Useful Tools and Tips to Assist In Protecting Your Family From The Child Protection Industry
Like us on fb
Fighting 4 Families Family Survival Guide Useful Tools and Tips to Assist In Protecting Your Family From The Child Protection Industry
THIS MATERIAL IS NOT SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE FOR YOUR CASE. THEY ARE GENERAL PRINCIPLES, WHICH MAY NOT APPLY IN EVERY CASE. REVIEW IT WITH A LAWYER BEFORE DECIDING HOW TO DEAL WITH CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES.
Scandals of unqualified individuals testifying in court and others being convicted of fraud are everywhere. "I will lie under oath to anyone about anything if I ‘feel’ that it is in the best interest of the child."
The purpose of this guide is to prepare families who have become involved with the child protection industry and to inform citizens of the need for oversight, transparency, and accountability of all personnel employed in the system. It will introduce the general purpose, tactics, and dangers of the child protection industry. These private agencies operate and work directly with the most vulnerable children and families in the community.
Most citizens are aware of child protection services and conclude that they protect children from abuse and neglect. Not to say some children and families are not helped, many are. Although often hidden or ignored are the horror stories, conflicts, and corruption. Many are not aware of the structure, scandals, or extent of the damage and injustice occurring within the child protection system. Perjury, withheld and lost information, altered court transcripts, abuse in care, forced therapy, drugging and incarceration are common occurrences being alleged and documented. This is all done in the name of protecting children, at the expense of public funds, but more importantly innocent children and their families.
The public is bombarded with claims of over worked, over loaded workers and courts. There is a constant demand for more legislation, authority and information sharing powers. Then there is the continual request and demand for additional funding every year or children will suffer, while at the same time the system minimizes, deflects, and immunizes itself from any accountability when wrong doing occurs and hide behind claims of confidentiality when questions are asked.
The Ontario Ombudsman, Mr. Marin said it best when he stated ‘they have carved themselves a comfortable niche of immunity’ when asking for oversight of the 53 private organizations operating in Ontario. This niche of immunity could be used to hide corruption, negligence, criminal activity, and children for funding. The industry has painted a picture that is not entirely accurate. All their claims, demands, and statements seem reasonable upon first glance, but at the same time one only has to look at the internal workings, funding, lack of accountability, and ask, cui bono?
Who benefits if no one is held accountable when children and families are harmed and all attempts to investigate are stonewalled? Who benefits when private unregulated and unaccountable individuals make judgment calls that seriously effect children and families without adequate training, oversight, or accountability?. The child protection industry is an unregulated, unaccountable, secret cesspool of corruption, greed, power mongering, and incompetence. If the number of horror stories of the falsely accused is insufficient to raise red flags, there are numerous other specific indications that something is wrong with the child protection system. The number of children dying and being abused in care by the very people mandated to protect definitely is. Foster carers, workers, and therapists alike.
This statement represents the dominant philosophy among social workers, child protection workers, psychologists, police officers and attorneys that constitute the child protection industry. This attitude, mixed with anti-family and radical political ideologies are fundamental problems that make the child protection system totally unreliable. The safest place for genuine child abusers, con artists, and extremists, is in the child protection industry itself. If the public ever realized the potential for conflict that could and may be occurring, the backlash that would occur would shake the very foundations of trust for the child protection, mental health, and justice system. The industry as it exists today would end and reforms would be felt throughout the entire system. This would truly be “in the best interest of the child”
THE CHILD PROTECTION TRIANGLE
Looking from a topographical view, the 4 main players in the industry can be seen and it is important to note, they are all reliant on the other to play their part and carry out the charade in order to keep the funds flowing and the truth hidden. The true benefactors of this industry include the private protection agency, referral agencies, mental health personnel, the judiciary, and local government through transfers from the federal and provincial government. It is important for citizens to realize the whole system is interconnected and reliant on each other in order to maintain power and protect the future existence and growth of the industry.
Their fanatic attempts to cover up scandals, maintain secrecy, and avoid independent oversight, is an issue that every citizen should be concerned with. Accepting the wise premise that the best way to search for and identify possible criminal conduct is to "follow the money" is paramount to understanding the true operations and mandate of the present child protection industry. It is quite simple to identify those who benefit most from child abuse “investigations” and "therapy."
Child Protection Services
(Agencies, Boards, and Commissions)
UNDERSTANDING THE CHILD PROTECTION INDUSTRY
Goals and Principles of the Child Protection System
They want to get your family involved and keep them involved for funding and statistics. They take money from tax payers and citizens, to pay for those working in and supporting the system. To maintain job security the system must continually take more children each year to justify its existence and ensure future growth. Decreasing child abuse is a threat to future employment, growth, and funding. Decreasing child abuse is a conflict of interest to those benefitting.
They want to break you physically, emotionally, and financially, so they can more easily lead your family through a process that will benefit them and their stakeholders, not your children and family. They protect themselves from exposure and prosecution by hiding their activities behind secret courts and confidentiality claims. This protects them, not children and their families and keeps the public from knowing what is really happening.
They will threaten permanent loss of your children or extort your family into signing service agreements using fear and intimidation. If you consent that your family needs their services, therapy, and drugs, they do not need to go to court, let alone trial. Getting families to naively consent is an important tactic. They will try to keep your family from obtaining and presenting evidence that disputes their claims or shows their unethical activity. They do this by trying to avoid going to trial so the truth is never officially documented or revealed.
They are also strongly opposed to families recording their activities, such as phone calls, meetings, and visits. They will go as far as misrepresenting the law or denying access to children to keep families from obtaining accurate records this way. They keep promises, agreements, and arrangements that will actually assist your family, off the record, so they can deny them later. This is done by doing things verbally or by using case conferences that are private and usually not recorded so details, claims, and tactics can be hidden or denied.
They ask or get the courts to order you to attend programs and psychological testing with other individuals they know are supporters so they can submit fallacious and false reports about your family. This gives the appearance of adding validity to the agencies claims against your family.
They continually switch workers, therapists, and assessors involved which breaks up accountability and continuity. These new individuals will also work against your family. This allows them to call more witnesses to give opinions about you and your family with no evidence. Perjury, opinion, and fallacy runs rampant.
They make things so confusing and intimidating that most people feel they have no hope or means of saving their family, thus getting families to agree to completely erroneous and damaging alternatives, such as crownwardship or forced adoption of some children to save the other children.
How the Child Protection System is Funded
Child protection agencies in Ontario get funding from the government based on the number of open files and the services provided. The more files that an agency has open the more money the agency gets from the public coffers. It is in the interest of the child protection agencies and its service providers to keep case loads as high as possible so they can keep the government funds flowing and create job security.
These agencies also accept donations and have several other private organizations that fundraise specifically for them, many skim the money for their salaries directly from this. Child protection agencies and workers prefer dealing with cases involving poor or disadvantaged families as these targets pose less risk of being able to resist or cause embarrassment through public exposure. Obtaining easily manageable files is why child protection agencies push “voluntary” agreements, where people sign up for services by admitting that they need the agencies assistance.
Be wary in consenting to services or signing agreements you don’t fulling understand. You can always state you need to seek legal advice before signing anything in regards to your children and family. If children can be put on medication there is an increase in the amount of money which is paid by the government. There is an incentive for child protection agencies, foster parents, doctors, as well as schools, to get children on prescription drugs.
They will work together to achieve this extra funding at the expense of your children health. Child protection agencies have full time legal departments that get paid with public funds. In order to keep the appearance that lawyers are busy, legal paperwork and litigation is required not only in substantiated cases, but on resisting families as well. This is why child protection agencies are eager to serve court documents on resistant and innocent families to get them into the initial court process, minus the actual evidence or trial. All legal costs, whether on substantiated cases or on prolonged witch hunts, which can last years, are passed on to the public.
Lawyers, private enterprise, special interests groups, and government have created complex and powerful laws that contain vague definitions and interpretations of abuse, but allow for massive abuses of power to occur by those employed in the system. The industry claims it has to do this in order to protect the best interest of the child and confidentiality of parties involved.
In reality, this does little to protect children and innocent families. When wrong doing or criminal activity is perpetrated by individuals in the system, it only protects those perpetrating these crimes, hence the ones benefiting from long drawn out cases of misleading and fabricated evidence, where services and assessments resulted in unnecessary court orders and prolonged trauma to children kept unlawfully separated from their families.
Evidence shows that during these long initial times of separation, children have been emotionally abused being told or led to believe they have been abandoned just prior to or during therapy. Emotions displayed are documented as proof of abuse, which it is, only they are doing the abusing, not the family. There are several lawyers who could not argue their way out of a paper bag let alone represent a family in court with such high stakes and permanent consequences.
Many of these lawyers either do not know the actual law, or they are intentionally misleading their clients in order to process the cases. They have become the case administrators in this family killing machine, not a good source of legal advice or route to justice. Leading unsuspecting families through a funding slaughter house like cattle is much more lucrative and efficient. Knowledgeable citizens can do a good job representing themselves but lawyers do not want people trampling on their exclusive domain of “practicing law”.
Self representation has shown to be quite successful in some cases, but due to the complexity of procedure and law it can not be recommended for everyone. An understanding of the law and a decent lawyer is highly recommended. Family lawyers know nothing of Constitutional law or civil rights and freedoms. It has even been shown that many are even unaware of important sections of the laws governing the local courts they are operating in.
Unfortunately the judges and lawyers have the authority of the courts and the police behind them. They hold the power to force the citizens to follow the rules and procedures of a game that they have crafted for their own benefit. Family law is nothing more than a system made up of rules and procedures for the benefit of lawyers and judges. Perjury is rampant in family court and the lawyers and the judges know it, tolerate it, and even accept it.
They do not care because it keeps them employed and generates lots of money through the adversarial family court system. Family law is more about business than justice. Some lawyers have admitted that the family court system is largely corrupt and not based on fundamental justice and have been disbarred for voicing their concerns. It is extremely important that families organize and maintain their own case files and records as most lawyers do not care or have the time to fight your case properly.
At the first sign of any involvement it is important your family takes the following steps:
1) Buy a small audio recording device, preferably a digital model as using tapes can be costly and inconvenient. Hundreds of hours of audio documentation will have to be organized in a chronological manner. This is to ensure accurate and timely retrieval of information you WILL need in order to protect and assist your family from falling victim to this corrupt and money driven system.
2) Say as little as possible. Keep in mind, they are investigating and/or taking you to court for custody of your children. Do not be fooled into thinking they are there to help your family. There are no funds available to go to every citizens home and tell them what a beautiful job they are doing. The agencies need to apprehend enough children equal to or greater than the agencies operating costs. Agency directors make $120,000+ and workers $50,000+
3) Educate yourself on child protection law and family court procedures in your Province, Territory, or State.
4) As soon as possible retain trusted legal counsel and advice.
5) Immediately get all child protection concerns in writing.
The importance of audio recording ALL conversations, meetings, visits, and phone calls, can not be stressed enough. Several families have stated that the only thing that saved their families was the recorded evidence they obtained showing the agency was falsifying and fabricating affidavits and reports. Court transcripts and related documents show that in cases where audio evidence was presented, the agency has changed their position on attempts to take children permanently away from families for crownwardship and adoption.
Several citizens in Canada are under the false impression that it is illegal to record conversations they are involved in. The criminal code, court transcripts, and case law in Canada show this is not entirely accurate.
Criminal Code of Canada http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-...
“The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in
Numerous Canadian cases have upheld recording your own conversations is legal and admissible in the court of law.
Cases considering the one party consent exception In R. v. Goldman,  1 S.C.R. 976 [Goldman] the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that an interception of a private communication is lawful if one of the parties consented to it and explained that “the consent may be express or implied and may be given by either the originator of the private communication or the intended recipient”:
Goldman at 997. In R. v. Strano (2001), 80 C.R.R. (2d) 93 (Ont. H.C.J.) a contractor surreptitiously recorded a conversation he had with the accused using a device disguised as a pen. The recording was originally made for the contractors own purposes, but later provided to the police who used it in a criminal prosecution for the offences of accepting secret commissions and breach of trust. Lane J. considered the relevant Criminal Code provisions and the Charter, but held that neither applied to the recordings.
Consent to interception of a conversation involving many people If many people are involved in a single conversation, it can lawfully be recorded so long as any one of the parties to the conversation consents to it being recorded. That rule is set out in s. 183.1 of the Criminal Code: “Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part.”
