PROLOGUE

Psychoanalytically trained analysts and therapists who enter the Court as expert witnesses are often asked, “Why we have voluntarily chosen to do this?” Most of our colleagues assiduously avoid involvement in legal matters. Why do we enter into an arena where the venue and rules are so different from, and even antithetical to, our orientation and training? Why, when we are so accustomed to asking the questions, do we put ourselves in the position of being asked questions? Why do we expose ourselves to being devalued and have our weaknesses, insecurities, and foibles put on view by a well-trained cross-examiner? Why do we, who are accustomed to the intimacy, privacy, and confidentiality of our consulting rooms, abandon all that for the exposure to public and often media scrutiny? Whatever the reasons, there are a few psychoanalysts who choose to do this work and, hard as it may be, derive a sense of professional satisfaction from doing something challenging, exciting, and socially and psychoanalytically useful, and which by the very nature of the work involves a fascinating degree of continued learning.

If psychoanalysis is to be more than an expensive and time-consuming treatment for the few, it has to show its unique usefulness and application to understanding and clarifying issues in other fields. Although Freud's forays into legal issues were significant, they remained tangential to his main emphasis. Anna Freud's collaboration with Goldstein and Solnit (1973, 1979, 1986) directly applied psychoanalytic concepts to legal matters and specifically to the underlying presumptions the law makes about child custody issues and the child's developmental needs.

In many ways, the law and psychoanalytic thinking deal with identical issues but since there are different goals, these two fields have developed different methods, guiding principles, and professional heritage. Yet, they both have a strong investment in ascertaining the truth, in understanding motivatio