Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Board complaint farmed out to expert

I just got this letter:
August 11, 2011
Board of Psychology Control No.: 1F 2011 215103 (Dr. Kenneth B. Perlmutter)
Dear Mr. [AngryDad]:
The California Board of Psychology (Board) is in the process of investigating the above-mentioned complaint you filed against Dr. Kenneth B. Perlmutter. This letter is to update you regarding the status of this complaint.

The Board has received all information needed regarding this matter. This information has been forwarded to a qualified expert for further review. Upon completion of this review, it will be determined if further investigation is needed or if a determination can be made for this case.

Thank you for your cooperation and patience.
[name omitted]
Enforcement/Investigations Analyst
California Board of Psychology
I presume that the Board asked Perlmutter for my patient records, and he sent copies of his handwritten notes. I doubt that he sent the 3000 pages of court records that my ex-wife provided to him.

My only hope here is that the "qualified expert" is some psychologist who is not already owned by the corrupt family court system. I think that there is about a 5% chance that my complaint will get a fair hearing.

Opinions of the family court evaluation system differ widely among psychologists. Some believe that nearly all child custody evaluations are unethical because they do not rely on generally accepted professional wisdom, and because they circumvent parental rights and due process. Others say that anything is fair game as long as someone is willing to pay for it.

I am posting this so that others can know about the public accountability of court-appointed psychologists and custody evaluators. Here is my May 7, 2011 complaint, and some correspondence has been posted here, here, here, here, and here.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What do you bet that the eval. report
almost always is unfavorable towards the parent that paid for it ?

There seems to be an inherent conflict in the process. The more vaugue it is, the more it leaves the door open for another eval. to be paid for, and or having to pay the evaluator more to explain the report and it's flaws. Who is rewarded for a "good report" ? Not them or the court prof.s.