[Dr Travis Gee]

(07-Aug-2015, 02:00 PM)ErikG Wrote: One of the biggest abuses of the system I have repeatedly witnessed occurs when the ICL volunteers to help find, or otherwise suggests, a  psychologist of their choice to write the family report.

 
There is typically only one reason when an ICL tries to control which psychologist writes the report, and that’s because they want to control the narrative of the case.
 
Judges are often clued up to this, but not always. If you can’t get to nominate your own psychologist, you should never accept the ICL nominating their preference, because more often than not they will work in collusion, whether its at a conscious level or sub-conscious, which is precisely what is not supposed to happen.

This is very true. ICL's have been known to withhold one side's evidence from the report writer to control the narrative. A self-representing litigant won't be likely to know of this trick, and the counter to it lies in the expert witness guidelines about 'making all necessary inquiries.' If the report writer is told, on interview, of the existence of all relevant documents, and seems to be unaware of them, they can be questioned later on cross-examination as to why they failed to make inquiries about filed documents that they had not been provided. This tactic should go towards undermining a biased report, but requires having your wits about you at interview time with the reporter, making sure they are aware of the bits of paper.

It's not always just the ICL that's involved in something shady. I know of a reporter who was pressured by a clinic director, at the request of Child Safety, to remove positive statements about someone CS didn't like, who on testing had evinced no psychopathology. This was done, under protest, but the reporter ensured that *all* versions of the report were on the subpoenaed file, so the self-represented parent would be able to ask why the original report was tampered with. This again is a question that can be asked of the expert - 'Was this report modified after the initial version was provided?' Whether they were provided depends on whether they were kept in the first place, and whether your subpoena was broad enough to capture them.

Do tell us how things went!