results indicated
the following: (PTS-AV, T score = 65), (PTS-AR, T score = 75), (SC, T score = 45),
(DIS, T score = 60), (ANX, T score = 72), (DEP, T score = 58), (ANG, T score =
66). The Preschool Director’s TSCYC results indicated the following: (PTS-AV, T
score = 61), (PTS-AR, T score = 72), (SC, T score = 50), (DIS, T score = 68),
(ANX, T score = 80), (DEP, T score = 65), (ANG, T score = 70).
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
The CAPI converted T score results for Ms. Brady indicated the following: (Lie, T
score = 55), (IC, T score = 65), (Distress, T score = 65), (Rigidity, T score = 61),
Problems with child and self, T score = 68), (Problems with others = 60), and Abuse
(Abuse, T score =73). The CAPI converted T score results for Mr. Brady indicated
the following: (Lie, T score = 55), (IC, T score = 70), (Distress, T score = 66),
(Rigidity, T score = 64), Problems with child and self, T score = 72), (Problems with
others = 61), and Abuse (Abuse, T score = 80)
Recommendations:
Based on the trauma assessment, the Brady’s are more likely to exhibit the Type 1 or
Alpha therapeutic risk typology. Alphas exhibit high levels of syntonic functioning
during mandatory or voluntary treatment; and low dystonic risk functioning. The
Brady’s are likely to have isolated or sporadic legal issues, including, minor issues of
child safety or child injury. They may have a strong “conservative” or religious
ideology or appearance; and believe in corporal punishment, capital punishment, or
the “pursuit of justice”. For this reason, the Brady’s are likely to exhibit a willingness
to comply with societal rules, regulatory agencies, or courts in regards to mandatory
or voluntary treatment.
Overall, the Brady’s are unlikely to have significant risk ratings on psychological
assessments or re-offenses when stable employment, counseling, or healthy personal
relationships exist. If a child is removed from the Brady‘s, they are likely returned
with limited restrictions by regulatory agencies, such as, CPS or family courts. In
relation to child abuse, the Brady’s should be required to participate in psychological
evaluations every 12 months (e.g. foster care parent eligibility). The Brady’s during
moments of significant distress, such as, job loss, may psychologically decompensate,
increasing the likelihood of corporal punishment and neglectful supervision. Without
parenting or counseling during stressful life events, the Brady’s at risk for exhibiting
more psychopathic patterns, such as, Tragic Hero personality characteristics
(Chandler, 2013). These characteristics are also insidious to criminal justice
professionals, and inexperienced law enforcement professionals.
The Alpha Tragic Hero characteristics may be exacerbated by cultural
hypersensitivity. This process is an emotional sensitivity process discussed primarily
ethnic minorities and immigrants, but may apply generally to various ethnic and
cultural groups. Cultural hypersensitivity is theoretically based on the high
psychological exposure to opposite or conflicting core cultural beliefs/morals (e.g.
the rejection of physical punishment); and subsequent limited or restricted access to
supportive or congruent cultural practices (e.g. therapy conducted someone of a
different ethnicity) Clinically, a diagnosis or symptoms of Adjustment Disorder are
likely with the Brady’s with very little immediate evidence of risk or harm to self or
others. The lack of follow-up in psychological evaluations and services should be
considered cautionary to regulatory agencies or courts.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Case Scenario 5
______________________________________________________________________
Client: Hannah Z. Female (DOB: 2/24/91)
Assessment Date: 3/15/12
Assessment Tools Used:
Clinical Interview
Symptom Assessment-45 (SA-45)
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2ed. (MMPI-2)
Child Abuse Potential Inventor (CAPI)
Purpose of Referral: Child Abuse Potential
The purpose of the assessment is to determine the risk of child abuse relative to a child
protective service (CPS) investigation.
Mental Status:
Ms. Z was compliant during the psychosocial assessment. He was well-groomed and dressed
appropriately. She was oriented to time, person, and place. Her speech and tone were
normal. His affect was in normal limits. Her thought processes were intact and logical with
mild psychomotor retardation present during the interview. Based on a review of intake
questions and measures, Ms. Z exhibits average intellectual functioning. In addition, she
reported her mood as anxious. She reported that she sometimes has difficulties with a fear of
darkness at her house. She reported no tantrum during the day cause you to be more specific
regarding the suicidal or homicidal ideations or plans.
Legal History:
Ms. Z reported a juvenile history due to school truancy. Her involvement with CPS was due
to a reported history of relational violence and neglectful supervision of her infant child in
the past 6 months. She also reported in December 2011 that she was “shot” while sitting in a
car after her ex-boyfriend had a confrontation in a restaurant parking lot. She was recently
charged with Assault on 1/5/12 due to “defending herself against some guys” trying to rape
her.
Alcohol & Drug History:
Initially, Ms. Z indicated that she did not use alcohol or drugs. However, upon follow-up,
she admitted that she used cannabis the day before the psychosocial assessment. At a
follow-up interview, Ms. Z reported abstaining for cannabis use in the past seven (70 days).
Psychiatric & Medical History:
Ms. Z reported no psychiatric or mental health history. Currently, she is attending individual
counseling, domestic violence prevention classes, and GED classes as a requirement of CPS.
And the courts. She reported her current medical history as unremarkable and no current
