He also said that he was incompetent to understand the legal record, incompetent to understand an applicable psychological principles, incompetent to understand the law, incompetent to do psychological tests, incompetent to define abuse or to give any examples of it, incompetent to evaluate any parenting practices, and incompetent to follow any generally accepted practices. Yes, he admitted all of that under oath.
Hidden in his recommendation is a pitch for more money! Apparently $28,000 is not enough. He does not say anything about what should happen after 6-9 months, and just wrote:
11... The Court may also determine that the parents shall have an updated child custody evaluation in order to receive input from an update to the current child custody evaluation with specific recommendations to address the parents' then current custodial requests.In other words, he just made his recommendation temporary in order that he could make some more money after the resulting court motion.
It seemed to me that Perlmutter was just pouring gasoline on the fire, and creating more legal conflicts for us, so I asked him about it in our June 7, 2010 deposition. When I asked him what should have been some very easy questions, he got extremely evasive:
Q. If your purpose were to maximize litigationSo he was not even trying to resolve anything. He would just creating conflict so that he could make more money on an updated evaluation.
and prolong court supervision of my kids, how would you
do your evaluation any differently?
A. I don't know the answer to that question. I
don't understand the question.
Q. You don't understand the question?
A. I don't understand your question that you just
asked me.
Q. Okay. It just seems to me that your -- of all
the possible things you could recommend, it seems to me
you've chosen the recommendation that maximizes
litigation and prolongs court supervision as much as
possible. And I would like to know if that's true or
not.
A. I don't know the answer to that. You're
making a statement. It's not my job to assess your
statement or give an opinion on it.
Q. But I can give you your opinion. I can ask
you that if your purpose were to maximize litigation
and prolong court supervision of my kids, how would you
do your evaluation any differently?
A. I can't answer that question.
Q. Did you think that you were resolving
something with this report?
A. That was not my task. My task was to conduct
a comprehensive child custody evaluation of this
family, to make recommendations about what custodial
arrangements would be in the best interests of your
children.
1 comment:
I'm not sure if he's setting it up for himself, or just "leaving a mark" on the file for the next evaluator to be hired in 6-9 months.
Sadly, it doesn't really matter. I figure you have 4-5 more of these to come, till your kids are 18.
Over the past 6 years, haven't you been averaging 1 new evaluation every 9 months anyway ?
Remember, per judge Kelley or Kelsay ? said" they're on the list", so they're good." Your previous evaluators, were on the "list", too. The next one will be or Perlmutter, again.
Until your ex. wants your kids to be with you, it's going to be one after the next, collecting $20k a pop, or more.
It's as if the court is filled with a bunch of used car salespersons. Every 9 months or so, your ex./the court forces you to buy a completely, worthless lemon of a car from one of them.
These court prof.s know you're in this for the long haul. Your choice is to keep paying, or "give up on seeing your kids".
Sorry you and so many of us have to go thru this.
Post a Comment