Speaker 1: 0:00

Thank you for joining us this week. We have part two of our conversation with licensed professional counselor Jamie Vogt.

Speaker 2: 0:06

This week, jamie is going to talk with us about the details of how she conducts an extended forensic evaluation, doing so in a way that is forensically sound and therapeutically appropriate, keeping the children's needs in mind times when an attorney will ask if I would do an EFE or an evaluation for a case that they have and then another side will object because they think no, we're not going to traumatize the child and put them through another forensic interview. So I've come to court to explain about how the EFE is different than the frontline forensic interview in that it is a slower process. I'm sitting on the floor playing with the children. It's basically the same stages that are in a forensic interview, rather than lumped in one one-time interview in 15 to 20, 30 minutes I spread out over six sessions. So, like the first session, I'm sitting on the floor playing with the child and we're getting to know each other and it's an introductory session and during that time I'm conducting some assessments with the child and seeing if we can do dialogue together, if we can establish communicative competency. Can they tell me about their last birthday and help model providing narrative responses rather than direct yes or no? Or you know a one sentence daddy touched my pee-pee. Well, a child can memorize that statement. But can they provide the narrative details that we look for to show that a child's talking about a real experience that they've had? So we're practicing narrative in that first session and I'm assessing can they count? Do they know their name? Do they know their address? Do they know where they live or who they live with? Give me the structure of your family, things like that. And it's very slow, paced and we're playing, so the child is not under pressure, because our research also supports that if you can reduce the stress the child is under when you're conducting the interview, you're going to elevate the likelihood they're going to provide more accurate information. So it's all about pacing with the child and the EF process. Efe process is child-centered, so, above all else, the needs of the child are considered and promoted. So that's maybe the first session. The second session we're following up on some of the last session.

Speaker 2: 2:32

I always provide rules of the session and I provide descriptions of. You know this is different than seeing your therapist. This is an evaluation where I'm going to see each other a few times and I kind of describe that for them. I establish whether they even understand truth and lie. And there's some developmental ways to do that with children that you do with different ages, for instance very young children. You say we're only going to talk about things that really happen With other kids, older kids, you can talk about truth and lie, because they understand the concept perhaps of truth or lie.

Speaker 2: 3:06

And then you can practice what truth and lie in. For instance, I might say, okay, well, let me make sure that you understand what those concepts are. And let's say, if somebody said it's raining in my office, is that a truth or a lie? And then they give you an answer. And if they get that right, then you go on to another one and so you can try a few different examples of things you know, the child and you both know are truth or not true, for instance. And so there's some of that assessment and then at some point there's a touch inquiry and I utilize the same procedures that are nationally accepted about how you ask about touches that are okay and not okay, and I follow that procedure.

Speaker 2: 3:46

Then there's a couple of sessions that are parent-child observation sessions. I want to see how the child interacts with the parent and how the parent responds to the child. Is the parent really pushy? Are they following the child's lead? Are they really awkward? Like it's clear, they don't typically play with this child at all or interact, or in some cases I'll have a situation where one parent says oh, if they see that other parent they're going to be traumatized again, they're scared to death of them. And so when I have that parent observation session and the parent's already in my room and the child walks in and jumps to that parent's arms, well, that's information. And could abuse still occur? Possibly, but maybe less likely, because this child doesn't exhibit the fear that was described to me the child would exhibit.

Speaker 3: 4:43

So do you do the observations with both parents?

Speaker 2: 4:47

Yes, always with both, which is what I changed about my training with the EFE process. The initial training only had one parent bringing the child to the evaluation and you complete the whole process with that parent, and the allegation that may be against another parent was not included. I didn't see that would fit well in our Oklahoma courts, and so when I started doing EFE in my own process, in my own practice, I always included the other person, even if it was the alleged perpetrator, because I think it's incumbent. You've got to have both sides, and there's a wealth of information from including both sides, of course, and I just think it's problematic just to listen to one parent, right, we know that.

