Stuart Greenberg -- A Lesson on Morality

     Just how honest and moral are the psychologists and social workers who are appointed by the courts to serve as custody evaluators?

     On June 25, 2011, the Seattle Times ran a special report entitled "The Twisted Ethics of an Expert Witness." This report deals with the life and death of Stuart Greenberg, who served as an expert witness in the field of forensic psychology for the Washington courts.

     Stuart Greenberg had a Ph.D from the University of Southern California. He came to Seattle in 1979 when he was hired by the University of Washington to replace a psychology professor who had resigned. He earned a relatively modest salary as a teacher. After teaching for two years, he resigned and moved into private practice.

    Greenberg accepted positions as a child custody investigator, expert evaluator, arbiter, mediator and guardian ad litem. As a custody evaluator, he interviewed the parties involved in child custody battles and made recommendations to the court about which parent should have custody of a child. The courts usually followed his recommendations. His career flourished. This was partly because he was charismatic when testifying on the stand.

     In classrooms, at continuing education conferences and conventons across the country, Greenberg taught others how to be custody evaluators. One colleague later commented that his conferences were "the best he had ever attended." Another stated that he still uses Greenberg's forms for certain evaluations. Greenberg was the author of the national certification exam for his profession. Admired and respected by his peers, Greenberg was elected to be president of the American Board of Forensic Psychology in 2002-2003.

     But a hidden camera brought his career came to an abrupt end.

     In June 2007, Greenberg purchased a device that looked and sounded like an air purifier, but contained a hidden camera. He installed the hidden camera in his office's bathroom so that he could watch employees and clients use the toilet.

     It's easy to understand why his employees became suspicious. An "air purifier" was in use, but the bathroom still stunk. According to the Seattle Times, a female psychologist devised a test. On July 3, 2007, she placed an aerosol can in front of the camera to obstruct the view. Within 30 minutes, Greenberg entered the bathroom and closed the door. Caught on videotape, he adjusted the lens, stared into the camera, smiled and masturbated. After the videotape was found in Greenberg's VCR, the woman who had been filmed was alerted. Greenberg was arrested by the police that afternoon.

    The man was a voyeur. For purely selfish reasons, he disrespected his employees and clients by invading their privacy. To get a thrill, he filmed them while they were partially undressed and using the toilet. How long was Greenberg behaving in this sick and disgusting manner before he got caught?

     Did he abuse anyone else?
   
     A pervert should never have been allowed to make recommendations to the court about which parent should have custody of a child. Nor should he have been allowed to testify as an expert witness in sexual abuse cases. Because he was an abuser himself, his views might be slanted in favor of another abuser. This put innocent children at risk. A pervert should not have been allowed to work as a psychologist because he could have easily taken advantage of vulnerable clients. He did take advantage of vulnerable clients.

     We must enforce laws which prohibit perverts from taking advantage of unsuspecting people. I am grateful to the woman who reported Greenberg to the police because she protected his clients and employees from further abuse.

    Three weeks after his arrest, Stuart Greenberg committed suicide.

     According to the Seattle Times, the Washington courts spent three years studying through the damage that Greenberg left behind. I believe that this was the right thing to do. Because the courts relied on Greenberg's recommendations to make rulings, the courts have the responsibility of making sure that innocent children were not harmed by these rulings. If Greenberg's recommendations were tainted, the courts should make sure that no parent was wrongfully deprived of custody of or visitation rights to a child. The courts should take steps to correct any damage. 

     The Seattle Times went through the trouble of unsealing court records and disciplinary actions against Greenberg. These records suggest that Greenberg was not as fair and impartial as he should have been. Why didn't Washington's Examining Board of Psychology realize that something was amiss before the incident involving the hidden camera?

     I will close with a quotation made by historian and moralist Lord Acton in 1887:  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."