Parents Helping Parents
104-10824-112 Street,
November
1, 2000
[For reason given elsewhere, the
person originally named in the letter is not identified in this reproduction.
The mother's and child's names were deleted for obvious reasons of privacy.]
Psymetry Ms.
Margie Frans
11936 – 100th
Avenue Unit
Supervisor
Via Fax: 414-6424 Via
Fax: 422-3422
Attention:
Mary Jane Henning
Dear
Ms. Henning:
RE: Your Report Concerning the Children of
[mother's name deleted] and ["Source
B"]
I am contacting you at
this time on behalf of [Source B], the father of
[child's name deleted] born 17 April 1992. An Authorization signed by [Source B] is attached for your records, allowing me
to act as his family advocate in this matter.
I have accepted advocacy responsibility on his behalf in my capacity as
Family Advocate of Parents Helping Parents.
As I have only located to
The following are my
reasons for contacting you at this time.
You are, of course, aware that an assessment was undertaken by yourself
and your colleagues which involved [Source B]. He advises that, to date, he has not yet
received copy of the report developed from this process.
/2…
Letter to Psymetry
and
November 1, 2000 Page 2
It is frequently the
case that, when the child welfare system is a retaining party to a case, a
psychology practitioner will sometimes provide copy of any report to only that
party. It is also the case that family
members asked to co-operate in the process sometimes do not know that they
should establish their right to any report prior to their agreement to
co-operate. Lawyers for parties are
often legal aid contracted, and as such, fail to protect the interests of their
clients in any meaningful way.
Certain ethical and
credibility considerations arise when the practitioner provides report only to
the government agency involved. In the
first place, there is a duty of care owed to the family members participating,
which therefore makes them entitled to analyze the quality of the report and
the recommendations made there. Without
receiving the report, the parties involved become “guinea pigs”, which is
contrary to a duty of care owed to them by the practitioner. In addition, the credibility of the report is
seriously undermined as the practitioner “gives the appearance of ” being a
favoured professional of the child welfare system, thereby willing to undermine
the principles underlying duty of care.
The reputation of the child welfare system is also brought into
disrepute as it gives the appearance of accruing all power unto itself without
consideration of the rights of others involved.
From what I know of the
Alberta Child Welfare system, I do not believe they would wish to abrogate the
duty of care owed to family members who agree to participate in a psychological
assessment. I am almost certain that
this practice is longstanding and simply hasn’t been examined in modern light
for some time. I also feel confident in
saying that I presume that good faith was intended by the staff of Psymetry and
Alberta CFS, and look forward to resolving this issue with you.
In this spirit of good
faith, I will ask [Source B] to contact the
offices of Psymetry to make arrangements to pick up the report written about
his family. In the meantime, should
there be any questions arising from this correspondence, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Yours
truly,
Parents
Helping Parents
Louise
Malenfant
Family
Advocate