The key to this case seems to be whether or not a PhD from Pacific Western can be considered, in good faith, to be a legitimate degree.
The State of Hawaii closed Pacific Western down some years ago, and certainly the school was not accepted by any accrediting organizations, however the real question is not was the education solid but rather did the students (specifically Carter) think they got legitimate degrees.
Of course, that only goes to the fraud charges before the Courts presently.
There can be little doubt that someone with a doctorate from a non-accredited school of questionable reputation should not be accepted as a trained professional by the Courts. Perhaps that is the biggest scandal?
A so-called doctor fraudulently collected a total of more than $12,000 from five clients who mistakenly believed he was a qualified psychologist, court has heard.
Gregory Carter deceived his victims, most of whom were involved in child custody cases, by misrepresenting his credentials in his Whitby practice, Crown Attorney Michael Gillen told Oshawa court on Wednesday.
Last year, the College of Psychologists of Ontario found Carter guilty of professional misconduct for straying beyond his capabilities in diagnosing a father, whom he never met, with “narcissistic personality disorder.”
Carter, who frequently testified in family court, claimed he had a doctorate in psychology but the college didn’t recognize his credentials and licensed him only as a psychological associate, Gillen said.
One of his alleged victims, who paid $1,650 for therapy sessions for his granddaughter’s behavioural problems, testified that Carter identified himself as a psychologist who specialized in children.
David Bulmer, who subsequently lost custody of the child in a court case that used a report by Carter, said the term “psychological associate” never came up. Had he known Carter wasn’t a registered psychologist, he never would have used him, Bulmer said.
Carter has a legitimate master’s degree, but his Ph.D. is from Pacific Western University in Hawaii, which the U.S. government has denounced as a “diploma mill.”
Gregory Carter deceived his victims, most of whom were involved in child custody cases, by misrepresenting his credentials in his Whitby practice, Crown Attorney Michael Gillen told Oshawa court on Wednesday.
Last year, the College of Psychologists of Ontario found Carter guilty of professional misconduct for straying beyond his capabilities in diagnosing a father, whom he never met, with “narcissistic personality disorder.”
Carter, who frequently testified in family court, claimed he had a doctorate in psychology but the college didn’t recognize his credentials and licensed him only as a psychological associate, Gillen said.
One of his alleged victims, who paid $1,650 for therapy sessions for his granddaughter’s behavioural problems, testified that Carter identified himself as a psychologist who specialized in children.
David Bulmer, who subsequently lost custody of the child in a court case that used a report by Carter, said the term “psychological associate” never came up. Had he known Carter wasn’t a registered psychologist, he never would have used him, Bulmer said.
Carter has a legitimate master’s degree, but his Ph.D. is from Pacific Western University in Hawaii, which the U.S. government has denounced as a “diploma mill.”
6 comments:
Hello Mr. Morton,
Here is an excerpt from today's durhamnews.com coverage of the Carter trial:
"Mr. Carter, who was certified by the College of Psychologists of Ontario as a psychological associate, had a number of limitations on his practice, court heard. But he exceeded those limitations, particularly in instances where he offered diagnoses of personality disorders, Mr. Gillen said."
Do family law lawyers have a duty to check (and challenge whenever appropriate) the qualifications of the opposing medicolegal "experts" who seek to skewer their clients in child custody cases?
How is it possible Carter was never confronted (during the qualification of expert phase) with the fact that he was listed as a "psychologoical associate" (not as a psychologist) at the CPO and with the fact that clearly posted on his CPO membership registration was a practice restriction stating he ought not make any unsupervised diagnosis? In the Toronto Sun and the Law Times the family law lawyers talked about how hard it is to check the qualifications of expert witnesses and how doing so is more an "art" than anything else. Try this - google the College of Psychologists of Ontario - click the Member Search icon - enter Gregory Carter - and up pops his registration. How hard was that? If doing that is an "art" - then already you are a Picasso! And yet the easy to find fact that Carter was unqualified to proffer expert witness opinions in child custody cases flew over the heads of judges and lawyers alike. The real question in all this is whether the Carter debacle is an anomalee or whether other unqualified experts have tainted cases with unchecked, unchallenged, unqualified "expert" testimony. Besides Smith I mean.
Good question -- there isn't a specific way to "check". I generally accept that what is on a CV is true -- maybe I will start checking further now. But having said that I usually do check to see if the expert is in good standing in their profession. And I google their schools.
Family law lawyers aren't alone in failing to check with the health regulatory lisencing bodies/Colleges to confirm the qualifications of medicolegal experts who proffer expert opinion evidence in Ontario. The personal injury (mva) context is littered with cases tainted by unchecked, unchallenged, unqualified, "expert" opinion evidence. For example, psychologists who proffer expert opinion evidence in brain injury cases need to have their competence in the specialty area of neuropsychology recognized by the College. (There are 9 specialty areas.)In fact, in 2001 the CPO put out an Advisory to its members laying out the College's requirements for those who do assessments and proffer opinions in brain injury cases. This was done, the Advisory states, in the hope of curbing complaints. Alas, years later, and despite this decade-old CPO Advisory, and despite the fact that it takes two minutes to do an online check to see if a psychologist is listed/cleared on his/her CPO membership to practice neuropsychology - the problem persists. Brain injury cases tainted with the opinions of psychologists not recognized or approved by the College to practice in the area of neuropsychology are common. FSCO's Arbitration Unit is awash in such cases but won't inform the brain injured mva victims whose Arbitration Unit cases were tainted in this way. While it is true that expert witnesses are the necessary "grease" that allows the system(s)(family law, personal injury, etc.) to grind along - shouldn't the lawyers make a bit more effort to ensure the "experts" grinding up the litigants are in fact qualified to proffer expert opinion evidence??
This last - and then no more:
It is so bad in the personal injury context that a medicolegal "expert" psychologist can concede under aggressive cross-examination (at FSCO) to a lack of training/expertise in chronic pain/Pain Disorder and yet show up in subsequent FSCO cases proffering unchallenged "expert" opinion in the same area. Thus we see that in the same way that the lawyers aren't checking the College registrations of opposing medicolegal expert witnesses - they aren't checking prior cases for any adverse (quasi)judicial comments regarding the qualifications and/or partisanship of "expert" witnesses. But this is no surprise. In fact it is an issue that perplexed Justice Goudge at the Inquiry as he tried to get answers as to why Smith was never confronted with Justice Dunn's early warnings (in the form of prior adverse judicial comments).
Thanks -- these are very interesting comments -- you should have a blog!
It's really a cool and useful piece of information. I'm happy that you just shared this helpful info with us.
Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
Here is my page :: Graduate certificate programs
Post a Comment