The Dominion
December 5, 2001

King calls for secrecy briefing
by Leah Haines

Health Minister Annette King has asked ministry officials to brief her on the secrecy of the Psychologists Board after it planned not to publish that a top psychologist had botched a sex abuse investigation.

And the former head of the board, Barry Parsonson, and an international expert in child suggestibility, Maryanne Garry, have cast doubt on the ability of other psychologists working in the Family Court system.

Last month, Wellington child sex abuse expert Prue Vincent pleaded guilty to two charges of conduct unbecoming a psychologist relating to her investigation into allegations that a father had abused his young children.

These included that she asked leading questions of the children, did not observe them with their father or interview their father, and did not consider other explanations for the children's behaviour.

Ms Vincent was fined $5000 and censured.

The father, who has been prevented from seeing his children for several years, was furious that the board allowed her to keep practising.

The board heard Ms Vincent's case in private and confirmed it had no plans to publish her name in connection with the charges.

New medical practitioners competency legislation being considered by the Cabinet is likely to amalgamate all medical disciplinary tribunals into one body.

Ms King said it was her personal preference that the proceedings of any board be held in public, though she would not comment specifically on Ms Vincent's case.

Dr Parsonson said he had completed several second-opinion reports on the work of court psychologists and he had concerns about some of them.

It was an issue that needed to be looked at by the Family Court, he said.

It was important that the court's primary responsibility was to protect children. But psychologists, one of only a few professionals who gave evidence in the court, needed to make sure they had good grounds for supporting allegations of abuse, he said.

"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," Dr Parsonson said.

Dr Garry, a senior lecturer in psychology at Victoria University and an international expert on child suggestibility, said psychologists practising in the Family Court needed ongoing training in present practices.

These should be taken annually by academic experts, not groups such as the Psychologists Society, Dr Garry said.

Since July, there have been new guidelines to ensure psychologists working in the courts keep up to scratch.

The manager of the operations and judicial support division of the Courts Department, Fiona Saunders-Francis, said new practice guidelines would mean the competence of psychologists was regularly checked.

Courts were going through a process of re-evaluating each psychologist according to a list that included whether they were qualified, whether they were the subject of any complaints, and had they kept up with new research, she said.

The guidelines list a book co-authored by Ms Vincent as the only text specified as recommended reading by all psychologists working in the court.

Meanwhile, ACT NZ MP Muriel Newman yesterday renewed her call to open up the Family Court. She also called for an independent judicial inquiry into the Family Court.

"Public and media scrutiny is absolutely necessary if justice is to be done," she said.

"Courts need to have rigorous standards for their decisions to be seen to be beyond reproach. Clearly, that doesn't happen in the Family Court."