DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COU

TY, COLORADO
201 Laporte Ave., Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2761
(970) 498 6100
_________________________________________
)
In re the Marriage of:
)
)
LISA MARIE PE DLETO , Petitioner,
)
)
and
)
)
KEVI PATRICK MAGUIRE, Respondent. )
)
_________________________________________
STATE OF MI ESOTA

Expert Witness Report of

R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D.

Case o: 04DR116 Division: 5D

)
)

COU TY OF HE EPI

1.

I, R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D., LP -- a licensed psychologist (TX,

M ), licensed attorney (M and many other states and/or U.S. Federal jurisdictions via
pro hac vice) and national expert witness (in many states and/or Federal jurisdictions) -have agreed to serve as an expert witness in psychology and methodology in this matter.
As a former member of the Board of Psychology of the State of Minnesota, a former
Special Assistant Attorney General of the State of Utah, and a national expert in
psychology and law, I have participated in the prosecution of misconduct by many
professionals in many states. As the prosecution expert witness in psychology I testified
in a well-known criminal trial in Colorado (See, Lowe, Peggy. Ethics specialist blasts
'rebirthing'. Rocky Mountain ews, April 13, 2001; See also, Janofsky, M. Girl's Death
Brings Ban on Kind of 'Therapy', ew York Times, April 18, 2001 ; See also, Peggy
Lowe, Rebirthing team convicted: Two therapists face mandatory terms of 16 to 48 years in
jail, Rocky Mountain ews, April 21, 2001). As a national expert in child psychology I
am familiar with the relevant science of memory, memory contamination, parental

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

alienation processes, starndards of care for psychotherapy as well as other relevant

issues. As an expert in the methodology of abuse investigations, I have given invited
addresses to Sex Crimes Investigator Associations in several jurisdictions. I am a
member of the relevant scientific community (Daubert/Kumho and Frye standards) and
I have published in, and/or served as an editor or reviewer for, several of the most
highly regarded journals and texts in a number of relevant professional fields including
Developmental Psychology, Child Development, Psychological Bulletin, Ambulatory
Pediatrics, Advances in Child Clinical Psychology, the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and the Harvard Journal on Legislation. An
updated and complete copy of my resume should be attached to this report.
As an expert witness, I have reviewed a complex, detailed, and extensive set of
documentary information from this case as well as relevant scientific research. My
opinions are bounded by the well-known limitations on documentary evidence. I have
prepared this initial report. I have not conducted any personal interviews at this stage
of my investigation. If called to testify as an expert witness, I will testify as set forth in
this report although my opinions at any subsequent hearings or trials may be more
complete and detailed. I look forward to reviewing additional records or any other
relevant information that may become available.

2.
SUMMARY OF CURRE T OPI IO S TO A REASO ABLE DEGREE
OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CERTAI TY (within the limitations of social science):

OVERALL SUMMARY: This case appears to one of the most mismanaged and
mishandled family law/mental health cases I have seen in the United States (over many
jurisdictions) in the past decade. Despite being home to several internationally respected
institutions of higher learning (U.C., Boulder; University of Denver) the State of Colorado
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

has been known to foster corrupt and dangerously incompetent mental health practices.
Perhaps the best-known example is the rebirthing/holding therapy that led to an
infamous Colorado criminal case. I served as the psychology and mental health ethics
expert for the prosecution in that case. (See, Lowe, Peggy. Ethics specialist blasts
'rebirthing'. Rocky Mountain ews, April 13, 2001; See also, Janofsky, M. Girl's Death
Brings Ban on Kind of 'Therapy', ew York Times, April 18, 2001 ; See also, Peggy Lowe,
Rebirthing team convicted: Two therapists face mandatory terms of 16 to 48 years in jail,
Rocky Mountain ews, April 21, 2001).
The present Pendleton v. Maguire case appears to be another extraordinary failure
of local systems to function within the bounds of minimal standards of care for attorneys
and mental health professionals. The hypothesis that Dr. Maguire (the Father) abused
his children appears to have been repeatedly and energetically investigated with apparently
no charges, no prosecutions, and no convictions of any kind at any time. The equally
plausible hypothesis, that Ms. Pendleton (the Mother), has been orchestrating a criminal
(i.e., obstruction of justice) and emotionally abusive campaign of parental alienation against
the father has apparently and astonishingly been ignored. A responsible review of the
record in this case reflects strong support for the hypothesis that the mother has been
engaged in manipulative, reckless and even criminal efforts to alienate the father from his
own children. The mothers apparently well-documented misconduct against the essential
relationships of the Maguire children appears to have been tolerated or even encouraged by
the local family law system. Egregious misconduct and negligence by a series of mental
health professionals appears to have also caused grave harm to this family.

The following appear to be serious issues in this case:

OPI IO 1. The record documents what appears to be an irresponsible, and
apparently criminal campaign of Parental Alienation by the mother against the father. The
mothers well-documented misconduct also appears to provide the basis for a prima facie
case of obstruction of justice. Parental alienation of this severity is often viewed as a form
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

of emotional child abuse and often leads to a reversal of child custody.

It appears from this record that the mother has repeatedly make allegations of
abuse without any reliable or substantive evidence of such abuse. It appears that the
mothers multiple allegations have led to ZERO prosecutions, ZERO convictions, and
ZERO findings of abuse in (at least) three different jurisdictions -- Michigan, Alaska and
Colorado. The mother also appears to have filed unsuccessful allegations against Dr.
Maguire with multiple medical licensing boards. In what appears to be a rather
extraordinary failure of standard processes, the family legal system has apparently failed to
act to halt the mothers irresponsible pattern of misconduct despite substantial (video)
evidence that the mother has been systematically attempting to manipulate the legal system,
coach/contaminate witnesses (e.g. obstruction of justice), and alienate the children from
their natural father. It appears quite extraordinary that this father has apparently been
denied normal visitation over a period of many years based upon what appear to be such
unreliable claims buttressed by a stream of unprofessional and incompetent mental health
practitioners.

The hypothesis that the mother is engaged in a pattern of reckless, abusive parental
alienation criminal misconduct (i.e. obstruction of justice) in this case is supported by
evidence including but not limited to the following:

MULTIPLE FAILED ALLEGATIO S BY THE MOTHER: The records I have

reviewed appear to document that the mother has engineered multiple allegations of abuse
by the father in multiple jurisdictions with no arrests, no prosecutions, and no convictions.
In many jurisdictions such an obvious pattern of irrational allegations could quickly lead to
a reversal of child custody.

CHILD ABDUCTIO BY THE MOTHER TO I JURE THE FATHERs

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

RELATIO SHIP WITH THE CHILDRE : The records I have reviewed reflect that the
Maguire children were apparently entered into bogus and incompetent psychotherapy in
Michigan. The mother then apparently secretly siphoned off family funds and abducted the
children to Alaska. Once in Alaska, the mother again apparently entered the children into
inappropriate therapy. In some jurisdictions, such apparently reckless, irrational and
emotionally abusive misconduct might, by itself, have led to the mothers loss of custody or
to her prosecution.