Speaker 2: 5:33

And I think you're making a causal assumption if you only have one parent and you look at the child's reaction to that person and then you're drawing an assumption on that, Because if you don't see the child with other family members, specifically parents, then you don't know what the cause of the reaction is Right and so I want to make it clear I developed my process as my process, but I started with the national training of the extended forensic evaluation that was developed by the child AFSI centers, but I've tweaked it so much I don't know that they would agree with all that I've done differently, which again was to include both parents, and there's a lot of therapeutic techniques I take out of the evaluations.

Speaker 2: 6:20

I see it too much of a therapy bent rather than a forensic bent and I kind of err on the side of doing what I know is going to be forensically sound and not necessarily what I might do as a therapist if that was my role.

Speaker 2: 6:37

And so by the time I ran and I've gathered all the records and I've consulted with all the parties that I have made note of that I need to consult with. I have the parents complete behavior inventories for me. I compare those behavior inventories and the reason those are helpful is, again, because I get an idea of how the child behaves outside my office. One of the behavior inventories includes a lie scale which indicates if a parent might be exaggerating because they don't fit. So that's kind of helpful. And then again, like I said, I get the original forensic interview, the recorded forensic interview by DHS or police when they took the child initially to a NAVSE center, hopefully to do the initial forensic interview. So I get to see that initial interview and I'll say I don't always agree with the findings but I have the basis of why I don't agree if that happens.

Speaker 1: 7:37

That's all you can ask for is to have the process be understood, be transparent, understood, be transparent, and then you know, and then, ultimately, it's up to the courts to use that in a way that fits within the family law system, and it's just one additional piece of evidence that needs to be considered.

Speaker 2: 7:55

Correct, because at the end of the day you're right. It's just my opinion and by the time the reader is finished with my pretty extensive report, reading it, I think they can understand how I came to my conclusions. They may be false, I mean they may be wrong. I'm open-minded to know I could have done something wrong, but I do as much as I can to be as objective as I can. Before I write my report, I review all the interviews on tape and sometimes I see things differently, that I missed or that I should have followed up with that question or tried something different, and I have a different view of my interviews with the child than I did when I was in the interview. It's a little different perspective, but it's what helps keep me, I think, a little more objective and clear and by the time I finish my process I feel pretty confident in what I've arrived at.

Speaker 1: 8:50

Well, I always feel pretty confident in what you arrived at. Thank you.

Speaker 2: 8:54

Thank you, but I think Linda's very aware of the blood, sweat and tears I go through to get to that point because I'm pulling my hair out.

Speaker 3: 9:03

It's so exhausting, but it's absolutely the right thing to do, losing sleep for I don't know how many nights over the outcome.

Speaker 2: 9:11

Oh, I do, I do. Yeah, yeah, I will admit I do. I wish I could say that it's gotten easier over the years, but the reality is no, because everyone's a little bit different and I realize the weight that uh this opinion carries and I don't take that for granted and I think, I think I think all three of us have that in our different roles as well, you know, as a guardian ad litem or a parent coordinator.

Speaker 1: 9:35

You're doing the same thing. I bet a judge has the same thing, and we each have our little piece of the puzzle. But each of us, I think, independently, feels like we have the opportunity to help or, if we make a mistake, harm a child Absolutely, and that's not why any of us are in this to harm a child Right, absolutely, and that's not why any of us are in this to harm a child Right.

Speaker 2: 9:55

Well, and if anything else, I think that's what helps keep parties that are in these types of roles neutral is the focus of the child. It's not the stories of the adults that each of them may have that may be totally different and usually are different Right, Otherwise it wouldn't be in court.

Speaker 1: 10:11

But you focus on the child and everything about this interview process was, first and foremost I focus on the child and how's it going to need to fit with the systems that I'm operating in, be it family court or the attorneys or the parents and and furthermore, making recommendations for further treatment for the child is usually what comes out of it, and it's so important to find what the truth is, because we have to have the truth as our foundation before we can start understanding what processes are necessary to repair the family system as much as possible.

Speaker 1: 10:46

Just because something happened doesn't mean that the parent loses that child forever. Maybe the parent can be rehabilitated, maybe there's still some portion of that relationship that can happen to help the child. But before we do that, we have to understand what actually happened to the best of our ability, and that's why your portion in that process is so important to help us understand what the truth is, so that then we can put the appropriate pieces in place to rehabilitate as much of the relationship as is possible, given the best interest of the child.

