Posted: May 22, 2019
Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed July 6, 2019
CJA01-0204. Executive Committees. AMEND – Clarifies role of Policy and Planning Committee regarding human resources policies and procedures.
CJA03-0402. Human Resources Administration. AMEND – Updates committee membership and clarifies workflow for processing proposed revisions to the human resource policies and procedure.
CJA04-020.03. Records access. AMEND – Permits a parent or guardian of a minor victim to access the disposition order entered in a delinquency case.
CJA04-0903. Uniform custody evaluations. AMEND – Adds “Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor” to list of professionals who may perform custody evaluations. Removes from the rule the list of factors required to be considered by evaluator, instead directing that all custody factors set forth in statute must be considered.
CJA03-0402 Human Resources Administration
I would recommend that a chief of probation be added to the committee roster. That individual could be chosen by the chiefs’ group.
In regards to CJA03-0402 Human Resource Administration
There is a established human resources policy and procedure review committee that consists of the director of human resources, two trial court executives, three clerks of court, one probation supervisor and a clerical case manager. I would suggest that a Chief Probation Officer should be in the place of the probation supervisor. Chief Probation Officers communicate more often with Human Resources on personnel matters and many Chief Probation Officers act not only as Chiefs, but as the role of a supervisor in many districts. Chief Probation Officers work with HR on job announcements and work closely with Trial Court Executives on personnel matters.
CJA03-0402. Human Resources Administration. I would recommend under the section about committee voting members to add an additional voting member of a Chief Probation Officer (to be selected by the Chiefs)
Re: CJA 4-903, the bigger the pool of qualified custody evaluators the better. CMCHs (Clinical Mental Health Counselors) are just as qualified as the others the current version of the rule permits to conduct evaluations (i.e., clinical social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and marriage and family therapists). We need more choices, more competition, more points of view in the custody evaluation sphere. We need better performance and lower prices. Expanding the pool is a step in this (right) direction.
I agree.
I agree. There is a shortage of qualified individuals needed to complete the custody assessments and CMHCs are qualified by licensure and as long as they have additional forensic training they will be a valued addition to the pool
The requirements for such a skill require specialized training. All those who are licensed and meet the requirements should be taken into consideration.
I agree with everything you’ve said here. In terms of training, CMHCs are on par with LCSWs and LMFTs and should have the same legal opportunities. All should have specific training to perform accurate evaluations in addition to their basic licensure requirements, but CMHCs should certainly not be disregarded.
I agree with this as well.
I also agree with this.
I totally agree. CMHCs are definitely qualified to provide custody evaluations. Please correct the oversight!
I also agree with all previous comments regarding CMHCs and their qualifications for performing custody evaluations with any additional training needed.
I agree with this adjustment of CJA04-0903. Uniform custody evaluations. LCMHC are equally qualified as other licensed mental health professionals.
We need a larger pool of qualified custody evaluators. By leaving CMCH’s out of the ability to make recommendations we lose qualified professionals. The state is hurting for qualified professionals as it is.
Hear! Hear! Let the law be amended and allow these sufferers to be loosened to do the work they are licensed to do.
Regarding the proposed amendment to USB 14-301 that would provide “that a lawyer shall avoid hostile, demeaning, humiliating, intimidating, harassing, or discriminatory conduct with all other counsel, parties, judges, witnesses, and other participants in the proceedings,” the rule needs to ensure that “truth is an absolute defense.” If someone makes a statement that is arguably hostile, demeaning, humiliating, intimidating, harassing, or discriminatory, but the statement is true, the value of learning the truth, the value of candor outweighs the interest in avoiding the giving of offense.
Regarding proposed Rule 4-903(4), my preference would be to leave the factors to be considered in the body of the rule itself and not simply provide that evaluators “must consider and respond to each of custody factors set forth in statute.” If they’re going to require referencing factors “set forth in statute” they should state, specifically what the code sections are they’re referring to and not make such a vague and ambiguous reference which will only open it up to interpretation of what the “statutory” factors are.