CLEAR VIDEO EVIDE CE OF OBSTRUCTIO OF JUSTICE: The records I

have reviewed appear to document obstruction of justice by the mother. See, the interview
of Catherine Maguire on Oct. 29, 2004 in which the child clearly relates how her mother told
Catherine that the father (Dr. Maguire) abused Catherine. The failure of the local system to
investigate and prosecute this obviously egregious and abusive misconduct, along with the
failure to move rapidly to protect the children from such obvious emotional abuse, seems
highly unusual and should, in my opinion, result in a Federal investigation of the
interviewer and any officials who have reviewed this tape and did nothing about it. The key
issues are who knew about this attempt to fabricate eyewitness testimony and when did they
know it? Clearly the interviewer who heard this astounding disclosure appears either
extraordinarily incompetent or an actual participant in a process to manipulate the system
and produce allegations against the father at all costs.
Clear video evidence of the mothers apparent misconduct and obstruction of
justice apparently appears on the filmed forensic interview of the daughter
Catherine made on Oct 29, 2004. (on page 21 of the transcript) In response to a
question about possible touching Catherine answers " my mom told me about it,
that it was my other dad (Maguire), and he did it in Michigan...(at 25:02)
A more detailed review of this video shows us why no law enforcement agency could
possibly prosecute the father based on such obvious evidence of witness
contamination, witness coaching, and obstruction of justice.
Transcript of the Oct. 29, 2004 interview

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Page 15 Catherine: And I was the first one to tell her (mom or sister) that it
was my other dad [doing the bad touching].
PAGE 21
JM: How could you tell that it was Kevin doing the touching?
Catherine: Because, ummuhI dont quite remember that one.

Catherine: I saw him doing something, but I didnt know what it was. now
THAT MY MOM TOLD ME ABOUT IT, THAT IT WAS MY OTHER
DAD [Maguire] and he did it in Michigan
JM: Um-hmm.
Catherine: Then, umm. What was it again?
JM: Well, you were tellyou were telling me about how was thatcause I was
asking how did you know that your brother and sister were touched? Was
it cause you saw them be touched? Or was it because you
Catherine: My
JM: heard like from your mom or someone that they were touched? Was it
cause they told you they were touched? Or something else?
26:16
Catherine: I THI9K MY MOM TOLD ME.
This tape clearly appears to document why no prosecution of Dr. Maguire would
have been possible or rational. The mystery is why, given the evidence on this video record,
the mother has not yet been prosecuted or lost custody of the children. How is it possible that
these children have been left in the care of such a mother? From a law enforcement
perspective, why did the investigative interviewer fail to ask the child essential follow-up
questions such as WHE did the mother tamper with this witness, HOW OFTE did the
mother instruct the child in fabricated testimony, and other essential investigative
questions. I suggest that the F.B.I. be contacted to investigate what may well turn out to be
a case of corruption (e.g. obstruction of justice) in the local abuse investigation system.

EVIDE CE OF THE MOTHERs CO TEMPT OF COURT It is my

understanding from the record that a Court-appointed (Michigan) custody investigation
resulted in O finding of abuse by the Father. It is further my understanding that this
official finding was made following and incorporating full investigations by Michigan law
enforcement as well as the Michigan Department of Social Services. It is further my
understanding that upon learning of the finding of no abuse, the mother told the Michigan
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Custody Evaluator that she would keep the Father from having unsupervised time with the
children regardless of what any Court ruled. Again, given this record, it seems quite
extraordinary that vulnerable children would be left in the care of what appears to be a
reckless, manipulative, mother who has apparently demonstrated such obvious contempt
for the law and the court.

OPI IO 2. Unethical and incompetent procedures and methods by mental

health professionals should not be permitted to taint the family law system.
SYSTEMIC EVIDE CE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY MALPRACTICE Given
limitations on time and funding, in this initial report I will not document the many
indications of therapist malpractice and licensing violations that appear in this record.
Renowned national expert Prof. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D., Professor, of Psychology at
Emory University has apparently commented on some of the misconduct by mental health
professionals in this case. I agree with Professor Lilienfeld who wrote it is my professional
opinion that the level of professional care afforded to Dr. Maguires children was grossly
inadequate by contemporary evidence-based practice standards, and neglected a number of
well-documented scientific findings concerning childrens memory, suggestibility, recovered
memory procedures, and confirmation bias. I also believe that, in conjunction with
probable coaching from Dr. Maguires ex-wife, the therapeutic procedures to which his
children were exposed placed them at serious risk for false memories of abuse. In many
respects, this appears to be a textbook case of inappropriate therapy practice, one might
have hoped would by now be a thing of the past given recent scientific knowledge.
In addition, I have reviewed the June 29, 2005 report of Lisa Kurth, M.S., LPC who
wrote, this letter of concern is written to you on behalf of my observations of the
questionably ethical standards that appears to be lacking in the approach utlilized in the
outpatient treatment of these (Maguire) children with Child Safes treatment protocol.
After my careful review of the documents associated with this case including DVDs of
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Child Safe interviews involving the Maguire children, I am left with the conclusion that
Child Safes approach to intervention in this case of suspected child sexual abuse is one
riddled with countless therapeutic inconsistencies and sub-standard ethics that would raise
the eyebrows of most state-board regulatory agencies. I agree with this part of Mr.
Kurths report and could add many pages of specific indications of abusive, malpractice by
mental health workers in this case.
VALUABLE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS BY THE CHILDRE Given the
number and severity of negligent errors by mental health professionals, the Maguire
children appear to have very substantial and valuable claims for psychotherapy malpractice
against a number of psychotherapists who have been involved in this case. The childrens
guardians should be informed of these potentially very valuable claims for failures of
assessment, failures of informed consent, failures to use efficacious therapy methods, failure
to inform courts and others of the limitations on the therapy methods used, failure to
inform courts and others of the limitations on clinical judgment, boundary and role
conflicts, failures to expose the apparent misconduct of the mother, and other problems.
Local civil attorneys should be consulted to review these cases noting that in many
jurisdictions, the childrens malpractice claims might not expire until after they become
adults.

OPI IO 3. Well trained mental health professionals and scientists understand

that incompetent and suggestive interviews by adults, and suggestive memory
contaminating training -- such as that documented in the video interview of Catherine
Maguire -- can produce vivid, false memories in children.

Renowned national expert Prof. Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D., Professor, of Psychology

at Emory University has commented in this case on some of the research regarding
childrens memories (See, report of Dr. Lilienfeld). It is now widely agreed that children,
especially pre-school children, can be highly susceptible to leading questions and other
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

suggestions from adults (Ceci & Bruck, 1993). These questions and suggestions are, in
many children, capable of distorting memories, thus producing false and misleading
memory reports. As Stephen Ceci (of Cornell University) and Maggie Bruck (of the Johns
Hopkins University), two experts on the psychology of childhood memory, have noted
children can indeed be led to make false or inaccurate reports about very crucial,
personally experienced, central events (p. 432). In addition, they concluded that although
pre-school childrens memories are sometimes accurate, such memories should be regarded
with skepticism when they are elicited by adults who are motivated to engage in relentless
and potent suggestions and outright coaching (p. 433). These conclusions are, in my
opinion, widely supported by the relevant scientific community.
We now have compelling scientific evidence that memories of abuse that are
produced, recovered, uncovered, or first reported in psychotherapy, should be
treated with great skepticism (See, Ceci and Bruck, 1995; Lambert & Lilienfeld, 2007;
Loftus, 2003). This is especially true when the therapist claims to be an expert in abuse
or is poorly trained.
Therefore, therapists who unearth purported memories of abuse from children
who have never previously reported such abuse should be highly skeptical of these
memories unless they are accompanied by convincing external corroboration. The results
of numerous controlled studies indicate that certain suggestive procedures (those that
suggest to clients that they might have been abused), such as repeated and leading
questions, repeated cues and prompts, guided imagery, doll play, and the use of abuse
journals or diaries, are especially likely to give rise to false memories in a sizeable subset
of therapy clients (Lynn, Lock, Loftus, Krackow, & Lilienfeld, 2003). Indeed, several
investigations demonstrate that repeated questioning poses a particular problem among
young children; such questions can sometimes inadvertently implant false memories (Ceci
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

