Thoughts for the day.

Idiom: give someone (enough) rope (to hang themselves)

To allow them to bring about their own downfall as a result of their ill-considered or foolish actions, behaviour, etc.             From http://www.writersevents.com/



“I have always been fond of the West African proverb: ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.’ " - Theodore Roosevelt

Psychologists that go Psycho - Part 2 of 2

In Part 1 of Psychologists that go Psycho, posted on February 11, 2011, I referred to just two cases, In the matter of Anna Mae He (which was the subject of a post on February 1, 2011), and Malmquist v. Malmquist.

On February 13, 2011, I posted a link to the American Psychological Association’s website which has the APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations. 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.

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.

Now, again in my own story, in 2006, enter Dr. Robert W. Kennon. As will be detailed in Part 4 of My Story: For the Love of a Child, in the very near future, 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?

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?

End of Part 2.
　
　
　

Judging the Judges: Gina Carol Higgins

I was flabbergasted when I learned that Gina Higgins had been elected as a circuit court judge! She had previously applied to the Judicial Selection Commission for the vacancy created by the death of Judge Rita Stotts; however, the Commission chose NOT to select her for the position. The Commission nominated Lorrie K. Ridder (one of three persons nominated) and Governor Bredesen selected her to fill the vacant slot. When the position came up for election in 2010, Higgins ran for the position and was elected. WHAT!!!!

Refer back to the post GALs Gone Wild - Part 2 of 2, posted on February 4, 2011. Higgins, while serving as a guardian ad litem, “blatantly refused to answer questions regarding Higgins personal relationship with” the trial judge of the case. Specifically, at her deposition, questioned by attorney Gail Mathes:

Q. I asked you a question yesterday but I guess I need to have it confirmed on the record under oath. As I understand it, there’s been no prior relationship between you and Judge Stokes; is that correct?
A. I’ll answer that question if y’all tell me who gave y’all this information.
Q. Ms. Higgins.
A. I’ll answer that question if you tell me who suggested there was a relationship between myself and Judge Stokes.
Q. My client is the one who –
A. Where did she get her information?
Q. I am the one taking this deposition today.
A. Then I’m not going to answer it.
Q. You’re refusing to answer the question?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Based on what grounds?
A. I’m just not going to answer.
Q. Well, then I’ll just have to cite you for contempt.
A. Please do.

Also, regarding her fees while serving as a guardian ad litem, Higgins responded in an email as follows:

As to a billing statement from me, why do you need one. I have not taken
the time to prepare a detailed bill in this case. I am not inclined to waste
my time. If you agree to and send me a check (for no less than $4,000), I
will take the time to submit an invoice. You should know that it will
reflect a lot more than $4,000 or $8,000 for the work done in this case.
Otherwise, I am not going to waste my time.

So in this case, Higgins basically said pay me without a billing statement or the statement I make will be a lot more!

However, this is not the first time Higgins ran into problems with her fees. In a complaint to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, Higgins was accused of embezzling money from an estate. The Board of Professional Responsibility filed a Petition for Discipline, which contained the following allegations:

[Higgins is the Respondent.]

39. In negotiating the costs of the nursing home, Ms. Epps’ family applied for Medicaid benefits. The family discovered that Respondent had cashed a check in the amount of $45,149.68 in Ms. Epps’ name. Ms. Brown contacted respondent’s office and asked that Respondent provide them a written statement that Ms. Epps had not received this money. Respondent did not respond.


40. As a result of Respondent’s failure to respond, it took several months for Ms. Epps’ family to make Ms. Epps eligible for Medicaid benefits. The nursing home bills accordingly fell in arrears.

[Isn’t this FORGERY and EMBEZZLEMENT among other things?]

58. Respondent has taken a fee of $18,000.00. Ms. Brown and Mr. Brown has asked Respondent to provide documentation as to the fee. Respondent has not provided this documentation and has retained all of the monies.


59. Respondent has thereby violated RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8(f), 1.15, 1.16 and 8.4(c) and (d).


In response to a survey by The Commercial Appeal prior to the 2010 judicial election, Higgins stated, regarding the Petition for Discipline:

“In 2008, I entered a guilty plea to a Petition for Discipline in a probate matter that I have handled since 1998. I was appointed as Conservator, then Administratrix and attorney for the Estate. After the client died her heirs and asked that I sell certain real property they inherited outside the Estate. I failed to sign a contract with them and after a fiduciary for the heirs got involved, problems arose and complaints were filed. This oversight arose because generally no contract is required in appointed cases. I entered a plea for failing to return calls and moving the Estate to closure. As part of that plea, I agreed to return my fee and was given a private reprimand.”

So all of this, and nothing but a “private reprimand”. So goes the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility.

In another matter from 2002, Higgins admitted to The Commercial Appeal:

"In 2002, my office represented an individual in a personal injury case wherein we filed a General Sessions lawsuit. Service was made by the Sheriff Department but we were not given notice of the court date. The case was dismissed and a complaint was filed by the client. We were able to get the case reinstated, but there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. This also affected an adoption matter I was handling for the same client. Consequently, my office withdrew from representation. The client retained new counsel. I was allowed to have the case placed under diversion and had to complete certain continuing legal education courses."


PRIVATE REPRIMANDS AND DIVERSIONS.


And now she is JUDGING others?!?!?!?!?!

Woe is the person with a case in her court.