Speaker 2: 11:16

Correct, that's exactly right.

Speaker 3: 11:19

Right. So do either of you have any idea, after you have found that something actually did happen? Yes, that should not have happened, actually did happen, that should not have happened. How much of just of that segment of your outcomes, how much of those, would you say, go on to be litigated in some sort of criminal direction?

Speaker 2: 11:50

I don't have an answer for that I was just thinking of. I've done hundreds of these evaluations over the years, hundreds and I've spoken to the FBI on some of them. I have spoken with some attorneys who it was about criminal, filing criminal charges, so, um, but I don't always follow the outcome. Um, to be honest, I I don't. I just don't see where it landed in court and I don't look on our uh, osc and website to see what's going on with the case. I just I'm onto the next so I don't really focus on it, unfortunately.

Speaker 3: 12:38

And I was trying to think if I had anybody come back.

Speaker 2: 12:42

Right. That's not a spigering I was wrong, or that the child was a victim, or there was other proof that showed that somehow I, my findings were wrong and I'm not. I don't mean to sound arrogant. I've just never had any feedback from anybody to tell me I was wrong. I mean, odds are I have to be wrong, some right, but I just have never had the feedback from somebody that said that I got it wrong. I've had people disagree, of course, with my conclusions, but nothing that was substantiated in court, or that somebody came out and said you called it wrong. So I don't know.

Speaker 3: 13:22

What about? Are you called back by the DA's office or something to testify in the criminal case? Then no, If there is one.

Speaker 2: 13:36

I think that's happened once because I had additional information, but I don't. I can't think of all the details of that case, but typically no. If it's not going to read the burden of proof, I think in the original forensic interviewing, I don't know that the DA then reviews to call it back. It'd probably only be if there were additional allegations.

Speaker 1: 14:03

Yeah, I think it would be interesting as a criminal defense attorney if there was an initial forensic evaluation, a frontline evaluation as we're calling it, and it came up with answer X. And then Jamie had an EFE and it came up with answer Y, or maybe X minus that would be a really interesting situation to then bring that up for the reasonable doubt purposes.

Speaker 2: 14:30

I can correct myself, because I just thought of a case that my EFE found that there was no abuse and the strongest term I can say is abuse more than likely did occur or more than likely did not occur. And so my finding was abuse more than likely did not occur. And then a year later there was a new allegation or at least that was the claim that there was a new allegation and the FBI were now involved and they got my records and from all I can tell, quite frankly, I think it's the same allegation, but it's being made again a second time and whatever We'll see how that pans out because that's in the process right now. But that one so that was a case where they did and they're looking at criminal charges.

Speaker 1: 15:24

Yeah, that's where it seems to me it would be most likely to come up Interesting. Well, Linda, is there anything else that we want to wring out of Jamie before we let her escape?

Speaker 3: 15:38

Linda. Is there anything else that we want to ring out of Jamie before we let her escape? Well, I'm just thinking of things that, once again, the parents listening might want to know law conflict over custody that wind up with a sexual abuse allegation for Jamie to do an EFE on.

Speaker 1: 16:05

The percentage of cases that we have that go to Jamie.

Speaker 3: 16:09

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 16:10

Very low or that need to Okay yeah.

Speaker 3: 16:17

Yeah, very low, just because there aren't that many allegations of sexual abuse, Well.

Speaker 1: 16:22

I'll let you take that, Jamie.

Speaker 2: 16:23

Well, I was going to say I think there's probably a few reasons. Number one the lack of understanding of the value this would have. I don't think that there's a lot of attorneys that take the time. I mean there are a lot of attorneys but there's a lot of other attorneys that do not take the time to look at this process. I think of attorneys I've known for years, and I mean even recently this month attorney was saying Jamie, I didn't know, you did this process, oh my gosh. So at any rate.