& Bruck, 1995). evertheless, studies also show that childrens memory reports can be
tainted by only a single suggestive interview (Garven, Wood, & Malpass, 2000; Thompson,
Clarke-Stewart, & Lepore, 1997). THE COURT IS URGED TO COMPARE THIS
RESEARCH WITH THE APPARE TLY CLUMSY, ABUSIVE, WIT ESS TAMPERI G
BY THE MOTHER SO CLEARLY DOCUME TED I THE VIDEOTAPED
I TERVIEW OF CATHERI E MAGUIRE as described above.
The relevant scientific community agrees that even the most well trained and highly
experienced professionals CA99OT reliably distinguish true from false reports of abuse in
children (Bruck & Ceci, in press; Leichtman & Ceci, 1995). Therapists who claim, based on
(bogus) clinical experience that they know when to believe the children -- in the
absence of clear corroborating evidence -- should be reported to the State licensing
authorities for disciplinary and license revocation investigations.

OPI IO 4. In general, children do best with two parents and these children
deserve normal relationships with both parents. Such essential relationships should be
protected not denigrated by local family law systems.

This case records a reckless and apparently criminal (but tragically successful)
manipulation of the family legal system by the mother. In contrast, her clumsy, ham-fisted
attempts to manipulate the criminal justice system apparently failed time after time.
Similarly, her clumsy attempts to manipulate the medical licensing system apparently also
failed repeatedly.
It is tragic that the family law system failed to provide the same diligence of process
shown by the criminal and licensing systems. The best interests of the children (and natural
father) seem to have been forgotten in this process. In the clear absence of any substantive
evidence of abuse, one parent should never have been able to successfully game the
therapy and family law system to alienate, denigrate and virtually eliminate the fathers
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

relationships with his children. Alienating the relationship of a child with a natural parent
is often best viewed as a form of serious emotional child abuse. Legal systems can facilitate
rational post-divorce behavior or exacerbate and inflame misconduct. Tragically, this
family appears to have been very poorly served by the family law and mental health
systems. Strictly enforcing normal parent-child visitation (or completely reversing custody
if resistance continues) could be the only way to correct apparently chronic, criminal,
manipulative misconduct such as the mothers behavior in this case.

2A.
IT APPEARS ESSE TIAL I THIS CASE FOR THE COURT TO BE AWARE
OF THE SERIOUS PROBLEM OF PARE TAL ALIE ATIO .

Protecting the fundamental rights of parents and children to unfettered family

relationships should be the primary responsibility and essential goal of the family law
system. Preventing the mistreatment of children is another primary responsibility and
essential goal of the family law system. Family law professionals should strive to reduce the
incidence of child abuse, assist victims of abuse, and punish those who harm children.
Efforts to reach and balance these critical goals must be based in fact rather than prejudice,
science rather than hysteria, and reason rather than political ideology. Children must be
vigorously protected from all forms of abuse including physical abuse and neglect, sexual
abuse, and emotional abuse -- including mistreatment and harm caused by alienating
parents, science-illiterate attorneys, poorly trained evaluators, and negligent physicians and
psychotherapists (Barden, 1994; Barden, 2001a; Hagen, 1997; Dawes, 1997; Lilienfeld et al.,
2003).

Legal processes that fail to properly balance the essential goals of family law may
create or exacerbate familial problems -- including parental alienation processes (PAP) and
related processes (note this is not a syndrome but an abusive training process where
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

parents lead and coach children to denigrate the other parent). PAP has generally been
described as a process in which children's attitudes, beliefs and memories are manipulated
by a parent until such children actively dishonor, dislike, and/or fear a once loved parent or
other relative. In such cases, the parent and manipulated child engage in a campaign of
denigration towards the targeted parent. (American Psychological Association, 1994:
Gardner, 2003; Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001; Warshak, 2001a; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980,
Cartwright, 1993). Surveys of high conflict families in custody proceedings indicate that
PAS and related processes are distressingly common in high conflict custody cases (Clavar
& Rivlin, 1991; Bone & Walsh, 1999).

In a larger sense, parental alienation behaviors go far beyond manipulating the

attitudes of children. Analyses of PAP-related processes should also include all unethical
attempts to harm, distress and/or imprison the targeted parent -- even if such acts do not
include efforts to manipulate the child's beliefs, attitudes, and memories. In addition, as the
following analysis explains in detail, PAP and related processes often involve much more
than the troubled behaviors of a single parent. Ignorance, misconduct, and negligence by
local family law and affiliated professionals can be primary causes of the serious harms that
result from PAP and related processes.

In practice, PAP and related alienation processes are often readily discernible to
properly trained experts and judges. Such cases typically involve a series of quite
predictable attempts to manipulate or control the legal process -- and damage the targeted
parent -- by filing false criminal allegations of abuse, repeatedly failing to honor court
orders regarding visitation, repeatedly failing to honor settlement agreements, attempting to
manipulate witnesses (including and especially children), contaminating teachers
perceptions with biasing misinformation, hiring incompetent therapists to validate abuse
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

claims, and/or other unethical actions. Such abusive acts are limited only by the creativity of
the offending parent and the parent's advisors.

PAP and related alienation processes are best viewed as forms of emotional abuse
(Gardner, 1998; Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001; Warshak, 2001a; Wallerstein & Kelly,
1980). Unless halted by judicial action, PAP and related processes may pose a significant risk
of psychological, social and financial injury to children and families. Failure to properly
evaluate and deal with PAP and alienating behaviors often produces years of unnecessary
litigation, oppressive expense and -- far too often -- the tragic destruction of once cherished
family relationships.

PARE TAL ALIE ATIO PROCESSES (PAP) (not a syndrome) ARE WELL
DOCUME TED CO CEPTS

There is a good deal of confusion in some segments of the legal community

regarding the term parental alienation syndrome. There is, at this time, insufficient
evidence to use the term syndrome and such medical terminology is of little benefit. More
importantly, the basic, psychological processes underlying PAP have been well documented
in the peer reviewed professional literature over many decades. Reliable research on the
processes underlying PAP has been published in the highest quality peer reviewed journals.
In sum, the theoretical foundations of PAP are, in fact, built upon some of the most reliable
and best documented of all psychological processes -- parental influences on children.

Academic and clinical researchers in the fields of developmental (child) psychology,

social psychology, anthropology, clinical psychology and psychiatry have spent decades
documenting the ways in which children's (and adults) memories, emotions and attitudes
can be changed by the influence of powerful others -- especially authority figures. (Ceci &

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Bruck, 1996; Ofshe & Watters, 1996; Cialdini, 1993; Mazzoni & Memon, 2003; Loftus,
1997; Bruck & Ceci, 1995; etc.). Currently, it is incontestable in the relevant scientific
communities that parental influence processes are well understood and widely documented.
The successful transmission of culture itself depends upon the ability of parents to instill
beliefs, emotions, and memories in children.

