Family Court Psychologists
A headline article in the latest newsletter of the NZ Psychological Society expresses delight that the number of complaints reaching the Psychos’ Board has fallen dramatically. This has enabled an insurance company to reduce professional indemnity premiums for Family Court psychos. However, don’t imagine this indicates any improvement in Family Court psycho assessments. Don’t imagine they have become anymore ethical, less feminist or less male-bashing. Quite the reverse from what many fathers report; often such reports are now required only to assess whether a father is feminized enough to allow his children to have him as a father.As usual, many psycho reports simply amplify and give undeserved credibility towards all manner of allegations women make against ex partners.
The reason complaints are not getting to the Psycho Board is that a cosy little agreement was made between Boshier and the Board. This produced a “practice note” that ordered all complaints about psychosto be dealt with in the first instance by the Family Court judge, who would decide whether the complaint should be referred on to the Board. The judges are now so effectively stifling complaints that hardly any get through to the psychos professional body for proper scrutiny.
The previous rule simply disallowed the psychos board from considering any complaints about psychos until the case had been completed by the Family Court. That meant that a report that did not reach professional or ethical standards would still be treated as a kosher psycho assessment by the Court in its decisions. That’s like stopping the engineers’ supervisory body from assessing claimed faults in an engineer’s plan until (for example) the bridge, airliner or nuclear power station based on that plan was completed.
The new Family Court trickery is even more bizarre. Now it might be compared to allowing a tradesman who was already being paid to build the bridge to assess any challenge to the adequacy of the engineer’splan,and to suppress that challenge permanently if he so desires.
If judges are capable of assessing the professional adequacy of psychos work, one wonders why judges don’t simply do their own psychological assessments?
If a psycho report is ordered in your Family Court proceedings, you will just have to take whatever crap you are given and you have almost no recourse if that report is full of lies, imbalance, bias or misandry. Unfortunately, reports without such flaws seem to be rare.
Men would be well advised to seek advice from others in the men’s movement about any psycho appointed to their case. If that psycho gets a thumbs down, challenge the appointment and ask for another one. Remember also that you don’t have to meet the psycho at all if you don’t want to, though this will probably inspire the psycho to write even worse things about you and the Court to hammer you.
A really good idea is for all concerned men to write to the Psychologists Board, PO Box 10-626, Wellington 6143, or email them at [email protected], expressing your concern, disgust or otherwise that the Board is not meeting its legal duty to consider complaints about psychos but instead has delegated that role to someone untrained in psychology. You might want to state that you used to trust the profession when you knew there was a suitable body that would consider any complaint about unethical or substandard work, but now that trust has gone and you would not feel safe in participating in any Family Court psycho assessment.
Regarding my case Christchurch Family Court
psychologists John Watson and Michael Davidson are
both guilty of criminal behaviour.
Needless to say the psych board and Judge Boshier have
both put my complaints in the rubbish bin !!
These evil dogs must be held accountable !!!!
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 21st October 2008 @ 9:37 pm
This a really good posting from blamemenforall. I have done exactly what he suggests and have challenged the appointment of Aucckland psychologist Dr Suzanne Blackwell in my case. Dr Blackwell was picketed by the Union of Fathers a couple of years ago with just cause.
In my case I asked for a Judicial Conference to discuss my objection, and which Judge Jan Walker has agreed to convene. I have also complained in writing about the lack of male staff and men having no voice at Auckland’s North Shore Family Court. I have a male lawyer and he and I are the only men involved in my case whatsoever (funny that!). I think Judge Boshier’s statements about employing more men at Family Courts and providing men with support systems there is just whitewash. Nothing has changed since he made these undertakings several years ago. There should be a male and female family court co-ordinator at the very least.
I’ll be taking blamemenforall’s advice and complaining to the psychologists’ board. We men must stop being so silent and let our voice be heard.
Gerry
Comment by Gerry — Tue 21st October 2008 @ 10:29 pm
One more thought. No emotive language please.
I can understand dad4justice’s outrage, but please let’s not use emotive language like calling people evil dogs. It only serves to undermine our cause and will be used against us by those monitoring this site (and be sure that they do). Maybe if people want to vent there should be a closed forum when they can get it off their chest, but let’s not give them ammunition by hurling emotive insults at the professionals. I don’t actually believe they are evil, simply influenced and misinformed.
