Fake Doc accused of fraud

We had a recent case of this occurring in BC here and it also has ramifications in family law. I have been advised the Durham CAS is very pro-feminist and pro-maternalist in their approach and there could be a great many cases where they have hired a fraudster to give them a  sympathetic report.  The whole area of pro-feminist approaches to the family and the so-called patriarchy victimizing women is a fraud unto itself and the ideology is an open door to smooth talking charlatans and gullible ideologues. Note the CAS spokesperson would not answer the question of checking credentials and they are in a "kind of wait and see position." Doesn't that give you a lot of confidence in child welfare.  Hopefully the police will request interviews with the management of this facility and others.

There are lots of impostors only to willing to pander to the feminist belief of victimization by the patriarchy for profit. This belief, of course, means men are too dangerous to have custody of children when in fact a child is safest when in a two parent biological family or with their biological father.  Back tracing of this individual's involvement in Family Custody Cases in particular will be important.MJM

Conducted psych tests on kids

By Don PEAT, TORONTO SUN

Last Updated: 26th January 2010, 10:02pm

This doctor was never in.

A Whitby man is facing a fraud rap after allegedly posing as a psychologist while testifying in child custody cases.

But according to the College of Psychologists the man accused of playing doctor — who’s a registered psychological associate — is already facing a professional misconduct complaint.

Durham Regional Police started investigating the man in November after receiving a complaint from one of the families in a Family Court case that involved his testimony.
Sgt. Nancy van Rooy said that so far investigators have determined three families were affected by the bogus shrink testifying in court and Tuesday appealed for any other victims to come forward.

“He was giving testimony as a doctor of psychology, or a psychologist,” van Rooy alleged. “He’s been practising as a doctor of psychology, which would then lead us to believe he has a doctorate in psychology. But he does not have that degree.”

Greg Carter, 63, of Whitby, is charged with three counts of fraud, two counts of obstructing justice and two counts of perjury. He was released with conditions and will be back in court in March. 

According to the College of Psychologists, Carter has been registered since 2001 as a psychological associate, not a psychologist, and has a limited ability to practise in the areas of clinical psychology, counselling psychology and school psychology.

But as an associate, Carter can’t make an independent psychological diagnosis.
Carter didn’t respond to a knock on the door or calls to his Pringle Dr. home or at his Carter Psychology Services office on Dundas St. W. in Whitby. 

A receptionist said he wasn’t in his fourth-floor office on Tuesday.

College registrar Catherine Yarrow explained that psychologists have a doctoral degree in psychology, whereas an associate can be authorized by the college to provide psychological services based on a master’s degree in psychology, plus some experience that meets the college’s criteria.


The college’s records state Carter’s master’s degree came from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in 1978.

He’s still facing a complaint of professional misconduct under the Psychology Act.
No date has been set for that complaint to go before the college’s disciplinary committee.
In the document posted on the college’s website, two individuals, including a doctor, alleged Carter failed to maintain the standards of professional conduct.

“This failure included making misrepresentations about his credentials, authoring a report based on inadequate information, authoring a report that fell below the standard of care of a reasonably prudent psychological associate, and/or contravening one or more of the standards of professional conduct,” according to the college’s records.

Andrea Maenza, of the Durham Children’s Aid Society, said Carter “is a psychologist in the community” who has been contracted by the society in the past for services like parental capacity assessments.

Maenza said the society was aware a complaint had been filed with the College of Psychologists. 

“We’re kind of in a wait-and-see position,” she said, adding that once the complaint was dealt with, the society would “determine where to go from there.”
Maenza had no response when asked whether the society checks the credentials of the professionals it contracts.

Carter is also listed as a board member of Durham Mental Health Services.

“His involvement is limited to agency governance and strategic direction,” DMHS board president Bill Sims said in a statement. “He has no involvement in the agency’s day-to-day operations or client services and support.”

