I think Psychologists are the ones that need therapy
I have come to the realisation that the psychologists the Family Court employs as their s133 Report Writers are available because they would not be accepted in the reality world of psychoanalysts.
I have discovered this first hand when my partner and I were ‘advised’ by the Court that a fifth, yes 5th s133 report was going to be prepared regarding my partner’s youngest child’s cry about the treatment he was and is receiving from his mother. We fought for a new psychologist and were welcomed with the news that a Ms T from West Auckland would be constructing the report by way of interviews etc. you know the drill.
Well Ms T contacted my partner telling him the days she would be coming; this was a little over a week before the announced dates. She told my partner of HER planned schedule, my partner advised her what time he could manage off work at such short notice, as one of the days were through the week and my partner is a foreman with the responsibility of human lives.
To cut through the usual rigmarole of the muscling in ‘psychologist’ the two days for the s133 report writer to ‘do her thing’ was arranged.
HOWEVER, the psychologist wanted to interview my partner’s oldest child, now 16, who has been through the last four reports and has adamantly TOLD us that she has had enough over the last 8 years.To which the psychologist ‘tactfully’ remarked “OH, DOESN’T SHE SUPPORT HER BROTHER. DOESN’T SHE LOVE HER BROTHER?”
When both my partner and I advised her that these remarks were not of a professional nature, she, for want of a better phrase, got her knickers in a knot.
Upon the psychologist hearing from myself and later my partner that any such discussions or interview would be taped she …. you can see the pattern.
On the day of the arranged time for the psychologist to meet for the first interview she phoned my partner at work and … cancelled…. when my partner asked why, she stated that that she would not be dictated to by me.
Use the step mum as the escape goat yet again.
My partner received a letter in the post ‘Judges Minutes’ requiring a response from my partner as his and his partner’s unwillingness to cooperate with Ms T.
So I have now come to the conclusion that my assumption was fully supported in regards to the Family Court’s s133 Report Writers. They surely would not be accepted into the reality world of psychoanalysts.
I am sorry for your experience. May I suggest the following – You are entitled to complain to the court about the selection of the psychologist. A judicial conference will be called to discuss your objection and you may be able to have another selected. The fact that conflict now exists between yourselves and the one selected suggests that a reasonable judge will instruct the family court co-ordinator to select another on the court’s list. Write a complaint to the registrar. Put your case at the judicial conference, just write back and say you want to put your case at the conference. Don’t say too much in the letter. Ask one of the many expereinced men associated with this site to be your McKenzie Friend at court. Bear in mind psychologists apply to be on the list, many don’t bother who have plenty of work from other quarters. Some are good and some are bad. You can request a specific pyschologist on the list if he or she is available. Lawyers for Child often recommend a particular psychologist be used for s133 reports. Despite the bad press they get (and sometimes deserve), some are actually good and very professional in my view and experience. Pyschologists are no different from family law lawyers – you get very good ones, good ones, bad ones and somnetimes really awful ones. Good luck and God Bless.
Comment by Gerry — Sat 21st March 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Hi Gerry,
Thanks for all your advise, but unfortunately things are definitely not as easy as you might think. We have been through this now for 8 years and it took 8 years to get this new psychologist.
We have been through all the suggestions you have made plus more and because my partner is the father, he has no rights. Period.
Comment by sonnyking — Sat 21st March 2009 @ 1:44 pm
My case meandered on for eight years and 5 psycho
nutbar reports. Both the psychologists Davidson and
Watson hounded my mother to death! Fact!Can I sue these scum of earth bastards?
Comment by dad4justice — Sat 21st March 2009 @ 4:12 pm
It is well known that psychos only become psychos because they have some deep personal chip on their shoulder.
Frankly I think you are being too kind, polite and flattering in your estimation of these psychos. They are career feminists. They are ideologically opposed to shared parenting. They will only suggest it in cases where the child would otherwise be primarily cared for by the father. This is their mind set before they ever have anything to do with your case. On top of that they have no idea about scientific methodology — i.e. requiring proof to justify opinions.
The report was always going to paint your partner as the one turning the child against the mother. The conclusion has already been decided. It is simply an exercise to search for ways to try and justify this conclusion. Now that Ms T has taken a disliking for you and a confrontational approach to your partner, there is no question this report will be bad for the father.
