Kim Hill Interviews Dr Barry Parsonson
Radio New Zealand
December 4, 2001
(Transcript)
Kim Hill
(Interviewer) (Introduction)
A top psychologist who was
fined and censured for botching a sex abuse investigation that left a man
wrongly accused of molesting his children has been allowed to keep practicing.
This is a story reported by the Dominion newspaper this morning, and it’s about
Wellington Child Psychologist Prue Vincent who was once head of Social
Welfare’s Psychologists team.
She works for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and she
appeared before the Psychologist’s Board on November 12, and pleaded guilty to
charges of conduct unbecoming on a number of fronts: In respect to how she interviewed the children, the way she dealt
with the respective parents, she failed to make a transition in methodology …
as the expression has it … from her
initial role as an assessor with Child Youth and Family to that of a court
appointed psychologist during access hearings.
And it was during her sessions with the children that they claimed to be
sexually abused
Of course the father is outraged and she has been fined $5000 and censured by
the Psychologist Board.
To the father’s astonishment she has however been allowed to keep practicing,
but she broke almost every rule in the book.
Dr Barry Parsonson is a former chair of the Psychologist Board and he joins me
now. Good Morning
Dr Barry Parsonson
Good Morning Kim
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
Now I understand you cannot talk about the details of this case because you
were involved in the assessment of it.
Am I right?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Yes that is true.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
So just lay out for me what your involvement has been so that I know
exactly why we cant talk about it, if you see what I mean.
Dr Barry Parsonson
Right. Well I was asked by the
Family Court to provide a second opinion on reports to the court by Ms
Vincent and so therefore as a result of
that all my involvement in that process is confidential
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
All right, but one would have to
assume that you would disagree with her conclusions?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well again, I feel I don’t want to talk about this particular case
because of my involvement I have to …
I think ethically stand back from that and say that I would have a conflict of
interest
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
I understand. I am interested in
how it can come to pass and the information is merely what I have in the
Dominion which has done a lengthy report on it this morning.
I am interested in how it can come to pass that a professional can be censured
on so many fronts and be fined and have her professionalism put in doubt and
yet be able to continue practicing.
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well I think that the Psychologists Board the process is that it sets
up an independent complaints assessment committee comprising three
psychologists who are registered with the board and who have expertise in the
area relating to the complaint and their job is to sort of provide the board
with both an understanding of the issues of the complaint that it should
address and whether not it should proceed to hear the complaint. So there has been an investigation ahead of
time but in terms of determining whether or not a practitioner has failed to
maintain appropriate standards and these can be in terms of either conduct
unbecoming a registered psychologist or
simply professional misconduct which is the more serious charge, the Board
makes that decision and then determines the penalty on the basis of it’s
evaluation of the complaint.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
All right. In order to get some
perspective on this, hypothetically or generically, would you say that if a
person in her position had been involved in children for six years that she
should have interviewed the parent who was being accused of sexual abuse?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well again I dont want to talk
about this case specifically
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
I’m not asking you to talk about this case specifically. Is it normal practice?
Dr Barry Parsonson
The usual practice for family court appointed psychologists who
undertake this work is what’s called specialist report writing for the
court. The usual process is that they
would interview both parents, they would observe the children in the presence
of both parents if that were appropriate
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
So if a psychologist did not interview both parents, did not observe the
children with both parents that would be unusual to say the least would it not?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Yes, but there may be circumstances in which that would be appropriate
for example if there had been extreme violence; If the children were afraid of
the person. If they had indeed been
sexually abused by the other person there may be good grounds for being
somewhat cautious about that exposing them to an abuser.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
However if there was no evidence of sexual abuse then the allegation of
sexual abuse would be sufficient to make an observation of the children with
the alleged abuser impossible?
Dr Barry Parsonson
It makes it difficult I think
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
Well you can see what a sort of catch 22 that would be for an accused
person?
Dr Barry Parsonson
It is. It’s a very difficult situation and I think that one of the
problems here is that we are all aware
as practitioners in the field that these allegations of abuse are easily made
and very difficult to validate.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
All right. What we have and I mean
I can go through the litany of failure in this case. It may be useful to go through some of points reported in the
Dominion. The individual concerned,
Prue Vincent allowed the mother to be present at interviews with the
children. …… I am not going to address
that question to you specifically about this, so don’t worry ….
She allowed the woman to be present at interviews with
the children; she interviewed the children together; She 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.
It is clear that she did wrong
and she behaved unprofessionally.
She was fined $5000. She was give a
letter of censure
She regularly works for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services.
Do you think that people should be reassured that any kind of assessment of
sexual abuse from this point on by the Department is going to be done
professionally?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well I think things have changed somewhat since . over time.
I don’t think that psychologists are so much involved now at that level
in those evaluations
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
Heres another question we’ll come to now.
What about then: How many people will now be saying “I was done wrong
too”
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well I think theres always those questions in any such case.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
And even now these questions have at least part of an answer because of the
exposure of this practice, don’t they?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well again I cant comment because I don’t know about the practice in general. This obviously was
a particular case about which there was a
complaint . I think some of the
issues here that need to be looked at are that the Board was …
when the board is confronted with a complaint it sets up a hearing, now
as in any formal circumstance a person coming before the Board who pleads
guilty typically as it would be in a court is given some consideration for the
fact that they have actually acknowledged that they have not practiced a
standard which even they themselves might
are prepared to acknowledge they should have and I think the Board under
those circumstances just as a court
would takes into account that
acknowledgement and would normally I
think in my experience when I was on the Board was when people made such plea
the process would involve establishing the persons understanding of the extent
to which they have failed to meet their proper standards and also giving an
acknowledgement from them that they needed to undertake some appropriate
retraining
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
Is there any suggestion that somebody would be in a position to call an
investigation or an inquiry into the other cases that Prue Vincent has been
involved in?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well I think that is a matter for others.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
Who is it a matter for?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well I presume if there are people out there as with any investigation
that may be undertaken for any purpose who then feel that they too
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
It’s up to the individuals to come forward? There is nobody who will now
look back and oversee her work? Given
the obvious failing now?
