Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Tayken · #11 11-11-2021, 04:45 PM

Typed or hand written... if the clinician claims they are the notes... they are the notes. Not sure why they matter. Often the notes are useless and the reports are even more useless.

NewDay · #12 11-11-2021, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tayken

Typed or hand written... if the clinician claims they are the notes... they are the notes. Not sure why they matter. Often the notes are useless and the reports are even more useless.

The poster thinks the typed notes do not match the written notes or were embellished. I suppose that is why they are important to him.

mafia007 · #13 11-15-2021, 02:27 PM

Notes, reports, investigations, affidavits, and all other relevant documents you can file at the court registry are all hearsay.

The witnesses are what is important at trial.

If you think the report from the clinician was biased and you already had chalenged that report within the 30 days to OCL, you just did what is right. Now wait at trial to cross-examine that clinician as per your chalenging reply. That's it.

My situation is much simple. The OCL report came back as being incomplete. Didn't need to chalenge the report as it is incomplete. With an incomplete report, the OCL are not fully equiped to make any recommendations... therefore way more easier for my Lawyer to cross-examine that clinician.

I've been waiting for over 3 years for that trial. The cross-examination is the key, not the notes nor the reports.

Dad204 · #14 11-30-2021, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tayken

Typed or hand written... if the clinician claims they are the notes... they are the notes. Not sure why they matter. Often the notes are useless and the reports are even more useless.

I am looking to Cross-examine the OCL Clinician at trail. If there is descrepency between the report and notes, wouldn't that be good point to raise during cross-examiniation? or If report states something but it is not in clinician's notes, wouldn't that raise questions that if something was important enough to include in the report is not backed by their notes?

Dad204 · #15 11-30-2021, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mafia007

Notes, reports, investigations, affidavits, and all other relevant documents you can file at the court registry are all hearsay.

The witnesses are what is important at trial.

If you think the report from the clinician was biased and you already had chalenged that report within the 30 days to OCL, you just did what is right. Now wait at trial to cross-examine that clinician as per your chalenging reply. That's it.

My situation is much simple. The OCL report came back as being incomplete. Didn't need to chalenge the report as it is incomplete. With an incomplete report, the OCL are not fully equiped to make any recommendations... therefore way more easier for my Lawyer to cross-examine that clinician.

I've been waiting for over 3 years for that trial. The cross-examination is the key, not the notes nor the reports.

I need to get a better understanding of cross-examining OCL clinicians. Any suggestions on material to review? or should I attend other cases in court?

Brampton33 · #16 12-01-2021, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

I need to get a better understanding of cross-examining OCL clinicians. Any suggestions on material to review?

Review Izyuk v. Bilousov. This is well reviewed case of a self-rep litigant cross examining the OCL and the content/recommendations of an OCL Report

mafia007 · #17 12-01-2021, 03:30 PM

Couldn't be more accurate. Good answer!

Tayken · #18 12-04-2021, 01:26 AM

Someone on this forum helped with the cross examination questions and that file deeply. Post your questions in a thread and that person will probably help... hint hint hint.

Dad204 · #19 12-05-2021, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tayken

Someone on this forum helped with the cross examination questions and that file deeply. Post your questions in a thread and that person will probably help... hint hint hint.

Here are some of the thing I would have to cross exmine the Clinician on:

1. I said I did A. In Clinician's notes, it says I said I did B.
2. I said I did a, b, c, d, e, with children before seperation. In her report, Clinician says I said I did d only with children before seperation. However, after I disputed the report, Clinician added a, b, c and d knowning that there is proof I did a, b, c, d and e.
3. Clinician also cherry picked and sometimes made incorrect statements about what is in CAS and police report. Applicant said one thing to police and another to CAS but Clinician made it seem like Applicant said the same thing to CAS and police.
4. Clinician also reworded children's statements from CAS report that reflected Applicant in poor light.
5. I also provided some descrepency between Applicant's Court Proceedings and Police report to Clinician. Same information ended up with Applicant's lawyer before OCL provided clinician's notes to both parties.
6. Applicant's statements to CAS, OCL, Police and court show she is not being honest but clinician ignored it and believe everything she said even overriding what children had said to CAS.
7. Also, children's statements to OCL are questionable as she described some body language from children which he doesn't do.
8. and so on.

