Scaevola 'I think the suggestion that a group panel could be used is strongly indicative that a poster really knows nothing about psych assessments'. Do you have issues with comprehension? The ability to read? Just didn't bother to read at all? Psych assessments have paid my mortgage thank you.
I have mentioned that I hold a Doctorate in Psych, but that I now work as a counsellor. I have mentioned that I know of a case where a Mother in proceedings saw THREE psychs. The first and second reports were both good. These were written by highly qualified men. The third report was written by a lesser qualified (MSc) psych, who gave a bad report. This psychs only source of income was writing reports for the family court. Can you see the issue yet?.
I don't believe that parents should have a panel psych meeting, but what I was asking is, if the social services are just going to keep hiring EW after EW why not narrow down the time frame? Either the expert witness' are trusted or they are not, but why the repeat assessments until a negative appears? they don't hire another psych after they receive a negative, you know - just to be sure it's not a false negative? but yet that happens with two positives.
McTufty mentioned s/he is a barrister, I stated that I could contact the Mum and have her send Mc her files. Mc declined that offer. So at the very minimum in all this, I am able to have a Mum show proof of the repeat assessments that I am claiming she went through.
Yet again with the panel assessments, as I said quite a few comments back now. My ONLY issue with the family courts is the use of expert witness psychs whose only income is their family court work, the potential for 'he who pays the piper calls the tune' is astronomical. In my humble opinion this is the reason why two Dr.s were undercut by an MSc, and yet again, I could have Mum prove that. I stated that the way to prevent this from happening was to have ALL court psych reports prepared by NHS Dr.s because they will get paid whether the parent turns up or not, therefore removing the potential for financial bias. I don't think that what I am saying is that difficult to understand.
NB. When I say parents in proceedings who have been subjected to repeat psych assessments. I am not talking about hundreds of people here, I am talking between 10 and 15 parents (that I know of) here. BUT...... Who wants to be the adopter who finds out (birth) Mum was made to sit psych assessments till she failed? I know I wouldn't want to be. So, the problem may be an extremely small percentage of parents in proceedings, BUT to be on the safe side, why not add another check and balance into the system to make sure that no parents go through that treatment right?