Sandra Glenney and Lorrie Sinclair have it down to a science, the strategy, to win their cases. First and foremost is hand picking a psychologist that will testify to what Glenney and Sinclair wants; this is rather easy to do. As I was doing a little research the following case was discovered which included Glenney and Sinclair; it is quite disturbing. This one is a little different; it allegedly pitted Sinclair against Glenney. The psychologist lurking behind the scenes was Dr. William Ling of Reston, Virginia; there is always a hired gun psychologist lurking behind the scenes. It is astounding and at the same time very sad that so many “mental health professionals” would tarnish themselves by performing services for the Loudoun Department of Family Services(DFS). Dr. William Ling, who is evidently, a favorite of the Department of Family Services, provided the diagnosis that DFS needed for this case. His favorite diagnosis seems to be Mood Disorder NOS – not other specified. Whenever DFS has the opportunity to pick a psychologist, that psychologist is selected for a reason.
In this particular case, parental rights were at stake and DFS’s attempt to terminate them; the charge being led by the very corruptible and incorrigible Sandra Glenney. This case is disturbing in that Lorrie Sinclair was the counsel for the defendant or at least pretending to be. In reality Glenney and Sinclair are always working toward the same goal. The Court system in Loudoun as far as parental rights go is in complete disarray. This case so poignantly demonstrates that the system has been hijacked by the likes of Glenney and Sinclair.
Sinclair seems to make her living as a Guardian Ad Litem and every other position that the County will pay her for. Please remember that Sinclair aspires to be a Circuit Court Judge in the 20th Circuit. In this case she was more than likely court appointed, we all know how competent court appointed attorneys are don’t we. The decision is difficult to read in that the defendant probably did not know the relationship between Glenney and Sinclair. It is unlikely that the defendant was aware that the diagnosis from Dr. Ling was what DFS wanted .The defendant probably thought that the interview with Dr. Ling and the diagnosis would be legitimate; it was not.
The case demonstrates that the court in Loudoun is a charade as long as Glenney and Sinclair continue to practice in it.