— With files from Chris Doucette
don.peat@sunmedia.ca

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/01/26/12624536.html

The Real Loser In The Massachusetts Election

As Obama would say the election was a teachable moment. The arrogant feminist used to privileged deference from the eunuchs surrounding her got her comeuppance.   It was the merging of many factors not the least of which was her cockiness at being anointed the new Lefty Czar of MA to replace Kennedy. Her demeanour came across as someone who would say "Let them eat cake".

I recall the controversy over the court case Phyllis discusses and it gets retold by men who have been involved in MA Family Law which is as stridently feminist in orientation as is the Liberal Left Province of Ontario. Phylis doesn't use the word eunuch when discussing Obama's diversion of stimulus funds to feminist causes and not toward those who were actually unemployed but I will do it for her. There are many of these men in the political classes not to mention the judiciary. This is the so-called Patriarchy that apparently acts as a firewall preventing feminists from reaching past the glass ceiling.  Hmmm... some patriarchy.

Its good to see men finally making a strong difference and voting as a block to rid themselves of a potential  feminist parasite like Coakley who would spread more misandry in Washington.  We can make a difference when we see through the veil of Liberal rhetoric making it sound like they are all inclusive. Poppycock.  Eunuchs get elected to act like chivalrous drones while they get to exercise the levers of power and tax and spend our money. At least with Coakley the veil fell off before it was too late.

This is a monumental victory for common sense and will go down in history as a likely turning point for Obama's reign of power and largess. If he doesn't smarten up he will see his congressional sycophants lose their majority in November and he will be toast in 2012.MJM

Phyllis Schlafly
Tuesday, January 26, 2010


Smarting from their surprise loss in the race to fill the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Democrats are throwing their candidate, Martha Coakley, under the bus. They blame her for running a poor campaign that made losers out of Barack Obama, the Democrats, their bad health care bill and even Ted Kennedy in his grave.

Many reasons, of course, contributed to Scott Brown's remarkable victory. However, the chief reason Coakley's campaign didn't connect with the voters is that she is a feminist, causing even a liberal female TV commentator to admit she is "unappealing."

The feminists for years have had a stranglehold over the Democratic Party, enforcing their rule that every Democratic presidential candidate must pledge his fidelity to abortion with taxpayer funding. But abortion is only the first commandment of feminist ideology, and Coakley revealed much, much more, so let's use her defeat as a teaching moment.

"Martha's a really great candidate for everything that NOW stands for," gushed Christina Knowles, director of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Coakley was, indeed, a really great advocate for NOW's feminist ideology, but that did not attract the voters.


It was not so great when Coakley was disdainful about Brown campaigning in the cold outside Fenway Park, the fabled home of the beloved Boston Red Sox. It was not so great when Coakley dismissed one of the biggest Red Sox stars as a "Yankee fan."

Those comments fit the profile of feminists who have contempt for men's sports and therefore have eliminated hundreds of men's teams from college athletic programs under a misinterpretation of Title IX. Howard University even canceled both wrestling and baseball on the same day, giving double pleasure to the hateful feminists.
Boston University is the largest school in Boston, but it no longer has an NCAA baseball team. Nationwide, feminist opposition to anything masculine has forced the elimination of more than 450 wrestling teams.

Coakley insulted people with religious values by declaring that those who oppose abortion probably shouldn't work in emergency rooms because an occasional patient might demand an immediate abortion. Feminists refuse to allow respect for a right of conscience because that might get in the way of their ideology that abortion is women's premier right.

Feminists pretend they want all laws and behavior to be gender-neutral, with identical treatment of male and female (and other genders, whatever they are). But when it comes to domestic violence and child abuse, feminist ideology decrees that men are naturally batterers and women never lie so they don't have to present evidence in order to convict a man.


As prosecutor, Coakley followed this pattern when she insisted on treating a falsely accused man worse than a falsely accused woman. As copiously detailed by Dorothy Rabinowitz in The Wall Street Journal, Coakley persecuted the Amirault family for child abuse even after it became widely recognized that they had been imprisoned on false charges.

