“THE DOMINION”
Wellington, New Zealand.
Wednesday, 05 December 2001.

Prue Vincent issues statement

Public statement by Prue Vincent, registered psychologist.

I refer to the articles which appeared in The Dominion yesterday.

The father is mistaken in believing that I am responsible for his situation.

Decisions about the best interests of the children were made by the Family Court in a series of hearings between 1994 and 1999. I was involved in two of those hearings. Evidence of the father, mother and children was presented by a wide range of people including other professionals. At all times my approach was scrutinised by the court, and was the subject of rigorous cross-examination at the hearings. This is the normal process.

The father does not seem to appreciate this, nor the fact that the psychologist's evidence is only one part of the information available to the court.

Importantly, there has been no finding by the court in this case that my conclusions were wrong. I say no more than that out of respect for the confidentiality inherent in the Family Court process. I admitted mistakes in some of my methods to my professional board because I believed this was the responsible and ethical thing to do. I also wanted to assure the board of my practice in the future. There were two findings of "conduct unbecoming". I believe the board accepted that I acted in the best interests of the children at the relevant times.

The Family Court has known about the complaint for some time. I always intended to advise both the Family Court and CYPFS of the outcome of my disciplinary hearing. The appropriate time to do this is when a written decision is released by the board. This written decision is not yet available to me.

I took the High Court action I did for two reasons. First, I was not able to see a copy of the draft articles to be published so I could check them for unfairness and inaccuracies. Through the court action I have had the opportunity to point out errors in those drafts to the newspaper; but they have ignored the point that there has been no finding in this case, by either the Family Court or the Psychologists Board, that my conclusions were wrong.

Secondly, it was my clear understanding that the Psychologists Board did not intend to publish my name as part of its disciplinary process. This was how I understood the oral order of the board.

However, the High Court decided last week that this order of the board does not prevent publication of my name by parties who have no connection with the board's hearing or processes. Having now had the opportunity to reflect on the court's decision, I have decided to abide by it and not pursue my appeal.

The Dominion publishes Ms Vincent's statement verbatim but points out that drafts of the proposed articles were made available to the court and to Ms Vincent at the first court hearing. Because of the closed nature of the Family Court, The Dominion cannot respond to matters raised by Ms Vincent regarding the hearing till permission is given by the court. Application will be made for this – Editor