I can tell you already what the report will say. It will gloss over or simply ignore anything the mother has done or said to make the child want to spend more time with Dad. It will be highly critical and judgemental of the father. It will reach the conclusion that the father is manipulating the child to view the mother negatively. If it can’t find anything to support this it will just throw around lots of innuendo, paraphrasing etc to make it look like it’s Dad’s fault. Then it will conclude that father should spend less time with child.
See, you didn’t need all that grief. You could have paid me $5,000 and got exactly the same thing. They may as well give out a standard form and fill in the blanks.
In any case it sounds to me that the psychologist is already searching for ways to get out of doing the report because she doesn’t want it recorded. Politely insist on it being recorded — don’t give in on this no matter who does it or what they say.
What was the purpose of this new report?
In the vast majority of cases these reports are commissioned by the judge when they are not necessary. The judges will just cherry pick from the report bits that support whatever decision they make. They just make things worse for the child and the father.
They will avoid answering questions in their brief that paint the mother in a bad light. They will delay filing their report so that you have no time to object to it. Basically they will do everything in their power to avoid a balanced, justified impartial view point.
Frankly I’d recommend only repeating one statement to every question over and over:
“ needs an actively involved mother and father.” Just say this to every single question. Only act and talk as normal when they observe you with the child. For that part let them see you are a loving parent and the child has bonded well with you. Apart from this you have nothing to gain and everything to loose from the interviews where the child is not present. Hence just repeat the one magic sentence above. Anything else you want to say — save it until after you have read the final report.
The psycho will say you were unco-operative, etc. But in fact you don’t need to be co-operative with the psycho to be an excellent parent to the child so it is irrelevant. It just means that the psycho has no information to justify negative views about you with. All they can say is that the child has bonded with you and interacts well with you.
Quite frankly I think the only thing the psychos should be allowed to comment on is how the child and parent interact. And this is only required if there is some doubt about whether they have a loving bond — which is not usually an issue.
Comment by Dave — Mon 23rd March 2009 @ 5:45 pm
The so called FAMILY Court chooses its contracts to fulfil its aims – NOT yours
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Tue 24th March 2009 @ 9:58 am
Yes Dave you’re right, I probably am being too kind to the Psychologists and yes we know and have already been through everything you stated.
What I’d like to know is why is the FC acting in opposition to Boshier’s so-called address to Canada last May 29 2008 at an Annual Conference regarding the Family Court procedures.
One point I’d like to make is the statement by Boshier
“albeit less frequently used method of obtaining children’s views — specialist reports” (Boshier,2008) contradicts the actual procedures that are taking place within the Family Court. Boshier also states that
‘the Family Court cannot order a psychological report solely for the purposes of ascertaining the child’s views’ (Boshier,2008). So the I ask, ‘Why is there a fifth s133 report when the second child is yelling out the same as the first child and the second child has been yelling it out for 5 years and has told the C4C that if she doesn’t do anything he’ll do something and he’s only tiny (size of a small 7 year old) and 10. Does the child have to be hospitalised before the C4C actually sits up and does her job, especially after her promises to the 10 year old that she won’t let his mother physically abuse him again. Yeah right, she already has continued and what has the C4C done, just put in a recommendation for the fifth s133 report.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 27th March 2009 @ 12:33 am
No sorry dad4justice, you can’t do a thing regarding the psychologists.
Boshier and the Psychology Board have an agreement where by any complaints go to the FC judges first. The judges sift through the complaints and decide what to do about them, so another words nothing. You also can’t complain until your case is finished, not in Court any more, by that time the FC and Psycs have already wrecked your kids lives and you’re about ready for the nut house or something worse. Sorry for being the bearer of bad news.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 27th March 2009 @ 12:42 am
Correct Jim.
The FC has their own rules and regulations, what a pity society can’t overturn the privacy of the FC where by it becomes an open Court. They couldn’t hide behind the FC curtain then.
I know that people would say that it would not be right for the children’s sake, which is better, an open Court whereby someone might know you business for a short time, but you get action and the child’s rights being ‘Paramount” do become the only fact that matters, OR, the child suffereing for several years going through the FC system, questioned over and over again to the point that they start questioning their own worth.
