Forensic Behavioral Associates

09/10/2026

When a Mother Kills
Three children died. Their mother killed them. She was also severely mentally ill.

After 21 days of testimony and seven days of deliberation, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy case could not agree on whether she was criminally responsible for killing her three children.

That inability to reach a verdict may tell us something important.
In my latest Substack article, I take a closer look at the uncomfortable questions raised by this case:
• What is postpartum psychosis?
• Can someone experiencing psychosis still plan and appear rational?
• Does hearing a command voice establish psychosis?
• What is the difference between a psychiatric diagnosis and legal insanity?
• And how much can clinicians realistically predict when the outcome is extraordinarily rare?

Perhaps most importantly, I examine what this tragedy should teach us about recognizing severe postpartum mental illness before a family reaches a courtroom asking what happened.

We do not have to choose between compassion and accountability. We can grieve for Cora, Dawson, and Callan, acknowledge that Lindsay Clancy killed them, and still take seriously the possibility that severe mental illness profoundly altered her perception of reality.

The jury could not agree after seven days of deliberation. Perhaps the rest of us should have some humility before insisting the answer is obvious.

Read my full article, “When a Mother Kills: Lindsay Clancy, Postpartum Psychosis, and the Limits of Criminal Responsibility,” on Substack:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-215089390

Lindsay Clancy, Postpartum Psychosis, and the Limits of Criminal Responsibility

09/06/2026

The legal consequences of “good intentions”

One of the most common statements I hear when reviewing a case is: “But they were trying to help.”

And often, that’s true.

Most behavioral health professionals enter the field because they genuinely want to help people. Most organizations are not intentionally trying to harm patients, clients, residents, or families.

But in litigation, good intentions are rarely the question.

Actions are.

Because courts generally do not determine liability by asking: “What were they trying to accomplish?”

Courts ask:
• What did they do?
• What information did they have?
• What risks were foreseeable?
• What standards applied?
• Were those standards met?
• Were the actions reasonable under the circumstances?

This distinction is important. Because good intentions do not eliminate professional responsibilities or protect against liability.
• A clinician may genuinely care about a client and still fail to complete an adequate assessment.
• A supervisor may be committed to supporting staff and still fail to provide sufficient oversight.
• An organization may want to provide quality care and still create unsafe conditions through inadequate staffing, training, or policies.
Intentions matter ethically.

Actions matter legally.

And the two are connected, they are not always the same.

One of the dangers of focusing too heavily on intentions is that it can distract from outcomes and accountability. People begin evaluating whether someone meant well rather than whether they acted appropriately.

But standards of care are not based on intentions. They are based on professional expectations, guidelines, and best practices.

In forensic case reviews, I often find that adverse outcomes emerge not because someone intended harm, but because risks were underestimated, safeguards were missing, communication failed, or professional standards were not consistently followed.

• That is why documentation matters.
• That is why supervision matters.
• That is why policies matter.
• And that is why accountability matters.

Because when a case enters litigation, the question is rarely whether people cared. The question is whether they exercised reasonable professional judgment and met the standards of care expected of them.

Good intentions may explain behavior. But they do not excuse it.

And they do not replace professional responsibility.

QUESTION:
Have you ever encountered a situation where good intentions contributed to a poor outcome because professional standards, safeguards, or accountability mechanisms were overlooked?

~ Dr. Andrews
www.forensicbehavioral.com
© James H. Andrews, PhD, LICSW 2026

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

08/21/2026

What courts actually look for in expert testimony

One of the biggest misconceptions about expert witnesses is that courts are primarily looking for the person with the most impressive credentials.

Let’s clarify:
• Credentials matter.
• Experience matters.
• Training matters.
• Education matters.
But those things alone do not make testimony persuasive. Or admissible.

In reality, courts are often focused on a different set of questions:
• Is the expert qualified to offer the opinion?
• Is the opinion based on sufficient facts and data?
• Is the methodology reliable?
• Has the methodology been applied appropriately to the facts of the case?
• Can the expert clearly explain their reasoning?

Notice what is missing from that list: Whether the expert sounds confident.

Confidence is not a methodology. And certainty is not evidence.

In fact, some of the strongest expert testimony acknowledges limitations, uncertainty, and alternative explanations.

Because courts are not simply evaluating conclusions. They are evaluating how those conclusions were reached.

That is why documentation matters.

That is why methodology matters.

That is why transparent reasoning matters.

When I review opposing expert reports, one of the first questions I ask is: “Can I follow the path from the evidence to the opinion?”

If the answer is no, the opinion becomes difficult to evaluate or defend, but easier to challenge.