How do I show that what clinician is saying came from applicant, children and myself, didn't really come from these sources.

Tayken · #20 12-07-2021, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

Here are some of the thing I would have to cross exmine the Clinician on:

1. I said I did A. In Clinician's notes, it says I said I did B.

Relevance of "A" and "B" matter. If its made a chocolate birthday cake for their 3rd birthday it was vanilla. That is irrelivant.

If its "never took children" to the doctors and you have medical records and clinical encounter documentation stating you took the children to 25% or more of their medical appointments it IS relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

2. I said I did a, b, c, d, e, with children before seperation. In her report, Clinician says I said I did d only with children before seperation. However, after I disputed the report, Clinician added a, b, c and d knowning that there is proof I did a, b, c, d and e.

On cross ask them why there was a discrepancy between the reports and why the information was updated and what relevance it has on their recommendations. As well, you need to sit down with a lawyer, experienced in the cross examination of clinical experts on relevancy and quality of their report.

ABCD and E could be relevant important things or they could be non-relevant. Hard to guide without details.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

3. Clinician also cherry picked and sometimes made incorrect statements about what is in CAS and police report. Applicant said one thing to police and another to CAS but Clinician made it seem like Applicant said the same thing to CAS and police.

Can you explain the following discrepancy between the police incident report, CAS report and your report filed with this court. Again, so long as it is relevant. If its a minor detail like the child was wearing a red shirt and someone said it was dark red and someone else said it was light red... on the balance of probabilities the shirt was RED and the detail is immaterial and not relevant. Get what I am saying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

4. Clinician also reworded children's statements from CAS report that reflected Applicant in poor light.

Ask why they didn't quote the report and choose not quote it. Again, relevance matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

5. I also provided some descrepency between Applicant's Court Proceedings and Police report to Clinician. Same information ended up with Applicant's lawyer before OCL provided clinician's notes to both parties.

I don't understand what you mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

6. Applicant's statements to CAS, OCL, Police and court show she is not being honest but clinician ignored it and believe everything she said even overriding what children had said to CAS.

How though? You need to rely on facts not feelings. You just used feelings and not facts in your statement for #6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

7. Also, children's statements to OCL are questionable as she described some body language from children which he doesn't do.

Again, I would challenge the observations on body language in a different way. The OCL clinician has had limited contact with the child and in a very odd situation. Simply ask them if weight should be given to a parent's day-to-day observations of their child's behaviour over that of a clinician who as a single (or 2-time) encounter with a child whom they view as a "stranger" to them. Etc...

Lots of easy targets with observationals from a clinician who has had limited contact with the subject. Constantly if they are providing a professional medical opinion or observation in accordance with their clinical practices or as a regular observer. Make them state over and over that their report is non-clinical. So many judges forget that these are not clinical observations and their reports are not clinical in nature. Really good lawyers do this to them all the time.

In your capacity as a doctor would you say... Then the doctor has to say... I was not acting in the capacity nor in accordance with my governing body... if they don't state that lawyers let them hang themselves often... then ask them to clarify if they are acting as an observer or a medical professional... Again takes a skilled barrister to pull these off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad204

8. and so on.

How do I show that what clinician is saying came from applicant, children and myself, didn't really come from these sources.

In your report you explicitly state that the person stated "X". Can you direct me to the source of that statement... for example was it during an encounter with the person, taken from a police report, etc... You will have to do this with yes/no questions.

Everything boils down to yes/no questions. You need to prepare structured questions...

If I showed you what WD did... its basically a logic tree with 20-30 branches of questions. Remember, he is a software engineer... so he did it as a series of "IF YES THEN" or "ELSE" statements. It was tested about 20 times in mock situations where people answering threw wrenches at it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Complaints regarding OCL clinician and CAS	SashaQ	Divorce & Family Law	18	06-12-2019 10:38 PM
Question about Child and Spousal Support	deevusone	Divorce & Family Law	13	05-09-2012 09:08 PM
Hello and child support question	noelle78	Introductions	13	01-25-2011 09:55 PM
Tricky financial question	sshygirl	Divorce & Family Law	6	06-17-2009 10:36 AM
Moving Question	Neets	Divorce & Family Law	6	01-15-2009 11:27 PM

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts

Advertising

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name
Password