Shooting The Messenger And The Truth About Dr. Bill Perry's "Objectionable Blog Posts" And The SF Weekly
It is called the Ad Hominen fallacy in logic 101 - The attacking of the source of an argument because you have no evidence, no facts, no plausible defense basis or ability to contest the actual facts - also known as "Shooting the messenger."
Note that nowhere in the article is there one single word about the the actual evaluation. No defending, no attacking, no disagreeing or even so much as mentioning it all! - No disputing of ts contents and facts that came up about mother, many from her own family; or the fact that the Chief Judge of Family Court saw fit to order all of the evaluation's recommendations. Just a not-too-slick shift of the focus to the profesional doing the evaluation.
"Bill Perry Removed from Family Court for Objectionable Blog Posts." I must confess to having been upset when I first saw it, only to be somewhat relieved to see that the source of the article was a Weekly SF throw-away paper.
This is not - should not - be about the evaluator - the gatherer of information, interpreting the information and handing it to the court to decide. I myself am the subject and object of all of this. Where do you see the child in this article? What do you learn about her or about her parents' parenting style? Do you know how hurtful and dangerous to her one of her parent was? Did any of you ask why the court concluded the same things as Dr. Bill Perry?
Some readers fail to see that Dr. Bill Perry the psychologist has nothing to do with Bill Perry the
writer. How I write, for whom I write and what I write is completely separate from how I practice as a psychologist. It is like saying that a judge who may be an avid hunter in his personal life should not be allowed to practice because he may pull out his rifle and start shooting in court. It is the equivalent of saying that the actor Robert De Niro should be thrown into prison because he plays ruthless killers in his movies.The reason for my removal from the San Francisco Court list of child custody evaluators had nothing to do with my professionalism, or even lack thereof, had that been the case. Notice that this weekly SF article never so much as mentions the actual evaluation! In fact nowhere is the quality of my work even slightly criticized. the primary issue being the quality of the evaluation, issue - the facts and conclusions not challenged. In fact my work is not even mentioned! The content, reason, rationality of this evaluation the verifyable facts having to do with the parenting of these parents and the life of one child, is only alluded to in passing.
My removal from the family court list had nothing to do with "Dr. Bill Perr's Objectionable Blog Posts." The judge rightfully ignored them and did not take it into consideration in making his orders. His orders were based in trust in a professional evaluation by a professional evaluator with an impeccable record. Period. Or does the reader take tha obviously non-objecte losing litigant's word over such an impartial decision by a highly esteemed judge, obviously unlike the litigant with no personal agenda? I believe you are smarter and more perceptive than that. The judge was a forced to remove me from family court list because of the negative media attention brought to his courtroom, and he correctly needed to end the circus before it went any further.
Do I regret any part of my evaluation? No. It is more than worth it so have saved a child from a life of living with a severely disturbed parent. That is all that matters. That makes any professional or personal consequences to me meaningless. There is absolutely nothing I would have done differently. I did the right thing at the right time, the judicial system validated it and I will always be both humble and proud of that.
And for that I sleep well at night. I like who I see when I shave in the morning. I love
my work as a psychologist helping children and families lead better, safer and more
meaningful lives.
And yes, I also still enjoy writing those "objectionable" blog posts.
Note that nowhere in the article is there one single word about the the actual evaluation. No defending, no attacking, no disagreeing or even so much as mentioning it all! - No disputing of ts contents and facts that came up about mother, many from her own family; or the fact that the Chief Judge of Family Court saw fit to order all of the evaluation's recommendations. Just a not-too-slick shift of the focus to the profesional doing the evaluation.
"Bill Perry Removed from Family Court for Objectionable Blog Posts." I must confess to having been upset when I first saw it, only to be somewhat relieved to see that the source of the article was a Weekly SF throw-away paper.
This is not - should not - be about the evaluator - the gatherer of information, interpreting the information and handing it to the court to decide. I myself am the subject and object of all of this. Where do you see the child in this article? What do you learn about her or about her parents' parenting style? Do you know how hurtful and dangerous to her one of her parent was? Did any of you ask why the court concluded the same things as Dr. Bill Perry?
Some readers fail to see that Dr. Bill Perry the psychologist has nothing to do with Bill Perry the
writer. How I write, for whom I write and what I write is completely separate from how I practice as a psychologist. It is like saying that a judge who may be an avid hunter in his personal life should not be allowed to practice because he may pull out his rifle and start shooting in court. It is the equivalent of saying that the actor Robert De Niro should be thrown into prison because he plays ruthless killers in his movies.The reason for my removal from the San Francisco Court list of child custody evaluators had nothing to do with my professionalism, or even lack thereof, had that been the case. Notice that this weekly SF article never so much as mentions the actual evaluation! In fact nowhere is the quality of my work even slightly criticized. the primary issue being the quality of the evaluation, issue - the facts and conclusions not challenged. In fact my work is not even mentioned! The content, reason, rationality of this evaluation the verifyable facts having to do with the parenting of these parents and the life of one child, is only alluded to in passing.
My removal from the family court list had nothing to do with "Dr. Bill Perr's Objectionable Blog Posts." The judge rightfully ignored them and did not take it into consideration in making his orders. His orders were based in trust in a professional evaluation by a professional evaluator with an impeccable record. Period. Or does the reader take tha obviously non-objecte losing litigant's word over such an impartial decision by a highly esteemed judge, obviously unlike the litigant with no personal agenda? I believe you are smarter and more perceptive than that. The judge was a forced to remove me from family court list because of the negative media attention brought to his courtroom, and he correctly needed to end the circus before it went any further.
Do I regret any part of my evaluation? No. It is more than worth it so have saved a child from a life of living with a severely disturbed parent. That is all that matters. That makes any professional or personal consequences to me meaningless. There is absolutely nothing I would have done differently. I did the right thing at the right time, the judicial system validated it and I will always be both humble and proud of that.
And for that I sleep well at night. I like who I see when I shave in the morning. I love
my work as a psychologist helping children and families lead better, safer and more
meaningful lives.
And yes, I also still enjoy writing those "objectionable" blog posts.