Gerry
Comment by Gerry — Tue 21st October 2008 @ 10:36 pm
Peter’s comments are blatantly libellious. They may be his own opinions but he has no evidence for the allegations that holds up in court. He even acknowledges that he has presented his case to Judge Boshier and to the Psychologists Board who found against him.
Such nonsense posts just make the rest of us look silly and opens up John as website owner to potential litigation and expense. Little point in taking action against Peter as he porobably has few assetts to be concerned about.
Comment by allan Harvey — Wed 22nd October 2008 @ 5:02 pm
I WILL PROVE YOU WRONG ALLAN HARVEY !!!!!
Should shut your mouth about things that you know
nothing about Mr Smart Arse!! You are one two faced
creep.
Comment by dad4justice — Wed 22nd October 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Peter,
“Regarding my case Christchurch Family Court
psychologists John Watson and Michael Davidson are
both guilty of criminal behaviour.
Needless to say the psych board and Judge Boshier have
both put my complaints in the rubbish bin !!
These evil dogs must be held accountable !!!!”
How is what I said any different to the above.
John Watson and Michael Davidson are practising Clinical Psychologists. You have explained where your complaints have been put. That is all I am saying.
Your own invective says all the rest. Vince Seimer might have some advice for you.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 22nd October 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Personally i think that many of these so-called professionals ARE evil (but not dogs obviously), they feed off the misery and injustice that men have to face on a daily basis from these “Family” caughts. The whole thing is just a system of patronage presided by the judges. In general, they are all looking for evidence AGAINST men.
Allan is telling it like it is, don’t shoot the delivery man! But also he seems VERY insensitive to what is a very emotional time for Dad4Justice
Comment by newbie4u — Wed 22nd October 2008 @ 9:17 pm
Peter’s case goes back years. Until he learns to behave smarter and target his energies more positively he does a disservice to us all.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 22nd October 2008 @ 9:22 pm
A bit of light relief, MEN always keep your sense of humour even in the darkest days !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyY5wqLtnYM
Comment by newbie4u — Wed 22nd October 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Peter, I have on several occasions encouraged you to stop making offensive and at times threatening posts. I have noticed some improvement at times but soon enough you seem unable to hold yourself back from another unwise outburst. Your language, as in this thread, can be downright violent. I have tried to explain that such unrestrained ranting will only discredit both your own credibility and men’s cause generally. But you usually just emit more violent attacks against anyone who tries to give you feedback. It’s a shame because I know from others that you do some good work. We understand that many fathers who have been through the mill are wounded and angry. Please try to hear feedback more graciously and use more considered language in your posts. For example, your post would have been much more powerful if you had stated something like “I was appalled by the reports done by xx and yy and by the way my complaints about those reports were handled. The Family Court system must be held accountable.” It might be a good idea to draft your posts then leave them unpublished for a while until your anger has calmed down and you can finalize them without violent language. Just my suggestions.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 12:09 am
Mmmmm “Through the mill” makes it sound like a temporary minor mishap, we have been TOTALLY ABUSED BY THE GOVERNMENT with the injustice of it all, and many of us have become slaves to Child Support. It always amazes me that THE MAJORITY of men in our situation do not kill their ex-spouses/lawyers, such is the emotional distress that we have to withstand. Nobody cares about US, we are just left alone without our kids, alone just to pay for the exes, in many cases they were unfaithful, or violent, THIS IS NOT GOING “Through the mill”, it is severe emotional trauma, the guy is just angry with the abuse by the state and that we cannot do anything about, except take it (LIKE A MAN ?).
I think we all understand what you are going through, pete ! These laws will never be CHANGED without a lot of anger and passion
Comment by newbie4u — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 12:41 am
All these guys offering legal advice, like Allan, offer invaluable advice to men in our situations, (WELL DONE Allan) but they do not seem to understand the emotional side, that MEN need moral support too, they need to vent their frustration and anger with all the injustice. Women in a similar situation will be supported emotionally first and legally second, but of course the law is on their side.