There can be no credible controversy about the power of parents to influence

children (for better or worse). It is unfortunate that in reviewing PAP issues, courts have
often stumbled over the meaning of technical terms such as syndrome. the inclusion of
specific labels in official diagnostic manuals, and other largely irrelevant minutiae -- thus
missing the critical obligation to carefully review the influence of parents, therapists or
other adults on the attitudes, beliefs and memories of children (Bruck & Ceci, 1995).

Although the underlying psychological mechanisms -- parental influence processes - that cause and sustain PAP are well understood and documented, rigorous longitudinal
research on the long term consequences of PAP has not yet been completed. Fully
understanding how to prevent and treat the long term consequences of PAP and related
processes will require rigorous scientific investigation by clinical, social science and legal
professionals. This research should be done at major university medical centers, university
psychological programs, and similar settings by professional researchers. Such research
should be published in the official journals of the leading professional associations in
psychiatry, psychology and related fields (the American Psychological Society, American
Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and American Psychiatric
Association) -- not trauma, abuse, therapy, or other politicized journals published
by specialty clique associations. Researchers in this field should guard themselves against
the social, professional, and economic pressures and even personal attacks that may
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

accompany such politically charged research issues. The focus of this research should be on
determining the ways in which parents may improve or harm parent-child relationships
with ex-spouses and the long-term consequences of such actions. Given this information,
courts will be better able to create behavioral contingencies to encourage and enforce
kinder, more supportive, and more honorable interactions between ex-spouses.

Although academic psychologists are just now beginning to study the specific, longterm effects of PAP, the obvious harmful impacts of PAP and related processes on children
and families have long been noted by observant judges and attorneys. In a number of
jurisdictions, there is a tradition of awarding a change of custody where the custodial
parent has improperly interfered with the fundamental parental rights of an ex-spouse
(Borris, 1997).

Despite the strong scientific foundation documenting the underlying mechanisms of

PAP and related alienation processes (e.g. parental influence processes), the almost total
lack of basic scientific training among attorneys and mental health clinicians has resulted in
some courts losing the forest (the well documented effects of parental influence on children)
for the trees (details of defining a medical syndrome and other often irrelevant minutiae).
Given the decades of reliable, hard science research documenting parental influences on
children, courts need not wait for more specific research on PAP to act decisively when
faced with evidence of willful and manipulative efforts to harm parent-child relationships.
Legal and scientific communities share a sacred obligation to prevent children from
becoming pawns in custody litigation.

In short, although much scientific work will be required to fully understand the
long-term consequences of PAP, powerful parental alienation processes have been well
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

documented over several decades by scientists and professionals in a number of relevant

fields. (American Psychological Association, 1994; Gardner, 1998; Gardner, 1985; Gardner,
1986; Gardner, 2003; Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001; Warshak, 2001b; Wallerstein & Kelly,
1980, Cartwright, 1993; Clavar & Rivlin, 1991; Bone & Walsh, 1999).

THE LEGAL SYSTEM CA PREVE T SUCH CASES BUT OFTE

EXACERBATES THEM:

An important step towards preventing and/or terminating parental alienation and

related processes is for family law professionals to cease and desist from practices that
create or exacerbate unnecessary familial conflict. Such practices include failing to
consistently and promptly sanction alienating parents for unethical behaviors such as: filing
false abuse charges, perjury, coercing children into making false statements, submitting false
information to evaluators, surreptitiously taking children to therapists known to validate
abuse claims. and other hostile, alienating acts. When courts fail to appropriately sanction
such serious misconduct it sends a clear message to the alienator that they may take free
shots at the targeted parent without consequence. Often, such judicial indifference results
in years of unproductive legal hearings that may: 1) bankrupt the family (while unjustly
enriching the local family law system); 2) result in months of worthless therapy for
nonexistent emotional problems (thus unjustly enriching family law affiliated mental
health professionals) and; 3) result in numerous unnecessary custody evaluations, often
including junk science assessment methodology (and also unjustly enriching these affiliated
experts).

In contrast, courts could, in many cases, aggressively enforce simple rules of

appropriate conduct (e.g. obeying visitation rulings that respect the right of both parents to
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

an unfettered relationship with children, complying with previous settlement agreements,

not filing false allegations, audio taping all phone calls between parents) and thus save
families much emotional trauma, years of he said versus she said unproductive litigation,
and tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in unnecessary family law, expert and
therapist fees.

In sum, PAP and related cases often result from a series of negligent acts by local
family law affiliated professionals. Such acts may include:
1) experts improperly using bogus assessment instruments (e.g. drawing tests,
ink blots, or other tests not validated by peer reviewed published research studies) (Grove
& Barden, 2000; Grove et al. 2002);
2) experts claiming a need for therapy when more reliable sources of
information (e.g. school records) show the children to be functioning quite well;
3) local family lawyers failing to competently cross-examine local experts and
therapists because they often hire the very same experts in other cases while such
egregious conflicts of interest are rarely disclosed to clients;
4) local family lawyers failing to file motions to exclude junk science evaluations via
Frye/Daubert junk science hearings (Kumho Tire, 1999);
5) courts ordering children and adults into negligent therapies that are not
validated by peer reviewed treatment outcome studies (Bickman, 1999); and
6) courts repeatedly failing to enforce basic laws and standards of behavior -permitting even multiple false allegations, willful violations of visitation agreements, and
other harmful acts to go unpunished, thus providing powerful incentives for more attacks
by the alienator on the targeted parent. Such misconduct often results in months or even
years of unnecessary litigation, producing emotional and other damages to the family and
unjust enrichment for the local family law and affiliated professionals.
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

HOW LEGAL PROFESSIO ALS COULD REDUCE OR ELIMI ATE

PARE TAL ALIE ATIO A D RELATED PROCESSES

Legal professionals contribute to PAP problems by 1) setting up inappropriate

behavioral contingencies, 2) failing to enforce minimal standards for appropriate,
responsible parental behavior, 3) admitting junk science expert testimony, 4) failing to
competently cross-examine bogus expert witness testimony and 5) failing to create the
necessary multi-disciplinary legal/science teams to deal with complex legal/science cases.

On the other hand, legal professionals may prevent, reduce or eliminate PAP and
related problems with simple acts of reason and educated good judgment. The most
important change must be the essential realization that JD-only attorneys simply lack the
scientific knowledge and training to competently select or cross-examine therapists,
evaluators, and experts in complex family law cases. Acquiring a competent science
consultant in such cases (from local university faculty or national experts) must be a
minimal standard of care for family attorneys in the 21st Century. Failure to comply with
this simple rule often ends in years of unnecessary, expensive litigation without clear results.
The presence of a competent science-intensive litigation consultant greatly decreases the
dangers of junk science evaluations, injurious unvalidated therapies and other common
errors.

Judges can reduce or eliminate PAP and related processes by enforcing order in the
process. For example, an expectation of clear, forceful, serious sanctions for misconduct
would deter most parents from even beginning the process of alienation with their children.
As one commentator noted:

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

If parents who engage in PAP know that aware judges may give custody to the
innocent parent, and perhaps apply sanctions against parents who use a child to
prevent the other parent's access to the child, then PAP, which is itself a form of
child abuse, may suffer a fatal and well-deserved setback (Levy, 1992).