Conclusion regarding the one party consent exception The foregoing indicates that, in Canada, it is legal to record your own conversations, whether they are had on the telephone or in person. However, it is illegal to record a conversation that you are not involved in or are not one of the intend recipients of the communication.
There is also case law on the use of nanny cams. These are small video cameras installed into a toy or other item, such as a teddy bear. They are used to monitor nannies and babysitters. These recordings, even though taken without consent of the party, have been accepted by judges as it is a reliable source of events and is in the interest of justice.
Many of the following dirty tricks will be used against children and families by those employed and benefiting from the child protection industry.
Know what the dirty tricks are to increase your chances of protecting and saving your family. Your family is under investigation and criminal charges can follow or run parallel to a child protection investigation. Many times family court is delayed awaiting a criminal court verdict. Time toward crownwardship of children in family court continues as criminal trial proceeds.
Anything you say will be used against you in court, whether it is true or fabricated. The single biggest complaint from individuals caught in the child protection system is the amount of fallacious and fabricated information sworn in affidavits and presented to courts.
What you say will end up in a form so twisted, you will not recognize it. If you state you had an argument, it will be presented as verbal abuse and domestic violence. If you have spanked your child, it will be presented as physical abuse. Do not talk about your religious, social, or political beliefs.
If your family holds differing views from the ‘agent’ investigating it may lead to the removal of your children and destruction of your family. Many times ‘agents’ will ask families about their beliefs as a way of determining if the family has support that may undermine or expose the agencies agenda to quietly take the families children.
Child protection agents will try to get friends and family to say incriminating things about one another and present it to the court implying dysfunction or to shed a negative light on the immediately targeted family.
Child protection agents will withhold, fabricate, and manipulate information of those they talk to during their investigation in hopes of getting unsuspecting families to turn against or say incriminating things about one another.
Divide and conquer tactics are an effective way of getting disclosures, creating adversary, and decreasing support for the family targeted. A common tactic ‘agents’ use to get unsuspecting families and naïve parents to talk is to pretend they are your friend, they are there to help, and that they would NEVER use unethical or criminal means to remove your children.
The use of restraining orders and separation requests on families is another effective and common strategy that ‘agents’ employ. Child protection agents will often tell parents to separate or suggest the use of shelters during the investigation to increase the chance of retaining or getting children back. Be very careful, this can and will be presented to court as a sign of a troubled, dysfunctional or abusive relationship and family.
Remove all alcohol from your home and refrain from even an occasional drink during the entire investigation and involvement. Allegations of alcoholism and drug use are a common tactic used to remove children and force families into attending addiction and mental health services. This generates more funds, inflates statistics, and will be used against your family in court.
If you are or have ever taken any prescription medication for stress, anxiety, or depression, even short term, it may be brought into court and used against you. This also allows the agency to refer families to their paid assessors for further evidence and testimony that will be used to build a case against your family and to improve the agencies chances of gaining permanent custody of children.
Document Everything (Secretly Record)
Ask for everything in written format, either a letter or email. Be very cautious in signing any service agreements or consents. A fallacious, inaccurate, or false service agreement or report, once agreed upon, may be used against your family in court. Do not sign anything that is false, inaccurate, or that you do not agree with or need. You can always state you need to seek legal advice before signing anything in regards to your children or family. Make sure to record conversations as evidence shows families who request time to seek legal advice are later accused of refusing to sign consents and of being uncooperative.
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE AND BE FREE FROM THREAT, INTIMIDATION, or COERSION.
With the overwhelming number of claims alleging false and misrepresented affidavits and reports, families are advised to secretly record all interactions with ‘agents’, lawyers, and therapists. Record EVERY conversation, meeting, visit, and phone call. This can not be stressed enough and is covered in greater detail in its own chapter.
Abusers in the System
These ‘agents’ and ‘service providers’ are abusers by their own definition, but by some mental perversion they can disassociate themselves from the damage they cause when utilizing unethical and criminal actions and convince themselves the ends justifies the means. The ends, is destruction of your family and custody of your children, while the means is opinionated reports based on fallacious, falsified, and biased documents and affidavits.
While children may be removed from their homes on any allegation of abuse, children in the system claiming abuse will be ignored and discredited. Many children trying to bring forward abuse in care are labeled as liars and trouble makers. A disturbing number of them are moved, institutionalized, or drugged to keep them silent.
If you suspect a child is being abused in care, take great caution in addressing these concerns with the agents or agency. Several of the people caring for these children are friends, family, and supporters of the agencies and their employees. Some are working, profiting, and hiding behind the systems lack of oversight and accountability. Evidence shows that agencies will label families claiming abuse of children in care as mentally ill and delusional and will even go as far as covering up possible abuse and unusual injuries of children in care. Documentation by photos and audio is extremely important in protecting your children and family at this point.
Therapy and Assessments
Child protection agencies and courts will always try to get your family to go for assessments and therapy. They will refer on consent or court order you to attend their paid assessors and therapists. There is a widely held belief by those working in the system that all children need therapy.
Virtually all children taken into custody are placed into therapy and counseling. Initially and quite frequently, all contact between children and family is cut off while children are attending therapy. Evidence also shows that children may be told they have been abandoned during or prior to these therapy session. Some children claim they were interrogated for hours and all claims of no abuse are ignored, but at the slightest indication of abuse, the therapist will enter reports claiming child abuse has occurred.
They will imply that any behavior problems occurring after the apprehension is due to exposure to abuse, but will neglect to admit this behavior could be a result of separation from family and rarely do they let children attend, let alone testify in family court proceedings. Children have claimed they were told they could go home if they admitted abuse was occurring. Children have been told they would be helping others, such as siblings, if they claim they are being abused.
Cases have been exposed where interrogators have asked leading questions of young children or promised treats if they told the assessor they were being abused. Most of these interviews are not recorded so be cautious of anything these assessors or therapist claim. Their opinions and bias can destroy families with no facts or evidence. Some of the individuals these agencies use are not licensed, regulated, or registered to practice social work, let alone interrogate children or testify in a professional capacity.
Several assessors and therapists rely exclusively on referrals from the agency to make a living. Keep in mind that the law allows appropriate physical discipline, namely a spank on the bottom with an open hand. Those working in the system care not what the laws are or what the Supreme Court has ruled and will claim a child is being physically abused even if they have only been spanked on the bottom.
Secret Court Appearances
Another common allegation and tactic is the late or nonexistent delivery of court paperwork or the secret court appearance without the parents knowledge. Often the agencies file last minute or late allowing families no time to seek legal advice or respond to their claims.
Parties unaware of court dates or arriving unprepared are easy targets for last minute high pressure tactics. It is also an effective way for the agency to show you as an uncaring and neglectful parent.
Perceived Justice in Court
Most citizens think they will find justice in court. The child protection agencies will try to ensure you get a lawyer that works with them, not against them. This could be the driving factor behind why low income families are disproportionally targeted.
Be especially careful if retaining a legal aid or court appointed lawyer. Lawyers may mislead, misrepresent, and stall as long as possible. This improves the agencies chance of getting custody while maintaining secrecy. Many times lawyers will try to get you to agree with statements and plans that are beneficial to them and the agency, not your family.
Be very cautious and look for the red flags that indicate your legal representation and the courts may be working against you. If your lawyer seems to be working against your family by not assisting or bringing forward your evidence and is not addressing unethical or criminal activity being utilized by the agency or its employees, do not hesitate to retain new counsel and file complaints.
Once again the recording of meetings is critical in exposing fraud, misrepresentation, and protecting your family. The agencies will allow you to address your concerns and complaints about ‘agents’ conduct, but co-workers will do the investigation. This allows them to keep all proof and allegations of abuse and criminal activity hidden. It also allows them access to any information that you are alleging and can assist them in discrediting or building a defense against your claim.
Remember these people are taking you to court to gain custody of your children, not the other way around. Be careful sharing any evidence suggesting wrong doing or abuse of children in care with those working for or being paid by the agency.
Evidence even shows police not responding to abuse allegations of children and youth in care, minimizing it as distraught, disgruntled, or desperate parents. You will soon realize that there is no one to protect your family from the protectors. Some child protection workers have spouses on the police force and vice versa. There is a widely held belief by those in the system, that only biological parents and family abuse children, leaving it a dangerously fruitful playing field for real child abusers and predators.
Destroying and Discrediting the Family
Child protection agents will make scheduled visits with your children difficult and maintaining employment virtually impossible. They will continually cancel visits and change schedules last minute in an attempt to break bonds and make you look neglectful and uncaring. They will then use it against you in court.
These missed and canceled visits will be presented as your fault or your failure to attend, in hopes of painting you as a dead beat parent. Loss of employment or income is a very effective way to show you as unstable or unable to provide for your children.
The Illusion of Keeping Families Together
Even though legislation stresses placement with family, the system will often come up with excuses and stall in order to maintain control. The system can not rely on family members to carry on or remain silent if the agency is caught in some form of unethical or criminal behavior. A family member is less likely to turn a blind eye, remain silent, or withhold information that is truthful or supports your family, unless they are the ones making the allegations to obtain custody of children for funding.
Often the system will stall and prolong cases to allow legislated time frames to expire so they can apply for permanent custody and eventually adopt your children. They prolong cases by making demands impossible to accomplish or purposely working against you by road blocking programs they requested you take or stalling court, on your consent of course, as time ticks away towards crownwardship. If they can keep children in care long enough, the law can require custody be given to the agency. Prolonging cases adds to the overall amount of money the agency and legal system receives for warehousing your children and keeps cases loads high so they can demand more lawyers, judges, and workers.
Adoption is a lucrative business in itself. Warehousing numerous children on public funds costs the agencies nothing, but increases the chance of adoptive parents finding the right child to buy through adoption. If the agencies can not get you for abuse or neglect, they will claim you are in denial of abuse or suggest you are mentally ill and unable to protect your children.
One of their paid assessors will more than happily offer a recommendation in a highly opinionated report that will suggest you may be suffering from some unprovable mental disorder. Again this increases the chance the agency will get custody of your children and helps trap you in the system for future harassment and intervention for agency funding and statistics.
CHILD PROTECTION, MENTAL HEALTH, AND THE JUDICIARY
It is 1973 and you have a problem. You are frustrated by your inability to control how other people live their lives. You are certain you have special knowledge or genes that make you superior to the ignorant masses. You are one of the anointed, destined to move humanity into a glorious future. If only the rabble were not too stupid to perceive your innate superiority.
Unfortunately, the ungrateful ignorant masses would perceive what you want to do as the ravings of a lunatic and would not want to turn control of their lives over to you willingly. How are you and the other anointed ones ever going to get control and do what has to be done?
You discuss solving this problem with your fellow anointed ones in the Psychology and Social Work degree programs. You find there are many others who share your views that democracy was a mistake. Psychologists and Social Workers, who know what is best because of their innate superiority, are the only people fit to be in control of government. You discover that your views about the inferiority of the masses have a long tradition in the mental health field.
The ideology that psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers should run the government is called psychocracy. With your world view that the masses are inferior and the anointed innately superior firmly validated, you and others set about building a system to finance and orchestrate destruction of the family, religion, democracy and other impediments to your plan to save humanity from itself. Since you can not openly pursue your goals, you must trick the great unwashed into cutting their own throats.
You must make alliances of convenience with other political extremists and economic interests. People who are so intense, their passions will persuade other people in the absence of any scientific proof of their claims. Among other brilliant enterprises, witnesses go before Committees on Child Welfare and testify that a national and international network of Satanic Cults exists and there is an epidemic of child abuse occurring within the country.
Witnesses describe operations to breed babies for human sacrifice, massive kidnapping networks to steal children for evil purposes, entire communities and churches of Satanists hiding the systematic and wholesale sexual abuse of children, tunnel systems are alleged to exist under daycare centers where children are molested and forced to participate in Satanic ceremonies.
It was a minor inconvenience that a ten year FBI investigation found no evidence of such massive satanic conspiracies to exploit and abuse children, but by then you and your fellow anointed ones had the killing machine well under construction using conditional federal funding you had obtained as a result of the testimony from quack witnesses.
You were eventually so successful at integrating greed and personal aggrandizement to achieve your goals that investigations and comprehensive documentation of the atrocities being committed have failed to put a dent in the destructive machine. After enacted legislation establishing conditional federal funding programs to achieve your destructive goals, provinces, territories, and states had to get with your program if they wanted to receive the federal funding.