prescriptions. She also reported the she was court ordered to main on birth control.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Vocational/Employment Functioning:
Vocationally, Ms. Z. reported working at a fast food restaurant (close to where she was
shot).
Family & Relational Functioning:
From a family perspective, Ms. Z denied any childhood or family history of sexual,
emotional, or physical abuse. Yet, she also indicated that her mother’s ex-husband was
physically abusive towards her mother. Ms. Z. also indicated that her mother had a history of
alcoholism and depression. She indicated a limited number of family and pro-social contacts.
She reported that her mother’s family did not accept her because her bi-racial ethnicity. She
reported that her mother was “White” and her father is “Black”. In terms of her past
relationship, she reported a history of “starting the fights” with her ex-boyfriend (the father
of her child). She reported experiencing difficulties socially due to her “looks”.
Assessment Data:
The SA-45 was utilized to objectively assess Ms. Z’s self-reported psychosocial functioning.
The results of the SA-45 indicated the following: (DEP, T score= 65), (ANX, T score = 70),
(PHO, T score = 72), (PSY, T scores = 54), (INT, T score = 75), (SOM, T score = 61), and
(HOS, T score = 67). Moreover, MMPI-2 indicated the following: (F, T score = 55). (L, T
score = 60), (K, T score = 85), (Hy, T score = 65), (D, T score = 64), (Hy, T score = 63),
(Pd, T score = 62), (Pa, T score = 59), (Pt, T score = 65), Schizophrenia (Sc, T score = 45),
(Ma, T score = 60), and (Si, T score = 45).The CAPI converted T score results for Ms.
Z. indicated the following: (Lie, T score = 55), (IC, T score = 70), (Distress, T score
= 66), (Rigidity, T score = 64), Problems with child and self, T score = 72),
(Problems with others = 61), and Abuse (Abuse, T score = 80).
Recommendations:
In conjunction with Daubert standards, the forensic analysis of Ms. Z’s assessment
was based in the best interest of her child. Therefore, any subsequent therapeutic or
rehabilitative interventions should focus on her parenting and/or improving the
parent-child relationship. With the use of peer-reviewed forensic research,
measurable therapeutic goals were established to address Ms. Z’s parental
rehabilitation if any treatment services were to be provided in the future, a
therapeutic risk and compliance indicator should be considered to measure the
progress of Ms. Hunter’s service plant treatment (Chandler, 2012). Based on
Chandler (2012), the therapeutic goals were noted as the following: Goal 1.identify
the triggers to emotional/relational dysfunctions (including relapse prevention); Goal
2: improve and maintain parental self-sufficiency (e.g. housing); Goal 3: improve and
maintain parent-child and family relations; Goal 4: improve community linkages and
supportive networks (e.g. medication management); and Goal 5: improve safety and
supervision planning for the child. It should be noted that Ms. Z’s parental
rehabilitation should be measured by progress ratings, standardized outcome
measures, CPS collateral, and service attendance within a 90 day timeframe. In
accordance to standard treatment plans, Ms. Z’s estimated parental rehabilitation was
calculated at 50% upon the successful participation and completion of twenty-four
(24) consecutive counseling sessions in 180 days.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Case Scenario 6
________________________________________________________________________
Client: Doug X. Male (DOB: 9/18/71)
Assessment Date: 9/27/04
Assessment Tools Used:
Review of Records
Clinical Interview
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3)
Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, & Strengths (IORNS)
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA)
Purpose of Referral: Offender Risk Assessment/Violence Risk Assessment:
To determine Ms. X’s criminal risk potential and treatment relative to his condition
of probation.
Review of Records:
On 9/24/04-9/25/04, Mr. X. was referred for a mental health evaluation for a
parole hearing by the state courts. He was convicted of aggravated assault of his wife
Susanne. He has had previous police reports for family violence and assault involving
Susanne in 2011 and 2012. However, no case was prosecuted since Susanne refused
to uphold the charges. Mr. X. also sold and used controlled substances to earn
income; and has forced Susanne to take drugs for sexual intercourse. It was reported
that Susanne‘s alleged “affairs” led to Mr. X’s mental health deterioration and
subsequent last violent criminal offense. His cognitive assessment at the time
indicated that there were no signs of psychosis (no hallucinations or delusions). His
MMPI-2 profile at the time, indicated underlying emotional problems that were
consistent with a Mood Disorder. During his initial evaluation, he denied any
homicidal ideations or plans during the offense. Mr. X’s MMPI-2 profile revealed the
following psychopathic deviate score: (Pd, T score = 65). Specifically, Mr. X. had no
psychiatric history.
Clinical Interview:
Mr. X’s current mini-mental status examination indicated that his affect and mood
were in normal limits, with no suicidal/homicidal ideations or plans. His cognitive
functioning was also in normal limits, with no reports of psychotic symptoms.
During the interview, he indicated that he only committed minor violations of state
prison rules while incarcerated in the past seven years (e.g. tobacco possession). He
reported working weekly making clothing and attending school. He also reported
limited social interactions with other inmates; and the avoidance of associations that
create difficulties.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
Mr. X. reported the completion of an associate’s degree in business while
