This is also a "Recommendations" fraud.
Local Appellate Divisions control law guardians, jurists, psychologists and the privately retained attorneys. Psychologists are now in a position to make "recommendations" as to who will obtain custody of their child and receive the fullest backing from the court (whose order the appellate division can reverse), the law guardian (who can lose his referrals from the appellate division law guardian panel), the psychologist (who can lose his referrals from the court) and your privately retained counsel (who can be disciplined by losing his license to practice law if he refuses to cooperate).
These recommendations become the order of the court. A "recommendation" may sound something like: "I recommend the opposing parent get the child, the loser goes to parenting training and treatment and visits shall be supervised".
The trial Judge sets the psychologist's fee, $1,500 to start with additional demands for money totaling roughly $5,000 for an edited narrative of a variety of prior reports and documents in the case. The psychologist interviews collateral people via phone for brief periods of time and copies these statements and assertions over to his report to the court. This report is protected from being revealed to third parties by an order of the court to keep this scam under wraps.
One factor that stands out here is that the psychologist's trick is to carry over hearsay information through the protections afforded by New York's arcane rules of evidence and place that information on the bench of the judge with impunity and without challenge.
The intended effect of this court ordered practice is to prohibit challenge to this report (violating the parent's Due Process) along with a prohibition against its criticism (violation of the parent's ability to petition for a redress). This means that complaining to any authority of its contents is a violation of the court order.
The manner in which the psychologist prepares his boatload of hearsay is reminiscent of how a judge on the bench hears witnesses, decides which ones are credible and then weighs their input in the judge's final judgment. The advantage the psychologist has is that there are no objections by the opponent possible and the psychologist can string up his report any way he wants free from the scrutiny afforded by a court record or transcript. The abuses that are possible are staggering.
There is a hint that substantial legal assistance was obtained to more thoroughly sanitize the contents of these reports. However, the psychologist is neither bound by any judicial ethical standards in weighing the credibility of witnesses. He does not have to give parties an opportunity to make a record, observe decorum in his office or appear in public and be subject to popular scrutiny. Litigants undergo a trial by ordeal which they necessarily fail.
The psychologist is free to seek any objective he wants and is basing his judgments on his own countertransference free of the fetters of ethical guidelines applicable to the bench and the bar. The issue therefore is whether he is bound by ethical guidelines applicable to psychologists.
A fact of circumstance arises. Some of these court appointed psychologist are members of what appears to be an illegal multi-disciplinary practice referred to by the courts as a Parenting Coordinators service.
In essence, the court appointed psychologist decides through his various hearsay means that a litigant is defective in some way: being too highly sexed, "struggling with alcohol" or "scares the kid" seem to be popular. The psychologist then recommends the curative step which includes a referral to his service, Parenting Coordinators, along with comprehensive treatment. During this service, lawyers and psychologists assist the litigants to follow judicial orders of visitation and custody. Hence, the psychologist is the diagnostician of the problem and the conduit for its therapy ordered to appear for treatment by the judge at the risk of being cut off from the child. The privately retained lawyer is forced to flip sides and assist the court to get the losing parent to follow orders.
This conflict of interest, violation of the prohibition of multiple relationships and shoddy workmanship in his report appear to be deliberately protected by the court's order appointing the psychologist.
On top of this, the psychologist is cloaked by the force field of confidentially afforded by the judicial orders of the Court as well as protected from challenge by judicial orders prohibiting the sharing of the report with other privately retained professionals. The losing parent cannot get an order allowing his own privately retained psychologist to see the entire family on the pretense that too many evaluations of the child will hurt the child.
The way this scam is executed is to set up a conflict (or highlight and hammer home a previous one if it already has not been therapized). For example, in one case, there was an altercation involving a pillow with the child's mother the evening prior to a court appearance where the father was ordered out of the house. The judge then suspended ordinary visitation between the father and the child. Then a court appointed psychologist wrote a derogatory report hidden from scrutiny and shielded from investigation and challenge. Then the psychologist recommended the parents enter a stipulation whereby the losing parent retains the psychologist's group for therapy in the hope of an eventual reunion with the children which may never occur.