Over time, provinces, territories, and states were forced to enact legislation that included establishing a corps of mandated child abuse reporters who would be granted immunity for reporting anything, true or false, yet allowed them to be sued for failure to report anything that might possibly indicate child abuse. The legislation placed a long list of professionals in a position where they were afraid to use their own good judgment.
THE LOVE OF FEDERAL FUNDING - ROOT OF ALL GOVERNMENT EVIL
Conditional federal funding is a powerful and successful tool used in an increasing number of areas to establish public compliance with extremist and special interest agendas. The enticement behind conditional federal funding is that your province, territory, or state will be paid if legislation is enacted requiring citizens to comply with the agenda of the special interest that obtained enactment of the authorizing federal legislation.
Local politicians love to hold news conferences announcing they have succeeded in obtaining federal funding and projecting the economic impact in terms of new jobs or programs. Not covered at the press conference is the small print that turns one segment of the population into a cash crop that has to be harvested. It may seem to be a good deal, unless you are a member of the group being harvested.
The ugliest of the federally funded citizen harvesting projects is the fraudulent child protection system.
HARVESTING CHILDREN FOR CONDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING
Structural corruption occurs when employees of a government or government approved agency or program are required, as a condition of continued employment, to falsify reports, commit perjury, or engage in other illegal activity to obtain agency funding or meet agency or program goals. Structural corruption is similar to what accountants refer to as “implied corruption” or “implied fraud.”
Some readers have probably suspected children and families were being exploited by government approved agencies and employees in the child “protection” system, but have been unable to convince their naive friends, family, and neighbours. The recent outcry from the public as well as statements and reports by several officials has made this much easier. There is now no need to tell your personal story, which is meant to be unbelievable.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation” -Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf) Citizens can now point non-believers to the Ontario Ombudsman Report, The Auditor Generals Report, and The Provincial Child Advocate Report, to name a few.
There are also hundreds of news articles in regards to corruption existing in the child protection system as well as the horror stories of abused children and wrongfully accused parents. Many child abuse "experts" claim the infallible ability to identify child abusers and abused children in all cases, some just by visual inspection. Most, if not all, of these "experts" deny that they have any responsibility for the consequences of false accusations of child abuse.
Currently, all these "experts" are basically granted immunity for their testimony in child abuse cases. There is an over worn logical fallacy that errors should be made in favor of the child. Falsely accusing parents of child abuse and wrongfully removing a child from their home does not benefit a child. It only benefits the agency, its service providers, and inflates statistics. Knowingly making a false allegation of child abuse or intentionally lying in sworn testimony for financial gain or ideological purposes is, by definition, not an error. With regard to genuine errors, the proper goal should be to make no errors. For child abuse "experts" who provide therapy based upon their own findings and recommendations; reducing the error rate translates into reducing their own income.
This represents a fundamental conflict of interest. Many citizens know from the dubious benefit of personal experience that unscrupulous psychologists, therapists, and child protection workers intentionally make or support false allegations of child abuse for financial gain, among other motives. These individuals, with questionable to nonexistent qualifications in child abuse, will falsely certify that children are victims of child abuse so that children can be involved in "therapy."
Typically, these "therapists" conclude that only they can or should provide the required therapy. 16 Before any other thoughts are given to court your appearance should be a priority. When you go to court, you do not want to be seen as Mr. Cool or Ms. Dudette. You shouldn't have to be lectured about how to dress. We all draw conclusions based on the way people look and talk. Judges are no different. So, if your clothes say "responsible, upstanding man/woman" or "good mommy/daddy", before you say a word, the judge starts out with a good impression.
How to dress for court
If you don't care about giving the judge a good impression, ignore everything to follow. There is a certain way that people in authority expect people to dress who are responsible, top shelf and successful. So, for goodness sake, do that! You need every advantage you can get. The judge doesn't wear a belly button ring, have a tramp stamp, or a “Rock On” tattoo. So cover it up if you have one. The judge doesn't wear eyebrow rings, jeans, or sneakers in court. So, you shouldn't either.
The judge doesn't wear a Metallica T-shirt, or a "Yankees Suck" hat, so you shouldn't wear them in court either. If you look like a man who lives in a box, or a street walker, the judge won't like it. For men, wear a good pair of slacks that are neatly pressed. If you don't have a lot of money, Wal-Mart, or Giant Tiger can help. Wear a buttoned dress shirt, neatly pressed. Wear a tasteful tie, nothing bold or loud. If you have a suit or appropriate sport coat, wear it! Wear polished leather shoes, not sneakers. As to what NOT to wear, no T-shirts, especially muscle and rock shirts.
No jeans, no sneakers, no pull over shirts, no loud colors, and lose the metal anywhere you have it. For women, you should dress like you are going to meet the Queen. In other words, dress like a judge would. Do not dress like you are going out on a date with Axl Rose. A dress or business suit is best, or a long skirt and nice blouse, that says I am responsible. Nylons and nice shoes should be worn.
Make your hair look like you are a librarian. You can use tasteful makeup and jewelry to enhance your beauty. Remember, you want to impress the judge with your responsibility and wisdom as a mother and equal. As to what NOT to wear: Anything informal or that makes you look like a cheap date. Avoid short skirts, metal beyond small earrings, sneakers, tight clothes, jeans, tops that show cleavage or anything loud. Look like little Miss Muffett, not Lady Gaga.
Dress like a responsible parent/adult and you will find more favor in the judge's eyes. 1
Courts conduct themselves on a system of procedures, rules, and traditions. Respect for these rules and traditions goes along way in gaining favor in the judges eyes. Keep in mind you are under investigation for being abusive and/or neglectful. Your children are on the line and you are constantly undergoing the best interest test, with the judges decision being the one that counts. Whether it is for temporary custody, visits, or reunification, the judge will make a ruling on all motions and make a final ruling on whether your children are in need of protection, who gets custody, and what the access will look like, if there will be any.
Do not hesitate to ask the judge for explanations or guidance, but do so quickly and clearly. Respect the courts time and don’t get lost in verbal explanations or become argumentative. This is what written affidavits are for and don’t hesitate to submit them with the facts and only the facts.
Do not get caught up in minors or digress from the reason you are there. It is to determine if your children are in need of protection from YOU! NEVER verbally assault or disrespect the judge or courtroom under any circumstances. This can be difficult when information is being manipulated, your children have been removed, and you are an emotional wreck. It is an adversarial system and your adversary is the party trying to take your children, not the judge. It is of no strategic value to lose your temper or become verbally or physically abusive when you are under investigation for those very issues.
It is however very beneficial to calmly prove your side and show you are the level headed and responsible party, focusing on the truth and what is best for the child. Do not digress or dwell on things that are irrelevant or unprovable. Imagine what could be gained by showing and proving to the judge you are not the raging lunatic who can not control themselves and is in need of anger management and therapy.
Don’t give the judge reason to believe your children may be in need of protection from YOU!
Then again, maybe they are right and YOUR children may be in need of protection, but that is up to the judge. Maintaining an organized and complete set of court paper work and records is essential. Keeping all paper work together and in chronological order for quick retrieval will be one of the most important strategies to managing and/or minimize damage in your case.
Never give away your originals or write on them. Ask for copies of everything and for everything to be put in writing. It must be stressed that you should seek legal advice when submitting paperwork and responding to served paperwork. Due to some slight differences in geographical legislation this is meant as a general overview of the most important documents used in child protection cases. If your child/children have been apprehended you should receive several pieces of court paperwork and get a scheduled hearing within the legislated time frame from the day of apprehension. Ask your lawyer what the time frames are in your geographical region and ensure the agency is following them.
The court paperwork you receive most likely will consist of:
Application for Protection – asks the courts to determine if a child is in need of protection. This is the application that starts the whole court and legal process.
Temporary Custody Order – who will temporarily have custody of the children while the investigation and case is underway.
Plan of Care – Outline of plan for child while in care.
Affidavit – This is where parties list all the alleged proof or reasons why they are asking the court to make orders or decisions on motions entered.
Motions – official way to ask the court to implement a specific action, such as visits or disclosure. Anything you want the court to make a decision on during the process is entered as a motion. A motion is usually accompanied by an affidavit which lists your reasons or proof for asking the judge to order what you are asking for in the motion.
This is a very general overview and seeking legal advice is recommended.
PARENT CAPACITY ASSESMENT
Understanding the real purpose of the Parent Capacity Assessment is paramount in protecting your family and preparing yourselves for the complete madness that your family is about to witness. It is important for families going through these assessments to understand this is not really a pass/fail test. This is an assessment that the child protection agency is paying for, to the tune of several thousand dollars.
As mentioned, many of these assessors work exclusively on child protection cases and rely on their referrals. Scandals also show evidence that some of these assessors are not even registered to give testimony on or administer these assessments. There also have been several cases where these very assessors have been convicted of abusing children. A disturbing number have been charged and convicted with pedophilia and other sexual crimes against children and youth.
It is very unlikely an assessor falling into the above criteria is going to jeopardize their income or access to children by siding with anyone but the entity or individual paying for their services and providing them with a bounty of potential victims to choose from, in a system that has a built in self protection and secret framework. Also as mentioned, the system will try to obtain or approve an assessor they know will work with them and against your family.
The assessment itself is usually comprised of psychological testing, namely the MMPI, an observational assessment, usually vists between children and parents, and an in person interview with the assessor. Once again these are usually not recorded, so make sure to secretly record your own personal interview for reliability and accuracy. In order to fully understand the process it is necessary to cover some basic principles, tactics and definitions known only to those working in the field and towards the goal of separating your family and gaining custody of your children for funding and adoption.
The use of fallacy, opinion, and interpretation is the weapon you need to recognize in order to protect and defend your family. The public should be advised of the possibly disastrous consequences of submitting to potentially rigged testing. Before submitting to any psychological or assessment testing, each person should take the necessary steps to determine if the test includes any items that are interpreted using multiple scale associations with either or both answer options.
If the person administering the test cannot or will not disclose whether response interpretation is based upon bifurcated multiple scale associations or discriminating questions, careful consideration should be given to the risk of suffering irreversible damaging consequences. Any test identified as containing bifurcated multiple scale associations must be avoided. It is highly questionable whether response interpretations based upon the use of scales have any real validity or reliability.
A properly designed and safely designed test should consist of questions that are all discriminators. A properly constructed discriminator will be based upon logic, a causal 20 relationship and have one answer choice interpreted as indicating the presence or absence of a specific physiological dysfunction. Avoid bifurcated questions in which individuals being tested must "admit" to specific mental disorders or be categorized as lying and receive other adverse score points.
“Oh, Now I get it. So you don’t have a problem. You’re not crazy, everyone else is. Is that how you see it?”
Many mental health experts are, we have found, subject to the same beliefs and behavioral traits as the naive or addicted gambler. They maintain the strong though unwarranted conviction that by virtue of their special training, experience, or gifted intuition, or through reliance on an inchoate method of weighing or interpreting clinically derived information, they can beat the odds imposed by nature.
The hubris of the expert in this area is not subject to the humbling reality of the gambler losing, over the long run, at games of chance. When an expert's opinion becomes dispositive of what he or she is postdicting (the absence of objective criteria or correctness being the rich soil in which his or her claims to expertise grow), a self-aggrandizing confidence in his or her inherent abilities ensues.
We note that certain experts pride themselves on their "ability" (which might be more accurately termed "readiness," "willingness" or "eagerness") to find abuse where others fail to see the signs. (Horner and Guyer, p. 228)
“There can be little doubt that the power and scope of expertise have been aggrandized beyond the actual capabilities of experts to predict effectively or even better than chance levels.” (Horner and Guyer, p. 248)
An essential fact about psychology is that there are two critical divisions, experimental psychology and therapy.
Experimental psychologists work in the laboratory conducting experiments to understand how the human central nervous system works. Their general goal is to understand the physiological processes behind neurological disorders. Their work is responsible for the advances in understanding drug addiction, Parkinsons Disease and other real physiological disorders. Therapy is the domain of organized criminal activity in “mental health.”
Over the years since the foundation of “therapy,” increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for committing intellectual fraud have been constructed. To understand how criminal fraud is committed by psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, we need to examine how intellectual fraud is successfully committed. This will require a crash course in the use of logical fallacies. This will be less painful than one might think. You may discover you have been the unwitting perpetrator, as well as victim, of logical fallacies all your life and you just did not have a name for what was happening. (See APPENDIX I) 22 HOW TO DOCUMENT CORRUPTION
Due to the wall of secrecy, it is virtually impossible to obtain transcripts, audio recordings or view video tape recordings of child abuse investigation interviews, if they can even be found to begin with. One possible means of locating transcripts would be searching case records maintained by the court clerk. In some cases, transcripts, audio and video tape copies can be obtained through discovery and become part of the record when submitted as evidence at trial.