All this concerns what the state wants to do in case of family breakdown, and doing what will make the most money for the government.
Burning resentment will ultimately always turn into a fire
Comment by newbie4u — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 1:23 am
Hans and Allen are talking very good sense. I should know, I’ve vented in similair fashion in the past but it only served to hurt me more. There ain’t no justice and I’ve got to accept that. Even my own lawyer who is a decent bloke dislikes the Union of Fathers as he sees them as giving his ‘mates’ in the legal club a hard time. I think the best we can do is give sensible voice to ourt concerns. If enough people do it often enough and in a reasonable way eventually they will listen. Simply ranting and calling them names will just validate their excuse for not listening to us.
I’ve sent my concerns to the Psychological Complaints Board. Every one who subscribes to this site should do the same. Don’t just vent guys, send in you complaint.
Comment by Gerry — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 5:02 am
I know they talk sense.
BUT NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE if we all accept these unjust laws meekly, pressure must be applied to those who have enacted these laws.
these men giving legal advice to dads are very helpful, but they act like part of the establishment and give no emotional SUPPORT to dads who are having a terrible time, that is why some men get angry with them (like Pete), If enough men are angry and do something we will change the laws, otherwise these laws that benefit the government and the lawyers will go on forever, and there will be dads in 100 years still complaining.
And i sent my complaint in too, but as i said earlier, these court appointed specialists are just a system of patronage headed by the judge
Comment by newbie4u — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 5:13 am
Newbie and Gerry and others,
Clearly Newbie has never meet me (or Hans) if he thinks we fail on the emotional support or the drive for legislative change. I do heaps of one-to-one personal support, I link guys with others who have similar experiences, I write submissions, I lobby.
Some people though can only moan about their own situation, get lost in the “poor me” of despondency and act as a lead weight to those of us who are seeking change. Others shoot themselves repeatedly in the feet. They make stupid, angry, unsupported comments because they continually trip over their own egos. Unfortunately those few individuals make those of us who are trying to effect change appear like a lunatic fringe.
Gerry, Union of Fathers have not picketed Dr Blackwell that I am aware of. Anyone doing so has not had the approval of the Union of Fathers National Executive. Some ex members may have. The remarks from your own solicitor just show the confusion of the media and the public about Union of Fathers. Because of the Auckland protests, and the lack of discipline in Auckland, Union of Fathers have not staged any protests anywhere since late 2005.
We do wish to work within the system as well as lobby for change. That helps individual fathers and their children. Case work is at the core of what we do. Union of Fathers is the only group seeking to work on a New Zealand wide basis.
Rantings from Peter, and others, don’t help with the work we try to do. I’m fed up with carrying unhelpful baggage. Get over yourself Peter, focus on your children and move forward. The past is despair, build a future not further health problems and heartache.
However if we allow rantings to go unchallenged in public forums like this we only give succor to those with hurt egos. Lunatics make us all look bad. It undermines what we seek to achieve. It takes time and energy away from the real task of achieving change!
Comment by Allan Harvey — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 8:13 am
You calling me a “lunatic” Allan?
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 10:16 am
Peter,
Only you have associated your name with the term “lunatic”.
I was very careful not to do so.
I wish you well and have attempted to provide some sage advice to you above.
You more than most know how our cause is damaged by the media, police, courts and public consider us a lunatic fringe.
Allan
Comment by allan Harvey — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 6:00 pm
In my case the first thing I did was press for court appointed counselling. This is where the court pays for up to 6 sessions with a counsellor in the hope Mum and Dad can work things out. These sessions are confidential for obvious reasons. I attended one session while the ex was busy preparing her court proceedings. Anyway further down the process with affidavits filed etc. The court appoints a psychologist to do a report.
This psychologist calls up the counsellor twice to discuss me and reports what was said in her report to the court.
Up to now I have been too shattered to file a complaint. I looked up the process a couple of years ago and it seemed to be a bit of a whitewash. It was all stacked to protect the psychologist. In addition at the end of the day it was not a process of redressing a wrong. It was just psychologists commenting on themselves. I have to re-live the pain and there is nothing in it for me.
Now you say one has to first get permission from the Family Court to make a complaint?