A well-supported opinion allows others to understand:
• What information was reviewed
• What standards were applied
• What methodology was used
• How competing explanations were considered
• Why the expert reached the conclusions they did

In many ways, expert testimony is less about providing answers and more about making professional reasoning visible.

The goal is not to convince the court that the expert is right.

The goal is to provide a reliable, transparent, and professionally grounded opinion that assists the court in understanding the issues before it. That’s what courts are ultimately looking for.
• Not certainty.
• Not advocacy.
• Not confidence.
Reasoned expertise.

QUESTION:
In your view, what distinguishes a credible expert witness from someone who is simply highly credentialed?

~ Dr. Andrews
www.forensicbehavioral.com
© James H. Andrews, PhD, LICSW 2026

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

08/06/2026

Who gets labeled “high risk” and why it matters

“High risk.”

It’s a phrase used every day across healthcare, behavioral health, child welfare, criminal justice, education, and human services.

At first glance, it seems straightforward.
• Assess the risk.
• Assign a level.
• Guide a decision.
But labels carry consequences.

Because once someone is identified as “high risk,” that designation often influences what happens next. And what happens next is significant and often life changing.

It may affect:
• Access to services
• Hospitalization decisions
• Supervision levels
• Housing opportunities
• Employment prospects
• Educational supports
• Child welfare interventions
• Criminal justice responses

In some cases, being identified as high risk leads to additional resources and support. In others, it leads to increased restrictions, monitoring, or control.

That’s why the label matters.

The challenge is that risk is NOT an identity. It’s an assessment.

And assessments are based on information available at a specific point in time.

They are not permanent characteristics of a person.

Yet risk labels can sometimes become sticky. People begin to be viewed through the lens of the label rather than through the complexity of their circumstances.

The focus shifts from: “Why is this risk present?”

to

“This person is high risk.”

That distinction is important.

Because good risk assessment is not simply about identifying danger. It is about understanding what factors are contributing to risk and what can be done to reduce it.

The goal should never be to categorize people.

The goal should be to understand them.

That means paying attention to:
• Risk factors
• Protective factors
• Static factors
• Dynamic Factors
• Strengths
• Context
• Available supports
• Opportunities for intervention

A label may help communicate concern. But it should never replace analysis. And it should never become a substitute for understanding the person behind the label.

Because whenever a professional label influences another person’s opportunities, freedoms, or future, the responsibility to get it right becomes even greater.

QUESTION:
How can professionals communicate significant risk concerns without allowing risk labels to overshadow the individual’s strengths, context, and capacity for change?

~ Dr. Andrews
www.forensicbehavioral.com
© James H. Andrews, PhD, LICSW 2026

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

06/27/2026

Wanted to share a recent interview I did with Trevor Kerr about people with Autism and interactions with police. Thank you Trevor for this opportunity to discuss the diagnosis of Autism and the challenges related to police interactions.



https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18nzqpfMBt/

04/22/2026

The Advantages of a Forensic Social Worker as an Expert Witness
Not all expert witnesses approach behavioral health malpractice in the same way. And in high-stakes legal matters, that difference matters.
A forensic social worker brings a distinct advantage to expert witness work, grounded in the integration of clinical expertise, systems knowledge, and real-world practice.
Unlike professionals whose work is primarily diagnostic or evaluative, forensic social workers are trained to understand individuals within the context of:
• Systems of care
• Institutional structures
• Policy and regulatory frameworks
• Documentation practices and standards of care
That perspective is critical in matters of malpractice.
Because many legal cases involving behavioral health are not simply about what happened. They are about:
• Whether care met accepted standards
• Whether risk was appropriately assessed and managed
• Whether systems functioned as intended or failed
This is where forensic social work offers unique value.
Forensic social workers are trained to:
• Analyze clinical decision-making in real-world environments
• Evaluate documentation for accuracy, consistency, and defensibility
• Identify and explain gaps between policy, practice, and outcomes
• Translate complex behavioral health issues into clear, legally relevant opinions
Just as important, they understand the realities of practice.
They have worked within the very systems being evaluated: community mental health, inpatient settings, residential programs, interdisciplinary teams, and correctional facilities.
That matters in court.
Because credibility is not just about credentials.
It is about whether the expert understands how decisions are actually made under pressure, with limited information, competing demands, and real consequences.
Forensic social workers also bring a strong ethical framework to expert testimony.
Grounded in the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, their role is not advocacy for a side but a commitment to:
• Objectivity
• Accuracy
• Competence
• Integrity of opinion
• Protection of vulnerable populations
At its best, expert witness work is not about winning a case.
It is about clarifying the truth of what occurred, how decisions were made, and whether those decisions met the standard of care.
That is the work forensic social workers are uniquely positioned to do. Because when the stakes are high, what matters is not just what happened – but whether it can be clearly demonstrated, responsibly interpreted, and ethically defended.
I’ll be continuing to write about this space, particularly where clinical practice, risk, and legal accountability intersect.
~ Dr. James H. Andrews, PhD, LCSW, LICSW