I know what my step-daughter would choose.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 27th March 2009 @ 12:50 am
Everyone concerned with these secret courts know that they are wrong, but they do nothing at all to change them. They have NO wish to change them, they gag the media from talking about them and know that we are too small a number to change anything
Comment by EVIL FAMILY COURTS — Fri 27th March 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Hi.. This week I had the fortunate experience to attend a couple of lectures at Auckland university by Frans De Waal, and from that experience I agree with the idea of his thread, in that indeed psychologists are the ones who need the therapy.
Frans De Waal is perhaps the foremost primatologist in the world, he is also an anthropologist, a biologist and a psychologist. I have been a long time reader of his work and listening to him confirmed, in a scientific way, what I have suspected. That humans are gender created. Genetically and evolutionarily. Ask him.
Psycholoogists actually have it wrong because the models that they work with are based on the past history of humanity, culture, religion etc, and fail to take into account our primate origins. The gender flex is simply wrongly or misinterpreted.
I have read many ideas expressed on this channel and always had my own ideas, but in the end my own ideas where based on what this mans ideas, a professor, and world acclaimed expert on primate behaivour, had to say. It is definitely about males and females, men and women, but also about culture, learning and indeed conditioning. Also power and also control.
In the end we are all, as humans, we are primates, and apes, and what we do and how we behave is subject to that reality. An evolutionary and genetic reality.
I have attended two of his lectures, the third and last being on tuesday next week. Its free.
My personal opinion is that the this gent has spent his whole life exploring the primate/animal origins of all of all of the subjects that I see expressed in this forum, family, gender, power, control, conflict, resolution etc.
His first lecture was on the primate and animal origins of morality, the second was on the same origins of empathy, the final address, next tuesday is about the basis of power and control in animal behavior, focusing on primates, of which we are part.
His research is scientific and involves many species of animals. He does not study humans, yet comes to clear conclusions about human behavior based on his research.
I have long studied his ideas and now realize that such ideas are not only new, but old, and in human understanding terms, revolutionary. But in the end we, as humans behave according to the ideas, and according to our beliefs. Such is culture.
Feel free to comment or google ‘Frans De Waal’.
Vince
Comment by vince — Fri 27th March 2009 @ 5:16 pm
This is a review of one of his books:
“Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes. . . . [H]e argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional buildings blocks that are clearly at work in chimps and monkey societies. . . . Dr. de Waal sees human morality as having grown out of primate sociality, but with two extra levels of sophistication. People enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. [Humans] also apply a degree of judgment and reason, for which there are no parallels in animals.”–Nicholas Wade, The New York Times
Note the last sentence in particular regarding reasoning.
De Waal also maintains that people are good not by choice but by nature – this is in keeping with the idea that children do well if they can – they are NOT naughty by nature and are NOT in need of the rod to correct their ways but will blend into a family harmoniously unless there’s something wrong with the child or the parent’s expectations are too high. I too often sense that parents don’t enjoy just being with their kids – an attitude passed down by the old (uptight) English aristocracy’s habit of sending their children to the children’s quarters to be raised by nannies perhaps? Unfortunately, parents often don’t know each others attitudes to childrearing until AFTER they have a child. How about someone drafting a pre-pup to go along with the pre-nup.
Comment by achurch001 — Fri 27th March 2009 @ 8:39 pm
hell i totally agree,we are on second s133 the bloody phycologist didn’t list anything we didnt already know!! what blimin use are they?? four years running in and out of court my husband and i know we are capable parents,the phycologist interviewed us at home and in the office.all total 4 hours! and he passes judgement based on 4 hours as apposed to our 4 years of a phycho bitches affadavit which contains inconsistencies,and bullshite.if you do not have custody you dont stand a chance.we relied heavily on the fact that we are honest to god parents and that the phycologist would see that,we were wrong basically because the kids backed the phyco mother and listed a whole lot of other stuff that really had nout to do with the matter at hand i mean serio usly “WHAT THE HELL??
Comment by mother love — Sat 28th March 2009 @ 1:40 am
“if you do not have custody you dont stand a chance.” This is the problem for the whole process, court, mediation, child support etc etc.
Comment by Scott — Sat 28th March 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Thank-you for the link Vince. I’ll delve into his philosophies.
It will be interesting to see how Frans De Waal’s theories relate to the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner, Bandura etc.