Another, simpler method is to educate citizens on their rights to record and document the criminal activity and abuse that is occurring in their own cases. Transcripts, recordings, and medical records document how children are treated by child abuse investigators and physicians. The questions asked are all ugly. Involvement in a child abuse investigation is a life changing event for everyone. Even if a person is innocent and not prosecuted, having ugly questions asked about them changes their life and the lives of everyone who know them. The consequences of being accused of child abuse may be more destructive than being accused of murder.
Think about it. You are falsely accused of abusing children and are fortunate enough to be assigned an investigator who is NOT participating in the political extremist/white collar criminal alliance. Your children may be taken into State custody and placed in foster care. Your children will be asked if you abused them. Your spouse will be asked if you abused your children and they knew about it. Your neighbors will be asked if they ever observed you being violent with your children or engaging in strange behavior.
The fact that you are being investigated may be reported in the local and national media. Ultimately, you may be informed by the investigator that the prosecutor has declined to prosecute you. There is no declaration that you are innocent. There is no apology. How do you undo the consequences of all the ugly questions asked about you? How do you repair the disruption of your family? How do you recover the financial losses incurred from attorney costs, therapists, expert witnesses, charges from the State for placing your children in foster care (that's right, you might have to pay for the privilege of not being allowed to see your children), temporary housing, bail, and temporary or permanent loss of employment?
Now, think about the consequences if the investigator assigned your case is one depicted as unqualified, unaccountable, biased, or holding a conflicting position which benefits them in finding child abuse. When your children are asked if you abused them, they will be subjected to brainwashing techniques to obtain false statements from them. Your children may be told that you are sick and can only receive help if they say that you abused them.
They will be told that siblings or other children have already admitted you abused them and the investigator will ask your child for help in putting you away to protect siblings and other children from future abuse at your hands.
Your children may be threatened with incarceration, medication, and removal from home or separation from their other parent, if they refuse to implicate you in acts of abuse. The investigator will create fictitious accounts of abuse attributed to you and ask everyone interviewed to confirm or deny if they have knowledge of those fictitious events. Even if you are innocent, the fictitious events will spread through the gossip network and the entire community will be aroused against you.
All adults and children interviewed will be informed that you need to be removed from the community and their help will be solicited. Your spouse will be informed that they must testify you abused your children or the children will be taken away from them also and neither of you will ever see them again. You will be told that if you do not admit to child abuse your children will be taken away from your spouse and they will be prosecuted for failing to protect your children from you.
The conditional federal funding mechanism has resulted in a child protection system structured to constantly increase the number of children investigated and taken into state custody. There is no off switch. It’s a system that must continually apprehend more and more children each year in order to continue to exist. If every individual in Canada were to be investigated and all child abusers identified, convicted and removed from society, State child protection agencies could not financially operate unless more children were taken into protective custody.
They would have to take children from innocent families to maintain funding to pay everyones salary and keep all the service providers in business. Nothing currently exists that will protect any family anywhere from becoming a casualty of this corrupt system, not even innocence. The only remedy at this time is prevention.
We must remove allied political extremists and white collar criminals from positions of authority they currently occupy. We must lobby and rally to force reforms to occur and accountability must exist to ensure the safety and well being of children affected.
HOW TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
There are two proactive practical solutions that can be implemented. For different reasons, both are ugly undertakings to contemplate. One solution is to identify and remove all the political extremists and criminals knowingly or willingly participating in the criminal exploitation of children through the child protection, mental health, social work, and judiciary.
The other solution is to train your child from birth how to identify and resist all the techniques that could be used by corrupt child abuse investigators to manipulate your child to lie and falsely implicate anyone in child abuse allegations. There is at least one possible passive solution: "May evil become confused on the way to your house." George Carlin.
It would be the height of irony if the child protection industry had been systematically looted by unqualified psychologists, social workers, and child protection workers that are being protected from scrutiny by boards receiving free legal representation and protection from the Attorney General's Office and police.
Whatever these professions once were, they now appear to be little more than callous organized criminal enterprises destroying the lives of families, children, and adults for money and political agendas falsely portrayed as "science" and ‘child protection’. A reasonable explanation for the boards and organizations not working to end false allegations of child abuse is that it views the end of false allegations of child abuse as an economic threat to the individuals it has mandated and protects from accountability.
There needs to be an investigation into the entire sordid child protection industry.
Specific questions need to be answered regarding possible criminal misconduct:
1. Have cases of corruption, abuse, or negligence ever resulted in a conviction of anyone employed in the protection system in your geographically legislated area?
2. Have there been high numbers of unresolved allegations of criminal activity or abuse in care?
3. Do individuals employed in the system hold conflicting positions in referral support services that could financially benefit them?
4. Have whistleblowers or those speaking out ever been discredited or threatened while trying to exposing criminal activity?
5. Have individuals that are not licensed filed claims for providing services or testified as expert witnesses?
6. Have service claims been filed by licensed practitioners operating outside restrictions or limits placed on their license?
8. Have agencies relied on specific individuals for services or refused to use other qualified providers in the area?
9. Have false allegations of child abuse been made or have children been certified as victims of child abuse solely for the purpose of filing a service claim?
10. Have the respective licensing boards or oversight committees contrived to wrongfully dismiss valid complaints filed by citizens who have been victimized by unscrupulous practitioners?
DEFINTION OF “THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD”
The best interest of the child shall be the least detrimental alternative statistically or otherwise objectively determined to have the lowest rates of occurrence of the following:
(b) accidental injury;
(c) administrative inefficiency;
(e) deprivation of affection;
(f) deprivation of constitutional and legal rights;
(g) economic exploitation;
(h) emotional exploitation;
(I) false negative conclusions;
(j) false positive conclusions;
(l) inaccurate records;
(m) institutional abuse;
(n) institutionalized abuse;
(o) legal/judicial exploitation;
(p) parental alienation;
(q) political exploitation; and
(r) nosocomial abuse.
DEFINITION OF “CHILD ABUSE” IN CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAW
The definition of child abuse in law should be amended to include the following acts:
(a) Causing a child to undergo an unnecessary child abuse examination with a willful false child abuse allegation;
(b) Causing a child to be wrongfully removed from parental custody;
(c) Causing a child to undergo unwarranted abuse interviews;
(d) Causing a child to receive therapy for trauma they have not suffered;
(e) Forcing, coercing, threatening or enticing children to falsely accuse any person of child abuse or any criminal act; and
(f) Using children to make false abuse allegations to obtain what they want.
The following list of circumstances and conditions, although not exhaustive, should be recognized as raising sufficient reasonable doubt that child abuse occurred as to require investigation based upon an administrative review before seeking criminal charges:
(a) the absence of audiotape recordings, videotape recordings and notes of interviews conducted during a child abuse investigation;
(b) the interviewers or investigators only looked for confirming evidence;
(c) the child was deprived of sleep or food during the interview process;
(d) the child was incarcerated or held against their will during the interview process;
(e) frequent or lengthy interviews when the child originally denied abuse occurred;
(f) interviewers or investigators ignored or failed to determine if contrary information was true or false;
(g) the child was knowingly falsely informed by the interviewer or investigator that the child was known to be lying;
(h) the child was told that they would be helping another person by saying that abuse had occurred;
(i) the child was threatened if their statement did not change to support the occurrence of abuse;
(j) before or during an interview the child was in the custody of or was coached by an adult who would benefit from an allegation of child abuse;
(m) recantation, at any time, of a child's statements that child abuse had occurred.
THE MECHANICS OF INTELLUCUAL FRAUD
The Table of Fallacies below is structured to demonstrate how two broad classifications of fallacies interact to create specific types of logical fallacies used by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and child abuse investigators (as well as prosecutors) to commit intellectual fraud.
TABLE OF FALLACIES
1. Fallacies of Relevance
A. Appeal to Authority
B. Appeal to Ignorance
C. Appeal to Emotion
2. Fallacy of Presumption
1. Overlooking the Facts
a. Sweeping Generalization
b. Hasty Generalization
2. Evading the Facts
a. Begging the Question
b. Question-Begging Epithets
c. Complex Question
d. Special Pleading
3. Distorting the Facts
a. False Analogy
b. False Cause
c. Irrelevant Thesis
INTRODUCTION TO FALLACIES
A fallacy is a defective or flawed argument. Fallacies occur for one of two reasons, either the individual does not know how to properly construct a logical argument or the intent is to deceive or manipulate. Fallacies are very powerful tools when intentionally used for deceit or manipulation.
1. Fallacies of Relevance are arguments in which the propositions, despite appearances, do not justify the conclusions drawn in the argument. Fallacies of Relevance introduces irrelevant information that tends to confuse. The common element in these fallacies is that the irrelevance introduced is an attempt to obscure the real issues by evoking emotions.
Fallacies of Relevance are effective because evoking emotions creates short term changes in the way the central nervous system processes information. Strong emotional states make it more difficult to think clearly. A state of fear, for example, releases adrenaline into the blood stream, which, among other changes, drastically narrows the focus of attention.
When manipulated into an emotional state, arguments that would be immediately recognized as outrageous under other circumstances may seem quite reasonable at the time.
A. Appeal to Authority is an argument that attempts to coerce or emotionally blackmail an opponent into accepting a conclusion by playing on their reluctance to challenge famous people, time-honored customs, or widely held beliefs. This fallacy is used to play on our feelings of modesty, insecurity, and to our sense that others might be more knowledgeable.
EXAMPLE: The opportunity to address or confront a mistake or claim by a person in authority is not utilized as the individual holds a position of authority, such as a police officer, doctor, or judge. This is quite common in courts were citizens may feel uncomfortable or feel they lack the knowledge to ask, address, or question procedures or others actions and claims.
B. Appeal to Ignorance is an argument that uses an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof that the conclusion is correct. By shifting the burden of proof outside the argument onto the person hearing the argument, such an argument becomes irrelevant. The inability to disprove a conclusion cannot by itself be regarded as proof that the conclusion is true.
EXAMPLE: Mary and John stand accused of abusing their children. Their parental rights should be terminated because they can not prove they did not abuse their children.
C. Appeal to Emotion: Human beings have a wide range of emotions that can be exploited by the unscrupulous. Among some professions, the ability to evoke and exploit emotions is viewed as a valuable skill. Those unable to identify when they are being emotionally exploited are at a disadvantage when making important decisions.
Appeal to Fear is an argument that uses the threat of harm to advance one's conclusion. It is an argument that people rely on when they are not interested in advancing relevant reasons for their positions. Appeal to Emotion is an argument that seldom alleviates a dispute. In relations between large groups or nations, Appeal to Emotion frequently means a resort to arms to decide the issue.
EXAMPLE: If all school children who talk about guns are not immediately expelled and placed in residential mental health facilities for treatment, then more children will be murdered in our schools.
2. Fallacies of Presumption are arguments that are unsound because of unfounded or unproven assumptions embedded in them. By smuggling presumptions in under the guise of a valid argument, these fallacies give the false impression of being the valid argument they imitate.
However, no conclusions can be more reliable than the assumptions on which they are based. The conclusions in such arguments cannot be trusted. In fallacies of presumption, facts relevant to the argument have not been represented correctly in the premises. This inappropriate treatment of facts can take three forms: (1) one may overlook significant facts entirely, (2) one may evade them, or (3) one may distort the facts.
1. Overlooking the Facts: In this group of presumptive fallacies, the error committed is one of neglecting important facts relevant to the argument.
a. Sweeping Generalization: The error lies in assuming that what is true under certain conditions must be true under all conditions. It is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case to which the rule is not applicable because of special features of the case.
(1) Because all parents are child abusers, John and Mary are abusing their children.
(2) Everybody has psychological problems and would benefit from therapy.
Both examples incorporate unproven assumptions that all people have certain characteristics in common:
(1) all persons who become parents become child abusers ; and
(2) all person suffer from mental illness.
Unproven assumptions are beliefs whose truth or falsity is not determined by the number of people who hold those beliefs.
b. Hasty Generalization: The error lies in assuming that the evidence on which the argument is based is sufficient to warrant its conclusion, when in fact such evidence is either unrepresentative or insufficient. It is precisely the reverse of the sweeping generalization. In hasty generalization, an isolated or exceptional case is used as the basis for a general conclusion that is unwarranted.
