Caverly’s Custody Evaluations: Charges of Parental Alienation and Skyrocketing Fees

“The Caverly Report Took My Kids’

The above is an exact quote, not from one mother, but from a half-dozen I interviewed – victims of Jessica Biren Caverly.

In the process of reporting her to her licensing board on the Ambrose-Riordan case, I interviewed other mothers and one father who tried to protect their children, but lost them to their abusers.

Caverly had paved the way in every case.

There is a pattern to Caverly’s “practice”.

In at least two of the six cases I investigated, the custody evaluation contract was switched without allowing the victim-litigant parent to have a copy.

The victims would not be allowed a copy of Caverly’s report, and had to read it under supervision.

Caverly’s fees were exorbitant: at least twice mine for her custody report and five times what I charge for depositions (and I am a psychiatrist!).

In at least one case, envelopes stuffed with cash were exchanged, and in most cases, the victim litigant was not allowed to know the final payment.

Interviews were often no more than fifteen minutes, and evidence of abuse was buried in all six cases, no matter how heinous (including allegations of child pornography and child sex trafficking).

Information was “spun” to favor the abuser, and the victim litigant — deemed a fit parent by all experts outside Family Court — was labeled with an “unspecified personality disorder” or some similarly nondescript diagnosis, even though Caverly is not a medical doctor and unqualified to diagnose.

Yet, her opinions would be the basis for transferring custody — in all six cases — to the abuser, on the same day as her testimony, and the loving parent would not see their children again — in one case up to seven years so far, without a chance to say goodbye.

Courts rely on forensic psychiatrists and psychologists to do expert assessments, such as fitness, dangerousness, diagnosis of mental disorder, and many delicate interpretations that require high levels of training and skill.

When this authority granted by the Courts is abused, there are few ways of unraveling the chicanery — except through other experts. It is a very telling sign when no other psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, counselor, or medical professional agrees with the Family Court-appointed “expert.”

Caverly had five psychiatrists and one psychologist denounce, if not vehemently oppose, her conclusions in just one custody evaluation report alone — in the Karen Riordan case.

Here is a small sampling of what some of them said:

“I was shocked at [Caverly’s] assumption of guilt and no curiosity at all to discover the truth [and] defending Mr. Ambrose regarding all the stories…. Caverly’s recommendations… were misguided, dangerous, and could be considered malpractice.” — Dr. Margaret Coffey. [read report]

“[Caverly’s analysis] drew conclusions unsupported by the data presented in the report or available in other court data, misused psychological tests to diagnose Ms. Riordan as mentally ill, [and] overlooked data that was critical to the subject children’s best interest and safety,… which is especially important given that the children … are possibly at grave risk.” — Dr. Robin Lynch [read report]

Dr. Dorothy Stubbe

“It would be seriously detrimental, and I believe would result in higher levels of anxiety, frustration, anger, and ultimately depression for [Riordan’s middle child], if he is forced to become estranged from a beloved parent [the mother].” — Dr. Dorothy Stubbe [read report]

“[After speaking to Caverly, I] never heard from the GAL Jocelyn Hurwitz, which is most interesting given the concerns over Karen’s perceived abilities or lack thereof with regard to the safety of the children. [The children] are frightened by [Ambrose] and do not feel safe in his care. They may be in imminent danger.” — Dr. Tami M. Amiri [see letter].

“This case appears to represent a familiar, well-documented pattern in which abuse is not properly investigated and the abusive dynamic is not understood. At the heart of abuse is a reversal in which the abuser believes themselves to be the victim; this perception is enabled [by those who] may be abusive themselves…. the court separating the children from their primary attachment figure [suggests] the children are in grave danger.” — Dr. Robin Lynch [read report]

Family courts are an abuse industry, where wealthy predators congregate, and a cottage industry of fraudulent “experts” builds around it.

Jessica Biren Caverly’s report in the Riordan case struck me as the worst I have read in my 25-year career, even before eliciting some four dozen pieces of evidence I examined that contradict it.

Her report gives a veneer of being professional, being over 100 pages long — but is essentially devoid of content.

What it reveals is that the evaluator has almost no expert knowledge — and presents no evidence, no science, and no clinically relevant analysis. This is unsurprising, since Caverly has almost no clinical experience.

Judges typically do not admit an “expert” witness with little to no clinical experience (if there is no actual practice, where is the source of expertise?).

It appears Caverly has made a career out of fixing cases for the courts by churning out fraudulent reports, and has become a go-to “expert” for Family Court racketeering.

The United Nations has cited that Family Courts’ use of poorly-trained, unqualified so-called “experts” is a global crisis endangering women and children — contributing to human rights violations everywhere.

Guest View