The importance of obtaining the notes from the psychologist chosen by Sandra Glenney cannot be stressed enough. In a case concerning false accusations the only evidence that Glenney can present is what the child allegedly said to the psychologist in the therapist’s office. The sessions in therapist’s office will not be taped, your only insight into what took place and what was said during the sessions will be the notes. Keep in mind , the therapist has been chosen by Sandra Glenney; get the notes.
The core component of CPS and Glenney’s strategy is to shape the narrative in the Courtroom, this mean controlling psychologist’s testimony. I have to stress that the same goes for Glenney’s hand-picked psychologist. The psychologist, sadly in some cases, is not there to find the truth but to find abuse. If the reader will google the term “CPS Corruption” you will learn the problem is rampant. If you do a simple search for a “psychological fraud’ , you will learn the field of mental health is troubled. The mental health profession is infamous for its lack of scientific credibility.
As you find yourself going through the circus like world of CPS and Sandra Glenney. It is important to stay grounded and deal with the facts. Keep in mind that CPS is a very low quality organization and the psychologist that Glenney chooses are typically not “top-shelf materia”. The average worker for CPS is poorly trained and is on a mission to find abuse. You need to be prepared with the facts.
In a recent case involving Dr. Mary Lindahl , the importance of obtaining the notes is highlighted. One of the issues with psychology/psychiatry is that in a therapist’s office anything goes. The field isn’t regulated very well. There are so many competing theories on how to conduct treatment; the majority are simply non-sense.
The following document reflects the questioning of Dr. Mary Lindahl by Lorrie SInclair, who was serving as the Guardian Ad Litem. The question , and I am paraphrasing, was “has the child been consistent in his/her disclosures”. Dr. Lindahl responds that the child has been consistent. Dr. Lindahl was allowed to say this because her notes were not obtained prior to the hearing. The notes were obtained approximately two years later , in the notes several instances of the child recanting were documented. Dr. Lindahl never told the Court about this.
Fast forward two years later at a deposition, after the notes were obtained Dr. Lindahl’s testimony was somewhat different.
Q. For the very first time, you mention in your
latest report, if I’m not correct, this is August the
15th of this year, that the child said that she denied
the incident and that it was a joke. This is the very
first time. Am I correct about that?
A. In what context?
Q. In any official context whatsoever.
A. I don’t recall if I was ever asked in court
if she has denied or retracted it. I would have said
what happened. I mean, I consider it important to put
in what she said and what happened.
Q. I’m not asking about what you said in court.
MR. BYRNES: You are. You just asked her.
BY MR. McLAUGHLIN:
Q. My initial question was, had you put anything
in writing with respect to those contrary allegations
before 8/15 –
A. It’s in my notes.
Q. — 2011, in a formal sense? Have you ever
A. I don’t recall. It’s in my notes.
As you can plainly see Dr. Lindahl is playing word games, she had every opportunity to tell the Court about the retractions in May 2009, when asked if the child was consistent, instead she chose not to. Get the notes, do not allow a psychologist to play word games during your hearing. If you don’t the psychologist will be allowed to conceal a rather large amount of information.