Does any one know if I could sue this psychologist in civil court?
If so – under what act?
If so – why would I lodge a complaint to a whitewash board of her peers, when I could simply sue the psychologist?
Note: these are NOT rhetorical questions. I would really like answers to them.
Comment by Dave — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 6:36 pm
As a side note, I strongly recommend against attending any interview or conversation with a court appointed psychologist. I would agree to them observing you with the child or children – but that is all. Yes they may say something negative against you – but they will do that anyway. At least this way they don’t have any material to back up any claims they might have. If you feel you really must go to an interview insist that it be recorded. I did and the guy agreed to it. If they wont agree to it being recorded just say “that’s a shame, let me know if you change your mind, best of luck, good bye”.
Comment by Dave — Thu 23rd October 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Dave – I have tried everything legally to exact revenge
on the two scumbag lying FC psychologists. One of the evil
dogs hounded my mother to death. Fact. To pc Allan and
Hans, try and grow backbones you jellyfish!!
The outgoing Family Commissioner cried when he heard my case.
Now he is number 12 on the Liarbour pus brained government list.
The corruption in the FC will be avenged in due time!!!
Time to fight dirty against dirt.If you think this is a
fair and clean fight, think again, as these deceptive sods
are the perpetrators of stealth evil!
My damaged children are the EVIDENCE!!!
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 24th October 2008 @ 4:52 am
Oh yeah, good stuff Peter, very mature and intelligent. A real example of how to be taken seriously. Just keep throwing around rude names, threats, attacking your allies, shouting at people. I’m sure it will get you a long way. And it should be a lot of fun for you bringing more and more discredit to the the NZ men’s and fathers’ movement.
On the other hand, you could seek help to improve the standard and effectiveness of your behaviour.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 24th October 2008 @ 11:18 am
He was answering his own question in post 16 above.
No doubt in his answer (post 20).
Comment by allan Harvey — Fri 24th October 2008 @ 4:40 pm
See you chaps, my last post on here!
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 24th October 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Dear Allen re Dr Blackwell Protest
The Auckland protest was quite a while ago. Twice 2003 I think. The photos are still on the web. See http://menz.org.nz/News%20archive/radblackjan03.htm. People have long memories!
Comment by Gerry — Fri 24th October 2008 @ 6:39 pm
My thoughts: Here is Christchurch
I would rate the report from the court appointed psychologist as ‘correct’.
It is not what i would have wished but in the entire family court saga (christchurch) the psychologist was by far the ‘correct’ one.
Now I have been good with her because i was aware bad behavior will only make the court feel at ease with the misguided and unfair steps they took against me
But I can see how an encounter with a psychologist will 100% of the time be detrimental to the father. How could a father be normal and in all his spirits when he has been thrown out of his house, all his assets confiscated, subjected to humilating supervision contact with his children for almost a year, forced to undergo a humilating violence course, forced to pay child support (30 % of his after tax salary) over which he has no control with no prospect of rebuilding his life a gain just because his wife decided to call it quits. How he can be in all his spirits when he has seen that clearly, lawyer or no lawyer the serving of a final protection order is a foregone conclusion.
So After they made you a beggar
After they severed the normal bond you had with your children(If supervised it means dad has a problem)
After you have been served with a FINAL protection order because all the court needs to establish occurence of violence is merely the perception of it by your wife.
How can he be normal when there are no avenues for complaints and correcting blatant mistakes?
So After you have been insanely hurt and bruised they say it is time for the psychologist report.
Questions: why would a psychologist hired and paid for by the Family court contradict it?
I used to be proud and thought this country was fair. Not anymore. Not after the saga the family court goes thru to break a man.
I have voted all my 14 years of being in NZ for Labour but not anymore.
I specifically hold them responsible fro the destruction of my family this year.
I do not think that Dad4Justice is saying anything anormal.
You will see more and more violent youth in the next years as most have been subjected to the severest state violence. You cannot remove a dad from his child and expect this one to grow into a normal adult.
The system here reacts like in Egypt when they want to arrest a thief. They first arrest 400 people, subject them to torture until they yield the one they were looking after. Only now they made 399 potential state enemies. Here to identify a one dysfunctional family where children ‘may’ need help they destroy 399 families. The truth, as a rule, they never save children at risk like the Kahui children.