EXAMPLE: I read that two Christian fundamentalist parents were convicted of abusing their children and that proves that the children of all Christian fundamentalists should be removed and placed in protective custody.
c. Bifurcation: the error lies in falsely assuming that the alternatives presented in the argument are the only alternatives available, when other alternatives do exist. It is an argument which presumes that a distinction or classification is exclusive or exhaustive, when other alternatives exist. Bifurcation is bound up with confusion over the words "either/or." This fallacy presents contraries as if they were contradictories.
Two statements are said to be "contraries" when it is impossible for both to be true but possible for both to be false. Two statements are said to be "contradictories" when it is impossible for both to be true and also impossible for both to be false. The fallacy of bifurcation arises when an either/or statement that actually contains two contraries is instead put forward as containing two contradictories.
EXAMPLE: We have a severe drug abuse problem in this country. There are only two solutions, either we let all the addicts kill themselves or throw them all in jail for life.
2. Evading the Facts: In this second category of fallacies of presumption, the error lies, not in overlooking facts as in the first category, but in seeming to deal with all relevant facts without actually doing so. Such arguments deceive by inviting us to presume that the facts are as they have been stated in the arguments, when the facts are quite otherwise.
a. Begging the Question: This fallacy tries to settle a question by simply reasserting it. It is committed when, instead of offering proof for its conclusion, an argument simply reasserts the conclusion in another form. Such arguments invite us to assume that something has been confirmed when in fact it has only been affirmed or reaffirmed.
EXAMPLE: Everyone in the mental health profession knows that therapy works because all mental health practitioners say that therapy works.
b. Question-Begging Epithets: this fallacy avoids a reasonable conclusion by prejudging the facts. The error lies in the use of slanted language that reaffirms what we wish to prove but have not yet proven. An "epithet" is a descriptive word or phrase used to characterize a person, a thing, or an idea.
EXAMPLE: Any parent accused of abusing their child is a monster, no longer a human being, and deserves whatever happens to them. 31 When a child abuse allegation is made, the important issue is whether the allegation is true or false.
c. Complex Question: this fallacy evades the facts by arguing a question different from the one at issue. It is the interrogative form of the fallacy of begging the question. Like begging the question, it begs the question by assuming the conclusion at issue. A Complex Question accomplishes this by leading one to believe that a particular answer to a prior question has been answered in a certain way, when this may not be the case.
EXAMPLE: “If we must err, we must err on the side of the child.” This reasoning is used by mental health practitioners and child abuse investigators to justify falsely accusing and convicting innocent people of child abuse. This complex question presumes a “yes” answer to a previous question “Do we have to err when investigating child abuse allegations.” A more rational policy goal in child abuse investigations might be to make no errors.
d. Special Pleading: this fallacy invites us to view the argument from a biased position. It is committed by applying a double standard: one for ourselves (because we are special) and another (a stricter one) for everyone else. When we engage in special pleading, we favor ourselves and are prejudiced against others. As in the case of question-begging epithets, we imply (and hope others will believe) that our labeling correctly describes reality when in fact it merely reflects our prejudice. To engage in special pleading is to be partial and inconsistent. It is to regard one's own situation as privileged while failing to apply to others the standard we set for ourselves or, conversely, to fail to apply to ourselves those standards we apply to others.
EXAMPLE: Therapists should not be held to the same strict scientific and legal standards applied to experts in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) because social scientists have good intentions and cannot use the same tools to study people. This fallacy presumes that therapists can not establish physiological causal relationships between real dysfunction of the central nervous system and mental disorder alleged to exist by such “official” publications as the DSM IV. “Mental disorders” were placed in the DSM IV, and previous editions, on the basis of popular votes among mental health practitioners, rather than the establishment of causal relationships with disorders of the central nervous system.
3. Distorting the Facts: rather than overlooking or evading relevant facts, these fallacies actually distort such facts.
a. False Analogy: in this fallacy, certain cases are made to appear more similar than they really are. Few techniques of reasoning are so potentially useful, or so potentially dangerous, as analogy. When we reason by analogy we attempt to advance our position by likening an obscure or difficult set of facts to one that is already known and understood and to which it bears a significant resemblance. The fallacy of false analogy arises when the comparison is an erroneous one that distorts the facts in the case being argued.
EXAMPLE: “This is your brain,” says the announcer holding up an egg. After breaking the egg and dropping it into an over-heated skillet, he says, “This is your brain on drugs.” The sponsors of the advertisement want you to conclude that your brain will be destroyed if you take illegal drugs. The analogy compares an egg to the human brain, which is very complex. The analogy does not make a distinction between legal and illegal drugs. It does not make any statement about helpful verses harmful effects.
b. False Cause: this fallacy makes it appear that two events are causally connected when they are not. It is an argument which suggests that events are causally connected when in fact no such causal connection has been established. Although experts in the philosophy of science disagree on all the requirements that must be met, there are specific minimum requirements for establishing the existence of a causal relationship:
For x to cause y:
1. x must precede y in time on all occasions
2. y must follow x on all occasions
3. y must occur on all occasions of x
4. y cannot occur under any other circumstance except x
5. x must be necessary for y
6. x must be sufficient for y
If any of these conditions are not met, a causal relationship is not established. There is an additional problem with causal statements against which there is no defense. It is possible to make causal statements that are false but appear to be true and appear to be validated by contemporary science. The history of causal explanations for malaria provides an excellent example. "Malaria" is a French word meaning "bad air."
The first causal explanation for malaria was that at night bad air would rise from the earth and drift around like fog. If you breathed in the bad air while sleeping, you would develop malaria. Using this explanation, the remedy was to seal up the house at night so bad air would not get into the house.
The second explanation was that mosquitoes caused malaria.
The third explanation was an organism carried by mosquitoes caused malaria. The solution using the first causal explanation, sealing up the house so bad air could not enter, would reduce the incidence of malaria and thereby validate any of the three causal explanations.
We have no way of knowing how many of this type false causal statements are imbedded in our current scientific "understanding" of how the universe works.
To clarify "necessary" and “sufficient,” will a 451/F heat source applied to paper be necessary and sufficient for it to burn? Answer, “No.” Paper will not burn in the absence of oxygen. A 451/F heat source is necessary to ignite paper, but not sufficient, the presence of oxygen is required. Both heat and oxygen are necessary, but neither is sufficient.
EXAMPLE: Playing violent video games causes children to kill because all of the children who brought guns to school and shot other students played violent video games. To meet the requirements for establishing a causal relationship between violent video games and shooting fellow students, every child who played violent video games would have to take guns to school and shoot students.
c. Irrelevant Thesis: this fallacy distorts by concentrating on an issue that is actually irrelevant to the argument. A "thesis" is a position that one advances by means of an argument.
Thus, it can be equated with a conclusion. This fallacy is an argument in which an attempt is made to prove a conclusion that is not the one at issue. This fallacy assumes the form of an argument that, while seeming to refute another's argument, actually advances a conclusion different from the one at issue in the other's argument.
Of all the fallacies mentioned thus far none is potentially more deceptive than irrelevant thesis. This fallacy goes by a variety of names: "irrelevant conclusion," "ignoring the issue," "befogging the issue," "diversion," and "red herring." “Red herring" derives from the fact that escapees would sometimes smear themselves with a herring (which turns brown or red when it spoils) to throw dogs off their track. To sway a red herring in an argument is to try to throw the audience off the right track onto something not relevant to the issue at hand.
EXAMPLE: The National Rifle Association argues the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms protects America from despots taking control of the Government. The National Rifle Association is wrong. Citizens should never be allowed to posses guns because hundreds of people every year are killed or injured by accidents and criminal acts involving guns.
There are two different issues here.
(1) Does the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms help protect America from despots?
(2) Does the fact that people are injured or killed in accidents or criminal acts involving guns warrant depriving all Citizens of the right to keep and bear arms.
This example provides a good demonstration of how Fallacies of Relevance and Fallacies of Presumption interact. It incorporates the emotional appeal Appeal to Fear. The fear appealed to is that someone you know or love may be killed if people are allowed to keep and bear arms. If the counter had been “The National Rifle Association is wrong, because the Holy Bible says ‘You shall not murder’ (Exodus 20:13, NAS Bible),” that would be an example of Irrelevant Thesis incorporating an Appeal to Authority, the Holy Bible. In this case the second issue irrelevant to the first issue would have been, “should we or should we not murder.”
Perhaps a more familiar example of Irrelevant Thesis and Appeal to Emotion (anger) might be spousal conversations resembling the following:
Husband: Sweetie, do you know anything about that new dent in the car fender?
Wife: Why do you always ask me when something happens to the car? You never help me do anything! When are you going to start putting your dirty clothes in the basket instead of throwing them all over the place?
Husband: About the same time you remember to check the oil and transmission fluid in the car before they run dry. I am tired of your pantyhose hanging all over the bathroom. And by the way, when are you going to start putting the seat UP after you use it?
None of the “helping” professions have become as accomplished at the wholesale use of logical fallacies to commit intellectual fraud as practitioners of psychiatry, psychology, social work and “child protection.”
A few examples have been included in this crash course on logical fallacies.
Argument - a conclusion supported by reasoning and documented by evidence.
Contradictories - two statements that are impossible for both to be true and also impossible for both to be false.
Contraries - two statements that are impossible for both to be true but possible for both to be false.
Fallacy - an argument that is unsound. Reasoning - the process of drawing appropriate conclusions based on the evidence.
LEAPING DEEPER INTO THE RABBIT HOLE (MMPI)
An intellectually honest person making an argument will appeal to reason, facts, or the truth. Bear in mind that an argument is a conclusion supported by reasoning documented by evidence. Citing a qualified authority with relevant expertise as evidence to support a conclusion should be distinguished from appealing to the alleged authority of someone without qualifications and relevant expertise who has expressed a personal opinion on a matter.
A qualified authority in one area may have personal opinions about matters outside their area of expertise. The personal opinion of an authority outside their area of expertise is no more or less valid than the personal opinion of anyone else. An intellectually dishonest person will attempt to justify the use of logical fallacies by alleging that:
(1) “truth” is relative,
(2) “truth” does not exist, or
(3) that “truth” is completely subjective.
If any or all the propositions that truth is relative, non-existent, or completely subjective are accepted, then it becomes impossible to tell a lie. Anything one might put forward as a true statement would have equal validity. This mental gymnastic is how intellectually dishonest mental health and social work practitioners justify to themselves falsifying reports and testimony (that is if they have sufficient conscience to be bothered by lying in the first place). One term for this belief system is “moral relativism.”
The types of Fallacies of Presumption are outlined below:
A. OVERLOOKING THE FACTS
1. Sweeping Generalization
2. Hasty Generalization
B. EVADING THE FACTS
1. Begging the Question
2. Question-Begging Epithets
3. Complex Question
4. Special Pleading
C. DISTORTING THE FACTS
1. False Analogy
2. False Cause
3. Irrelevant Thesis
I. Fallacies of Relevance are a favored and powerful tool of political extremists and organized criminals operating in the child protection and mental health systems.
When combined with Fallacies of Presumption, Fallacies of Relevance frequently overwhelms the abilities of the average person to determine that they are being bamboozled. [The term “bamboozled” comes from a form of torture in which the soles of the feet are beaten with bamboo until the person complies with the wishes of the torturer.]
A. An example of what may be the most despicable and destructive use of the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority in human history can be found in the mental health profession. The manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders is constructed by having members of the mental health professions propose and vote on the “disorders” that will be included in the manual.
The logical fallacy is that “x number of psychologists and psychiatrists can not be wrong,” x being whatever number of votes serve as the threshold of acceptance for inclusion in the manual. The resulting system is subject to blatant economic self-interest and political influence determining what is listed as a “mental disorder.”
An excellent example is the history of homosexuality. Homosexuality was, for several years, listed as a “mental disorder.” The homosexual community eventually gained sufficient political power to have homosexuality removed from the list of “mental disorders.”
For “mental disorders” included in the diagnostic manual to have any foundation in science, the diagnosis would have to be based upon a specified physiological or neurological disorder linked to observed behavior by a causal relationship. A diagnostic manual based on valid cause-and-effect science would specify the appropriate chemical, physiological, or objective technological tools (x-ray, CATSCAN, etc.) which would detect the presence of the physiological disorder that produces specific involuntary behavior and identify an effective treatment to correct the disorder.
