Loudoun County CPS and their psychologists



My generation trained ourselves. There simply weren’t any programs in this field”. This statement was made by Dr.  Mary Lindahl, in the following article forensic-psychology-magazine-article; she is a psychologist that is frequently used by Loudoun CPS and Fairfax County CPS. She testifies quite often in Loudoun, Arlington and Fairfax County. The statement was made concerning the field of Forensic Psychology. Sandra Glenney, assistant Count Attorney for Loudoun depends heavily upon the testimony of “expert” witnesses like Dr. Lindahl. The aforementioned statement “My generation trained ourselves” is not the words of an expert. Sandra Glenney proudly qualifies Dr. Lindahl as an expert witness in the Loudoun County Courts. Dr. Lindahl fails to mention that “My generation trained ourselves” during her testimony. She instead touts her credentials.

Dr. Lindahl has a very close relationship with various CPS agencies in Northern Virginia. In the March 1 2009 edition of “The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse”. In an article written by Dr. Lindahl, Lindahl-Article, she thanked Laurie Warhol, a member of the Loudoun CPS management team. She also thanked several Social Workers from Fairfax County CPS. I mention this to illustrate that there is a established relationship between Dr. Lindahl and CPS agencies in Northern Virginia. This relationship typically results in Dr. Lindahl favoring CPS  an the mother during litigation. This in addition the lack of any scientific validity of any diagnosis by psychologists creates a very dangerous situation for litigants. Again, Dr. Lindahl does not mention the lack of scientific validity in her profession.  I would advise readers to review the controversy over the latest DSM-V manual.

My advice to any litigant in a civil case in which Dr. Lindahl is an expert witness, especially if she serves as a witness for Sandra Glenney is to have her removed as quickly as possible from the case. Dr. Lindahl has  limited knowledge of the research on child suggestibility conducted by Dr. Maggie Bruck of John Hopkins. Dr. Lindahl definitely disagrees with Dr. Bruck’s research.  Dr. Bruck’s research is based on some of the most egregious cases of false sexual abuse accusations such as the McMartin Scandal and the Kelly Micheals case. .

Dr. Lindahl is heavily influenced by the scandals of the 80′s and the prevailing theories that existed back then. Unfortunately most attorneys and participant in cases that involve false accusations of abuse are not aware of the cases of the 80′s. As a whole, the profession of psychology has tried to distance itself from this period, as it was a cheerleader for the idea of ritual abuse claims. I am not sure if Sandra Glenney is even aware of the high profile cases in the 80′s. Glenney and Lindahl both have the same belief system, that accusations must be true regardless of the evidence.

The defendant must gain immediate access to Dr. Lindahl’s treatment notes. Glenney will protest this vehemently claiming HIPPA laws, her goal is to hide as much as evidence as possible. They do not want a judge  hear the idea of child suggestibility. It is imperative that any psychologist who it testifying on CPS’s behalf be confronted with the data on child suggestibility.

The defendant and their attorney must be aware of the relationship between Dr. Lindahl and Sandra Glenney.  The attorney needs to asks very specific questions about the latest research that Dr. Lindahl has read and expose her knowledge of child suggestibility.






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>