This posting was previously posted under the heading, Psychologists that go Psycho - Part 2 of 2. Since these examples are directly from my own case, I am now incorporating it into My Story: For the Love of a Child.
On February 13, 2011, I posted a link to the American Psychological Association’s website which has the APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations. http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/child-custody.pdf . Guideline #12 is critical in child custody evaluations because its content means that psychologists should not give psychological opinions about people they have not evaluated, and the psychologists should not make custody recommendations when they have not evaluated both parents and the child or children. The Guidelines also address conflicts of interests, and all of these issues came up in Anna Mae He and Malmquist (refer back in the blogstream to Psychologists that go Psycho - Part 1 of 2).
In my own case, years apart, two psychologists crossed over the line.
First, in 1994, Dr. Elias King Bond of Jackson, Tennessee, was ordered to evaluate my ex-wife only; not our daughter nor me. Dr. Bond stated that my ex-wife had “a personality disorder, probably best characterized as a mixed diagnostic picture, with histrionic and passive/aggressive and dependent features.” He then went on to recommend that my ex-wife be given custody of our daughter and that I have reasonable visitation. Can you say UNETHICAL? He did not conduct an evaluation of me, nor was he supposed to make a custody evaluation or recommendation.
This seems to be a recurring problem with Dr. Bond. Further, Dr. Bond has admitted that he is biased towards mothers in custody cases. In 2007 in In re Mikayla Grace Clark; Samuel Kent Clark v. Leah Joy Cerden, the Tennessee Court of Appeals stated:
Mother called Elias King Bond ("Dr. Bond"), a psychiatrist, to testify as an expert on her behalf. Dr. Bond was contacted by Mother's attorney to give an opinion as to whether Mother was sufficiently stable and capable of being Mikayla's primary residential parent. Dr. Bond interviewed Mother in November 2004, and at that time obtained Mother's account of her history. He noted that she had undergone counseling in the past. He also said that, prior to December 2003, Mother had tried two antidepressants; however, she was not on medication at the time of the interview. Dr. Bond saw Mother's ability to recognize her problems, to ask Father to care for the child in her time of need, and to seek help for her depression as positive signs indicative of maturity. From his interview with Mother, Dr. Bond said, he saw no indications of abnormal thought patterns or emotional patterns to suggest that she was unstable. He opined that there was "no psychiatric reason [Mother] should not have custody of her child. I do not consider her having any psychiatric diagnosis at this time and, thus, see no way that I consider her unstable or unfit." Over objection, Dr. Bond stated his opinion that, generally, it is best for a "child's psychological development to be with the mother unless there are overriding reasons to feel that the mother is the more unstable parent." He said that he was unaware that, by statute, parent gender may not be considered in making custody determinations. Dr. Bond acknowledged that his recommendation was made without interviewing Father or evaluating Mother further.
So Dr. Bond believes that a child should be with its mother, and he continues to make recommendations without evaluating fathers. In my own case, he (just like the GAL Christy R. Little) just submitted a written report to the court and did not bother to attend the trial.
Now, again in my own story, in 2006, enter Dr. Robert W. Kennon. As will be detailed in the next installment of My Story: For the Love of a Child, in 2006 my ex-wife and I were back in court regarding my then 11 year old daughter. Judge Don Allen ordered Dr. Robert Kennon (of Jackson, Tennessee) to do a full custody evaluation. Prior to my appointment I mailed Dr. Kennon a CD with photos and videos of my 11 year old with me, my current wife, and our then 5 year old daughter. When I arrived for my appointment, he gave me paperwork to fill out, including a waiver that I would not object to him submitting a written report directly to the judge. WAIT. Isn’t that what I fought against and prevailed in the case of Toms v. Toms (posted January 30, 2011)? The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a GAL’s report was inadmissible hearsay; likewise, so is a psychologist’s report. I told Dr. Kennon that I would not sign the waiver, and he said that there was no reason for him to evaluate me then. I asked him if he had viewed the CD, and he said there was no reason for him to view it. What kind of psychologist is this? Maybe one that is afraid to be cross-examined in court? Maybe one that has already made up his mind?
Before I left, I did mention to Dr. Kennon that my daughter is being subjected to Parental Alienation by her mother, my ex-wife. He said, then, it is probably better that I have no contact with my daughter, then. WHAT! So, based on that, apparently Dr. Kennon believes that you reward an alienating parent by doing just what that parent wants - eliminating contact between the child and the target parent.
Dr. Kennon ended up filing a report favoring my ex-wife and recommending me to have no contact with my oldest daughter. No evaluation of me, and no reviewing pertinent evidence - videos of the interactions between my oldest daughter and me, my current wife, and my oldest daughter’s younger sister. Once again, can you say UNETHICAL?
No comments:
Post a Comment