If the number of people who believed something was true determined reality, all the uglier aspects of the human condition, such as war, could be rapidly solved by the expedient of convincing a majority to believe a problem, like war, did not exist. Under the current selection system for identifying the types of “mental disorders” that exist, any correspondence to reality is strictly coincidental.
B. The most malicious use of Appeal to Ignorance is the contrived use of Legislated secrecy shielding juvenile courts and the child protection system to conceal gross negligence, gross incompetence, perjury, falsification of records, and the systematic exploitation, neglect and abuse of children held in state custody.
Evidence that children held in state custody were being abused was received and complaint was filed in each case, as required by law. In the first instance, the caseworker was fired. In the second instance, about two years after the first, the complainant was required to bring to an interview, copies of college degrees, copies of the photographic evidence, and was questioned for over an hour about what qualifications and expertise they had in child abuse, medicine, law, and other areas that would qualify them to question the actions of the Child Protection Services.
Such conduct by “child abuse investigators” has no other purpose than intimidating anyone who might have the audacity to allege children under State custody are being abused or exploited. Those running the child exploitation systems are constantly improving their defenses.
The mechanism now in place to investigate complaints of children abused or neglected in State custody is designed to require complainants to produce information and possess knowledge the average person will not have. This is nothing but a sophisticated use of Appeal to Ignorance.
By making acceptance of the merits of a complaint conditional on the complainant having knowledge irrelevant to whether or not abuse actually occurred, the Child Abuse Investigator combined Appeal to Ignorance with the Fallacy of Relevance, Irrelevant Thesis as justification for dismissing the possibility that a child was abused by foster parents while in State custody.
C. Appeal to Emotion is the goose that continually lays golden eggs for the alliance of criminals and political extremists controlling the child protection system to meet their respective goals.
With the exception of a small percentage of perverse individuals, most people are horrified by the thought of children being molested or intentionally abused by adults. Unscrupulous individuals have used this, and the reluctance of politicians to appear to support child molesters and abusers, to exploit the child protection system.
Using the specter of overlooking an abused or molested child somewhere and the slogan “If we must err, we must err on the side of the child” (a complex question logical fallacy), laws have been enacted removing the presumption of innocence in child abuse allegation investigations and giving mental health and social work practitioners virtual control of peoples lives. Mental health and social workers who have successfully ensconced themselves as purported experts in child abuse related cases can obtain payment through court orders, claims filed with Crime Victim Reparation Boards, insurance claims for therapy and lucrative state contracts to evaluate children and parents drawn into Child Protective Services.
An expert on detecting and documenting pseudo science, science fraud, and structural corruption, accompanied a client to observe and record a Court ordered psychological evaluation. Child Protection Services contracted a 38 psychiatric evaluator who refused to proceed with the evaluation, stating “No one is going to scrutinize my work.” This is an example of the Special Pleading logical fallacy, which is a rampant attitude among psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers, that they are a special class of people who should not be questioned because of their good intentions or special insight abilities which allow them to do what others, in their view, can not.
Some have claimed to be infallible or unaware of ever having made an error in their entire career. The latter is because the consequences of their errors do not adversely impact their own lives. Such “experts” do not have to serve the prison terms of innocent persons wrongfully convicted of child abuse or molestation on their “expert” testimony that they are guilty. For instance, Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario, Canada.
II. Fallacies of Presumption:
Logical analysis of the interpretive structure of psychological tests, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Test II (MMPI), demonstrate the systematic use of logical fallacies which produce pseudo scientific “psychological evaluations.”
The MMPI contains 567 forced choice statements to which the person being “evaluated” must select “TRUE” or “FALSE” in response. If such tests were valid diagnostic tools, each statement would detect a specific symptom produced by a specific physiological dysfunction. By comparing the pattern of responses to patterns of symptoms, a physiological disorder could be identified, in the same way a physician looks for symptoms in a physical examination.
The physician systematically detects the presence or absence of symptoms. A physician’s methods are based upon cause-and-effect relationships between physiological disorders and the symptoms they produce. The MMPI items fall into two broad categories, physiological and cognitive police items.
Table 1 reports the classification of all 567 MMPI items based upon the type of information required to respond to each item. Only 15% of the items (86) require information about an individual’s physiology. Cognitive police items are based upon the classification of thoughts, ideas and beliefs as acceptable or unacceptable. Such classifications are arbitrary and represent the opinions of those who constructed the MMPI interpretive structure as to what individuals should or should not think.
Thoughts adverse to those valued by the test builders are labeled as indicators of “mental illness.”
MMPI-2 ITEM CONTENT ANALYSIS
Diag Diagnosis of physiological dysfunctions
CP - Cognitive Police items
CC - Cultural conformity
CT - Critical thinking
G - Gender
LE - Life experience
LS - Life style
PB - Personal belief
PP - Personal preferences
PT - Political thought
RT - Religious thought
SR - Social relations
SV - Subjective value judgment
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory II, and similar tests, are flawed by fallacies of presumption. Incorporating items that do not detect the presence or absence of symptoms produced by physiological disorders introduces irrelevance into the interpretation of responses.
A. Overlooking the Facts:
1. Sweeping Generalization:
Item 1 on the MMPI is “I like mechanics magazines.” The interpretive structure for this item actually incorporates two sweeping generalizations. A person who selects “TRUE” scores no points on any of the psychological scales. The sweeping generalization is, “All persons who like mechanics magazines have no psychological problems.”
A person who selects “FALSE” receives one point on four different scales. The sweeping generalization is, “All persons who do not like mechanics magazines have four psychological problems.”
Other MMPI items also incorporate sweeping generalizations.
2. Hasty Generalization: The MMPI is supported by layered and interacting logical fallacies built upon the hasty generalization that statistical associations are sufficient to support the entire interpretive structure.
Sir Karl Popper, author of the standards for identifying science for legal purposes adopted by the United States Supreme Court in 1993, has identified the fundamental problem in asserting probability as a basis for “scientific” conclusions. Asserting statistical association, or a probability statement, between an alleged psychological disorder and a non-diagnostic statement on the MMPI is insufficient to justify any claim that interpretation of the response is “scientific.”
3. Bifurcation: The bifurcation fallacy is incorporated into the MMPI in the 198 items (35%) which have scales associated with both the “TRUE” and “FALSE” responses. Item 16 on the MMPI is bifurcated with five (5) scales associated with the “TRUE” response and the L Scale (lying) associated with the “FALSE” response.
16. Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about.
S6 Paranoia (Pa)
S7 Psychasthenia (Pt)
S8 Schizophrenia (Sc)
SS College Maladj. (Mt)
SS P-Trau. Str. Dis. (PK)
Because Item 16 does not have face validity (the response interpretations are not based upon the content of the question, but statistical associations hidden from the person required to respond) the logical structure of the real question is:
16. Are you a OR b?
S6 Paranoia (Pa)
S7 Psychasthenia (Pt)
S8 Schizophrenia (Sc)
SS College Maladj. (Mt)
SS P-Trau. Str. Dis. (PK)
The bifurcated question in statement form is:
"Are you a maladjusted paranoid college student with psychasthenia,
schizophrenia and post traumatic stress disorder or are you lying?"
This is what has been passing for “scientific” psychological evaluation accepted
by the judicial system.
B. Evading the Facts:
1. Begging the Question: As Sir Karl Popper has pointed out, statistical associations do not establish a scientific foundation. In “validating” the individual items contained in the MMPI, multiple statistical associations were put forth as a basis for establishing diagnostic value. Statistical associations between MMPI items and specific scales were based upon wives’ opinions about their husbands, surveys of air line pilots, surveys of students, and mental patients who were diagnosed by experts (also an example of circular reasoning).
Simply surveying different populations to establish numerous statistical associations to cite, does not overcome the basic fallacy begging the question.
2. Hasty Generalization: The MMPI is supported by layered and interacting logical fallacies built upon the hasty generalization that statistical associations are sufficient to support the entire interpretive structure. Sir Karl Popper, author of the standards for identifying science for legal purposes adopted by the United States Supreme Court in 1993, has identified the fundamental problem in asserting probability as a basis for “scientific” conclusions.
Asserting statistical association, or a probability statement, between an alleged psychological disorder and a non-diagnostic statement on the MMPI is insufficient to justify any claim that interpretation of the response is “scientific.” 3. Bifurcation: The bifurcation fallacy is incorporated into the MMPI in the 198 items (35%) which have scales associated with both the “TRUE” and “FALSE” responses. Item 16 on the MMPI is bifurcated with five (5) scales associated with the “TRUE” response and the L Scale (lying) associated with the “FALSE” response.
The strongest method for establishing a relationship between an MMPI item and a “psychological disorder,” would be to establish a causal relationship between a specific physiological dysfunction and selecting a specific response to an item. If no causal relationship exists, then the MMPI item has no diagnostic value.
2. Question-Begging Epithets: The existence of “lying scales” is an excellent example. If causal relationships existed between MMPI items and specific physiological disorders, lying would not be possible or relevant. The nature of a causal relationship is that x follows y on all occasions.
If a tumor at a specific location in the brain caused a person to answer “FALSE” to MMPI item 1, then every person who had a tumor at that exact location would select “FALSE.” The function of “lying scales” is to label and dismiss persons who question the MMPI items or fail to select responses to all items.
To validate the efficacy of the MMPI, responses must be selected for all items. Since responding to all MMPI items ensures positive scores on some scales, it constitutes “proof” that the MMPI detects the existence of psychological problems and that all people have psychological problems (another unproved sweeping generalization).
3. Complex Question: The structure of the MMPI presumes an affirmative answer to the prior question, “Do all persons have psychological problems?” With the assumed “yes” answer, the only proper use for the MMPI is to distinguish which psychological problems an individual has. It is not the purpose of the MMPI, and tests constructed in the same manner, to determine IF the individual being evaluated has psychological problems. The answer is already “YES.”
4. Special Pleading: The best example remains the assertion by psychology and psychiatry practitioners that they should not be held to the same standards of science as other professions. Special pleading exists in the MMPI foundation in the use of statistical associations rather than cause-and-effect relationships. Being granted this exception has retarded their development as real science practitioners and may ultimately be responsible for the destruction of the standing psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers currently have.
1. False Analogy: Mixing MMPI items that require physiological information to respond with cognitive police items, falsely implies that cognitive police items have physiological diagnostic value.
2. False Cause: Constructing a “diagnostic” scale, such as the Paranoia Scale, from MMPI items which have high statistical correlation with a “psychological” disorder, does not establish a causal relationship. In fact, the use of multiple items to construct a scale violates a fundamental requirement for establishing a causal relationship. If a causal relationship existed, every paranoid individual would select all item responses included in the Paranoid Scale on every occasion it was administered until the physiological condition was altered to remove the paranoid state.
3. Irrelevant Thesis: Two of the stranger scales are the True Response Inconsistency Scale (TRIN) 7 and the Variable Response Inconsistency Scale (VRIN) 8. Responses to paired items deemed inconsistent, scores one point on each scale for each pair. For two statements to be inconsistent, they must be contradictory. The statements “I love my Father” and “I hate my Father” are contradictory. Putting forth as inconsistent two statements that do not address the same logical category or are not contradictory, suffers from irrelevant thesis.
A pair of items from the VRIN Scale are:
6. My father is a good man, or (if your father is dead) was a good man.
90. I love my father, or (if your father is dead) I loved my father.
The two items neither address the same logical categories nor contradict each other if both are answered “TRUE” or both answered “FALSE.” The contradictory of “My father is a good man” is “My father is a bad man.” It is possible to hate a father who is good, for example, he was a missionary or diplomat posted abroad and absent from a child’s life. It is also possible for a child to love a father who is abusive.
YOUR OWN MENTAL HEALTH SNAKE OIL
In the privacy of your own home, you, too, can make your own junk science instruments that are self -validating! Amuse your friends! Develop your own “mental health” snake oil! The example below incorporates the logical fallacies identifiable in the MMPI.
It is pure junk science that can be adapted to place any label one might want on a person who would take the “test,” while being of virtually no scientific value. This can be accomplished by using carefully crafted bifurcated multiple scale associations with both responses. High statistical associations with any human trait or activity are ensured by the subject of the three statements. Although this “test” is obviously ludicrous, the reality is that equally ludicrous items have been used in the “mental health” industry for over fifty years to send people to prison and mental institutions.