Your request sounds reasonable, orderly, and clear. I support your statement and would also like your proposed clarity.
The factors to be considered in Rule 4-903 should remain. These were gathered from different sources and variious statutes into one place. It is wrong to leave the evaluator to sift through the state code, which they won’t do, to find what factors they should consider. The prior change was an improvement. This proposed change goes in the wrong direction. You also have nothing about being AFCC informed as a requirement. We also don’t want a bachelor degree social worker performing custody evaluations without something more in the way of training.
If you’re referring to CMHC’s as being bachelor level then you have false and incorrect information. The CMHC license has a masters in mental health counseling. They are actually better educated when it comes to clinical diagnosing and therapy modalities. Perhaps you should acquire more accurate information before making a stance. Furthermore, the standards outlined by the AFCC are not enforced in this state for any other credentialed evaluator and therefore has no relevance to this particular amendment. If this change is made, it will have zero bearing on whether or not the AFCC standards are followed. Attorneys, judges and commissioners should choose evaluators based on whether or not those evaluators follow the AFCC guidelines, but again, that has no bearing on this amendment. Your comment, therefore, provides both false information and a straw man argument and is therefore useless.
I agree, please look into education levels before making comments on public health.
A major shortage of qualified professionals exist. Rather than excluding professionals willing to do this difficult work, embrace the chance to get more family’s help. We should have never been excluded with regards to this in the first place. please vote to allow us into the pool of professionals.
I agree that the factors considered in the 4-903 should remain for very similar reasons. We need clear reference to the state codes in one place rather than having to find them. However, I would avoid using state code to rally commercial support to one business or site. There are other highly qualified forensic bodies in addition to (and perhaps better than) the AFCC, such as the National Board of Forensic Evaluators (NBFE) of which I am a member. Let’s not get too political in our use of the law. Lastly, I am very confused by your reference to ‘bachelor level social workers performing custody evaluations’. Perhaps it is allegorical rather than factual. You may be referring to the CMHC’s who are master level mental health professionals. I know from personal experience that their training and education is superior to master level social work education. Master’s level social work requires one year of advocacy and administrative training leaving only one year for clinical focus whereas mental health counselors have a full two years. Don’t hate them for their superior training. That would be wrong.
Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselors have the equivalent and prerequisite training to conduct Child Custody evaluations; in terms of education, supervised practice, licensure examination, etc. they are equal to a LCSW and/or LMFT. There would be no logical reason to exclude them from performing this much needed service.
Re: CJA 4-903, I definitely feel that CMHC’s should be able to perform custody evaluations. The clinical training at a masters level is more than suited for the evaluation. A policy that prevents capable and well trained professionals only hinders the work that needs to be done to improve a child’s safety.
CMHC’s (Clinical Mental Health Counselors) should be considered equal to LCSW’s in terms of clinical capability and professional legitimacy. The CJA04-0903 amendment is a step in the right direction to ensure accurate perception – and inclusion – of CMHCs.
The education that I was given to become a Clinical Mental Health Counselor, prepared me to absolutely be qualified to conduct custody evaluations. My understanding is that our specific education was geared towards more interventions and understandings of theories as opposed to systems of care and social work type activities such as Case Management, she’s not less important, but definitely different in its very nature.
In regards to CJA04-0903 I agree that CMHC’s should be added to conduct custody evaluations. They have just as much training and knowledge as a LMFT and LCSW. The more providers available to do custody evaluations the more we can serve our community.
CMHC’s are highly trained Master’s Degree level professionals. So long as they participate in any additional training necessary for evaluations they should have the same eligibility for custody evaluations and any other service provided by an LCSW.
I support the proposal to amend CJA04-0903 to “Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor” (LCMHC) to list of professionals who may perform custody evaluations for the following reasons:
1. Currently, an LCSW can conduct custody evaluations; however the words “diagnose/diagnosis”, “assessment”, “forensic” are not even used once in their Code of Ethics (see https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English) In contrast, LCMHCs have an entire section dedicated to Assessment and Diagnosis and Forensic Activity (See Section D, page 18 in http://connections.amhca.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=d4e10fcb-2f3c-c701-aa1d-5d0f53b8bc14).
