Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Ahmaud Abery Porter Moser LaMarcus Aldridge Elderly Americans Stephen Curry


He is punished by opinion

The visit lasted a quarter of an hour. Then N. G. collapsed. For the fourth Time, she was driven by an order of the family court for review in the practice of assessors. It came to the regulation of Visiting rights for their son with an Ex-Partner. But the conversation ended abruptly. Perch of the experts, N. G., what will stand in the test report was opened. You, an entrepreneur with his own company and stressful situations usual, was first perplexed, then she was loud, and broke out finally, in tears and ended the conversation.

That was three years ago. Just N. G. has filed a 15-page complaint against referees G. in the case of the professional ethics Commission of the Federation of Swiss psychologists (FSP). It is this newspaper. A lot of irritating Details are listed..

In one of the expert talks, he have raised you, suddenly your "muscular arms". On three of four dates expert G. had not been present in person and by his employees due to illness excuse – among other things, the court for the opening of the first part of the opinion. In the same period, he was been reported in various Golf tournaments as a participant.

To put expensive bills

As N. g.. after the collapse wanted to gather in the waiting room of the practice, a language of the experts, more violent on you He is not going to log this conversation here, he said. Nevertheless, he found her half an hour, they are in the waiting room to be replaced by rank: 190 Swiss francs the hour. As well as your call the next day to complain about G. it and request a new appointment. Against the inflated bills they successfully defended itself before the Supreme court. As expert G. had requested 640 francs for editing work. This was unjustified, the court found.

N. G. is not with your experience alone. Four complaints are in the professional ethics Commission of the FSP on reviewers G. pending, was initiated ex officio – why, the FSP does not provide any information. The allegations are the same. It's shoddy case management, lack of communication and Abusive to clients, as well as distorted and false statements of facts. Repeated the accusations of false invoicing, two Court decisions, which confirm the falls.

So as the Items on reviewers G. s bills long phone conversations with members of the Authorities on several occasions. The content of the phone calls is not a secret to check. In particular, reviewer G. to create his opinion, highly negligent. You also do not suffice in the eyes of different experts.

For some Sufferers, the meeting is already years. However, the experiences with reviewers G. can't you take today.

In the Wake of right to assessee to argue different expert opinion of G., all the Judgments with devastating: The investigated reports were all science and seriousness miss. But above all, the four Complainants and the other Affected claim independently of each other, that G. revenge-create report: Lose it with him, because you outer approximately a criticism of him, will be punished by opinion.

expert G. work in a profession field that was circulated in the past few years. With the introduction of the Kesb , the social authorities have been professionalized. In addition, increased custody disputes of separated parents couples, so the demand for expert opinion grew, as numerous professional to confirm people from Kesb and the courts. However, the Kesb usually preferred cantonal Offices are chronically overloaded. So you resorted to private providers.

The Kesb Bern, for example, has last year's 96 opinion in child protection procedures in the order given, 55 of which to private experts and of these, 17 to reviewers G.

In the industry

This newspaper has for the present Research with the four Complainants, spoken, and four other Affected found, the reviewers G. Similar have experienced. For some Sufferers, the meeting is already years, the care situations have been resolved by now, or the children are grown. However, the experiences with reviewers G. you can't take today: "My confidence in the rule of law was shaken", says one of the victims, a green member of the Parliament.

The irritation on reviewers G. through his whole career. His practice he founded almost 20 years ago – supposedly on the advice of his doctor father. Has writing a PhD thesis G. but it was only a few years later. Conversations with family law and children's attorneys, as well as with members of the Union of the Swiss society of legal psychology (SGRP) have shown that the personnel G. in psychologist circles, and the quality of his work is controversial. G. not be integrated in the scientific operation, to care about not receiving the training. Instead, he offered a well-endowed training for members of Authorities.

stakeholders have in the selection of the expert to have a say, but most of the time a white is hardly the scope of an expert opinion and, therefore, the choice of the expert. A technical evaluation is held once in the report, it can be substantively challenged. The Swiss society of legal psychology is particularly keen to improve the Expert system in Switzerland. Therefore, it maintains a list of certified appraisers that must meet a high requirement profile. Of this list G. was removed in the year 2007. On the SGRP Website, the following reasons for such a step are: change in occupation, disease or death, criminal conviction, denial of participation in the quality control circles. Orders he gets still from the whole of Switzerland.

entrepreneur G. F. made money greedy and heartless

bad experiences with G. In the year 2012, he complained of criminal and civil proceedings against one of its opinions, this was in the context of a custody dispute to F. s daughter emerged. Although he had made the expert on alcoholism and violence on the part of the mother's attention, and evidence taught, among other things, an image with a hematoma the Size of a tennis ball on the cheek of the child, is the have been never clarified. The picture is of this newspaper.

G. F. says about g.: "You had to be a specialist to recognize that the mother drank: typical Shiver's integrity, have been, etc., But earn with this succinct statement, would be for no money." 24 hours after the first conversation with the reviewer to doubt the integrity of the entrepreneur. He ordered the expert opinion. Nonetheless, G. is the author of the document in record time and invoice. In contrast, the entrepreneurs fought back, he showed the appraiser for fraud. A criminal proceeding was not taken, is difficult to prove the exact time of the experts, the opinion I posted. The civil action for a refund of the excessive fee but the trader won fully. He says: "in My subjective opinion, Dr. G. money is greedy and doesn't care about the Welfare of his patients."

"Superior quality"

In a conversation is a peer reviewer G. restrained. How many opinions are developed his practice per year, he does not want to reveal. He wanted to give the impression, to operate a expert-machinery, he says. To the allegation of negligence G. replied: "All the opinions of the relevant allegations will be taken on our part very seriously, investigated, and in our opinion taken into account. Our reports meet all the Standards, and their quality is above average."

returns the pending complaints at the ethics Commission of the FSP that only a small group of his work is unhappy. His bills were created, all properly, "otherwise no authority would work with us". It is striking, however, that the Kesb has ordered in three of the four complaint cases received by the FSP, the non-implemented recommendations from reviewers G., but new opinion. This is extremely almost never wants to and needs good reasons – about the Kesb but no information.

For N. G. the meeting with reviewers G. back three years. The experiences with him but left a scar that will not let you come to rest. Until today.

(editing Tamedia)

Created: 01.04.2019, 22:31 PM

Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.