It is sad for the children, men and women of this country. Men are broken and women will find it harder and harder to marry.
What the family court does is AMORAL and dangerous for the country.
For the future family court candidates this is what you expect:
1) You will loose. Your final protection order is a forgone conclusion.
2) Represent yourself and absolutely have a Mackenzie friend to help you.
He will first hand witness the amorality of the family court first hand
3) All concerned(dad, mum, the children will regret the day they were born)
Comment by tren — Fri 24th October 2008 @ 7:24 pm
This is so depressing! Doesn’t a man ever win at the Family Court? Can anyone give me a positive story?
Gerry
Comment by Gerry — Fri 24th October 2008 @ 8:11 pm
This is every for man who has posted on this thread, and the men and women who read this… let me tell you a little about what is happening in NZ right now. Maybe I’m wrong and if so then you can tell me. Dads4justice, please take note. It would be a shame to loose even one member of this group because of the anger and frustration that you are going through and beleive me, everybody here feels your pain as we have all been througth it in some form or another. We have already lost some members due to the torment expressed on this site.
Lational and Naybour are not the only parties that are involved in this coming election. Act, the Maori party, NZ first and the Greens are not the only minority groups. Why do we condone a left or right party to represnt us? Why do we have to vote for any of these clowns who don’t seem to give the slightest thought to what hundreds of thousands of men (and some women) are going through?
The ONLY party to give a shit about us, the fathers (and step mothers) is the Republic of New Zealand Party. WE WILL ABOLISH THE SCA, WE WILL ABOLISH THE FAMILY COURT.
If each and every one of you gave your Party vote the the RONZ party and encouraged every father you know who is going through the same thing to vote for RONZ – if every father who has been hurt by the CSA or FC voted for the RONZ we would hit at least 20% if not more. Like I say, I may be wrong, it may be more than that.
Stop beating yourselves and others up about it. IT’S NOT YOUR FAULT. We WILL make a change sooner or later so why don’t we make it sooner?
Obviously there is so much more that the RONZ can do for this country – check out http://www.republicans.org.nz party vote RONZ. Make a change!
One Father a day commits suicide because of the CSA and The Family Court. Lets stop the injustice. Me and every other party member of the RONZ are here for you.
We can’t do this by our selves, we need you to stand up with us! Remember, we are the ONLY party with your interests at heart.
Vote wise, Vote Republican!
Comment by Tigerseye — Fri 24th October 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Disatser = Arrogance + Inability to humble oneself + Dishonesty + Silo Mentality. A.I.D.S in the Family Court (You be the Judge)
Comment by wendy — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 9:16 pm
If only the corrupt family court knew how much
heartbreaking destruction it inflicts on innocent
clients drawn into the web of deceit. Two faced
psychologists are given a free run in a Court
that is saturated in hideous corruption. If
anyone thinks I am joking then check out the letter I
sent Judge Boshier on my blog!
Shove your pc approach, as this is WAR !!
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Anyone fancy a bit of camping on these judges’ roofs ? That will wake them up
Comment by Perseus — Fri 31st October 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Hi guys,
I rarely get on the internet these days (don’t the judges love poverty?), so I just thought I’d hi, I’m still alive and lobbying.
My psych complaint got dismissed by the judge who sat on my case, and although the NZSB told me that they had assessed my complaint separately to the Family Court (contriveining Judge Boshier’s wonderful new ‘shut down the complaints act 2006), they too dismissed my complaint. That does not mean that the pysch was ethcal, it just shows that the arms of the Family Court are getting longer.
Did anyone see the front page article on the Truth a coupls of weeks ago? One of the Judges I complained to the JCC about retired two and a half weeks after he recieved my complaint, and so the JCC is refusing to carry my complaint of unethical behaviour and corruption (Boshier was actually involved). I have emailed all the relevent documents and letters to the Donionion Post today, so keep an eye out for an article about my case. The JCC is currently handling four complaints from me, but refuses to act ethically himself. I brought to his attention that he had made a serious error in a letter to me, but now he refuses to comment on it, instead dismissing my complaint.
