The Dominion
December 4 2001
Botched Inquiry into Sex Abuse
by Leah Haines
--------------------
Gag Lifted
This is the story a top health professional tried to stop The Dominion from
publishing. Last week, Prue Vincent won an interim
injunction preventing us publishing any details. Justice Ellis discharged the
injunction yesterday after Ms Vincent abandoned her appeal and agreed to pay
some of The Dominion's costs.
--------------------
A top psychologist who was fined and censured for botching a
sex abuse investigation that left a man wrongly accused of molesting his young
children has been allowed to keep practising.
Ms Vincent, once head of Social Welfare's psychologists team, and who regularly
works for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, appeared before
the Psychologists Board on November 12.
She pleaded guilty to charges of conduct unbecoming on the basis she:
§
Allowed the mother to be present
at interviews with the children.
§
Interviewed the children together.
§
Used books dealing with sexual
abuse during her assessment.
§
Used leading questions during the
interviews.
§
Did not observe the children in
their wider environment or with their father.
§
Did not interview the father as a
reference source.
§
Did not consider other
explanations for the children's behaviour.
§
Accepted "without question"
the mother's testimony while asking the father to put his rebuttals in writing.
§
She also failed to "make a
transition in methodology" from her initial role as an assessor with
Child, Youth and Family to that of a court-appointed psychologist during access
hearings.
It was during her sessions with the children that they claimed to have been
sexually abused.
She said the number of times Ms Vincent interviewed the children and the
techniques she used could have left even an adult with a distorted view of
events. "It is Psych 100 - the sort of thing I tell my students on their
first day."
The board fined Ms Vincent $5000 and gave her a letter of censure, but
confirmed it had no plans to publish her name, citing a High Court ruling which
Justice Ellis commented related to other circumstances.
The father, who cannot be identified to protect the identity of his children,
spent $82,000 proclaiming his innocence in five hearings to gain access to his
children. He still cannot see his children after his former wife accused him of
abuse some years ago, claiming they no longer wanted to know him.
He described the board as "impotent" for not striking Ms Vincent off
its register.
"This is a bloody insult to me and my children. It is a slap on the wrist
with a wet bus ticket to Ms Vincent. I don't want her to be able to do this to anyone
else, or their children."
Police investigated but no charge was brought against the father. But the
Family Court is obliged to consider the welfare of children above all else and
can deny access if it considers there is a risk to their safety.
The father claimed in his complaint to the board that Ms Vincent recommended he
not see his children, despite a therapist and a judge suggesting it would be a
good idea.
A
Ms Vincent and her lawyers declined to talk to The Dominion. The board refused
to comment when asked if there were concerns about Ms Vincent dealing with
other sex abuse cases or if other complaints had been laid against her.