To be labeled as whatever a test is “designed” to detect, all one has to do, is select an answer for every item included in one of these purported evaluation tests structured to produce false positives. If the intellectual fraud is completely successful, the person evaluated will also accept the false results as true. One cannot help but be reminded of the successful Nazi propaganda that resulted in Jews actually purchasing tickets to board trains that would take them to gas chambers.
AMAZING UNIVERSAL SWISS ARMY TOOL OF INTELLECTUAL FRAUD!
Spouse Abuse Potential
Child Abuse Potential
Committed Child Abuse
Committed Spouse Abuse
Deviant Life Style
Work Problems Scale
Spouse Abuse Potential
Child Abuse Potential
Deviant Life Style
Work Problems Scale
Committed Child Abuse
Committed Spouse Abuse
Spouse Abuse Potential
Child Abuse Potential
Committed Child Abuse
Committed Spouse Abuse
Deviant Life Style
1. I am right-handed. TRUE
2. I am left-handed. TRUE
1. I am right-handed. FALSE
2. I am left-handed. FALSE
FINDINGS FROM RESPONSES
[Responding TRUE to both items or FALSE to both items would score one point on the Inconsistency/Deception Scale. This sounds reasonable until one considers how special populations could respond. An ambidextrous individual could honestly answer TRUE or FALSE to both questions. Persons without limbs, by accident or birth defect, could answer FALSE to both questions.]
A person answering TRUE to item 1 would be "diagnosed" as follows:
Respondent’s answers indicate past acts of both child abuse and spouse abuse. Potential to engage in child abuse and spouse abuse is indicated, as are ego strength problems. It is possible to calculate the minimum and maximum scores for each scale created by bifurcation.
Those who may be tempted to dismiss this as intellectual nit-picking should keep in mind that old adage about knowing a tree by its fruit. The consequences of this intellectual fraud for children, and the organized crime it supports, can be the destruction of their entire lives. Junk science is used to place children on psychoactive drugs, remove them from parental custody, label them as violent or sexual predators, and to justify forced placement in institutions or treatment programs.
This is not the worst atrocity committed by the alliance of political extremists and criminals exploiting the child protection, mental health and social work systems. Examine how children and adults are manipulated to lie and provide false testimony that financially benefits the criminal interests and helps political extremists achieve their goals.
THIS IS AMERICA! HOW CAN THIS BE DONE TO ME?
James Roger Brown
Throughout this series on organized criminal exploitation of children, always keep in mind that it is the consequence and tool of an alliance of political extremists and white collar criminals working in and through government agencies and programs. In addition to the logical fallacies used to construct the junk science of participating mental health and social work practitioners, other sophisticated techniques have been developed and used to take children into State custody and destroy their families.
Child abuse investigators participating in this destructive enterprise must have available reliable techniques to falsify evidence, falsify reports, manipulate witnesses, coerce false confessions from accused individuals, and obtain false testimony from alleged victims. It must take a cold blooded, ruthless individual to knowingly commit these acts upon innocent people who have never personally wronged them, especially children.
While the ideology of the political extremists involved is of the supremacist rather than communist persuasion, they share with communists the attitudes expressed by Joseph Stalin. These extremists, and their knowing allies, have been successful at concealing their efforts, in part, because it is difficult for people with some semblance of a traditional life to comprehend how such an enterprise could be destroying people all around them without their knowledge.
Few people understand the consequences of the wall of secrecy around the alleged child protection system, including juvenile court, and the use of gag orders by Judges knowingly participating. A partial list of techniques developed by these political extremists and criminals to obtain false statements from children include the following:
1. Children may be told that one or both parents are sick and for the parent(s) to receive medical treatment the child must falsely state that their parent(s) abused them.
2. A child may be told that other children interviewed have said the accused abused them and their supporting statement is needed to help the other children.
3. If the child's teacher, or someone else for whom the child may have affection, is the target, the child may be told the teacher is sick and for them to get help, the child must say that they were abused by the individual.
4. A child may be told that if they do not admit to being abused by the target, other children will be abused by them in the future.
5. A child may be threatened with incarceration or prosecution if they continue to deny they were abused.
6. A child may be placed on medication as punishment for continuing to deny they were abused.
7. Children may be deprived of food and sleep until they enter a semi-hypnotic state in which they become susceptible to influence and programming. (This can be accomplished in as little as five to eight hours.)
The simple methods used to extract false statements from children exploit emotional attachments, fears and the desire to please adults. The more complex methods involve programming and brainwashing techniques.
Y - Yes N - No U – Unknown
(Y) (N) (U) 1. The alleged victim uses terminology or concepts unexpected of a child of similar age.
(Y) (N) (U) 2. The alleged victim has a motive to make a false allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 3. The alleged victim derives some personal benefit from the abuse allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 4. A custodial adult or relative of the alleged victim has a motive to make a false allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 5. The custodial or accusing adult refuses to comply with court orders.
(Y) (N) (U) 6. A custodial adult, relative or acquaintance of the alleged victim derives some personal benefit from the allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 7. The alleged victim has been subjected to prior interrogation.
(Y) (N) (U) 8. The alleged victim has been the subject of a prior false abuse investigation.
(Y) (N) (U) 9. The alleged victim previously made or supported a false abuse allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 10. The alleged victim has been prompted by adults.
(Y) (N) (U) 11. The alleged victim has been manipulated by adults.
(Y) (N) (U) 12. The alleged victim has a history of manipulating adults with false statements.
(Y) (N) (U) 13. The alleged victim has been inconsistent in recounting or is unable to accurately recount details of the alleged abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 14. The alleged victim was threatened with some action if they did not make or support an allegation of abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 15. The alleged victim was promised a reward if they would make or support an allegation of abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 16. The alleged victim was incarcerated, deprived of food or sleep, or interrogated for long periods of time for not making or supporting an allegation of abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 17. There is no physical evidence to corroborate the allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 18. No video tape or photographs were taken at the physical examination of the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 19. The alleged perpetrator was portrayed to the alleged victim as a "bad man" stereotype during the interview, therapy or interrogations.
(Y) (N) (U) 20. The alleged victim was told or led to believe that they would be helping other "victims" by identifying the alleged perpetrator as their abuser.
(Y) (N) (U) 21. The alleged victim has a history of using an abuse allegation for purposes of revenge or to get themselves out of trouble.
(Y) (N) (U) 22. The custodial or other adult making the allegation has a history of using an abuse allegation for purposes of revenge or to gain personal advantage.
(Y) (N) (U) 23. The alleged victim can not state positively where the alleged abuse occurred.
(Y) (N) (U) 24. The alleged victim can not state positively when the alleged abuse occurred.
(Y) (N) (U) 25. The allegation of abuse was made in the context of a divorce.
(Y) (N) (U) 26. The alleged victim has been subjected to nosocomial abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 27. The alleged victim's account of events was contaminated by intervener contagion.
(Y) (N) (U) 28. The alleged victim recants their original statement that they were subjected to abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 29. The alleged victim reports that an adult instructed them to make a false statement in conjunction with an abuse allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 30.The police investigator had a preconceived idea of what the alleged victim should be disclosing.
(Y) (N) (U) 31. The police investigator used leading questions.
(Y) (N) (U) 32. The police investigator did not conduct a complete investigation before proceeding with charges.
(Y) (N) (U) 33. The police investigator is paid in whole or in part from federal child abuse related grant or reimbursement funds that require certification of qualified claims to obtain the payroll funds.
(Y) (N) (U) 34. The police investigator did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the alleged perpetrator prior to bringing charges.
(Y) (N) (U) 35. The police investigator did not determine if information provided by the alleged victim and witnesses was true or false before using the information to bring charges.
(Y) (N) (U) 36. The police investigator asked the alleged victim to help them by identifying the alleged perpetrator as their abuser.
(Y) (N) (U) 37. The police investigator ignored the initial statement of the alleged victim that no abuse had occurred.
(Y) (N) (U) 38. The police investigator ignored the initial statement of the alleged victim identifying who had committed the abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 39. The police investigator ignored the alleged victim's recantation of the abuse allegation.
(Y) (N) (U 40. The police investigator told the alleged victim that he would help other alleged victims by identifying the alleged perpetrator as their abuser.
(Y) (N) (U) 41. The police investigator used emotional blackmail to obtain testimony against the alleged perpetrator by threatening to prosecute other individuals or family members and/or permanently remove children from parental or family custody.
(Y) (N) (U) 42. The police investigator used emotional blackmail to obtain a statement or testimony from the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 43. The police investigator informed parents, guardians, or others that abuse had occurred prior to interviewing the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 44. The criminal investigation was contaminated by psychologists or social worker's presumptions or biases.
(Y) (N) (U) 45. Normal investigative procedures were ignored, altered or subordinated to restrictions imposed by psychologists, social workers, case workers or prosecutors without being questioned or properly justified.
(Y) (N) (U) 46. The police investigator repeated leading or other questions until the alleged victim provided the desired answer.
(Y) (N) (U) 47. The police investigator identified themselves as a "child advocate."
(Y) (N) (U) 48. The police investigator has claimed to possess a special expertise or ability that allows them to identify all abused children or all child abusers.
(Y) (N) (U) 49. The police investigator used an abused child indicator list, syndrome or profile to reach their conclusion.
(Y) (N) (U) 50. The police investigator delayed access to or withheld evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 51. The police investigator misrepresented, altered or destroyed evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 52. The police investigator did not audio or video tape all alleged victim and witness interviews.
(Y) (N) (U) 53. The prosecutor denied, withheld or delayed access to the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 54. The prosecutor denied, withheld or delayed access to witnesses.
(Y) (N) (U) 55. The prosecutor delayed access to or withheld evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 56. The prosecutor misrepresented, altered or destroyed evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 57. The prosecutor had preconceived ideas about what the alleged victim should be disclosing.
(Y) (N) (U) 58. The prosecutor used leading questions.
(Y) (N) (U) 59. The prosecutor did not vigorously investigate to determine if the allegation was false prior to filing criminal charges.
(Y) (N) (U) 60. The prosecutor only collected or used information to confirm the allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 61. The prosecutor did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the alleged perpetrator prior to bringing charges.
(Y) (N) (U) 62. The prosecutor ignored or suppressed evidence the alleged perpetrator was innocent.
(Y) (N) (U) 63. The prosecutor asked the alleged victim to help them by identifying the alleged perpetrator as their abuser.
(Y) (N) (U) 64. The prosecutor did not audio or video tape all alleged victim and witness interviews.
(Y) (N) (U) 65. The prosecutor did not conduct a complete investigation before reaching a conclusion.
(Y) (N) (U) 66. The prosecutor did not determine if information provided by the alleged victim and witnesses was true or false before using the information to bring charges.
(Y) (N) (U) 67. The prosecutor ignored the initial statement of the alleged victim that no abuse had occurred.
(Y) (N) (U) 68. The prosecutor ignored the initial statement of the alleged victim identifying who had committed the abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 69. The prosecutor ignored the alleged victim's recantation of the abuse allegation.
(Y) (N) (U) 70. The prosecutor used emotional blackmail to obtain testimony against the alleged perpetrator by threatening to prosecute other individuals or family members and/or permanently remove children from parental or family custody.
(Y) (N) (U) 71. The prosecutor used emotional blackmail to obtain a statement or testimony from the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 72. The prosecutor used psychological indicators, syndromes, or profiles as evidence of guilt.
(Y) (N) (U) 73. The prosecutor did not look for exculpatory evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 74. The prosecutor's office has no written policies, procedures or standards for distinguishing true and false allegations of abuse that are used in the decision making process for prosecution/non-prosecution.
(Y) (N) (U) 75. Normal prosecutorial procedures were ignored, altered or subordinated to restrictions imposed by psychologists, social workers, or case workers without those restrictions being questioned or properly justified.
(Y) (N) (U) 76. The prosecutor disregards or refuses to comply with court orders.
(Y) (N) (U) 77. The prosecutor informed parents, guardians, or others that abuse had occurred prior to interviewing the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 78. The prosecutor repeated leading or other questions until the alleged victim provided the desired answer.
(Y) (N) (U) 79. The prosecutor identified themselves as a "child advocate."
(Y) (N) (U) 80. The prosecutor has claimed to possess a special expertise or ability that allows them to identify all abused children or all child abusers.
CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY
(Y) (N) (U) 81. The case worker had a preconceived idea of what the alleged victim should be disclosing.
