Oh what joy! A request to attend Commonwealth Family Court to be cross examined on a report written some weeks ago. The whole wigs and gowns thing. For all aspiring psychologists who will be asked to court some observations...
Here was I thinking that I would be invited in for a respectful chat about my opinions. What a shock! Not a chance. Does the phrase: "hauled over the coals" ring any bells? Its amazing how the word "madam" can be turned into an insult - as in: "Do you expect us to believe, Madam that..." or "In hind-sight, Madam, do you think you should have asked..."
The Barister criticised me for not keeping detailed enough notes, not asking the relevent questions, not seeking corroborating opinions, not knowing the details of my billing system, not having received a directive letter from the solicitor, believing that psychological testing was objective, in short every step of the assessment process was inadequate, unsubstanciated and obviously biased. I left the box sweating but not crying - so it was not a complete disaster.
The moral of this story is not, however, what you'd expect. After I left and the judge began to sum up the cases the Barrister was humilated and reprimanded for his treatment of me. The court did not stop his barrage at the time, he was allowed to "run with it." But it did nothing to impress the man making the decision. I guess the moral is to tough it out, say no when you mean no, say "I can't know that" when you can't. Don't be afraid to be right even when confronted by a man in a wig. If he is wrong it is OK to say so. If he is asking something unreasonable it is OK to tell him so. He is only playing a part in the end.
Also if he says "diagnosis" when he meant to say "prognosis" make sure you let him know he doesn't know everything.
|
|
|
|---|
