Those giving Dr. Pickar negative reviews are those dissatisfied with his very professional demeanor and insightful perception. My spouse breached custody orders related to co - parenting more times than I care to remember. Contrary to what others said in their reviews here, he did not favor her. Dr. Pickar basically observed our children with each parent, assessing how each of us was with our children. His behavior with each of our two children was that of a school principal, a bit distant, but chuckling when our then pre schooler said she had candy bars in her bedroom "for company" as though she were a society hostess from the fifties. He was kind, but unemotional and objective. Our children were very comfortable with him despite being very young and having been through quite a bit. Contrary to what someone else said, he also completed the nearly ninety page, very well written report in record time-mere months-something the court social worker had very much requested. His report cited specific incidents and specific issues that drew him to reach his ultimate conclusion-giving me full custody. I really need to wonder about those giving Dr. Pickar such negative reviews; probably the evaluation did not go as they anticipated. Dr. Pickar is not warm and fuzzy; he is not your uncle dressing as Santa on Christmas Eve. He is a professional psychologist, very well trained and experienced, with a job to do-and he does it. read more

He never did the completed report, my bad for not asking him to finish. Too late to ask now.

Dr. Pickar did a custody review for us a few years back, his report was very favorable to my side, but the process was disturbing, and I want to share it with anyone who has a choice. Dr. Pickar is supposedly a child specialist but did not exhibit any understanding of children is his work. When our child said no, he interpreted it as a yes. Our child was scared of him and had severe somatization before every visit with him. He did not want to step out of the car and had nightmares of the whole process. Dr. Pickar is extremely cold, and his analysis of the situation shows that he brings a lot of his issues into his work. There were moments in which I thought he is quite abusive, and it seems that he frequently allies with the abuser parent (I read that in other reviews he has). Although his resume looks very promising, he is hugely problematic - invasive, non-receptive, and feels like he enjoys others' suffering. No matter what side you're on, and how you think his skills might help you, be ready for surprises. It seems that he enjoys surprising everyone. You will also notice in the process that he mixes facts, misreads things, jumps to conclusions, and develops bias very quickly. While he will talk about how important for him not to establish prejudice, he does precisely that. His recommendations are often not linked to his findings. He then recommends whatever his bias guides. We had two experts look at his report, and both said they could not understand his recommendations as they are the opposite of what anyone would conclude from the findings. Dr Pickar is not someone I would trust my child's future with - not as a custody reviewer or a child therapist. Years later, our child still talks about being scared of "Pickar" and how he felt like this big guy was not listening to him. Dr. Pickar is cheaper than other therapists who are more child-focused (he is all about the administrative work of the review, reading, and writing papers. not so much the child's feelings). But you get what you pay for... Unpredictable, not attentive, and lacks any emotional capacity. The typing errors, names confused and contradictions in his report can be quite destructive to your case. He will not see your child in a human way. read more

Daniel B Pickar, Ph.D. - Counseling & Mental Health Near Me - Santa Rosa, California

I used Dr. Pickar for a full custody evaluation with my ex. We split payment 50-50. The process involved him meeting with each of us separately for about 4 hours, plus a long T/F personality exam, then meeting with the children twice for about an hour each time, then an in-home visit for about an hour at each home. Finally, we met him again for about 90 minutes in his office, separately. My ex attended each meeting about one week before I did. It appears that Dr. Pickar believed what my ex presented to him including some of her perceptions of my motives. He did not accept the hard evidence I presented showing that my ex lied to the court, and instead accepted the hand-waving explanation she provided in a letter she sent to Dr. Pickar directly. This letter included additional misperceptions and statements that I was unable to understand her motivations, and she did not include any evidence to support her claims. Additionally, the agreed upon method of communication was to go through attorneys to get documents to Dr. Pickar, yet this direct communication from my ex to Dr. Pickar was apparently acceptable. Dr. Pickar provided the letter from my ex, and my ex's attorney did not provide the letter to my attorney for several weeks. During my initial meeting and final meeting, Dr. Pickar asked me to explain how my ex was verbally and emotionally abusive. After, I began to explain, Dr. Pickar was dismissive and moved the conversation along to other topics. He did not want to understand the amount of time involved and number of abusive actions. It appears that Dr. Pickar is easily manipulated and/or has biases which stop him from the thorough investigation and analysis I would expect based on his credentials. I would not recommend him, and unfortunately there are not many others to choose from in the Santa Rosa area. read more

I'm not in the habit of writing public reviews but given the unprofessional, egregious experience I had with Dr. Pickar as custody evaluator, I owe this to parents who are in the same emotional, vulnerable state I was in some years back. I've thought about doing this for some time, but discomfort has kept me quiet. I won't go into specifics nor will I bash his personhood or his work, but suffice it to say that his dismissive, rudimentary, biased in-person sessions were shocking, dangerous (to the well-being of my son) and extraordinarily disturbing to me as a mother and a social worker. The best interest of my child was protected by my extraordinary attorney and by our judge who recognized holes in the evaluation and was able to assess fact from fiction (i.e. narcissism/substance issues from "gatekeeping"/ "it takes two to tango"). If it was not for them, my co-parenting story would likely not have the same (eventual) healthy, peaceful ending I'm grateful to report. read more