04/20/2026

What Is Forensic Social Work? (And Why It’s Not Just “Clinical Work in a Courtroom”)
Forensic social work is one of the most misunderstood areas of the social work profession, even among social workers. It is not simply clinical social work that happens to intersect with the legal system. And it is not interchangeable with counseling, therapy, or even general behavioral health practice.
Forensic social work applies social work knowledge and values to issues before the court. It operates at the intersection of clinical practice, legal standards, and systems-level integration.
At its core, it involves the application of social work knowledge and values to questions that carry legal, ethical, and often high-stakes consequences:
• Risk of violence
• Allegations of abuse or neglect
• Standards of care and professional liability
• Competency, responsibility, and decision-making capacity
This is where the work fundamentally shifts.
In traditional clinical social work, the focus is on helping, healing, and supporting the client. The relationship is therapeutic, and the clinician’s role is grounded in care, rapport, and intervention through a stance of unconditional positive regard.
In forensic social work, the role is evaluative, structured, and accountable to external standards. The audience is no longer just the client. It includes attorneys, courts, law enforcement, regulatory bodies, and systems that require clear, defensible, and well-documented conclusions.
That changes everything.
Forensic social workers must:
• Apply structured and evidence-informed assessment methods
• Translate clinical findings into legally relevant language
• Maintain objectivity, even when findings are uncomfortable or contested
• Anchor opinions in documentation, standards of care, and established practice
Perhaps most importantly, forensic social work requires the ability to step back from assumption and ask:
What can actually be supported, demonstrated, and defended?
Because in forensic contexts, it is not enough to be clinically intuitive or even clinically correct. The work must withstand scrutiny within legal and evidentiary standards.
This distinction matters more now than ever.
As systems become more complex and as behavioral health increasingly intersects with legal, policy, and technological domains, the need for structured, ethical, and defensible assessment continues to grow.
Forensic social work is not a departure from social work core values. It is an applied extension of them under pressure, within systems, and in moments where the stakes are at their highest and where outcomes carry real and lasting life-changing consequences.
I’ll be writing more about this intersection—especially where risk, ethics, and decision-making collide.
~ Dr. James H. Andrews, PhD, LCSW, LICSW

09/14/2024

Hello, I wanted to share this announcement and hopefully you can help. Looking for folks currently practicing in the following counties of Southwestern Pennsylvania: Alleghany, Altoona, Butler, Erie, Washington, and Westmoreland or whose employers are based in these regions.
Last Call for Mental Health Professionals to Participate in a Critical Research Study Examining Violence Threat Assessment
Are you a Mental Health Professional with experience in threat assessment? We need your expertise—study is winding down very soon and participation will close by the end of September.
As many of you are aware, I am pursuing my PhD. I need at least two more subjects for my qualitative interviews by the end of September. My dissertation study is a qualitative study to explore the lived experiences of Mental Health Professionals (MHPs) in identifying and predicting the risk of violence in community mental health settings. Your insights are crucial to advancing our understanding and improving threat assessment practices.
Who We’re Looking For:
Education: Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in a social science or human service discipline. Sorry, those possessing doctoral degrees are ineligible.
Experience: Must have conducted an evaluation of threat of violence or managed a duty to warn scenario within the past 60 months (five years).
Availability: Able to participate in a 90-minute interview conducted via Zoom at your convenience.
Why Participate?
Impact: Your participation will contribute to important research that aims to improve the safety and effectiveness of mental health practices.
Flexibility: Interviews can be scheduled at your convenience.
Confidentiality: All responses will be kept confidential and used solely for research purposes.
We are under a tight deadline, so if you are interested, please reach out as soon as possible!
Contact Information: James H. Andrews
Email: [email protected]
Your participation may lead to a significant difference in the field of mental health. This is an opportunity to contribute to meaningful research! I will be closing the study at the end of September.
James H. Andrews, LCSW, LICSW
Doctoral Candidate
Case Western Reserve University
Mandel School of Applied Social Science
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This study has been approved by the CWRU IRB.

09/11/2024

I remember. And I will never forget watching the Towers fall. 🇺🇸️💔

09/10/2024

Wanted to share what I have planned next month. If you are a mental health professional and need CEU's, I highly recommend the NASW-PA Annual Conference at the Kalahari-Poconos. It is not only informative - but. a lot pf FUN!

I hope to see at the Conference as well as at my workshop. And if the topic interests you, let me know and we discuss my presenting it for your organization or agency.