Currently, too many courts fail to enforce their own rulings or even provide for follow-up
procedures, thus reducing the power and majesty of the legal system to a kind of ineffectual
psychotherapist -- complete with endless talking and negotiating without any meaningful
enforcement of agreements. In fact, the lack of a swift, clear sanction is often perceived by
the alienator as a green light to proceed with additional alienating, manipulative, unethical
misconduct. Inaction or late action by courts is often devastating to the family involved as
the alienator's bad behavior is reinforced, the targeted parent's nightmarish persecution
continues, the children are injured emotionally (and financially) by the expensive,
contentious custody war that ensues. Many parents simply walk away and lose years of
contact with their children rather than deal with the dysfunctional family law system.
Inaction or late action by courts -- though ultimately financially enriching to the local
family law and affiliated professionals -- is best viewed as enabling the abuse of children via
PAP and related processes.

2B.
MISCO DUCT OR I COMPETE T PRACTICES OF ME TAL HEALTH
PROFESSIO ALS SHOULD OT TAI T THE LEGAL PROCESS. THE COURT A D
PARTIES I THIS CASE SHOULD BE AWARE THAT CUSTODY EVALUATIO S and
THERAPY I THESE KI DS OF CUSTODY CASES ARE COMMO SOURCES OF
EGREGIOUS MALPRACTICE A D MISCO DUCT I THE ME TAL HEALTH
PROFESSIO S -- ALL SHOULD STRIVE TO PROTECT CHILDRE FROM THE MOST
COMMO A D SERIOUS ERRORS.

As a former member of the Minnesota State Board of Psychology, a former faculty

member in a major Ph.D. training program and medical school and as a former Special Assistant

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Attorney General prosecuting mental health misconduct, I wish to inform the court of the dangers
of over-reliance upon controversial and unreliable mental health methodologies.

It has often been observed by national experts that common family law "custody
evaluations" and therapy for non-illnesses are a source of widespread negligence, misconduct or
even fraud in the mental health professions. Grove, W. M. and Barden, R.C. (2000) Protecting the
Integrity of the Legal System : The Admissibility of Testimony from Mental Health Experts Under
Daubert/Kumho Analyses, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Vol 5, o. 1, 234-242. (much
mental health testimony in family law is junk science); See also, Barden, R. C. "Protecting the
Integrity of the Legal System: Eliminating Junkscience "Expert" Testimony with Science
Intensive Litigation Methods", Invited address to the American Bar Association Litigation Section
ational Meetings, Phoenix, Arizona, May 11, 2001; See, Hagen, Margaret. Whores of the Court:
The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice. Harper Collins Press.
1997. (See, Robert E. Emery, Randy K. Otto, and William T. O'Donohue A Critical Assessment
of Child Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System, Volume 6, umber 1, July
2005. (also Editorial by Eleanor E. Maccoby), See also, work by Dawes and Garb).
Consider the following information published in leading peer-reviewed professional
journals:
In disputed cases, judges have come to rely heavily on expert evaluators to
determine the childs best interests. The authors analysis of the weaknesses of these
evaluations is sobering indeed. I can only applaud their judgment that standard
measures of parents and childrens intelligence, personality traits, and emotional
states are wholly inappropriate for custody evaluations, and that even the measures
and constructs that have been designed specifically to assess child custody
arrangements for individual children have no proven validity as predictors of a
childs well-being in the care of one or the other of two disputing parents (2005,
See, E. Maccoby summary as well as the article by Emery et al)
In the past 15 years, psychologists have developed a number of forensic assessment
instruments purporting to assess childrens best interests in custody disputes (see
Grisso, 2003). Our bottom-line evaluation of these measures is a harsh one: These
measures assess ill-defined constructs, and they do so poorly, leaving no scientific
justification for their use in child custody evaluations. (Emery et al).

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Common signs of professional misconduct in "custody evaluations" include but are not
limited to: reliance on unreliable personality tests, over-pathologizing (income generating)
misdiagnoses, requests for "treatment" when school records and teacher reports indicate normal
adjustment, failure to specify "treatments" for which documented, empirical evidence of safety
and effectiveness exists, and other common errors.

Many of the problems with "custody evaluations" could be avoided if legal professionals
were conversant with the relevant mental health ethics codes. Sadly for children, too many family
law professionals are not conversant with these codes and thus many "custody evaluations"
contain serious ethics violations that go unchallenged by cross examination.

Another serious error commonly seen in "custody evaluations" and unnecessary

therapy is reliance upon the "clinical judgment" of the mental health professional (e.g. social
worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, etc). Decades of research cast great doubt on the alleged
expertise of mental health professionals in such matters. For example:

In, Rogers, R., & Ewing, C.P. (1989). Ultimate opinion proscriptions: A cosmetic fix and a plea for
empiricism. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 357- 374, the authors state that, "Simply increasing the
amount of clinical (subjective) information available to a psychologist does not appear to improve
the reliability or validity of their judgments" (p. 370)... "Forensic conclusions can be glorified under
the vague and unwieldy rubric of `clinical judgment' or `clinical impression'. Such judgments are
not only empirically unjustified but do not allow triers-of-fact to understand the [expert's]
reasoning... "(p. 370).
Similarly, Bolocofsky, D. . (1989). Use and abuse of mental health experts in child custody
determinations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7, 197-213, notes that, "The present system of
mental health regulation primarily relying on educational training, experience, and examinations in
general psychology, social work or medicine, has not been found to bear any significant relationship
to competence, particularly in forensic mental health services" (p. 210). He states further:
"The over-reliance of mental health professionals on questionable sources of data and the
inadequacies of clinical judgment employed in [forensic] evaluations strongly point to the
needs for standards governing the form of evaluation and the limits of testimony. At the
very least, mental health professionals should be required to identify the sources and
limitations of their data and conclusions and justify the use of psychological measuring
devices through presentation of their psychometric properties relative to [forensic]
determinations. Given the current scientific status of the mental health professions,
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

