The purpose of said testing is to assist the Court in determining whether or not it is in the best interests of the minor child(ren) to determine emotional stability and ego functioning, mental disorders and personality issues plus recommendations for improved functioning.The paperwork asking for this order included a declaration from a lawyer-psychologist who claimed that the mom may have a personality disorder, because of a report from a psychologist five years ago supposedly included a diagnosis for personality disorder not otherwise specified.
Of the moms I know, I would say that about 90% of them have a personality disorder not otherwise specified. If all moms had to get certified by a psychologist before they could see their kids, then we would be a nation of orphans.
There are several things wrong with this, and it may take several posts to explain them. First of all, what kind of quack relies on a diagnosis of something "not otherwise specified"? This means that she has "an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it." But this pattern does not match the specifications of any generally-accepted diagnosable disorder. Even a family court judge should be able to see that this label is bogus, and it does not, by itself, have any bearing on whether she should be able to see her son.
not otherwise specified is a catch-all used frequently in psychological diagnoses meaning "we really don't a have a bloody clue". My oldest son was diagnosed w/autism spectrum syndrome not otherwise specified because all the so-called experts couldn't really figure out what was going on. He's fine now, interestingly enough, but the quacks extracted a lot of money from my wallet in the meantime. As for judges not buying that, all I can say is you should know better, George, esp after JJJ. And it would appear also by the new judge. Again, it's all about control and money. Control from an ideology that the so-called experts know how to raise children best. And there's lot of money to be made by these people in an otherwise sullen economy. Their jobs will not be off-shored, alas. Nothing new here, nothing to see folks, move along....
I am interested in exposing the sort of reasoning being used by these quacks. Even if the judges are too stupid or too corrupt to recognize bogus arguments, the so-called experts are still responsible for what they say.
..and you should, thanks, I was being rhetorical, not critical, in my last sentence. The problem is that as a society there's an increasing abandonment of taking responsibility for one's actions and this is just another example. Don't mean to sound pessimistic but I don't see anything that shows me it's going to get better any time soon, either.
Post a Comment