Maybe next time I’m put on the stand for six hours, remembering I’m the step-mum that “is not a party in these proceedings” according to the FC, I’ll rattle off some philosophical theories explaining the mother’s actions towards her children and state that it is innate and so she cannot possibly change.
Worth a try, they don’t listen to me anyway, just try to twist everything I say, which I so far have counteracted.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 3rd April 2009 @ 9:58 am
I do like your theory of a pre-pup, made me chuckle.
Yes gone are the days of the uppercrust having their children raised by the nannies. I’m told that I’m a strange parent because I love the holidays where you can get up and spend time with your children. Just a pity the other parent is still working away from home, I work at home, of course we try and plan our holidays then.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 3rd April 2009 @ 10:06 am
Maybe we should go further than just these forums and make more of our voices heard. The trouble I’ve found over the years is that it engulfs your whole world, if you let it, something I nearly allowed to occur and this was without even realising that it was happening.
In my opinion the whole critical purpose of the so-called FC is the child, yet tied up in all the legalities, lawyers’ paper trails and the judges blinkered and blindsighted views, the child is forgotten.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 3rd April 2009 @ 10:17 am
Hi mother love,
With the kids backing the “psycho mother” it would have been against the FC’s unspoken rules and agendas to award custody to the father, particularly when the children are opposed.
Did you find the reasoning behind the children’s decisions to back their mother? If the children are being mislead, it is nearly impossible to prove this, especially when the mother of the children appears to the courts to be the competent one.
My partner’s son has cried out for 5 years and still the FC does not hear his plight, and he is crying out against his mother.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 3rd April 2009 @ 10:30 am
The whole Family Court system is geared up to destroy the
paternal family.What will it take to make them listen?
A psychologist John Watson was directed by a judge to
leave my mother out of proceedings, however he hounded
her to death. He should be held responsible for killing her.
Yeah right, not in this feminazi infested land of lies!
I complained to Boshier and he fobbed me off!!
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 3rd April 2009 @ 10:32 am
Correct Scott,
Wouldn’t it be so much easier if we humans could all communicate without animosity and place our children on the pedestal of “the thing most important”.
Globally we are heading in the other direction and personally I hate to think where we, our children’s children etc. will be when it comes to the crunch and someone realizes that our children are the survival of humanity.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 3rd April 2009 @ 10:40 am
dad4justice,
I hear your anger and I am sorry for your loss.
The FC does not realize the multitude of strain they place, not only on the immediate family, but also the extended family.
Our battle has had many negative repercussions on us all and at times the strain seemed so great that if I could have personally walked away (stepmum) without the guilt being placed on me by my children and stepchildren that I was leaving the ones in need behind, I would have.
I did try the local paper once in regards to publishing a poem about the effects the mother of my partner’s children has had on the kids, however, I was told that names had to be written in and that it could not be published as people needed to know what it was about. I had targeted the ones within the poem that needed to know. So I published it here a while ago.
I have no answer for you and as far as Boshier is concerned, he is just another political puppet that performs well for the general public but has, dare I say, no balls when it comes to actually actioning all he speaks.
I’m sorry if that sounds a sexist remark but anyone man or woman that delivers their preach yet doesn’t stand firmly by it, is not worthy of their appointed position.
Comment by sonnyking — Fri 3rd April 2009 @ 11:05 am
I am almost brand new to blogging and really like your post, it is really on target.
Comment by Pet Foreclosure Assistance — Mon 6th April 2009 @ 3:26 pm
I’m afraid that the FC has FuCed up my children’s lifes and mine by ordering another report by the same psychologist despite the complaint I made about them exceeding their brief, entrapment, deception, etc…
Judge noted that this was a ‘reputable’ psychologist (says alot about the rest), and that it was normal for one party not to be happy with the reports and therefore waived my concerns. I am now going to turn my back on this ridiculous circus of a court. After hearing my ex’s lawyer and the lawyer for child discussing how they were going to work together before the review I have zero confidence in the court, it’s complaint procedure or it’s view on human rights.
That’s why I’ll be leaving the shores of NZ… this beautiful country has been shafted by these evil people.
Comment by John Doe :( — Tue 29th September 2009 @ 3:26 pm
I am very interested in others’ experience of psychologists in the Family Court.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 30th September 2009 @ 10:55 pm