ultimate opinions should be limited to those conclusions with adequate empirical support."
(p. 210).
Similarly Dawes, R.M., Faust, D., and Meehl, P.E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment.
Science, 243, 1668-1674, review research on clinical (subjective) versus actuarial (objective)
judgment. This past president of the American Psychological Association and colleagues note that
in the vast majority of the nearly 100 studies in the social sciences comparing the two methods, the
accuracy of the actuarial method (objective evidence) has exceeded that of the clinical method
(subjective impressions). They note that in contrast, clinicians may have considerable difficulties
distinguishing valid and invalid variables. They further discuss factors that make it difficult for
clinicians to appraise their own level of judgmental accuracy objectively, and which promote a sense
of overconfidence. They note, for example, that individuals tend to recall their past predictions as
more consistent with outcomes than is actually the case. They further note that various studies
show that "clinical judgments based on interviews tend to be of low, or negligible, accuracy."
Emphasis added.
Similarly, Bootzin, R.R. & Ruggill, J.S. (1988). Training issues in behavior therapy. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 703-709, note that research on judgment shows that
clinicians' decision-making processes are vulnerable to numerous biases. They indicate that
therapists' conceptualizations may be influenced to a greater degree by expectations and judgment
practices than by information about the client.
Similarly, Arnoult, L.H. & Anderson, C.A. (1988). Identifying and reducing causal reasoning biases
in clinical practice, in D.C. Turk and P. Salovey (Eds.), Reasoning, Inference, & Judgment in
Clinical Psychology (pp. 209-232). ew York: The Free Press, state that "recent research provides
evidence that biased thinking is prevalent among both novices and experienced practitioners" (p.
209). They note that numerous factors may bias clinicians' judgment, including the treatment
setting, demographic characteristics of the client (e.g., his race, gender, age, occupation, education,
economic status, and marital status), and the clinician's personal experiences. They note that biases
resting within the therapist may be quite difficult to recognize. They further note that if errors
stemming from biases were corrected easily by exposure to cases, there would not be much cause for
concern. They state, however, that "a large body of work from a variety of areas of psychology
demonstrates that such expectation-based errors are extremely difficult to correct" (p. 220).
Similarly, Rock, D.L., Bransford, J.D. Maisto, S.A. & Morey, L.C. (1987). The study of clinical
judgment: An ecological approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 645-661, note that various
reviews of clinical judgment indicate that clinician biases exert a negative influence on judgmental
accuracy and that judgment errors are common in clinical interviews and evaluations.
Similarly, Lanyon, R.I. (1986). Psychological assessment procedures in court-related settings.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 260-268, discusses problems in psychologists'
participation in legal matters stating, "It is by now no secret that widespread dissatisfaction exists
with the use of traditional psychological evaluation procedures in court-related settings (e.g.,
Poythress, 1981). Such procedures have often been justified on the basis of the psychologist's
`experience,' a justification that nowadays has diminishing credibility in the absence of empirical
back-up" (p.260). A number of other recent reviews have appeared on the relation (or lack thereof)
between experience and diagnostic or predictive accuracy. For example, Dawes, R.M. (1989).
Experience and validity of clinical judgment: The illusory correlation. Behavioral Sciences & the
Law, 7, 457-467 states, "Mental health experts often justify diagnostic and predictive judgments on
the basis of `years of experience' with a particular type of person. . . .However, research shows that
the validity of clinical judgment and amount of clinical experience are unrelated" (p. 457).
Emphasis added.
Similarly, Garb H. . (1989). Clinical judgment, clinical training, and professional experience.
Psychological Bulletin, 105, 387-396, indicates that studies "generally fail to support the value of onthe-job experience in mental health fields" (p. 387). In addition, Wedding, D. & Faust, D. (1989).
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Clinical judgment and decision making in neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical europsychology,

4, 233-265, state, "Dozens of studies have failed to demonstrate any significant relationship between
experience and judgmental accuracy" (p. 249).
Chambless, D and Hollon, S. Defining Empirically Supported Therapies, Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1998, Vol. 66, o. 1, 7-18.
Grove, W. M. and Barden, R.C. (2000) Protecting the Integrity of the Legal System : The
Admissibility of Testimony from Mental Health Experts Under Daubert/Kumho
Analyses, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Vol 5, o. 1, 234-242.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
Winslade, W. J. Ethics in Psychiatry. In Kaplan, H.I., & Sadock, B.J. (Eds.). (1995).
Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry, 5th ed. Vol. 2, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. pp
2124-2131.
Weisz, J.R., Weiss, B, Han, S. , Granger, D.A. and Morton, T. Effects of Psychotherapy
with Children and Adolescents Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcome
Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 1995, Vol. 117, #3, 450-468.
Kazdin, A and Weisz, J. Identifying and Developing Empirically Supported Child and
Adolescent Treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1998), Vol. 66,
o. 1, 19-36.
Temerlin, M. and J. Temerlin, Psychotherapy Cults; An Iatrogenic Perversion, 19
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice 131 (1982).
Garb, Howard Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment,
American Psychological Association Press, 1998.

THE PARTIES SHOULD ALSO BEWARE THAT SEEKI G

"PSYCHOTHERAPY" FOR CHILDRE PRESE TS MA Y POTE TIAL
PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF THE HU DREDS OF FORMS OF "THERAPY" OFFERED
TO PATIE TS I AMERICA VERY FEW ARE SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE
EVIDE CE OF SAFETY A D EFFECTIVE ESS. PARE TS A D CHILDRE
SHOULD BEWARE OF "THERAPISTS" WHO CA OT PROVIDE PEER
REVIEWED SCIE TIFIC JOUR AL SUPPORT FOR THE "THERAPY" OFFERED.

Chambless, D and Hollon, S. Defining Empirically Supported Therapies, Jour of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1998, Vol. 66, o. 1, 7-18.
Singer, M.T. and Lalich, J Crazy Therapies. Jossey-Bass. 1996
Watters, E. and Ofshe, R. Therapy's Delusions. Scribner, 1999.
Dawes, R.M. (1997) House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on
myth. ew York: Free Press.

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

In sum, the proper role of the mental health professional expert witness in family court is
to provide the court with research evidence and relevant information, assist the court in locating
and analyzing credible hypotheses and also critique the methodology of other "experts" (as done
supra) -- not to give biased and unreliable personal opinions in the disguise of "clinical judgment".

THIS RECORD APPEARS TO REFLECT MULTIPLE VIOLATIO S OF THE ETHICS

CODE (the State Boards of Licensing should review these files in detail in light of the
following rules):
SEE, ETHICAL PRI CIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGISTS A D CODE OF
CO DUCT. Effective date 6/2/2003.
2.01 Boundaries of Competence (a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and
conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their
competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation,
study, or professional experience.
2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments Psychologists work is based
upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.
3.04 Avoiding Harm Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their
clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients,
and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and
unavoidable.
3.05 Multiple Relationships (a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist
is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with
the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely
associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the
professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the
future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.
3.06 Conflict of Interest Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role
when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or
relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity,
competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2)
expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to
harm or exploitation.
3.10 Informed Consent (a) When psychologists conduct research or provide
assessment, therapy, counseling, or consulting services in person or via electronic
transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of
the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to
that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is
mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Code.
9.02 Use of Assessments (a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use
assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for
purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the
usefulness and proper application of the techniques.
9.03 Informed Consent in Assessments (a) Psychologists obtain informed consent
for assessments, evaluations, or diagnostic services...
9.09 Test Scoring and Interpretation Services (a) Psychologists who offer
assessment or scoring services to other professionals accurately describe the
purpose, norms, validity, reliability, and applications of the procedures and any
special qualifications applicable to their use.

2C.
THE COURT IS E COURAGED TO CO SIDER SIMPLE, PRACTICAL
SUGGESTIO S FOR THE REDUCTIO OF O GOI G CO FLICT THE E FORCE
THESE SIMPLY RULES. THIS COULD BE A FOCUS OF THE COURT'S ATTE TIO .
CHILDRE DO BEST WITH TWO PARE TS. WITHOUT RELIABLE EVIDE CE OF
ABUSE, PERMITTI G O E PARE T TO SUCCESSFULLY GAME THE SYSTEM A D
ALIE ATE THE OTHER PARE T SHOULD BE VIEWED AS A FORM OF EMOTIO AL
CHILD ABUSE. LEGAL SYSTEMS CA FACILITATE RATIO AL POST-DIVORCE
BEHAVIOR OR EXACERBATE A D I FLAME PROBLEMS.

There is evidence in this record of the typical and all too common "he said, she said"
interparental accusations and difficulties in visitation. These problems tend to be exacerbated by
the all too common inaction (or inconsistent action) of the legal system.

Phone visitation is properly and accurately documented by having a special "parent-child"

cell phone. Such calls are tracked by phone companies and the exact time of calls and duration of
calls is available for the court. Such records drastically reduce the "memory distortions" so
common in family law testimony.

Similarly, the parties should be encouraged to videotape any interaction or problem they
find troubling. Such tapes often end disputes and arguments instantly and in any event provide

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

reliable evidence for courts. Such tapes drastically reduce the "memory distortions" so common
in family law testimony.

