Psychological Reports: Part 1

[tweinstein]

I finally received the psychological reports for my children. They were given to me in Portuguese (luckily I can read Portuguese). Apparently, there were two separate evaluations done. The first one was done in September, 2008 and I am just now learning about it. It was done by social workers.

The second one was done in October/November, 2008 by a psychologist. Given that I generally know nothing about what is occurring in my case, I am unclear why there were two separate evaluations done, although it appears that the mother's attorney objected to the conclusions of the first evaluation.

The first evaluation had 3 stated objectives:

• Determine if possible damage would be done to the children with their return to the United States.
• Determine if possible damage would be done to the children by a distance from their mother's company.
• Investigate the degree of maturity of the children, and, consequently, their desire to stay in Brazil with their mother or return to the United States with their father.

The evaluation was conducted during one session with the children, their mother, aunt, and two psychologists present. Initially, the children were not present. Once their mother spoke to the psychologists, the children were called individually to answer questions. In each instance, the mother was present.

Here are the conclusions:

• Both children are well adapted in Brazil and they have a good life. Despite this, they both miss their father and want to have a family together again.
• There may be emotional problems to the children if they have to return to the United States based on the positive relation with the maternal family and friends from school and the building they live in.
• Distancing the children from their mother's company would cause much suffering to the children in that they depend on her for everything (food, hygiene, health care, affection, happiness). The relationship with the mother appears stronger.
• The son is clear in his desire (to live with parents that are together). The daughter did not state a preference, but it is clear that she has an affectionate relationship with the mother and goes to her in moments of fear and pain.

The social worker further noted that although it is clear that the children live well in Brasil, it is important to conduct a complementary evaluation in the United States with the father, his family and the school. With this, the accusations of paternal abuse as well as social problems with the son can be investigated to assist in the decision of where the children should be raised.

Overall, I feel that this is a reasonable evaluation. However, I have two problems with the methodology. As a science teacher, I am well versed on the reality that the setup of an experiment can easily affect the results.

Here are my two problems with the methodology:

• The mother was present while the children were speaking. This likely influenced my children's answers and was even noted by the psychologist in the second interview.
• At the time of the interview, the children had already been separated from me for more than 2 years. Of course, they had a stronger relationship with mother.
  

As for the conclusions, I have two problems:

• Am I incapable of providing for the well-being of my children? Can I not provide food, health care, hygiene, affection and happiness?
  
• It discounts the family I have here. What about the lost relationships that my children suffered when they were illegally retained in Brazil?
  

I think that my first problem is the likely result of a cultural bias against fathers in Brazil. I have always felt that my children are overly-dependent on their mother. I believe the saying, "You can't see the forest for the trees" holds true in this case. The social worker was looking at the situation through her own cultural lens.

I applaud her for recommending that a complementary evaluation be conducted in the United States; however, one was never done. Maybe had I known that one was suggested, I could have insisted that it be done. Furthermore, if the social worker believes that my children would have emotional problems leaving Brazil, why didn't the social worker note that my children experienced these same problems when they suddenly left the United States?

At this point, I'm emotionally exhausted, so you'll have to wait a little for Part 2.

[sue]

When I took my daughter to a psychologist here in the states she was seen alone.  He didn't want me in the room.  That is strange that the mother was in the room when the children were interviewed.

[Sashia]

Given the intertwined nature of Parental Abuduction and Parental Alienation, How could ANY professional licensed to act as a therapist, consider doing an interview WITH the abductor present unless the main motivation was to OBSERVE the interaction between the minors AND the abductor. That however, would NOT yield any information of the type that they claim to be attempting to elicit. Since these are INTERNATIONAL issues, I think it may be time to start making some inquiries about standards. In otherwords, in any given situation in the medical field, there are standards of care, that would be the proper approach as determined by the majority of your peers. If it were agreed upon and practiced by the majority of physicians for instance to monitor central venous pressure continuously in a specific type of disorder, say multiple internal trauma, and another facility or physician in a similar disorder ordered blood pressures every 1 hour, the latter would not meet the standard of care for a patient with said disorder. If the latter patient survived anyway, nothing would probably come of it. However, if the latter patient dies, during mortality review, the latter doctor or facility would be viewed as not having met the standard of care and therefore probably contributed to the death.
There MUST be a standard of care, relating to the interviewing of victims of Parental Abduction. If there isn't, internationally then it's time to 1. Add it to the wish list of the Hague rewrite. 2. Try to determine if there is a generally accepted standard of care for interviewing abduction victims, see if those criteria were followed in your childrens case, and turn us loose on the internet to raise Hell until they do iit again and do it right. (I have to say that wher psychology is concerned, I view most as Voodoo practicioners. I almost have to laugh, because I find it inconceivable that the prevailing practice is to interview ANY victim in front of their perpetrators, but that being said, unless there is some kind of written protocol, common sense doesn't necessarily HAVE to prevail. These issues need to be examined one at a time and under the microscope. That's what we're here to help with.