Although virtually everyone aware of the Amirault case recognized it to be as preposterous as the false allegation of rape against the Duke lacrosse players, Coakley insisted on continued incarceration of the Amirault brother in contrast with the release of his sister. Coakley insisted that when women are involved in child abuse cases, the real culprit is typically "a primary male offender."

Eventually, the falsely accused man, Gerald Amirault, was released by the extraordinary intervention of the Massachusetts parole board, considered the toughest in the nation. That followed an exhaustive investigation, but Coakley continued to pretend that he was somehow guilty.

Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after they had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama's stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.

It's no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Brown.

Brown's driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.


Commentary about Brown's appeal to women is diversionary -- it was male voters who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for him. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and independent to elect a Republican.


Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2010/01/26/the_real_loser_in_the_massachusetts_election

Judge orders boy, 11, to live with father he hates and hasn't seen for four years

Its easy to see where the sympathies of this paper are given the headline. We never get enough information on the complexities of these cases but it does stand out to me this is a serious case of Parental Alienation. The mom has gone out of her way to deny the dad access and why would a son hate his father so much.   Even an abused child seeks love from the abuser. It appears the mom was playing the odds in that they mostly win in custody battles but it backfired probably because the dad had enough money to stay in the fight.

It will be of great interest to see how the boy thrives - or not.  I suspect as time passes the dad will ensure he has contact with the mom but if it were me I would ensure the 11 year old stays away long enough to remove the programming of hatred.  It is emotionally abusive of the mom to have treated her own flesh and blood to hate the father.MJM

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:27 PM on 24th January 2010

• Comments (171)

A boy of 11 has been ordered to leave his mother and move more than 100 miles to live with the father he hates.

Appeal Court judges accepted last week that the boy was thriving with his mother, enjoying a life full of activities.

Yet they still ruled that he should live with his father, whom he has not seen for nearly four years.

Experts said the judgment reflected the emphasis the courts were now putting on the role of fathers and on the need for children to have contact with both parents. The boy’s parents split up before he was born and the father has been striving to win access for years.

He works in the City of London, lives in a £1million Stockbroker Belt house,  has remarried and has two more children, who are educated privately.

He said he would also send the boy to private school. The mother, a professional woman, had said she was happy for the boy to have contact with his father – when he was ready to do so.

But the Appeal Court upheld an earlier ruling at Coventry Crown Court, where Judge Clifford Bellamy said he was unconvinced that the mother really wanted contact to resume.

The appeal judges called the boy’s feelings of hate for his father ‘irrational’ and said he would suffer long-term emotional and behavioural problems if they were not reunited.

Judge Bellamy said ‘no stone had been left unturned’ to re-establish contact between father and son, but even indirect attempts through gifts and Christmas cards had failed utterly.

Despite the father being ‘devoted’ to his son, the boy was stubbornly resistant to ever seeing his father again.
The judge added that the mother’s arrangements for the boy to have extra-curricular activities every day of the week left no space for his father, adding: ‘All of this strongly suggests that, in truth, the mother has no real wish to see contact restart.’

Judge Bellamy said she had ‘significant influence and power’ over the boy.

He added that the animosity felt by the boy would quickly disappear once he was living under his father’s roof.

The boy’s guardian, an expert appointed to provide an independent view of his best interests, told the court: ‘I feel pretty ferocious in protecting him. Never have I come across such a strong sense of fighting for a child.’
But the judge said she had become too emotionally involved in the case and lost her sense of objectivity. 

At the appeal, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was the third time recently that the court had upheld properly reasoned decisions in favour of fathers.

Miranda Fisher, of London solicitors Charles Russell, said later that the activities of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice had tipped the balance – and courts were taking a tougher line on parents who denied contact between their children and their ex-partners.

She explained: ‘Twenty or 30 years ago it was not the normal expectation that fathers should be involved in looking after the children. Now more mothers have full-time careers and fathers are increasingly wanting to share in caring.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245603/Judge-orders-boy-11-live-father-hates-seen-years.html#ixzz0dpjfzH5Z