Violations of visitation rules (last minute schedule changes, being late for visitation, etc)
should be subject to severe and predetermined sanctions. (e.g. one hour late as documented on
videotape = fine paid to the child's college fund, etc).

3.

QUALIFICATIO S I PSYCHOLOGY: I received a B.A. in child

psychology from the University of Minnesota graduating Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta
Kappa. I received the University of Minnesota Distinguished Graduating Senior Award. I
received my Ph.D. in clinical-child psychology from the University of Minnesota, an
internationally respected, American Psychological Association accredited, training program
in clinical psychology. I received additional graduate and clinical training at the University
of California, Berkeley and at the U. S. Veterans Administration/ Stanford University
Medical Center. During my graduate training I received a number of fellowship awards
including the Eva O. Miller Social Science Fellowship Award and two fellowship awards
from the ational Institute of Mental Health. I am currently a licensed psychologist in the
State of Minnesota (LP 1460) and in the State of Texas (LP 2-2624). I have clinical
psychology experience in medical, outpatient, forensic, correctional and inpatient settings
working with a wide range of client populations including adults, children, adolescents and
families. I served as the Coordinator of the Ph.D. Child - Clinical Psychology Training
Program at the University of Utah. I served on the Editorial Consulting Board of the
American Psychological Association journal for child psychology, Developmental
Psychology. I received two national research awards in child psychology from the
Foundation for Child Development and the W.T. Grant Foundation. I have served as a
Principal Investigator on a number of research grants and have received hundreds of
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

thousands of dollars of funding for my research projects from national agencies and
foundations. I am a member of the relevant scientific community (See, Daubert, Kumho
and related cases) and have published in, and/or served as an editor or reviewer for, several
of the most highly regarded journals and texts in psychology, medicine and law including
Developmental Psychology, Child Development, Psychological Bulletin, Ambulatory
Pediatrics, Advances in Child Clinical Psychology, the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the Journal
of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and
the Harvard Journal on Legislation. I have given invited addresses to the American Bar
Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association,
the U.S. Surgeon General's Conference, the International Assn. of Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgeons and other groups. I served, by Appointment of the Hon. Arne
Carlson (then Governor of the State of Minnesota) on the Minnesota State Board of
Psychology and the State of Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board for the U.S.
Congressional 6th District. Many of my invited addresses have focused on systemic
problems in the mental health system including but not limited to the problem of
inappropriate therapist conduct, and/or improper "expert" testimony and/or improper
investigative methods in criminal and family law proceedings, and related issues. I have also
been asked to consult with and/or train groups of law enforcement personnel including -F.B.I. agents, police officials, U.S. Attorney's Office personnel and related professionals I
have published analyses of related issues in the leading journal in the relevant field. My
resume should be attached to this affidavit. (See attached resume).

4.

QUALIFICATIO S I LAW: I received a law degree with honors (J.D.,

cum laude) from Harvard Law School as well as training in forensic psychology/psychiatry
from a joint Program in Law and Psychiatry at the Harvard Law and Medical Schools. I
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

served as Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and at the
Hamline University School of Law, teaching "Psychology, Psychiatry and the Law" at both
institutions. I was admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota on October 23, 1992
(License #227316), admitted to practice before the United States District Court of
Minnesota on ovember 18, 1992 and admitted to Practice before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on May 24, 1994. I have practiced in many more than a
dozen state and federal jurisdictions via pro hac vice admission. I am, and have always
been, in good standing in every jurisdiction in which I have practiced. My main area of
concentration as an attorney has been to protect the legal system from "junk science" and
the misconduct of experts and poorly trained lawyers and investigators including but not
limited to improper custody evaluations, improper interviewing of children, errors of
memory, and improper expert witness testimony. I have litigated dozens of cases including a
number of complex Frye/Daubert/Kumho hearings. As a trial attorney, I have tried cases
resulting in what appear to be world record verdicts and settlements for my clients. I have
been invited to speak on this and related topics to a number of legal seminars and/or
conferences including those sponsored by the Minnesota Bar Association, the Washington,
D.C. Bar Association, the Texas Bar Association, and the American Bar Association's
ational Litigation Section (a panel that included a U.S. District Court Judge and faculty
members of the Harvard and Yale Medical Schools). I have also served as a Special
Assistant Attorney General for the State of Utah assisting in the prosecution of cases of
misconduct by mental health professionals.

5)

MY OPI IO S I THIS CASE REFLECT K OWLEDGE, METHODOLOGY,

A D CO CLUSIO S THAT ARE GE ERALLY ACCEPTED I THE RELEVA T

SCIE TIFIC COMMU ITY.

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

In my opinion, my concerns, analyses and opinions in this case reflect a broad

consensus of knowledge, research, and conclusions in the relevant scientific community.
The court is encouraged to consult with other national experts in the field if there is any
doubt about the accuracy of the opinions I express in this matter. I offer the following list
of experts - who I believe share my views and opinions on such matters - for the courts
review:
James Alcock, Ph.D., Psychology, York University, Canada
Robert Baker, Ph.D., Psychology, Emeritus, University of Kentucky
David H. Barlow, Ph.D., Psychology, Boston University
Stephen Barrett, M.D., Editor, Quackwatch, Allentown, Pennsylvania
Aaron T. Beck, M.D., Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania
Gershon Ben-Shakhar, Ph.D., Psychology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Barry L. Beyerstein, Ph.D., Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Susan Blackmore, Ph.D., Psychology, Univ. of the West of England, Bristol, UK
Marilyn Bowman, Ph.D., Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Patricia A. Brennan, Ph.D., Psychology, Emory University
Terence Campbell, Ph.D., Private Practice, Sterling Heights, Michigan
Frederick Crews, Ph.D., English, University of California at Berkeley
Patrick Curry, Consumer Advocate, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Gerald Davison, Ph.D., Psychology, University of Southern California
Robyn Dawes, Ph.D., Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
Grant Devilly, Ph.D., Criminology, University of Melbourne, Australia
Albert Ellis, Ph.D., Albert Ellis Institute, ew York, ew York
Edwin Erwin, Ph.D., Philosophy, University of Miami
David Faust, Ph.D., Psychology, University of Rhode Island
Giovanni A. Fava, M.D., Psychology, University of Bologna, Italy
Adrian Furnham, D.Phil., Psychology, University College London, UK
Eileen Gambrill, Ph.D., School of Social Welfare, Univ. of California at Berkeley
Howard . Garb, Ph.D., VA Pittsburgh Health System and University of Pittsburgh
Gina Green, Ph.D., Institute for Effective Education, San Diego, California
William M. Grove, Ph.D., Psychology, University of Minnesota
Adolph Grunbaum, Ph.D., Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh
Allan R. Harkness, Ph.D., Psychology, University of Tulsa
James Herbert, Ph.D., MCP Hahnemann University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Terence M. Hines, Ph.D., Psychology, Pace University
John Hochman, M.D., Private Practice, Los Angeles, California
John Hunsley, Ph.D., Psychology, University of Ottawa, Canada
Thomas Joiner, Ph.D., Psychology, Florida State University
Stuart Kirk, D.S.W., Dept. of Social Welfare, U.C.L.A., CA. USA
Donald F. Klein, M.D., Columbia Univ. and Y State Psychiatric Institute
John Kline, Ph.D., Psychology, Florida State University
Arnold Lazarus, Ph.D., Psychology, Emeritus, Rutgers University
Paul Lees-Haley, Ph.D., Private Practice, Woodland Hills, California
Jill Littrell, Ph.D., School of social work, Georgia State University
Jeffrey M. Lohr, Ph.D., Psychology, University of Arkansas
Elizabeth F. Loftus, Ph.D., Psychology and Law, University of Washington
Steven Jay Lynn, Ph.D., Psychology, Binghamton University, ew York
Richard McFall, Ph.D., Psychology, Indiana University
Paul R. McHugh, M.D., Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