[tweinstein]

If you thought that the social worker's evaluation was problematic, wait until I detail the psychologist's. The unprofessionalism of her report makes me furious.:mad2: It might take me a while because every time I read it, I get worked up.

Maybe that's why they didn't want me to see them.:nixweiss:

[rachelle4]

Tim, I'm sorry. It is so unfair that your wife was in the room. Of course your children are more likely to say what they think she wants to hear. They don't want to upset her. I wonder if the evaluation would have been viewed differently by the interviewer if it would have happened now since you and your son have become so close. He seems to have unlocked the mystery of his move to Brazil. He's a smart cookie!

[sue]

It's also not fair that you were not there.  The whole thing would make me very angry and I can only imagine how you must feel.  I'm so sorry.

[Sashia]

I think the whole charade would have been viewed differently if it had followed some reliable protocol. It is more than worthless. It is a crime against the children, not having the opportunity to express themselves away from the influence of their kidnapper. Another violation of their rights.

[Teena]

Tim, I m so sorry. This is completely unfair. You are right on everything you said. They shouldn't have waited the 2 years. Now of course they are adjusted. That doesn't mean they cannot adjust to olife with you too. I am so mad at your wife for taking them away from you and putting you and your children though all of this nonsense. I hope she learns to regret it and it plagues her for the rest of her life.

[tweinstein]

I wonder if the evaluation would have been viewed differently by the interviewer if it would have happened now since you and your son have become so close.

The psychologist from the BCA noted in her rebuttal that the evaluation was irrelevant at this point since 7 months had already passed. Unfortunately, all this does is open the door to another evaluation and another year-long delay.

[SageDad]

Can anyone remind me what qualifies someone as a "psychologist" in Brazil?  In Mexico it's a bachelor's degree.. which wouldn't qualify you to be a school counselor in the US, much less a clinical psychologist capable of providing expert testimony in a court of law.  I remember saying a lot of this here before and was told that Brazil had lots of mechanism's to guarrantee honesty and ethics from psychologists.. not that I believed it.  We have plenty of problems with pyschologists testifying to finding what they're paid to find in the US, even with the extremely high standards and legal accountability that exists here.

I'm sorry that these evaluations were not as favorable as they should have been, but I'm not surprised by it.  Take it with a grain of salt though since the judges all know that they ussually go this way and the AGU should be used to countering these types of evaluations.  The standard for denying returns under the the HC are specifically set high to avoid denying returns based on what should be considered "normal" risks of psychological harm, rather than "grave" ones.

I'm also sick to death of psychologists arguing of the harm that children could suffer by being separated from their mother.  Returning children to the US is not separating them from their mother and, in fact, has no relation to the matter being litigated.  She can come back to the US to still be with them and can litigate custody here.  The only way that argument would make sense is if the mother argued she would abandon her children if they were returned.. In which case she'd have to be a poor mother to begin with.

Psycholgical exams of children should be done without the parents, with each parent seperately and then with eveyone together.  On average in the US, custody proceedings take 26.2 hours of interviewing, observation and testing of the parents and children.  Not sure how long they spent on yours, but mine lasted exactly one hour.  Furthermore, you are absolutely right and so was the AGU attorney.  Doing a living evironment evaluation by a social worker has no value whatsoever if they only do it in Brazil.  How can they draw any valid conclusions from it if they do not also do a comparable one in the US?

[liesl78]

I am FURIOUS over this. How can they be so wrong? The mother was present??    :mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
I'm sorry, Tim, I really am.

[caique mateus]

I believe that David, Tim and other LBP are helping Brazil by exposing all this (#/$"/)" and, by doing this, pointing a way for us to get better.
 
Not just the justice has problems, other areas as well have room for improvement (saying it in a nice way...).
 
So, the abductor was in the same room when children were interviewed.... no comments. I don't believe this is a good standard anywhere in the world.
 
I'm sorry and sad too. I'm also ashamed that this kind of thing goes on in my country.
 
What can I say?

[tweinstein]

The second evaluation was conducted in the manner that Carlos indicated as appropriate, and the children were interviewed separately, but there was a MAJOR bias in her conclusions that I will discuss when I have the energy to detail the report. For this reason, I think that the first one was much better.

[sue]

Were you there for the second one?

[tweinstein]

Were you there for the second one?

It was only yesterday that I learned that the first one had even occurred and NO, I was not invited to the second one.