Father admitted in his testimony to killing cats. Yes, he baited, shot, and tortured cats! There was also third party testimony to these atrocities.

Cruelty to animals is a hallmark sign of psychopathy, or anti-social personality disorder and the father was diagnosed by one of the leading forensic psychologist and custody evaluator in this country.

Yet despite this, the lower court decided the father should have joint-custody, regardless of the diagnosis.

Why?

The lower court ordered that the forensic psychologist was not to interview the father, but had access to all other documents and records, including, but not limited to father’s psychological tests and evaluations, and was to interview all others involved in the case. Subsequently, the judge cited as reason for not accepting the testimony of the forensic psychologist that he ”….did not interview the father.”

This in itself is a bias, however, also contradictory to (case-) law. If this current decision upholds it will be far reaching with grave consequences for society. Sex offenders would no longer have to register, dangerous individuals no longer can be committed, and parental rights can no longer be terminated and children no longer protected.

Just by refusing an interview!

In the recent NY Appeal cases and various Appellate decision, it is absolutely clear that an interview is not a requirement for an expert to testify to the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder in Article X of the NY Mental Hygiene Law cases.

More over, the NY State Social Services Law SSL§384-b(e) for terminating parental rights:

“…… the appointed psychologist or psychiatrist ….. may testify without an examination of such parent, provided that such other information affords a reasonable basis for his opinion.”

If the ‘no interview’ upholds for the lower rules of evidence of ‘Best Interest of the Child”, then it must also uphold at the stricter rules of evidence of “Preponderance of Evidence,” putting us all at risk.

I politely request that the NY Court of Appeals grants a leave for Appeal and clarifies the rules of evidence with regards to expert testimony of antisocial personality disorder without an interview.