Richard Mc ally, Ph.D., Psychology, Harvard University

Harald Merckelbach, Ph.D., Psychology, Maastricht University, etherlands
Harold Merskey, D.M., Psychiatry, Emeritus, Univ, of Western Ontario, Canada
Robert Montgomery, Ph.D., Psychology, Georgia State University
Timothy Moore, Ph.D., Psychology, Glendon College, York University, Canada
Peter Muris, Ph.D., Psychology, Maastricht University, etherlands
Charles B. emeroff, M.D., Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University
John Paddock, Ph.D., Psychology and Psychiatry, Emory University
Loren Pankratz, Ph.D., Oregon Health Sciences University
August Piper Jr., M.D., Private Practice, Seattle, Washington
Harrison G. Pope, M.D., MPH, McLean Hospital, Harvard University
Ron Rapee, Ph.D., Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Lawrence Riso, Ph.D., Georgia State University
Gerald Rosen, Ph.D., Private Practice and University of Washington
Yuji Sakano, Ph.D., Psychology, Waseda University, Japan
Wallace Sampson, M.D., Ed,, Scientific Rev of Alternative Medicine, Los Altos, CA.
Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., Columbia University and .Y. State Psychiatric Institute
Carol Tavris, Ph.D., Social Psychologist/Author, Los Angeles, California
Bruce A. Thyer, Ph.D., LCSW, School of social work, University of Georgia
E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., Psychiatry, Uniformed Serv. Univ. of Health Sciences, Md.
Samuel M. Turner, Ph.D., Psychology, University of Maryland
Irwin D. Waldman, Ph.D., Psychology, Emory University
Jerome C. Wakefield, D.S.W., School of Social Work, Rutgers Univ.
Richard Wiseman, Ph.D., University of Hertfordshire, UK
James M. Wood, Ph.D., Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso
And many others

6.

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED O SIMILAR ISSUES: I have been

qualified and admitted to testify as an expert and have testified in court and/or given
depositions and/or submitted expert affidavits in a number of jurisdictions. I have also
been invited to testify as an expert before several state legislatures.

7.

BASES FOR THESE EXPERT OPI IO S: My opinions in this matter are

based upon my review of many records and documents in this case as well as my education,
knowledge, training, and experience in the fields of clinical, child-clinical and forensic
psychology. This experience includes:

- TRIAL ATTOR EY A D/OR LEGAL CO SULTA T : Trying jury trials or

hearings as at trial lawyer or consulting on complex science litigation in multiple
states including obtaining apparently world record jury verdicts and/or settlements
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

. Giving invited addresses to Bar conventions and CLE seminars especially with
regard to the proper use of expert witnesses

- PROFESSIO AL PSYCHOTHERAPY A D I TERVIEWI G OF

CHILDRE : providing psychotherapy to numerous patients including children,
families and adults (in schools, clinics, and hospitals), as well as training psychology
graduate students in interviewing and psychotherapy standards and methods;
training investigators and evaluators as to how to properly interview and assess
children;

- RESEARCH REVIEW A D METHODLOGY: reviewing hundreds of

peer reviewed published research studies and serving editorial roles for leading
professional journals;

- ORIGI AL RESEARCH: initiating, conducting and publishing original

research in the leading journals in child psychology, social psychology, personality
psychology, surgery, public policy and legislation - receiving two national awards
for such psychological research including research on learning, memory, coping
with stress and related issues;

- TEACHI G PROFESSIO AL COURSES TO LAWYERS A D

ME TAL HEALTH PROFESSIO ALS: teaching Psychological Professional
Continuing Education courses (including psychotherapy standards and practices) to
thousands of mental health and legal professionals across the U.S as well as teaching
graduate courses to psychology and law students as well as teaching invited address
to legal conventions and continuing education classes for lawyers in many states;
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

- TRAI I G PROFESSIO AL I VESTIGATORS I CLUDI G

SHERIFF, POLICE, FBI and OTHER AGE CIES WITH REGARD TO PROPER
A D IMPROPER, RELIABLE A D U RELIABLE I VESTIGATIVE
METHODS A D PROCEDURES: with particular regard to avoiding memory
contamination with children and older victims and avoiding pseudo-science
methods, techniques and analyses.

- LITIGATIO AS A TRIAL ATTOR EY - ATIO AL EXPERT O

LITIGATIO OF COMPLEX SCIE CE CASES: I have participated as a lawyer,
expert and/or consultant in what are apparently world-record jury verdicts and
settlements in suits for psychotherapy negligence. I have conducted and/or consulted
on complex science litigation and/or criminal trials in several dozen jurisdictions. I
have investigated and interviewed hundreds of victims of false memory delusions,
improper psychotherapy, and diagnostic malpractice. I have also consulted,
corresponded and/or conversed regarding these issues at great length with many of
the major scientific, legal and public policy figures in the mental health and memory
research fields. I have given invited addresses to the American Bar Association and
other Bar Associations on these and related issues.

- EXPERT WIT ESS REVIEW A D TESTIMO Y AS A CLI ICAL

PSYCHOLOGIST A D ATIO AL EXPERT I SOCIAL SCIE CE
METHODOLOGY: I have served as an expert witness in several jurisdictions
offering opinions in a variety of areas including but not limited to psychotherapy
and evaluation interview-assessment-diagnosis standards and practices,
methodology, risks and hazards to adults and children, parental alienation
REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

processes, and related issues.

- DOCUME TS A D OTHER EVIDE CE REVIEWED AS PART OF

THE BASES FOR MY OPI IO S I THIS MATTER : To date I have reviewed
documents, files, and evidence in this case including medical licensing reports, police
reports, DVDs of investigative interviews, custody evaluations, and many other
related materials including but not limited to those cited above.

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09

8)

THIS IS A I ITIAL REPORT: This is an initial report with opinions

based upon documentary information (subject to the well-known limitations of

documentary evidence) and offered to a reasonable degree of psychological and legal
certainty. My investigations and analyses of this complex matter are in progress. I will
continue to review materials and will be pleased to update, expand upon, or otherwise
amend this affidavit if necessary to give updated notice as to any of my opinions in this
matter. I expect to offer opinions in much greater detail at any subsequent hearings or
trials in this matter. I expect to critique -- in detail -- the opinions and methodologies of
any social science expert, therapist, social worker, evaluator, interviewer, mental health
professionals, trial lawyers, or other related experts who may testify or prepare reports in
this matter.

DATE: MAY 14, 2008

___________________________________
R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D.
3605 West 55th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55410
acting as an expert witness in the case of Pendleton v. Maguire (CO)
LICE SED PSYCHOLOGIST (M , TX)
ATTOR EY AT LAW (M ) and pro hac vice in many other jurisdictions

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this 14th day of May, 2009.

_________________________________
otary Public

REPORT OF R. C. BARDE , PH.D., J.D. PE DLETO V. MAGUIRE 5/15/09