Dr Barry Parsonson
I don’t think the Psychologists Board has the power over its
professionals to actually do that There is concern in the profession about
some of the inadequacies in the Psychologists Act 1981 and we tried with the
particularly with the previous government over a number of years to introduce
changes to the process for penalties because they are very restricted and
limited as to what the board can do
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
The Board cannot … Just remind me how an individual can be struck off the
Board’s register?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well yes. Striking off is an option. Suspension of practice for a year
is an option.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
What would you have to do to get suspended for a year?
Dr Barry Parsonson
I wasn’t present involved in this particular case.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
No what would one have to do to be suspended for a year?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well normally one would have to have been found guilty of malpractice.
Presumably of a sort that there was a sense that removing the person from the
register for a period of time would give them an opportunity to rehabilitate
themselves.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
Or to retrain perhaps?
Dr Barry Parsonson
Yes that is a penalty
available to the board. But it can’t
instruct a person to retrain. It may be
able to put conditions on their reapplication for admission back onto the
register. But it’s stuck with an act
which doesn’t actually give it much choice, particularly in terms of setting
people up for rehabilitation and retraining. There aren’t specific provisions
that allow it to order such things. And the profession has felt for some time
that it’s probably … You know, you can punish people, you can do all those
things. You have also got to consider
that rehabilitiation should be something that psychologists believe is possible
and there should be provision in the act for people to actually undertake
additional training that satisfies them
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
All right. And once again I’m not
asking you to comment specifically on the details of this. But lets go back to the issue here that has
lifted the lid of this inadequacy in the Psychologist Board. We have a father who has spent over $80000
trying to get his innocence believed in order to gain access to his
children. He still can’t see his
children because he was accused of abusing them and this accusation was held
out by Prue Vincent so he’s in this nightmare.
He still can’t see his kids. He
could have seen his kids if he had pleaded guilty to abusing them. And now he sees the woman who effectively
has deprived him of his children carry on practicing, having to pay a pitiful
fine and not having to do any kind of retraining in order to carry on
practicing
Now my question is : How often does this happen and does it fuel the calls for
the Family Court to be opened up to scrutiny because this for an individual is
a travesty of justice. Do you agree
Dr Barry Parsonson
I think the question here is that there are a number of issues that are
raised by cases such as this. One of
them is the fact that a psychologist who is presenting evidence to a court has
to be sure that the evidence that they have gathered in relation to any matter
in the family court for example that is soundly based and there are good
grounds for making the case that they are making They are only part of the evidence that appears you know ..that is presented to the
court and of course the court makes
it’s decision on the basis of more than just what a psychologist might say But none the less you have to acknowledge the psychologist
probably has an important voice in that court room because they are among the few
experts that actually do appear in the Family Court. And so I think the issue for psychologists is that they have got
to very sure of the grounds on which they support such allegations and that
means that the quality of their investigation has to be able to
withstand scrutiny and I think that is an issue that many of us who work in
this field are aware of and have concerns about.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
This fuels your concerns? This kind
of case fuels your concerns about more widespread inadequacies or do you regard
this, and once again I’m sorry I seem to be asking you to comment on this case
… How uncommon do you think this is?
Dr Barry Parsonson
I’m not sure how uncommon it is.
I have been put in the position where I have done a number of these
second opinions and I have had some concerns about several of them. And I think that’s an issue It’s a practicing issue for psychologists
and I think it’s an issue that has to really be looked at in the Family Court
in terms of it’s procedures. It’s
responsibilities relate to the protection of the children. That is given primacy. And I can understand
why that is the case because the children are vulnerable and the Court is there
to make sure that whatever decisions are made are made such that the children
are safe, but I think that there also
has to be a reflection on the quality of the evidence that is brought forward
to support any concerns about physical, or sexual or psychological emotional
abuse
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
So what are you saying to me?
Dr Barry Parsonson
What I’m saying ….
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
Well can I ask you if you are saying ….
Dr Barry Parsonson
It is up to our profession to actually be sure that it has good grounds
for supporting allegations of abuse because the standard of proof in the Family
Court is such that the person can be deprived of access to their children on
the grounds that may not withstand proof in a criminal court for example
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
So are you saying that a child psychologist’s evidence is one thing but it
is up to the family court to provide a more rigorous scrutiny of other evidence
involved?
Dr Barry Parsonson
No. I think the psychologist
has the primary responsibility because they are the expert appearing before the
court and therefore considerable weight is going to be given by the court
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
Well that brings me back to the question perhaps the threshold for being
struck off needs to be lowered?
Dr Barry Parsonson
I’m not sure that’s the best
way. I think the best way is to
actually put more time and effort into establishing appropriate standards of
evidence and ensuring that psychologists in their investigations actually meet
those
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
And you are not in favour of the Family Court being opened to scrutiny?
Dr Barry Parsonson
I’m quite in favour of the Family Court being opened to scrutiny but as
I think any structure in our Society should be. It depends. There are
circumstances ….
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
But the family court is not
Dr Barry Parsonson
Well the Family Court isn’t an open court, and I think ….
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
That’s what I’m asking. Should it
be?
Dr Barry Parsonson
I’m not sure that that’s the solution, but I think there may be other
solutions that provide a degree of scrutiny which would satisfy the public
interest and concern.
Kim Hill (Interviewer)
I appreciate your time. Dr Barry
Parsonson, former Chair of the Psychologist Board.