In most custody cases, psychological expertise is crucial. This process aims to determine the custody outcome by assessing the parents' ability to care for their children. The psychological evaluations in these cases seem limited, raising doubts about their reliability, psychologists look for patterns rather than treating each case uniquely due to time constraints. They categorize individuals based on past or present patterns.
In my case, my past was enough for the psychologist to categorize me. Despite the expert's reputation and prominence in custody proceedings, they didn't inquire about my current situation or future aspirations.
Although I managed to challenge the expert's view in court, the final decision disregarded the extensive 250-page report from an 8-month investigation. The court proceedings even required an additional hearing to amend some expert recommendations, yet none of the findings influenced the court's verdict.
Given the extensive expertise, one wonders: Why was such a detailed report necessary, especially the last 10 pages with the expert's recommendations? The expert openly believes, through personal publications and included in her expertise, that children from troubled families should be raised in facilities with psychological support rather than with their parents. Is this a widely accepted view?
I'm unsure if such an in-depth psychological examination is truly essential. What's evident is that this process has created a privileged group that's well-compensated for work that's often overlooked. In a society like Germany's, questioning the role or validity of such an institution might be seen as taboo.