Nothing has changed….Family Court judges and registrars are still biased and corrupt, and lawyers are still making a killing out missery.
Keep up the good fight….
Wayne
Comment by Wayne Pruden — Thu 6th November 2008 @ 11:33 am
We know someone who was recently advised that the mother had gained full custody of the kids despite a very damning psych report against her. Admittedly he had not been fighting the good fight recently as both he and us have had very bad experience with the same woman when it comes to custody issues, but hey… the report was very clear. So go figure……
Comment by pomcat — Fri 7th November 2008 @ 4:45 pm
I now know what men go through and let me tell you they do it to women as well..has come to the point that i have to give up on the hell the family court has put me through and my children, also the power the ex has, he can know longer get off on it..
Comment by Sue — Fri 12th December 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Court Psychologists —Some Personal Feedback
Having just gone through the Section 133 special report writer process I have to confess that I was wrong in my earlier posting above. I am making this one in the interests of natural justice and in the hope it might offer useful feedback to other men going through the same process. My lesson from all this? Don’t be afraid based on the experience of others. There are some good court psychologists out there and in my view Dr Suzanne Blackwell of Auckland is one of them.
Believe me, I was a critic, but on the advice of someone I really respected and trusted, I withdrew my objection to the appointment of Dr Blackwell as the appointed 133 special report writer in my COCA case, and am glad I did so. I found her fair and objective and very impartial. Having expected the worst, based on the experience of others with different Court-appointed psychologists, I found I was wrong about Dr Blackwell. I found her very approachable and thorough. She is however very challenging and business-like. I imagine any attempt to mislead her would be fatal. She enforces the rules very strictly but without bias.
Given that she knew I had initially kicked up a fuss about her, I found her very magnanimous and open-minded about my original objection. She appears to accept that men may view the Family Court and its processes as being biased towards women. In my personal experience, she is not however. I found her more objective on this issue than the Judge in my case, who at one point verbally berated me and demanded to know if “I had an issue with women” simply because I had expressed a personal view that I felt the Family Court is overly feminized. I hardly think I am alone in this opinion, but in terms of His Honour Judge LJ Ryan of the North Shore Family Court, this appears to border on heresy and expect to be severely burned at the stake (as I was) if you dare utter this sentiment in his court. In my view, Judge Ryan is very receptive to the complaints of women, as indeed he should be. I’m not so sure what he thinks about men making the same complaints however. I personally didn’t feel any sympathy was there for me as a man or the abuse I have experienced, even though technically I won this particular case and there was plenty of evidence of the abuse I had experienced.
In my personal view, this is one very black and white judge who does appear to take notice of the stereotypical view of men as abusers and women as victims. Men who criticize the Family Court appear as a red rag to him. My advice if you get Judge Ryan is don’t make my mistake and criticize the Family Court. He brooks no criticism of the system. I think this is sad because I am a man who is trying to find his voice after years of subjugation, and stand by my rights criticize the way men and fathers are treated by our legal institutions in this country.
Dr Blackwell’s report wasn’t ready by the time Judge Ryan heard this particular case and I now wish her report had been available earlier. I think I might have had a fairing hearing. This is not to say she didn’t have criticism of me, but it would be unrealistic if there wasn’t. I found providing as many referees as possible very helpful. Dr Blackwell did talk to them. She also accorded me the courtesy of being always available to talk and always responded to my queries. I don’t think any man should be fearful of having Dr Blackwell as the s 133 report writer. In my view, she assessed my case correctly and was fair to both parties and was objective. She was aware of my postings on the Menz site criticizing the new complaints procedures for court-appointed psychologists and felt the need to report this to the court, but I don’t bear her any ill-will for this as I see my objection as very valid and am prepared to stand up for my beliefs. The new complaint process is patently wrong. I earnestly believe a judge is no more qualified to comment on the findings of a psychologist than I am. I have in fact complained to the Psychologists’ Board about His Honour Judge P Boshier’s new ruling and got a very nice and polite response acknowledging my concerns — although a fat lot of good it will do. But realistically, what else did I expect them to say?
