The current article was motivated by a case study to diversify present literature on parental grief and wrongful conviction. The authors sought to accomplish this by reviewing available literature on parental grief through the lens of mothers who are forced to grieve both the loss of their child as well as the loss of their personal freedom as a result of being wrongfully incarcerated for the death of said child. The integration of these two topics revealed significant emotional, physical, and adaptive effects of being a female exoneree compounded with the effect of being convicted of physically harming or killing her own child. A review of this information revealed several risk factors contributing to the development of both psychiatric and medical conditions, as well as increasing the risk of mortality in women, and allowed the current authors to propose future directions for practice and research.

The U.S. Constitutional structure creates ethical conflicts for the cross-jurisdictional practice of professional psychology. The profession has chosen to seek interstate agreements to overcome such barriers, and such agreements now include almost 80% of American jurisdictions. Although an improvement over a patchwork of state laws regarding practice, the structure of this agreement and the exclusion of the remaining states continue to pose barriers to the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. It creates a system that is extraordinarily difficult to change and places an unrealistic burden on professionals to know, address, and act under complex legal mandates. As psychological services have moved increasingly to remote platforms, cross-jurisdictional business models, and a nationwide mental health crisis emerged alongside the pandemic, it is time to consider a national professional licensing system more seriously, both to further reduce barriers to care and complexity and permit the best interests of patients to prevail.

The rise in terrorist acts around the world has called for greater attention for health care professionals to predict and report those who may commit such violence. This focus raises significant ethical questions regarding the certainty with which such predictions can be made and concurrently, problems regarding breaches of confidentiality. In some jurisdictions, we see the increasing attention paid to mandatory disclosure when there is a reasonable suspicion of harm to self or others, even before an act of terror has occurred. The questions that need to be explored are (1) whether it is possible to make an accurate prediction of future use of violence; (2) if so, what are the potential outcomes of such disclosures; and (3) what are the ethical concerns for the health care profession in general as well as the individual professional? The European Union has passed laws under the collective heading of “Prevent” to identify those who have the potential to become part of a terrorist cell. Does such mandatory reporting actually stop and prevent terrorist acts from occurring, or, in a broader sense, does mandatory reporting actually reduce the potential for violence. To answer these questions, we will examine the ability to predict who will commit future violence using scientific research on risk assessment. Prediction of future violence using clinical interview methods alone has been found to be inaccurate more often than accurate prompting the development of structured interviews and ‘actuarials’ using data from researching violent offenders (Shapiro and Noe in Handbook of behavioral criminology. Springer, New York, 2018). Ethical considerations of whether the science of risk assessment yields sufficiently high enough accuracy to warrant violation of the patient’s privacy are explored. Does the violation of human rights especially in those where the predictions are inaccurate create an ethical crisis in health care?

When not overlooked altogether, women who kill are labeled as 'crazy' or 'evil.' The complexity of the woman's background and motivations leads to a misunderstanding of how and why a woman could kill another, especially an intimate partner. While it is rare for a woman to kill, and rarer for her to kill her partner, intimate partner violence often predates lethal acts. Frequently, women who use lethal force are survivors of child abuse or domestic violence and their adverse experiences play major contributing roles in their crimes. This special issue on women who kill seeks to fill the gaps in research in elaborating on who these women are, their motivations, other details about their violence, and how they can be aided throughout psychological evaluation and proper expert testimony. Articles within this issue discuss common themes found among women who kill as well as how psychologists may assist in litigation (e.g., consultation, evaluation, and expert witness testimony). Furthermore, this issue discusses women who did not kill, but were punished as if they had. This special issue is published in anticipation of offering further assistance to the criminal justice system and policymakers. We seek to highlight the points in which the legal system has failed these women and demonstrate how clinicians can provide a better understanding of how various psychological and demographic factors contribute to situations where battered women may feel the only option to ensure survival is lethal self-defense.

Several adult and childhood risk factors are associated with an increased likelihood of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. Witnessing interparental violence and experiencing abuse as a child are both linked to an increased likelihood of experiencing IPV as an adult. Additionally, relationship factors, including length of IPV relationships, intermittent relationship reinforcement, and having children not related to the perpetrator, are linked to an increased severity of abuse. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between childhood and adult relationship factors and the severity of emotional and behavioral symptoms associated with IPV. Statistically, the macro PROCESS was employed to evaluate the association of childhood factors to symptom severity with adult relationship factors as the mediator. Results suggest that adult relationship factors partially mediate the relationship between childhood factors and symptom severity. Specifically, these findings demonstrate that the identified childhood factors significantly increased adult relationship factors, which, in turn, increased symptom severity in female IPV survivors. Educating clinicians and medical professionals' understanding of these risk factors may improve the rates at which these survivors are identified and could lower the risk of continued abuse. Additioanlly, cultivating awareness of these factors and integrating them into assessment and intervention programs may be a step toward protecting IPV survivors against psychologically negative outcomes.

Societal reentry from prison presents a wide array of extreme challenges to inmates attempting to reintegrate with society. This process is significantly more daunting for inmates suffering from mental illness for several reasons. This paper examines the reentry process for inmates with mental illness. Three sample reentry programs (Forensic Assertive Community Treatment, Critical Time Intervention, and Thresholds' Prison Aftercare Program) that were developed for inmates with mental illness are discussed along with research testifying to the effectiveness of these programs. Finally, components that would comprise an ideal prison reentry program for mentally ill inmates are outlined, which include a three-phase structure and a focus on preparing both inmates and communities for the reentry process.

It is expected that families will take care of their children until such time as they can care for themselves, and then families will also care for their aging relatives when these elders can no longer do so. However, when no one can or does care for vulnerable populations such as children, the mentally and physically disabled, and the elderly, the responsibility falls on the state to protect its citizens. MaltreatmentMaltreatment falls into four categories: physical abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, psychological abuse, and neglect. When an instance of maltreatment is confirmed and other interventions are unsuccessful, the state may assume care and responsibility of children or other vulnerable members. This leads to placement in foster homes or group homes for the children, or assisted living facilities for the adults. Each state has a department focused on family services to oversee these placements and services for the vulnerable individual, as well as to provide services to help the family regain custody and care. Although resources do not ever seem to be entirely sufficient, treatment programs for substance-abusing parents, parent education programs, and guardianship programs for the elderly are all among various interventions across the states in some form or another.

The situation is truly ironic. The argument for retaining “beyond control” and truancy jurisdiction is that juvenile courts have to act in such cases because “if we don’t act, no one else will.” I submit that precisely the opposite is the case: because you act, no one else does. Schools and public agencies refer their problem cases to you because you have jurisdiction, because you exercise it and because you hold out promises that you can provide solutions.