Speaker 2: 16:55

But I also think there's a cost involved that isn't covered by insurance. I happen to charge $4,000 for the evaluation process and I ask in my court order I have a court order template that I ask the attorneys to get the judge to sign and for them to tweak to fit their case, judge to sign and for them to tweak to fit their case. But I only do this process at the order of the courts, again, to keep it a neutral process and that's who I'm reporting back to is the courts. But I ask the fee to be split and it won't be covered by insurance, not in Oklahoma. But again, to support that neutral process. I'd like both parents to participate in the cost and then I think it's also the time involved.

Speaker 2: 17:44

It takes a couple of months to complete the process, but I think it's just really just an awareness and understanding that this process exists and when to use it. And I don't know that everybody wants a neutral process. I mean, to be honest, I think sometimes there are certain mental health professionals who are particularly endeared to some other legal professionals I think that's something you have to consider and they have more confidence because they've worked with this professional a long time. And they have more confidence because they've worked with this professional a long time. I think this process is a little scary because I don't give anybody the assurance that it's going to go one way or the other, because I'm literally going back and forth in what I think happened until I put the whole report together in writing, because as I get different information I kind of shift in what I'm thinking and it's so. It's fluid the entire time and I think that might be uncomfortable for some people, that I can't give answers until I finish the entire process.

Speaker 1: 18:54

Yeah, and I think from my perspective, I can think of at least one case, jamie, where an allegation came to me and the child had been spoken to so many times by so many different people that from my perspective it was hopelessly muddied about what actually happened. And with a young enough child at that point I'm thinking to myself as much of a miracle worker as Jamie is. This is unfathomably muddled at this point. So instead of asking for an extended forensic, what I'm going to ask for is therapeutic supervised, so that we may not ever know what actually occurred on that particular instance, but we can get an assessment of the current relationship between the parent and the child.

Speaker 2: 19:39

And I totally agree with that and I even know the case you're talking about, ron. I think that makes sense and I've had that opinion sometimes. Well, once I got into the process, it was like clearly this child has spoken to so many professionals. It was just going to be impossible at that point and there's a lot of other factors, but it's just going to be impossible to render an opinion.

Speaker 1: 20:01

Right, and so, instead of trying to figure out what nobody's ever going to know for sure, let's instead figure out what's the today relationship between the parent and the child.

Speaker 2: 20:11

Right, yes, right, exactly.

Speaker 1: 20:12

That makes sense. So I think that cuts some of the cases that would be EFEs out. Correct, because by the time the parents bring it to the attention of the professionals, who understand that an EFE would be required, so many other people have had their hands in the stew.

Speaker 2: 20:29

Yeah, I think exactly right.

Speaker 3: 20:30

Yeah, so we're back to those people not knowing when not to talk to the child about certain things.

Speaker 2: 20:38

Right and the EFP process considers the fact the child will have talked to people. I wouldn't be having the referral if it weren't for the fact the child's talked to some people. But that's taken into consideration and I follow up with those people that the child's had conversations with the teachers, the other family members or whatever and ask how those interviews went, et cetera. So it's the best you can do to try to take into consideration what the child may have been influenced by or impacted by to make the statements they're making currently.

Speaker 1: 21:13

Anything else, Linda.

Speaker 3: 21:14

I'm still wondering how everybody in the rest of the world gets along without Jamie, aren't you sweet?

Speaker 1: 21:22

Agreed on that for sure.

Speaker 2: 21:25

Thank you so much. I would love to again. The dream is one day to train other professionals to do this. So there are other people available to do this work because I think it's needed.

Speaker 1: 21:36

I think so too.

Speaker 2: 21:37

There's such a value for kids to do it, but it's there's so much responsibility to it and and um, I keep thinking there's a way to to um, teach this and there's a way to uh train up competent professionals to do this work.

Speaker 1: 21:52

Well, call to arms there, for anyone listening.

Speaker 2: 21:55

There we go.

Speaker 1: 21:57

Well, jamie, thank you so much for spending this time with us, and it was just. You're very gracious and kind, so we appreciate it.

Speaker 2: 22:04

Well, thank you guys for doing this. I appreciate you all are just the premier to work with, so it's a joy. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1: 22:10

All right, everybody, take care and we will talk to you next time.

Speaker 2: 22:14

Bye, bye.