So what I have learned from all this? The importance of accurate feedback from others going through the system. I relied on out-dated and vague information that was actually incorrect in my case. I guess in this respect I am no better than some judges in having made stereotypical opinion of people. I don’t think all court-appointed psychologists get it wrong or are anti-men or anti-fathers. They are no different from the several family law practitioners I’ve had dealings with. Some are really outstanding in my view and I would recommend at least three off-line if anyone wants my opinion. I can also give you the names of two lawyers to steer well clear off as they are a couple of shockers and absolute men-haters.
The court-condoned verbal and psychological abuse I sustained during five hours of cross-examination left me traumatized and numb for days afterwards. I felt unable to cope. I was shocked how dirty and bullying lawyers are allowed to get in the Family Court. This despite the fact my lawyer showed the Judge two specialist medical letters pronouncing me unfit for cross-examination on both physical and psychological grounds. I had the choice of simply abandoning my defence or subjecting myself to what was a physical torture of sitting still for prolonged periods (because of my physical disabilities) and the psychological abuse of opposing counsel who accused me of the most vile and foul acts a man or a father could possibly commit. Even dosed up on pain killers as I was, I could not help but see the irony of how the Family Court process exposes those accused of abuse to psychological abuse themselves through the very loose and liberal cross-examination process some Family Court judges allow in the interests of “natural justice”. I went in a wreck and came out a worse wreck and the Judge had the nerve to say he hoped I found the process “cathartic”. Carcinogenic would have been a better term for him to have used.
Comment by Gerry — Sat 3rd January 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Hi,
Looking for information online about responding to a psychological report. I have came across this site. I do understand when you all coming from. I am having the same issue too. I had a chch psychological writer. Found out she had been in criminal court over family court matter. I tried to raise my concerns. The Judge is female. not neutral. I believe there should be more men in court, laws changed. When I was last in court, I got told I have no freedom of speech, can’t talk for myself, my responses etc all gotten taken out of the file and shredded. The guy isn’t a legal parent of my daughter. Weren’t in her life since day one. Done a DNA Test and came up negative. Name not on birth certification. The court are allowing him access. I just don’t understand.
People need to speak out, petition and stand up against the courts and government. We need to think of the children’. This is effecting their life’s. No wonder why there are so many problems in society and with teenagers.
Comment by Jennifer — Mon 26th October 2015 @ 2:44 pm
Don’t approach dealing with a psychologist defensively. (Keep your cool. Let them ask you hard or loaded questions – and answer them half as long as you think is a good answer. If they want more, make them ask for it. This will save you both a lot of stress and time.)
Do understand your own limitations and weaknesses, as well as your strengths.
Ask several friends, who have long experience as parents, if they can offer you some indications of what they see as your strengths and weaknesses. (Don’t bite their heads off!!, or at least not until they have given you all of their suggestions.)
It isn’t easy taking criticism. It is easier to listen, when you know it will give you the best opportunity to do something positive. It will also give you much more time, to think through your answers to questions, than if the psychologist asks you something, that you have never been asked before.
Try not to attack the other parent. You may however provide information, as long as it is understated, clearly true and helpful to the parenting situation. Where possible, draw the psychologist’s attention to something and then let them do their own digging, to work it out for themself.
Discretion is the better part of valour.
What can you do to develop yourself, to surmount your own limitations? Are you already doing things to improve your skills for parenting, or are there things you could start doing to improve your skills. Sometimes weaknesses are best handled, by making sure that the children also see someone whose skills cover your own weaknesses, if you cannot address them directly? Your new partner is likely to be able to do this?
Three threads which contain some issues for you to think through are:
I think Psychologists are the ones that need therapy
Critiquing a Care of Coconuts Act s133 Psychologist Report
Shared Parenting – Evaluated honestly
Don’t be like Basil Fawlty dealing with a psychiatrist, in Fawlty Towers!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 26th October 2015 @ 3:32 pm
Hi
I suspect that the Applicant inm my case ( me defendant) is suffering from narcistic personal disorder . Can I ask the Court to pout her through psyhological assessment ? Thank you
Comment by george — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 10:46 pm
You can ask but unless you have some evidence that she has harmed the child that request is likely to lead the Court to treat you as abusive towards her.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 14th August 2017 @ 11:19 pm