(Y) (N) (U) 82. The case worker used leading questions.
(Y) (N) (U) 83. The case worker denied, withheld or delayed access to the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 84. The case worker denied, withheld or delayed access to witnesses.
(Y) (N) (U) 85. The case worker delayed access to or withheld evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 86. The case worker misrepresented, altered or destroyed evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 87. The Agency is dependant upon federal grant and\or reimbursement funds to maintain financial solvency?
(Y) (N) (U) 88. The Agency's child abuse founded rate is approximately equal to the rate necessary to obtain federal grant and/or reimbursement funds sufficient to meet its budget obligation.
(Y) (N) (U) 89. The Agency's child abuse founded rate is maintained at a specified rate as a matter of policy.
(Y) (N) (U) 90. Case workers are instructed that their pay check depends upon certifying cases as qualifying to file federal grant and/or reimbursement claims.
(Y) (N) (U) 91. The agency removed children on the basis of the "cycle of abuse" model.
(Y) (N) (U) 92. The case worker did not investigate the possibility that the abuse allegation was false.
(Y) (N) (U) 93. The case worker did not audio or video tape all alleged victim and witness interviews.
(Y) (N) (U) 94. The case worker did not conduct a complete investigation before reaching a conclusion.
(Y) (N) (U) 95. The case worker has an excessive case load.
(Y) (N) (U) 96. The case worker must meet a quota of federal grant and/or reimbursement claim justifications to produce revenue for the agency.
(Y) (N) (U) 97. The case worker did not obtain court approval for the use of experimental therapy, treatment or interview techniques on an alleged victim removed from parental custody.
(Y) (N) (U) 98. The child protection agency has a policy of assuming guilt once an abuse allegation has been made.
(Y) (N) (U) 99. The case worker ignored uncooperative behavior by the accusing parent in a divorce or child custody dispute.
(Y) (N) (U) 100. The case worker makes false or misleading statements in case notes or reports.
(Y) (N) (U) 101. The case worker has the dual responsibility of collecting evidence and providing services to the family.
(Y) (N) (U) 102. The case worker selectively reports evidence that supports the guilt of the alleged perpetrator.
(Y) (N) (U) 103. The case worker threatened to remove children if their actions or plans were opposed or challenged.
(Y) (N) (U) 104. Compliance with case worker instructions was subsequently used as evidence of guilt.
(Y) (N) (U) 105. Caseworker used "the best interest" of the alleged victim to obstruct normal prosecutorial and/or investigative procedures with the consequence exculpatory evidence was not discovered or disclosed.
(Y) (N) (U) 106. The case worker used emotional blackmail to obtain a statement or testimony against the alleged perpetrator by threatening to make allegations against other individuals or family members and permanently remove children from parental or family custody.
(Y) (N) (U) 107. The case worker used emotional blackmail to obtain a statement or testimony from the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 108. The case worker required an admission of guilt as a precondition for one or both parents to see their children, participate in therapy or to proceed with family reunification.
(Y) (N) (U) 109. The case worker operated under the assumption children never make false statements about abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 110. The case worker operated under the assumption that all children are sexually or physically abused by their families.
(Y) (N) (U) 111. The case worker disregards or refuses to comply with court orders.
(Y) (N) (U) 112. The case worker informed parents, guardians, or others that abuse had occurred prior to interviewing the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 113. The case worker repeated leading or other questions until the alleged victim provided the desired answer.
(Y) (N) (U) 114. The case worker identified themselves as a "child advocate."
(Y) (N) (U) 115. The case worker has claimed to possess a special expertise or ability that allows them to identify all abused children or all child abusers.
(Y) (N) (U) 116. The case worker used an abused child indicator list, syndrome or profile to reach their conclusion.
(Y) (N) (U) 117. The psychologist and/or social worker had a preconceived idea of what the alleged victim should be disclosing.
(Y) (N) (U) 118. The psychologist and/or social worker used leading questions.
(Y) (N) (U) 119. The psychologist and/or social worker denied, withheld or delayed access to the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 120. The psychologist and/or social worker denied, withheld or delayed access to witnesses.
(Y) (N) (U) 121. The psychologist and/or social worker delayed access to or withheld evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 122. The psychologist and/or social worker misrepresented, altered or destroyed evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 123. The psychologist and/or social worker repeated leading or other questions until the alleged victim provided the desired answer.
(Y) (N) (U) 124. The psychologist and/or social worker identify themselves as a "child advocate."
(Y) (N) (U) 125. The allegation was made after the alleged victim was treated with one or more of the following therapies:
repressed memory therapy
assisted or aided memory therapy
hypnosis, self-hypnosis or trance therapy
guided imagery therapy
doll based therapy
expressive therapies (art, role playing, rage, etc.)
support group therapy
(Y) (N) (U) 126. The psychologist and/or social worker has claimed to possess a special expertise or ability that allows them to identify all abused children or all child abusers.
(Y) (N) (U) 127. The psychologist or social worker has a history of "treating" abused children until insurance claim limits and/or Crime Victim Reparation claim limits are exhausted.
(Y) (N) (U) 128. The psychologist or social worker has stated that all parents abuse or molest their children.
(Y) (N) (U) 129. The psychologist and/or social worker has stated that males should not participate in raising children or that fathers are not necessary in a child's life.
(Y) (N) (U) 130. The psychologist and/or social worker did not audio or video tape all alleged victim and witness interviews.
(Y) (N) (U) 131. The psychologist and/or social worker did not audio or video tape all "therapy" sessions.
(Y) (N) (U) 132. The psychologist and/or social worker did not conduct a complete investigation before reaching a conclusion.
(Y) (N) (U) 133. The psychologist and/or social worker has stated that they have no responsibility for any damages to others caused by making a false allegation based solely on information obtained from a client.
(Y) (N) (U) 134. The psychologist and/or social worker has stated that as a therapist they have no responsibility to determine if information obtained from the alleged victim is true or false.
(Y) (N) (U) 135. The psychologist and/or social worker has stated that they have no responsibility to inform the court if they subsequently determine that their conclusion or recommendations were in error or not in the best interest of the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 136. The psychologist and/or social worker used experimental therapy or interview techniques without informing the parties involved and/or did not obtain the informed written consent of the alleged victim or their guardian.
(Y) (N) (U) 137. The psychologist and/or social worker does not use a specific theory to interpret the information obtained from the alleged abuse victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 138. The psychologist and/or social worker claims not to use any specific theory, but has no methodology for determining when one theory should be used over another to attribute meaning to the information obtained from the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 139. The psychologist and/or social worker does not determine if information received at child abuse seminars or workshops is true or false prior to incorporating it into their practice.
(Y) (N) (U) 140. The psychologist and/or social worker has no academic credentials specifically relating to child abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 141. The techniques used by the psychologist and/or social worker have a high rate of error.
(Y) (N) (U) 142. The psychologist and/or social worker did not determine if information provided by the alleged victim and others was true or false before using the information to reach conclusions.
(Y) (N) (U) 143. The psychologist and/or social worker did not use the correct protocol or methodology when conducting forensic interviews of the alleged victim and/or perpetrator.
(Y) (N) (U) 144. The psychologist and/or social worker used evaluation test instruments with bifurcated interpretative structures.
(Y) (N) (U) 145. The psychologist and/or social worker used evaluation test instruments with multiple scale associations.
(Y) (N) (U) 146. The conclusions reached by the psychologist and/or social worker were not derived by use of the scientific method.
(Y) (N) (U) 147. The reasoning or methodology underlying the conclusions reached by the psychologist and/or social worker is not scientifically valid.
(Y) (N) (U) 148. The methodology or technique used by the psychologist and/or social worker is not capable of being falsified.
(Y) (N) (U) 149. The theory, methodology or technique used by the psychologist and/or social worker can not be or has not been tested.
(Y) (N) (U) 150. The psychological "evidence" put forth is not capable of being refuted.
(Y) (N) (U) 151. The specific theory, methodology or technique used by the psychologist and/or social worker has not been subjected to peer review.
(Y) (N) (U) 152. The theory, methodology or technique used by the psychologist and/or social worker is not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
(Y) (N) (U) 153. The conclusion that the alleged victim or victims were abused is based solely on the statement of the alleged victim or victims without independent corroborating evidence.
(Y) (N) (U) 154. The psychologist and/or social worker used an abused child indicator list, syndrome or profile to reach their conclusion.
(Y) (N) (U) 155. The psychologist and/or social worker can not identify who committed the alleged child abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 156. The psychologist and/or social worker can not state positively where the alleged child abuse occurred.
(Y) (N) (U) 157. The psychologist and/or social worker can not state positively when the alleged child abuse occurred.
(Y) (N) (U) 158. The psychologist's and/or social worker's evaluation was made for the purpose of conducting therapy, not for the purpose of a forensic investigation.
(Y) (N) (U) 159. The psychologist and/or social worker ignored the initial statement of the alleged victim that no abuse had occurred.
(Y) (N) (U) 160. The psychologist and/or social worker ignored the initial statement of the alleged victim identifying who had committed the abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 161. The psychologist and/or social worker has not maintained current knowledge of scientific, professional, and legal developments within their claimed competence as child abuse expert.
(Y) (N) (U) 162. The psychologist and/or social worker did not take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work.
(Y) (N) (U) 163. The psychologist and/or social worker did not take reasonable steps to protect the alleged victim and others from the harmful consequences that would result from a false allegation of child abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 164. The claimed educational foundation for child abuse expertise of the psychologist and/or social worker is based upon attending workshops and seminars.
(Y) (N) (U) 165. The academic credentials of the psychologist and/or social worker do not include course work relating to child abuse or child abuse forensic determinations.
(Y) (N) (U) 166. The psychologist and/or social did not consider and investigate alternative hypotheses.
(Y) (N) (U) 167. The psychologist and/or social worker operates under the assumption children never make false statements about abuse.
(Y) (N) (U) 168. The psychologist and/or social worker operates under the assumption that all children are sexually or physically abused by their families.
(Y) (N) (U) 169. The psychologist and/or social worker used coercion or bribery to induce the alleged victim to make statements.
(Y) (N) (U) 170. The psychologist and/or social worker informed parents, guardians, or others that abuse had occurred prior to interviewing the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 171. The psychologist and/or social worker acted in dual roles of therapist and forensic investigator.
(Y) (N) (U) 172. The psychologist and/or social worker did not disclose the limitations of their data or conclusions in their forensic reports.
(Y) (N) (U) 173. The psychologist and/or social worker did not generate a hypothesis and test to determine if it could be falsified.
(Y) (N) (U) 174. The conclusions reached by the psychologist and/or social worker can not be empirically tested.
(Y) (N) (U) 175. The psychologist and/or social worker was unable to state a specific physiological disorder as a cause of any diagnosed mental disorder.
(Y) (N) (U) 176. The psychologist and/or social worker required an admission of guilt as a precondition for one or both parents to see their children, participate in therapy or to proceed with family reunification.
(Y) (N) (U) 177. The psychologist and/or social worker assumes that all allegations of abuse are true.
(Y) (N) (U) 178. The psychologist and/or social worker interprets a denial of guilt as evidence of guilt.
(Y) (N) (U) 179. The psychologist and/or social worker interprets a child's denial that abuse occurred as evidence abuse occurred.
(Y) (N) (U) 180. The psychologist and/or social worker ignores uncooperative behavior by the accusing parent in a divorce or child custody dispute.
(Y) (N) (U) 181. The psychologist and/or social worker used "the best interest" of the alleged victim to obstruct normal prosecutorial and/or investigative procedures with the consequence that exculpatory evidence was not discovered or disclosed.
(Y) (N) (U) 182. The psychologist and/or social worker used emotional blackmail to obtain a statement or testimony against the alleged perpetrator by threatening to make allegations of abuse against other individuals or family members and recommend to the court permanent removal of children from parental or family custody.
(Y) (N) (U) 183. The psychologist and/or social worker used emotional blackmail to obtain a statement or testimony from the alleged victim.
(Y) (N) (U) 184. The psychologist and/or social worker disregards or refuses to comply with court orders.
Recent blog posts
- Have you had a GOOD or BAD experience with an ICL? Family Law Survey
- Sexual abuse of children in state care ‘endemic’ in Victoria
- Buy Instagram Followers
- Rolf Harris One of Many Paedophiles in the Australian Entertainment industry
- Australian Candidate ordered by NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal to apologise for opposing paedophile rights