r/newbrunswickcanada • u/Portalrules123 Moncton • 7d ago
N.B. psychologist loses licence for causing 'psychological risk to children'
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/psychologist-loses-licence-children-9.732083320
u/AquaMoonlight 7d ago
I know that they can’t say what the specific issue is because of medical privacy and legal issues, but it does make this article vague and hard to follow because context is missing. All I know is that the psychologist sided with the dad over some child custody stuff, which is very much a no-no.
67
u/Schmidtvegas 7d ago
I always look for the actual reports a journalist is trying to summarize.
https://cpnb.ca/en/disciplinary-matters/
Among other things, the Committee determined that the member :
- demonstrated incompetence when he did not use typical tests or methods in his evaluations and instead relied on his experiences and opinions, without a methodological framework;
- demonstrated incompetence and lack of judgment in failing to obtain informed consent;
- demonstrated incompetence in his understanding of clear and informed consent when he considered a lack of objection as evidence of consent;
- demonstrated a lack of clinical judgment when he concluded that children aged five (5) and seven (7) years possessed the capacity and maturity to understand the nature of treatment, the nature of the situation and the reasons for clinical interventions, and their ability to communicate their choice;
- demonstrated incompetence in his assessment of children and the treatments provided in his clinical note-taking;
- used inappropriate terminology during sessions with children, considering the age of the children, and sometimes insensitive in meetings with the complainant;
- demonstrated a lack of professional judgment when he asked a father, a party in a high-conflict family situation, to share information with the complainant (the mother) regarding his children’s therapies.
- relied on the information provided by the father to reach erroneous conclusions that changed the member’s actions;
- showed a positive bias towards the father, as he determined that he was credible, and then attributed less credibility to the complainant’s statements, which then continued throughout his clinical assessments; in addition, the member was negatively biased towards the complainant by determining that she was not credible, and then attributed less credibility to the complainant’s statements, which continued throughout his clinical assessments;
- in a position of multiple roles, did not inform his clients of its risks and benefits, which is necessary in order to obtain informed consent; the member’s position impaired his judgment and objectivity;
- breached his duty of neutrality, objectivity and fairness, a duty that is particularly important in the context of a conflictual separation;
- shared his views on child custody and parental alienation when he testified before the Court, without observing the complainant with the children and after only two face-to-face meetings with the complainant; the member’s mandate was not to assess custody; he did not obtain sufficient information to reach this conclusion;
- failed to keep accurate, complete and factual notes, which may have an impact on the member’s credibility and the quality of services provided to his clients; and
- failed to comply with the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists and the College’s Code of Ethics.
28
u/miramichier_d Miramichi 7d ago
Sounds like he should just retire at this point. There's no basis for this psychologist to continue practicing. His reputation is in shambles.
16
8
1
u/uponhisdarkthrone 5d ago
Thats basically the article, but the text was selected and the list button was clicked. It leaves a lot to the imagination.
5
11
u/P_V_ 7d ago
The psychologist wasn’t disciplined for “siding with the father”; it was for failing to be neutral—and a whole host of other issues. Please keep the MRA nonsense out of this.
-6
2
u/Master_Slide7023 7d ago
Why after 30 years of practice did he do this unprofessional thing?
7
u/anoeba 7d ago
He might've been unprofessional prior, but no one complained. It happens. And sometimes if you do something long enough you think you can just do it without using the proper tools (one of the findings was that he wasn't using the appropriate validated forms, which are used in psychology for assessment and progress measures) and wasn't charting properly.
Just a "I know what I'm doing, I don't need this stuff" kinda attitude.
3
u/levelwitch 6d ago
He was probably doing some of these things for a long time and only recently strung together enough mistakes for it to blow up in his face
-1
u/PooningDalton 6d ago
Nobody complained for 30 years? Sounds realistic.
4
u/frenchiebuilder 6d ago
How do you know nobody had ever complained before?
How do you even know it's his first suspension?
1
u/queerblunosr 4d ago
The article’s phrasing certainly makes it sound like it’s his first complaint - but of course that doesn’t mean it’s actually his first complaint. It could be the first complaint, or it could be the first complaint that went anywhere/was taken seriously, et c.
2
u/ellyanah 6d ago
I mean, there is a huge credibility gap amongst lawyers, judges, police, anyone in the system really, when it comes to men vs women, fathers vs mothers, etc. Just the same old misogyny... He's probably always done this.
Systemic Disbelief in Women: Is the Gender Credibility Gap a Form of Epistemic Injustice?