incarcerated; and currently taking additional college courses in business for his
bachelor’s degree. He reported remorse and responsibility for his past criminal
offense; and admitted that the state helped him understand how to handle
relationships and family in the future. He noted that his introductory course at the
state jail indicated that over 80% of his fellow inmates will be repeat offenders; and
that his intentions are not to re-offend and complete his parole successfully.
Assessment Data:
The SA-45 was utilized to objectively assess Mr. X’s self-reported psychosocial functioning.
The results of the SA-45 indicated the following: (DEP, T score= 60), (ANX, T score = 51),
(PHO, T score = 54), (PSY, T scores = 80), (INT, T score = 55), (SOM, T score = 58), and
(HOS, T score = 53). His IORNS dynamic profile indicated the following scores:
current changeable risk patterns= 28%; protective strength index = 38%; overall reoffense risk potential = 77%. His IORNS favorable impression index = 95%. The
MMPI-2 results indicated the following: (F, T score = 85). (L, T score = 77), K (K, T score
= 87), (Hy, T score = 50), (D, T score = 51), (Hy, T score = 58), (Pd, T score = 74), (Pa, T
score = 79), (Pt, T score = 55), (Sc, T score = 66), and (Ma, T score = 53), and (Si, T score
= 66). His SARA scores also indicated the following: (total raw score =50) and
(number of factors present =15)
Recommendations:
Mr. X is likely to exhibit a low therapeutic compliance and high dystonic risk
patterns for child abuse and domestic violence (Chandler, 2013). Mr. X. is likely to
have a chronic legal problems that places him at a high probability for CPS
investigations and criminal cases. Mr. X’s criminal history will likely be for assault,
drug possession, and firearm possession. Mr. X. is likely to have a series of
misdemeanor violations, probation, and/or child custody/paternal issues in the
future. He is also likely to have inconsistent employment due to his criminal record.
Mr. X. may have an initial interest in court services to avoid or manipulate legal
consequences (e.g. court ordered child support payments). Based on the
psychological assessment data, Mr. X. is likely to have inconsistent reports or minor
problems with valid profiles. For this reason, he will often report being falsely
accused of crimes and actions that cannot be proven or lack evidence. Mr. X. will
likely have interpersonal difficulties He will often seek relationships for dominance
and control over docile paramours, thus becoming abusive to partners or paramours.
Supervised visitations are strongly recommended for Mr. X. He may also become
violent and exhibit mood fluctuations. During interviews or therapy, Mr. X. is likely
to exhibit the Professional (criminal) personality characteristics during therapeutic
journaling or individual counseling sessions (Chandler, 2013). Therefore, his
manipulative thinking and criminal orientation is often the core feature that places
Mr. X’s child at-risk for neglect and abuse. Mr. X. may also use drugs recreationally
and professionally; and thus, commit unsafe acts around their children (e.g. buy, use,
or deal drugs). Mr. X. may utilize corporal punishments regularly for discipline and
his bond with his child is also low or non-existent.
Donald S. Chandler, Jr., Ph.D. © 2014
The emotional instability and/or drug use patterns are less likely treated without
court ordered interventions. It is essential to conduct urine and hair follicle drug
screens. For Mr. X., the core features of counseling are legal stability, relapse
prevention, safety & supervision planning, and community resources (Chandler,
2013). These services will often be described as “classes” he has to take for
probation or CPS. If a child is removed from Mr. X., it is likely that CPS or the court
will seek parental termination due to frequent violations in service planning or court
orders. Mr. X. is likely to only rehabilitate under strict CPS and court ordered
treatment regimens that are greater than 12 months in duration. The treatment
efficacy is likely to be within the moderate range within a 6-month interval. Mr. X’s
children are likely to exhibit a disorganized attachment style during observations or
family counseling sessions.

---

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

• Plagiarism free papers
• Timely delivery
• Any deadline
• Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
• Subject-relevant academic writer
• Adherence to paper instructions
• Ability to tackle bulk assignments
• Reasonable prices
• 24/7 Customer Support
• Get superb grades consistently

 

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects

Literature

Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.

Finance

Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!

Psychology

While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.

Engineering

Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.

Nursing

In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.

Sociology

Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.

Business

We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!

Statistics

We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.

Law

Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

• When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
• We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

• The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
• We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
• Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment  Help Service Works

1.      Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2.      Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3.      Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4.      Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

---