2. LCMHCs are required to pass two national board examinations, one of which is The National Clinical Mental Health Counseling Examination (NCMHCE), which consists of 10 clinical simulations designed to sample a broad area of competencies including problem-solving ability, including identifying, analyzing, diagnosing and treating clinical issues (see https://www.nbcc.org/Assets/Exam/Handbooks/NCMHCE.pdf).
3. The national accreditation body (CACREP) for LCMHCs requires master’s level coursework to include intake interview, mental status evaluation, biopsychosocial history, mental health history, and psychological assessment for treatment planning and strategies for interfacing with the legal system regarding court-referred clients (see https://www.cacrep.org/section-5-entry-level-specialty-areas-clinical-mental-health-counseling/). This is in addition to core/foundational coursework in clinical-focused Assessment and psychometric-based Testing that covers procedures for identifying trauma and abuse and for reporting abuse, use of environmental assessments and systematic behavioral observations, use of symptom checklists, and personality and psychological testing, and use of assessment results to diagnose developmental, behavioral, and mental disorders.
4. The Utah Mental Health Professional Practice Act defines the scope of practice for LCSWs and LCMHCs as including 100% of the same duties for the “Practice of mental health therapy” (see 58-60-102 Definitions.7 at https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title58/Chapter60/C58-60_1800010118000101.pdf) and only limits this scope by “the licensee’s education, training, and competence” (see 58-60-207 Scope of practice & 58-60-407 Scope of practice).
5. The current LCMHC rule, R156-60c-302a. Qualifications for Licensure – Education Requirements, requires the following independent master’s level coursework that aligns with Rule 4-903.(4)(5)&(6):
a. (D) a minimum of two semester or three quarter hours in human growth and development;
b. (G) a minimum of two semester or three quarter hours in substance-related and addictive disorders;
c. (H) a minimum of two semester or three quarter hours in assessment and testing;
d. (I) a minimum of four semester or six quarter hours in mental status examination and the appraisal of DSM maladaptive and psychopathological behavior;
None of these master’s-level educational courses are required for LCSWs in Subsections 58-60-205(1)(d) and (g). Thus, the current Rule 4-903 is a double standard that erroneously excludes LCMHCs (who by education, accreditation, ethical codes, licensing act rule, and examination are more qualified than any LCSW).
CMHC is as qualified to perform child custody evaluations for family court. CMHC go through rigorous educational and practical training to qualify for tasks such as this.
I agree with this statement.
I support the proposal to amend CJA04-0903 to “Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor” (LCMHC) to list of professionals who may perform custody evaluations, as the CMHC license demands a strong foundation of education and training which is on a par with the professional mental health licenses currently acknowledged. Expanding the array of participating licenses will benefit the children/families that are part of this process. CMHC professionals with extensive training and strong experience and are ready to help! Thank you!
I, Joshua Emmett an intern CMHC, support the proposal to amend CJA04-0903 to “Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor” (LCMHC) to list of professionals who may perform custody evaluations.
I have lived in Texas and did many custody evaluations. As a clinical mental health counselor we work closely with children, and their parents. I have also a Phd in psychology and have been published in child development books. Usually requires a minimum of a Master’s degree in Counseling along with post graduate supervised experience.
LPC’s and LMHC’s work in a collaborative approach with the patient to determine the best way for the counseling sessions to provide preferred outcomes.
LPC’s and LMHC’s require advanced degrees and training to achieve licensure to operate.
Refers only to those licensed by a state board to provide professional counseling based mental therapy.
Must adhere to high standards regarding ethics and confidentiality as provided by the state board. Usually involves signing an ethics pledge or oath.
Can be involved in direct therapy with patients in private practice.
LPC’s and LMHC’s have access to a much broader field of potential models and methods for mental health therapies.