So, the psychologist repeats ad nauseum the parent's serious problems. The Court adopts this with the aim of referring the losing parent for the fleecing of his pockets and in the meantime slowing down or stopping acting on the parent's original request that brought that parent into court in the first place. The child is used as the conduit to compel payments from the losing parent. Visitation is suspended or diminished.
That's the "recommendations" fraud and various licensing boards in the state and at the federal level would like to here about these.
The following is a listing of typical violations of the American Psychological Association's Ethical Guidelines this fraud yields:
3.04 Avoiding Harm.
3.07 Third-Party Requests for Services.
When psychologists agree to provide services to a person or entity at the request of a third party, psychologists attempt to clarify at the outset of the service the nature of the relationship with all individuals or organizations involved. This clarification includes the role of the psychologist (e.G., therapist, consultant, diagnostician, or expert witness), an identification of who is the client, the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained, and the fact that there may be limits to confidentiality.
3.05 Multiple Relationships.
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.
A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.
(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code.
(c) When psychologists are required by law, institutional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in more than one role in judicial or administrative proceedings, at the outset they clarify role expectations and the extent of confidentiality and thereafter as changes occur.
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.
3.08 Exploitative Relationships.
Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, and employees. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple Relationships; 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements; 6.05, Barter With Clients/Patients; 7.07, Sexual Relationships With Students and Supervisees; 10.05, Sexual Intimacies With Current Therapy Clients/Patients; 10.06, Sexual Intimacies With Relatives or Significant Others of Current Therapy Clients/Patients; 10.07, Therapy With Former Sexual Partners; and 10.08, Sexual Intimacies With Former Therapy Clients/Patients.)
3.09 Cooperation With Other Professionals.
When indicated and professionally appropriate, psychologists cooperate with other professionals in order to serve their clients/patients effectively and appropriately. (See also Standard 4.05, Disclosures.)
4.02 Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality.
(a) Psychologists discuss with persons (including, to the extent feasible, persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent and their legal representatives) and organizations with whom they establish a scientific or professional relationship (1) the relevant limits of confidentiality and (2) the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their psychological activities. (See also Standard 3.10, Informed Consent.)
(b) Unless it is not feasible or is contraindicated, the discussion of confidentiality occurs at the outset of the relationship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant.
4.04 Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy.
(a) Psychologists include in written and oral reports and consultations, only information germane to the purpose for which the communication is made.
(b) Psychologists discuss confidential information obtained in their work only for appropriate scientific or professional purposes and only with persons clearly concerned with such matters.
10.02 Therapy Involving Couples or Families.
(a) When psychologists agree to provide services to several persons who have a relationship (such as spouses, significant others, or parents and children), they take reasonable steps to clarify at the outset (1) which of the individuals are clients/patients and (2) the relationship the psychologist will have with each person. This clarification includes the psychologist's role and the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained. (See also Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality.)
(b) If it becomes apparent that psychologists may be called on to perform potentially conflicting roles (such as family therapist and then witness for one party in divorce proceedings), psychologists take reasonable steps to clarify and modify, or withdraw from, roles appropriately. (See also Standard 3.05c, Multiple Relationships.)
As for the judge, the following are the violations of law a judge commits who engages in this manipulation of the court's record in the case:
1.
Canon 1,22 NYCRR 100.1, A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.
2.
Canon 2,22 NYCRR 100.2, A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities.
3.
Canon 3,22 NYCRR 100.3, A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently... The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities.
4.
Canon 4,22 NYCRR 100.4, A Judge Shall So Conduct the Judge's Extra-Judicial Activities as to Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations.
Supervising judges are most interested in hearing about these violations.
0 comments