Loudoun County CPS – The perils of psychology in the Courtroom



The issue of expert testimony in a Courtroom is a delicate one, especially that of a psychologist. The core issue is the lack of supporting evidence that supports the psychologist’s testimony, the technical term is lack of “scientific validity”. With regards to Loudoun CPS and Sandra Glenney, the most troubling aspect of the expert’s testimony is the relationship that Sandra Glenney has with the psychologist, a relationship that you and your attorney will not have knowledge of.  One psychologist that Sandra Glenney utilizes is Dr. Mary Lindahl. This relationship that the psychologist has with CPS will sadly bias their testimony. You have to keep in mind who is paying the psychologist. If a psychologist is employed or recommended by Sandra Glenney, there is a reason for it.

I will stress again , you need to subpoena the notes of Glenney’s chosen psychologist if you desire any chance of winning your case.  Your attorney will have to attack the credibility of the psychologist and their relationship with CPS. Using Dr. Lindahl as an example, she testifies quite often for various CPS agencies throughout Virginia. There is a very high probability that any psychologist hired by CPS will have a long history with CPS. Your attorney needs to question and explore this relationship in Court.

Additionally, the accused and their attorney cannot place any faith in the trustworthiness of the psychologist’s testimony nor can they trust that the psychologist will act in the best interests of the child.  Do not expect the psychologist to be truthful on the stand. Do not entertain the idea that CPS is acting in the “best interests of the child”. You are involved in a very adversarial process, CPS cannot be trusted to respect the judicial process. Sadly, some psychologists behave just as badly as CPS.

The general history of psychology is abysmal and continues to be abysmal; it harms people not helps them. Dr. Mary Lindahl,  in a recent case failed to report the retractions of a minor in a CPS case. The retractions went on for months and Dr. Lindahl did not report the retractions to the Court.  In fact, she did not mention the retractions for over two years. They were only mentioned when the accused had access to the notes of Dr. Lindahl. When asked under oath if she told Sandra Glenney about the retractions, she replied with the standard response “I don’t recall”.

The failure of Dr. Lindahl or Sandra Glenney to report the retractions runs counter to  the approved training that CPS workers in Virginia receive concerning retractions. Below is an excerpt from the training. As you can see Dr. Lindahl and Sandra Glenney decided to take matters into their own hand and did not report the retractions.  Glenney turns the legal process into a “kangaroo court type” atmosphere where the accused is deprived of any  type of due process including access to exculpatory evidence.



In the specific case described above in which Dr. Lindahl failed to report the retractions, the issues with psychological testimony is highlighted. It is simply to easy for a psychologist to omit important facts during their testimony, they face very little consequences if they are untruthful. Not only does the field lack the ability to substantiate its claims with real evidence , this lack of scientific validity opens the door to horrible bias by a psychologist.  Psychologists are used as a weapon by  Sandra Glenney.  Sandra Glenney and CPS have one goal and that is to find abuse not the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>