Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Seeing a shrink when an expert's report is ordered

when a person tries bring an independant shrink onboard to discredit an expert wittness

In cases where an expert witness is ordered to determine such factors as:

- parents attitude towards parenting

- child's safety with either parent

- child's wishes

And one of the parties attends at a seperate shrink with the child without the others parties permission to deal with "issues" caused by the other parent without the courts or the experts witness approval is that considered undermining the expert witness report? Especially if the children have yet to undergo the ordered assessment.

How possible is it that a party may involve their own shrink in the court case, even tho the shrink being involved with the child may of been because the party is trying to get their own proof the that other parent is bad, the child hates them etc. if the party is aligned to the shrink what relevance does the secondary not court ordered shrink have as an expert witness.

Is the courts view that having a parent push a child into being examined and dealt with by medical professionals in direct competition with the examinations by the expert witness as being intrusive or damaging to a child because its doubling up and placing emphasis on issues that should be determined by the expert.

In this case the mother had been taking the child/ren to a shrink and other medical professionals off her own bat in her determination to have the child examined or treated for abuse when it had not been dealt with or officially determined in the courts.


Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 102A > Restrictions on examination of children

The evidence is inadmissable under s 102A;


Restrictions on examination of children

(1)  Subject to this section, where a child is examined without the leave of the court, the evidence resulting from the examination which relates to the abuse of, or the risk of abuse of, the child is not admissible in proceedings under this Act.

(2)  Where a person causes a child to be examined for the purpose of deciding:

a)  to bring proceedings under this Act involving an allegation that the child has been abused or is at risk of being abused; or

b)  to make an allegation in proceedings under this Act that the child has been abused or is at risk of being abused;

subsection (1) does not apply in relation to evidence resulting from the first examination which the person caused the child to undergo.

(3)  In considering whether to give leave for a child to be examined, the court must have regard to the following matters:

a)  whether the proposed examination is likely to provide relevant information that is unlikely to be obtained otherwise;

b)  the qualifications of the person who proposes to conduct the examination to conduct that examination;

c)  whether any distress likely to be caused to the child by the examination will be outweighed by the value of the information that might be obtained from the examination;

d)  any distress already caused to the child by any previous examination associated with the proceedings or with related proceedings;

e)  any other matter that the court thinks is relevant.

(4)  In proceedings under this Act, a court may admit evidence which is otherwise inadmissible under this section where it is satisfied that:

a)  the evidence relates to relevant matters on which the evidence already before the court is inadequate; and

b)  the court will not be able to determine the proceedings properly unless the evidence is admitted; and

c)  the welfare of the child concerned is likely to be served by the admission of the evidence.

(5)  In this section:

examined , in relation to a child, means:

a)  subjected to a medical procedure; or

b)  examined or assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist (other than by a family counsellor or family consultant).

Note: Section 69ZV is relevant to evidence of a representation by a child, if the admissibility of the evidence would otherwise be affected by the law against hearsay.
does it become evidence when you subpoena the Dr because you wish to know if a party has been using the doctor to establish guilt or examine the child when it is not court ordered? Is the evidence of behavioural observations still inadmissible even if it doesn't necessarily prove a person was trying to have the children examined.

can a party just take children to shrink without the other parties or the ICL's recommendation just to establish a observation of a childs behaviour/

what kind of effect does it have in court is a party does this? is it looked upon as a party trying to influence the children or even trying to make a child look delicate or not coping based needing to go to a shrink under one parties care.

Is this considered to be manufacturing evidence?


Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Good question.

If you word the subpoena well you might turn up notes of appointments, any corro from the ex or their lawyer, and maybe even the fact that the Family Report was sent to the Dr contrary to s 121.

If you subpoena the whole file it may include notes of the doctor's findings or a report which still falls foul of s 102A, but if the Doctors opinion is unhelpful you don't want the notes anywhere near the FM or Judge.

My opinion, (please be sure to note it is only my opinion, not iron-clad advice) is that it is best to leave the issue out altogether (no subpoena) unless the ex tries to use a report from the Doctor, in which case object to it under s 102A. Remember you can always cross examine the ex on whether she took the child to a Psych. You then make the point that it was without your consent. Job done.
i don't see how when a party takes children to shrink in secret its really relevant.

children's parent could be applying all kinds of pressure to a child to make them behave in certain ways. they could even be aligning themselves with the doctor. if the child is very young they dint have any opportunities to direct the Dr of their wishes or make sense of what is going on.

even if the subpoena brings out bad things, how relevant is it. kids are open to manipulation.

if you have shared parental responsibility cant the parent approach the doctor and ask to be filled in on what is going on in the child's therapy, ask for notes on the child's therapy. this can be entered into evidence and give parent the idea of why the child is in therapy.


Han Solo routine "We're all fine here, thanks. How are you?" *weapons fire* "It was a boring conversation anyway!"
Having been present at four of the six days of the hearing of Taylor-Black & Vasser case I feel it in order to comment on that case.

Firstly, the mother, a SRL who admitted to the judge that she was not capable of running the case was compelled to do so.

Secondly, the judge has by stating that the mother ran the case well is deluding himself. Two other persons associated with this portal attended the proceedings and have agreed on her incapacity to run her case. The judge was linguistically handicapped as was the mother. The judge's intention to get the case off the court's lists was effected. A translator continually failed to provide translations that fit into the context of legal English. The mother was told to use translator only as a last resort. She interpreted that as "do not use".

In the judgement the judge refers to aspects which were not put in accordance with his expectations. Then he failed to associate those instances into his less than impressive judgement. A lack of testing of evidence by the mother is concerning.

Relying on this judgement might not be ideal as only one side of presented a case.

Read the statement by the judge which relates to his observation that the father has a temper and find in the judgement where he has accommodated that fact into his judgement. Find any criticism of the father. The judge represented his arguments well on his behalf.

This case is an indication of how not to run a case (mother's).

This case causes questions about justice being available to all regadless of linguistic disadvantages, and other limitations.

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha

Psychiatric and Psychological reports.

After reading many Judgements - there is a general consensus.

While an individual may seek an idependant report on the children, it is not usualy admissable, for the reasons above. Even if allowed into evidence, if the "expert has not seen both parents, the report will generally be seen as having little value as evidence.

Also, the temptation for the report writere would be to comment on the person they had never met based on the information they were given. Again not worth anything as evidence.

What the above points represent though, is a method of devaluing the evidence of the expert, if the report does end up as part of the evidence.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Posts from this topic have been moved by members. 10 posts have been transferred to topicview.

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
Thanks Sisyphus xx

I have mentioned the spelling thing to Monster before too. Some people need to take it as constructive criticism and not personally. Abusing someone on a forum / whisper should not be tolerated. Monster if you keep this up, you know you can be banned from this site. If you want help here, quit the name calling.

Family Law and relationships in general are about compromise, listening, and not getting defensive, we are all here to learn things.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets