Opinion ID: 1986881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of emotional harm to twins resulting from Mother's abuse

Text: In its analysis, the majority opinion ignores the trial court's evaluation of the expert witnesses' testimony as to the effects of this emotional abuse on the twins. In contravention to the standard of review, the majority focuses on the experts it finds to be more credible and supplants their conclusions for those of the expert relied upon by the trial court. Dr. Joan Luby, Director of the Early Emotional Development Program and an assistant professor of psychiatry at Washington University, testified that the twins have Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD). Dr. Luby described RAD in lay terms as a disorder that can arise in young children when they have had a very unstable environment early in life and can be characterized by multiple different placements, sometimes by abuse or neglect. RAD occurs when the child fails to develop a normal, healthy, secure attachment to a single caregiver, which typically occurs during the first 12 months of life. The inability to develop a secure attachment can result in developmental difficulties in general, according to Dr. Luby, and specifically in emotional development. For example, children with RAD can be withdrawn and apathetic, refusing to react when they are hungry or need a diaper change. In addition, they can have indiscriminate engagement with any adult as opposed to stranger anxiety and can have general difficulty forming emotional attachments throughout their lives. Dr. Luby testified that the twins' RAD appeared to be in remission when she evaluated them, which she attributed to the fact that, at that time, they had been in a neutral, stable environment for about four months with their foster parents. Dr. Luby testified that of the three forms of the disordersevere, moderate, and mildthe twins' RAD was moderate. Even after adjusting the twins' actual age to account for their premature births, Dr. Luby testified they both appeared somewhat developmentally delayed and that they still showed a certain level of apathy. The twins, Dr. Luby noted, showed absolutely no stranger anxiety toward the examiner, and they were less attached to their caregivers than she would have preferred, although they demonstrated selective attachment to the foster parents. The majority opinion mischaracterizes the import of the testimony by Dr. Luby, whom the trial court expressly found to be credible and believable. [11] Dr. Luby stated numerous times that the purpose of her examination of the twins was not to determine who should have custody of them, and she would not comment as to the desirability of any particular custodial arrangement. She stressed, however, that any disruption of the twins' placement with their foster parents would be detrimental to their emotional health. Dr. Luby also noted that, based on the twins' history with Mother, she would be concerned if they were returned to her. The majority attempts to justify its preference for other experts, as opposed to the trial court's reliance on Dr. Luby's testimony, by noting that the other experts observed Mother's interaction with the twins. First, this approach ignores that the primary purpose of Dr. Luby's visit was to evaluate the emotional health of the twins. Second, it disregards the fact that the other experts observed the twins approximately one year after Dr. Luby. During the interim, the twins were in a stable home and in the primary care of the foster parents instead of Mother, yet the majority wishes to credit the twins' improvement to Mother. Third, the majority fails to recognize that Dr. Luby is an expert in child psychology, while the experts touted by the majority admittedly were not. [12] Fourth, the duration of Dr. Luby's observation of the twins was twice that of Dr. Cuneo's or Dr. Rosen's. Finally, and perhaps most important, it is the discretion of the trial court to determine which witnesses it believes and by which of those witnesses it is persuaded.