Another crooked shrink

I just got a callback from a Monterey psychologist who does custody evaluations. I told her a little about my case. She said that she would not be satisfied with the court testimony. She would require me to sign a waiver so that she could call CPS and secretly get stuff that CPS might not have been willing to say in court. She said that is how she always does evaluations.

This was yet another demonstration of how crooked the system is. There is no legitimate justification for an out-of-court interview of a witness when that witness testified in full under oath. What would the reasoning be? That the out-of-court interview is going to be more truthful than the testimony under oath? That the psychologist's impression of the CPS social worker is somehow more important than the judge's?

The funny thing about these forensic psychologists is that when they say something that is contrary to common sense or legal practice, they often follow it up with a little speech about how professional ethics require it. And then they are dead wrong about their professional ethics. Here is the APA Code of Ethics. It does not require a forensic psychologist to do secret interviews, or anything so foolish.