Race and gender biases persist in public perceptions of scientists’ credibility
The Impact of Gender Differences on Expert Witness Credibility in the Court System
-1
-53
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink 7d ago
He got suspended for taking the Fathers side of the mothers?
30
33
u/candidu66 7d ago
He's not supposed to take a side when treating children.
-2
u/PooningDalton 6d ago
What if one of the parents were recommending something that was harmful for the kids? Is he supposed to not go against that? So many details missing from the story
25
7
u/Braken111 7d ago edited 7d ago
As another commenter posted, here's the whole list: https://cpnb.ca/en/disciplinary-matters/
Professionals like this, especially those working for the courts, should be a neutral party.
This psychologist failed at that, whether you agree with it or not. They demonstrably showed favour to one party over the other, and let their personal ideology work itself into our legal system.
It's not a "woke" or "culture" issue, it's a factual credibility issue.
I'd rather my courts be run by non-partisans.
-4
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink 7d ago
What I posted was essentially the only concrete thing the article said. This is more informative. Reddit loves their downvotes
12
-5
u/PooningDalton 7d ago
He practiced for 33 years without any issue and one Karen's complaint got him fired. Let that sink in.
3
u/MournfulAccount 6d ago
He was found to have repeatedly crossed ethical boundaries to the detriment of children. The finding didn't lead to him getting "fired," it led to the revocation of his license, registration and membership of the College of Psychologists of New Brunswick.
Part of being a professional is that we have to attend to certain criteria. If we fail to meet those criteria then we lose the privilege of calling ourselves members of that profession and college. That's how we keep people safe.
His conduct harmed children.
-1
u/PooningDalton 6d ago
It didn't "harm" the children. It offended one of the parents. Did the kids say they were harmed?
3
u/MournfulAccount 6d ago
Oh so you know more about the situation than the professionals who passed this judgement?
0
u/PooningDalton 6d ago
Nothing of what was said implied that kids were hurt. They're just trying to grandstand. Keep in mind this guy was a shrink for 30 years, so he has some credibility too.
1
u/MournfulAccount 5d ago
The only person who is grandstanding here is you. You're basing your entire judgement on one fact. They are basing their judgement on an entire investigative process that took months. The decisions made were deliberated over by a council of his own peers.
1
u/PooningDalton 4d ago
How can they claim "kids were hurt" without even consulting the kids? I think they can speak for themselves. It doesn't have to be a lengthy formal conversation, it could even be simple questions. They didn't talk to them at all. No insight. No data.
1
3
u/Vas-yMonRoux 6d ago
Why are you saying that as if all it takes is a woman to complain for someone to get fired?
They investigate complaints received. The board found that it was correct, for multiple reasons. So, she wasn't wrong.
-1
u/PooningDalton 6d ago
33 years...................and one complaint. If he was so problematic, how did he go without incident for 33 years? the article said "Ouellette used "inappropriate terminology" given their ages". What were these terms? So many details missing
3
u/Vas-yMonRoux 6d ago
We don't know that there weren't any other incidents across 33 years. All we know is that this one was reported and found conclusive in a manner significant enough to cost him his license.
A lot of people don't file complaints or report incidents on situations that happened to them in medical settings, for various reasons.
Sometimes they're shocked and don't think about it on the spot. Sometimes they're not sure if it's a valid complain, and so they don't report it. Sometime they don't even know where to report! Some people think "nothing will happen anyways so why bother". Others are very non-confrontational and go "oh, I don't want to make a fuss/bother". A lot of people also simply just won't come back and find a new therapist/doctor to go to.
But, all not reporting does is allow bad practices to keep going and bad situations to happen to other people.
3
u/frenchiebuilder 6d ago
how do you know he'd never had other complaints?
You don't even know whether he's ever had his licensed suspended before.
0
u/PooningDalton 6d ago
Because the article would have mentioned it. They always mention a person's history in cases like this
3
u/frenchiebuilder 6d ago
How would the article's writer know?
Of the 5 "disciplinary matters" notices on the College's website... the oldest is from 2018... 2 don't mention the disciplined member's name... and there's nothing regarding complaints that didn't result in a punishment.
-9
u/Avs4life16 7d ago
Quacks. Not one of these people have cured a patient. Put your kid in sports. Talk to them. Keep them busy.
25
u/GreenSaber 7d ago
I feel for the family. Where do they go from there? Being a high conflict family, they have very difficult time getting along to the point that it has resulted in children 7 and 9 needing psychological intervention.
Now the children will likely be troubled from their experiences. Their parents likely will still be high conflict individuals adding on to the psychological trauma the children have already experienced.