Monday, March 24, 2008

Judge says he avoids this blog

A reader asks:
Is it true [Comm.] Joseph said he was not permitted to read your blog?
Yes. He did not say why. The obvious explanation is that he is trying to follow the rules that say that judges are only supposed to consider evidence that is presented to both parties in open court.

The trouble with this explanation is that he violates the rule all the time anyway. Even when we were in court last Friday, he had a sign by the court door announcing a change in his schedule for hearing ex parte motions that day. Ex parte motions are motions to the court by one party, without the other party being notified or present. Comm. Joseph makes decisions all the time based on one-sided presentations. He even took my kids away in Nov. 2007 without listening to my side of the story.

I do not believe that this blog is really an impediment to getting a child custody evaluation. Here is a typical Informed Consent Agreement from a local forensic psychologist. He makes parents sign this when doing a custody evaluation. It includes this clause:
4. Limits of Confidentiality: There is no confidentiality in this process. All information you share throughout the assessment process may be made public in reports or by testimony. A final report, summarizing findings and recommendations will be prepared and sent simultaneously to the attorneys and the court, or as the court orders direct.
If there is no confidentiality, then there is no legitimate reason for a psychologist to object to public comment on his public testimony.

No comments: