According to Dr. Kenneth Robson, Sandra MacVicar had a "fixed perception of Mr. Buggy [Defendant] as the devil incarnate."
I know how that goes!
You start off the process telling the custody evaluator simply that your X is a bad guy, and then as the months go by, under the weight of constant skepticism and denial, your descriptions become shorter, clearer, and more graphic as you try to convey to the psychiatrist that your story is true and that this person has truly caused considerable harm, not only to yourself, but also to your children.
Ultimately, the most clear and believable voices in this case come from Sandra MacVicar's daughters, J. and K. In a meeting with Father and the children, Dr. Kenneth Robson describes the following scene: [The children] asked Dr. Robson how he could do something so cruel as to conduct the meeting with their father who they said had beat them and abused them."
Wow, that is pretty clear cut testimony.
Dr. Robson continues on to say: "Dr. Robson responded that these complaints were many months old and no one had called the Department of Children and Families regarding the alleged abuse."
Ok, is this Dr. Robson's idea of a legitimate excuse for not investigating child abuse--that there are time limitations to doing so? I doubt that is correct. Men who have been abused by priests as far back as 30 years ago, to my understanding, are fully within their rights to bring their complaints in and have them investigated despite the lapse of decades. And I'm sure many of their complaints weren't investigated by DCF either.
So?
Was Dr. Robson trying to act smart with the kids and shut them up?
According to Robson's report, J. responded by asking "why he hadn't called DCF." Dr. Robson responded that "he didn't feel the children were at risk. Thereupon the younger child wanted to leave his office."
If there is one thing that is clear, it is that these children are strong and courageous enough to speak out to their father, to Dr. Robson, and to other adults. So how does Dr. Kenneth Robson explain away this phenomenon?
He states that both the mother and the children are psychotic.
Remember, of course, that this conclusion is drawn independent of any kind of objective testing whatsoever. This is all his opinion. Not only has mother not taken any kind of standard objective testing, the children haven't taken any testing either. (In fact, the only person who did take psychological testing, as I reported earlier in this series, was Glenn Buggy. But, at no time in the Memorandum of Decision in this case do we have any hint as to what the results of that testing was.)
Furthermore, I think were Mother actually psychotic, someone would have noticed before Dr. Robson came up with the idea. Usually, people with psychotic illnesses ordinarily come to the attention of mental health professionals because they are unable to function and thus end up committed to psychiatric facilities. So far, to my knowledge, this hasn't happened either to Sandra MacVicar or her children.
It is now two years after this judgment came out with this interesting psychiatric theory and, to my knowledge, Ms. Macvicar still hasn't ended up in a psychiatric facility. So what is this psychosis that Dr. Robson is talking about?
In essence, Dr. Kenneth Robson diagnosed Sandra MacVicar and her children as having a Folie a Deux, or, in this case, Folie a Trois, since there are three people involved here. This is a diagnosis known as "Shared Psychotic Disorder" DSM-IV code 297.3. This is where "A delusion develops in an individual in the context of a close relationship with another person or persons, who have an already established delusion."
The subcategory of this condition, known as Folie a Deux occurs when the people involved "have an unusually close relationship" such as a parent and child relationship and "temporal or contextual evidence exists that indicates the delusion was induced in the passive member by contact with the active partner."
You can have all sorts of folies apparently with this condition--folies between two people. An example would be Leon and Leopold who conspired together in the 1920s to commit the perfect murder. More recently, in 1999 the Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would be another. And you can also have folies with a large group of people, such as the group of people in Jonestown who all committed suicide with koolaid laced with poison.
Of course, this is an extremely rare condition, and Dr. Robson reports it only started with Sandra MacVicar and the children in 2008 when Father filed for modification of custody. In the decade prior to that there were no signs of it and it was not a consideration when custody was determined in the separation agreement of August 11, 2006.
Right.
It is amazing how in legal proceedings severe psychiatric disorders can drop from the sky right on time.
And, naturally, Dr. Robson is the only one who noticed the disorder. Of course, a condition of this kind would ordinarily develop when the people involved maintain a restricted relationship, if any, with the outside world so that the primary person with the delusion can maintain his or her control without interference. For example, Jim Jones took all of his followers to the wilds of Guyana and rounded them all up with armed followers.
To my knowledge, both J. and K. at the time of Robson's investigation were interacting within the community on a normal basis, going to school as usual, visiting their medical doctors for their regular appointments, etc. I mean, if Sandra MacVicar was delusional and manipulating her children to believe in her delusion, how did she do it? If this was truly folie a deux (or trois), there should have been some form of intimidation going on for which the trial court found some evidence. You know, like guns, physical violence, threats of imminent death, being locked in closets, poison koolaid--that sort of thing.
Instead, the Memorandum of Decision describes the girls as outspoken, thoughtful and articulate--anything but delusional or programmed or in any way threatened by their mother! And, I am assuming, the "impressive" group of witnesses pretty much said the same thing.
But granting the possibility that this diagnosis might be correct, since this condition is so rare and extraordinary, wouldn't it make sense to bring in an expert in this condition to investigate whether it was being applied properly?
Be that as it may, in the end, Glenn Buggy received sole custody of the children. So what did he do with it? After six months of taking care of the children, Mr. Buggy dropped the kids off with Mother and stated that he couldn't handle them, and, to my knowledge has had very little interaction with them since. This is under circumstances where Father was told that his children had a condition that "promises to damage their relationships, their self-perceptions, and their abilities to live productively." He actually attempted to work with his children to correct those problems for all of one day, or was it two, and then he gives up.
I don't know. I am aware of parents with children who have severe disorders such as autism or schizophrenia, or who have drug addictions or who have committed crimes. What about children with cancer? How long do parents of children with cancer have to remain committed to treatment? These parents often have to work for years, if not decades, in order to correct the problems with their children, often following through on considerable time and money commitments in order to do so. Yet in this situation, Mr. Buggy is incapable of lasting longer than one or two days, and he was given "sole custody"? How much sense do you think that makes?
Currently, Sandra MacVicar has the children in her care seven days a week, 24 hours a day, but Glenn Buggy still has sole custody. The only change that has taken place here is that subsequent to the decision regarding Modification dated October 25, 2010, Mr. Buggy no longer sees his children, but has total control over them, no longer has to pay child support (since he got custody) and his other financial obligations to his children and ex-wife are considerably reduced, particularly in regard to college tuition.
Meanwhile, Sandra MacVicar was forced to spend approximately $200,000 in legal fees on this custody battle, meaning less financial resources for herself and the children, plus there are additional and ongoing legal fees for which attorneys are suing her.
So Sandra MacVicar is this powerful, domineering, raging, female who stomps all over Glenn Buggy. Really? So how come Glenn Buggy has sole custody of children he doesn't care for, an intact reputation in contrast to Sandra's, and considerably more financial resources at the time of dissolution than Sandra has. Who really has folie a deux? Could it be Dr. Kenneth Robson himself? As Elvis sang with such feeling, "We're caught in a trap. I can't walk out!"
Just as an FYI, for those who are interested, the judge in this case was Judge Richard E. Burke.
Just as an FYI, for those who are interested, the judge in this case was Judge Richard E. Burke.
No comments:
Post a Comment