LPC’s and LMHC’s provide an approach that is highly attuned to the individual and especially their decision making process to achieve client goals and objectives.
Certified Social Worker (CSW)
To become a Certified Social Worker (CSW) in Utah, you must first get your Master of Social Work degree from a Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) accredited university or college.
No field experience is required to apply for this license.
Then you will need to receive a passing score on an Association of Social Workers ASWB Master Level Exam or the Clinical Social Workers Examination of the State of California.
There are no continuing education requirements to renew this license you simply need to pay the renewal fee.
CMHC must;Utah has the following educational requirements for licensure.
You will first need to acquire your Bachelor’s degree in Counseling or a highly related Social or Behavioral Science field such as Psychology, Social Work or Human Services. Counseling degrees are preferred.
The next step is to enroll in a master’s or doctorate program in counseling accredited by CACREP, or one offered through a school accredited by an agency recognized by CHEA.
You will also need to complete a practicum that is at least three full semester hours.
You will need to have a six semester hour internship that includes at least 900 hours of supervised clinical experience with 360 hours of direct client service in the form of therapy sessions.
PLUS
You must complete 40 hours per year of continuing education.
That is a big difference and yet social workers may perform.
There are many other differences where we are counseling and not case managers.
As a Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor in Utah, I believe it is vital to amend CJA04-0903 to include “Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselors” (LCMHC) to list of professionals who may perform forensic evaluations for the following reasons:
Utah state license requirements for LCMHCs in their master’s level coursework includes intake interview, mental status evaluation, biopsychosocial history, mental health history, and psychological assessment for treatment planning and strategies for interfacing with the legal system regarding court-referred clients (see https://www.cacrep.org/section-5-entry-level-specialty-areas-clinical-mental-health-counseling/).
This is in addition to coursework in clinical-focused and psychometric-based assessment that covers procedures for identifying trauma and abuse and for reporting abuse, use of environmental assessments and systematic behavioral observations, use of symptom checklists, and personality and psychological testing, and use of assessment results to diagnose developmental, behavioral, and mental disorders.
The current LCMHC rule, R156-60c-302a. Qualifications for Licensure – Education Requirements, requires the following independent master’s level coursework that aligns with Rule 4-903.(4)(5)&(6) includes:
a. two or more semester or three quarter hours in human growth and development
b. two or more semester or three quarter hours in substance-related and addictive disorders
c. two or more semester or three quarter hours in assessment and testing
d. four or more semester or six quarter hours in mental status examination and the appraisal of DSM maladaptive and psychopathological behavior
The Utah Mental Health Professional Practice Act is inclusive of parity in the scope of practice for LCSWs, LMFTs, and LCMHCs in the “Practice of mental health therapy” (see 58-60-102 Definitions.7 at https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title58/Chapter60/C58-60_1800010118000101.pdf) and only limits this scope by “the licensee’s education, training, and competence” (see 58-60-207 Scope of practice & 58-60-407 Scope of practice).
LCMHCs are by education, accreditation, ethical codes, licensing act rule, and examination as qualified as other state defined mental health therapists to perform a range of evaluations authorized by CJA04-0903.
Utah citizens need all qualified mental heath therapists, including LCMHCs, to be accessible as appropriate. There is no valid justification under the law to not include LCMHCs.
I support the proposal to amend CJA04-0903 to “Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor” (LCMHC) to list of professionals who may perform custody evaluations and that the factors to be considered remain in the body of the rule itself. I am an associate clinical mental health counselor with certification from National Board for Certified Counselors. (NBCC). I was quite surprised to learn early in my graduate program that as a counselor I might be prevented from performing services for which I am more than adequately educated, experienced, licensed (CMHC) and fully qualified to carry out. We are all aware of the deep limitations to service delivery. It is incumbent upon all mental health professions to help ensure that CMHC’s are fully recognized as equally qualified counterparts in the mental health field so that we may aid the consumers who most need our services.
Please allow CMHCs to conduct custody evaluations. Thank you!