| Popis: |
In recent years art therapists have been called increasingly to testify in court in cases where they have been involved in the diagnostic and/or therapeutic process of a defendant or victim. How this testimony has been received has been for the most part dependent on how receptive the particular court has been to the field of art therapy. There is little in the literature that discusses the role of the art therapist in the court system. However, information from a number of art therapists around the country shared with the two art therapy authors suggests that most art therapists feel the need to contribute in this setting, but also are intimidated by the system. A prevailing concern has been the court’s pervasive view that art therapy is not a valid modality when compared to psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychiatry. The authors of this paper were some of the players in a courtroom drama that prompted the presiding judge to request that experts in the fields of art therapy and psychiatry provide evidence to attest to the validity of art therapy. The testimony of the experts. (Dr. Levick and Dr. Levine), the role of the treating art therapist (Mrs. Safran), and the judge’s decision are the foci of this paper. |