Dr. Pickar was court appointed in a caustic divorce & child custody battle I went through back in the late 90's. The other comments here about him are correct. My ex's girlfriend was physically and verbally abusive to my then 3-year-old daughter, my ex let her, and my ex perpetually violated court orders. I could tell when I sat down Dr. Pickar was prejudice. Pickar didn't bring the girlfriend in to interview her, the abuse my daughter was exposed to was unilaterally dismissed, and it wasn't mentioned in the report that went back to the court. His findings were highly dismissive of my concerns & supportive of my ex despite the fact that he relinquished his custody time to his abusive girlfriend so he could work longer hours, rather than granting me that time with my daughter. It was a horrible experience and my daughter paid the price for years afterward as the court almost always accepts the report from these court-appointed psychiatrists, unquestioned, as they did in my case. He is NOT an advocate for what's best for the child. To this day, my now grown daughter struggles from the trauma she experienced with what eventually became her step-mother. The step-mother ended up kicking her out of the house without her shoes on in her teens & she finally lived with me full time at that point. As the other reviews say, DO NOT take your case to Pickar. He will skim through your case to get paid without much regard for the ultimate & long-lasting impact to your child/children. read more

I believe Dan is nice man, but should not be considered as an "forensic" !!! He did not read the paperwork I supplied and did not list pertinent paperwork in the final evaluation that I supplied ( notations from the DA, CPS, my ex's prior issues with domestic violence on his first wife, and notation from prior supervisors about Father's behavior during visits). "Selective" versus "Forensic" is a better fit. He was given a full binder with a table of contents. At our LAST meeting was still unaware of who had custody and the family dynamic and confused key points. IT WAS SHOCKING. I asked several others in the county who did this type of work and they were equally shocked. When questioned him about this he became very caustic and hung up the phone quickly. I have met with a 733 evaluator who is disseminating what was supplied to Pickar. Certain releases of confidential information were not signed and the entire evaluation contains typo's and contradictions. Forensic was promised by the court but sadly that did not happen ...conflict means cash for these professionals and the judicial officers have their favorites. My current advisor gave me materials on Dr. Pickar and other Marin County favorites that show the clear lack of impartiality that affects many families and children. It is frightening. Dr. Pickar did not even show empathy about my son being pulled out of his day at a new school for their meeting. He later made excuses but clearly could have been accommodating. He is suppose to be an advocate for children? This was another point of shock by several in the county. The FCS mediators in Marin County are honest and kind - they take the time to listen and meet the children - and are much more attune and "forensic " than an expensive evaluators ( who are social "friends" ) of the judicial officers ordering their work. Sadly - the judicial officers ignored the FCS and other mandated officers comments in favor of blaming protective parent. He spend 2 hours with my children - collectively . Don't waste your money. read more

Just to be absolutely clear - Dr. Pickar violated American Psychological Association guideline 9.01 which reads: "9.01 Bases for Assessments: (a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings." (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.) Dr. Pickar's assertion that "serotonin is a drug ingredient only contained in small amounts in BuSpar" is insufficient to substantiate his findings, as it is factually incorrect. There is no scientific basis to assert that serotonin is a drug ingredient. Therefore Dr. Pickar has additionally violated APA standard "2.01 Boundaries of Competence (a) Psychologists provide services, teach and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study or professional experience." APA standard 2.04 was also violated: "2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments Psychologists' work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline." Dr. Pickar based his recommendations on speculation outside established scientific and professional knowledge. Dr. Pickar asserts that my need to portray myself as doing extremely well perhaps means I was hiding some underlying psychological problems. "Inferences may constitute "substantial evidence," but they must be product of logic and reason; speculation or conjecture alone is not substantial evidence..."Substantial evidence" is evidence of ponderable legal significance, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value; substantial evidence is not synonymous with any evidence, instead, it is substantial proof of essentials...Expert opinion testimony constitutes "substantial evidence" only if based on conclusions or assumptions supported by evidence in record; opinion testimony which is conjectural or speculative cannot rise to dignity of substantial evidence." "A theoretical possibility is not the equivalent of substantial evidence." Roddenberry v. Roddenberry, 44 Cal.App.4th 634 (2nd Dist. App. 4/16/1996) Dr. Pickar's speculative assertions of theoretical possibilities were insufficient to substantiate his findings, and his opinions were not based on scientifically valid information. It would be possible to go into much more extensive detail concerning Dr. Pickar misquoting of my health care service providers Dr. Harry Simms and Robin Stuart MFT, but I consider such debate unnecessary in order for the BOP to determine Dr. Pickar clearly acted outside the scope of his profession, in violation of APA ethical guidelines 2.01, 2.04, and 9.01. In her sworn declaration previously submitted to you, Robin Stuart MFT states "Dr. Donald Apostle M.D. confirmed the finding of serotonin poisoning in his letter to the court, in which he states that Mr. B suffered a serotonin reaction after being given St. John's Wort by a family member. This same suspicions was voiced by Mr. B's doctor, Dr. Simms, to me directly." Information sufficient to substantiate Dr. Pickar's findings that "serotonin is a drug ingredient" is simply not available. A five second internet query produces the following: serotonin /serotonin/ (sero-tonin) a hormone and neurotransmitter... Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. 2007. One would assume that a "mental health professional" would be more careful about making assumptions based on scientific reasoning that was obviously not confirmed. When a chid's access to that parent is dependent upon Dr. Pickar's 'expert' opinion, professional due diligence requires a more rigorous examination of the science behind his assumption. Dr. Pickar additionally violated APA ethical guideline 3.06 Conflict of Interest: "Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation." Dr. Pickar failed to disclose his business relationship with co-parenting counselors assigned to my cases, Robert Hart LCSW and Linda Eisnitz MFT when he asked me to sign a release of information to speak with both of them. Evidence of his professional relationship with these individuals is available at: Read about the Co-Parent Project ( PDF). A discussion of the inherent conflict of interest in this type of collaborative association is discussed at: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/tj.pdf. An even more crucial conflict of interest inherent in Dr. Pickar's report is his professional relationship with opposing counse read more