[ad_1]
Daniel Gutschner kept interrupting his mother. As soon as the conversation started, the expert anticipated his conclusion: “I can tell you one thing, we will request the opening of access rights.” The businesswoman from the canton of Aargau replied that in this case she could leave the practice again if she knew at the beginning of the conversation what she would write at the end. Gutschner’s tone of voice had grown increasingly spiteful, recalls the mother. She burst into tears and went to the anteroom, where she pestered Gutschner with more questions. The incident occurred four and a half years ago. The expert has a practice in Bern and Austria.
The Professional Ethics Commission (BEK) of the Swiss Federation of Psychologists (FSP) has sentenced Gutschner to a fine of 3,000 francs, for his behavior towards his mother and for violating his duty of care. Apparently, the psychologist failed to convey the goal of the review process: to achieve consensus among the parents. The mother was concerned, for example, because the father gave his son food supplements of dubious origin in order to do something about alleged physical underdevelopment. According to the BEK, Gutschner took very little account of these concerns. Upon request, Gutschner said he was not allowed to provide any information on individual cases due to an obligation to maintain confidentiality. “Generally speaking, I can say that I treat all clients with the necessary respect and benevolence.”
The worst thing for the mother is that the authorities followed Gutschner’s recommendation and granted the father extended visitation rights. The grueling and expensive procedure with the failed approach to justice haunts her to this day, and concerns about her son persist.
These are highly controversial cases
The canton mother of Aargau is not the only person to complain about Gutschner. In recent weeks, the BEK has made decisions on six complaints. These are always very controversial cases where parents could not agree on who can take care of the children and how much. The BEK found various violations of the professional code four times. The bottom line is that Gutschner has to pay a fine of 12,000 Swiss francs. The BEK stopped the process twice because the expert left the FSP at the end of the year. The allegations of the complainants are similar. Two of them are:
- Grumpy tone with customers
- Premature recommendation of third-party placements
According to current teaching, foreign placements are traumatic for children. These measures are only foreseen in case of a serious risk to the well-being of the child, for example, through physical or psychological abuse or sexual abuse. It is true that experts formally only make recommendations. In practice, however, these are very important, as authorities often guide themselves in their assessments.
Home admission as “shock therapy”
This was revealed in the case of Jan (name changed). During the years that he lived with his mother, he refused visits from his unaccompanied father. One Monday morning, three policemen picked him up from school and put the ten-year-old boy in a house in April 2016. Gutschner discovered that Jan’s mother had taken Jan away from his father and, according to the “Tages-Anzeiger “He recommended a home admission as a kind of” shock therapy. ” Jan spent more than a year in the house, after which he lived with his father for a long time. “The appraiser and the judge are criminals,” Jan noted in his notes. He even expressed suicidal thoughts. After a weekend visit in March of last year, Jan never returned to her father and stayed with her mother. Also due to a report from Gutschner, Jan experienced an emotionally charged odyssey with a stay at home, only to be reunited with her mother. He’s doing so much better again, he’s life affirming, motivated, school results are top-notch. The BEK stopped the mother’s complaint because Gutschner was no longer a member of the FSP at the end of the year.
Gutschner doesn’t always end his “shock therapy.” Kesb Basel wanted to temporarily accommodate a nine-year-old girl in a neutral place to establish a relationship with the girl’s father. The appeals court halted the project, which was based on a recommendation from Gutschner. As the ‘Basler Zeitung’ reports, the BEK Gutschner complained of a breach of the duty of care in this case. According to the ruling, Gutschner accepted a violation of the best interests of the child. There is no serious risk assessment between the existing situation under the mother’s care and an external location in order to establish a stable practice of visitation rights.
In another case, the BEK also found a breach of the duty of care. Gutschner laid out very little clearly and justified why a child welfare risk could not be counteracted with a milder measure than third party placement. Responsible Kesb eventually refrains from separating the five-year-old from her mother so that she can develop a better relationship with her father.
“Claim not proven far from being a correct assessment”
Meanwhile, a statement made by a forensic psychologist on behalf of a mother in Austria is not very flattering. In a custody dispute, Gutschner failed to determine the harmful consequences of the forced separation of the daughter and mother. He evaluated the daughter’s will as irrelevant. Gutschner recommended, again as “shock therapy,” the placement of a third party because that was less serious than the constant conflicts between parents. For the specialist, it is an “unproven statement far from a correct psychological evaluation”. However, the shock set in: in April, several police officers forcibly separated the daughter from the mother and handed the 10-year-old girl over to the father because there was no free space in a house.
Now it is in the nature of things that inferior parents sometimes blame the counselor for their personal misfortune. The FSP criticizes this as a “non-constructive strategy”: to smear the experts and their clients. Our newspaper spoke with numerous child advocates, psychologists, and other family law experts. A person who has already placed orders with Gutschner attests that he often offers solutions to difficult situations. However, most experts confirm the bad reputation of the expert. However, his job was in high demand. The Aargau district courts alone ordered 31 expert opinions in divorce and child protection proceedings between 2014 and May 2019. The authorities now appear to be increasingly reluctant to commission their institute.
There is a lack of reviewers
The Gutschner case reveals a structural problem: there are very few experts. Furthermore, there are no binding criteria for the preparation of reports in the child and adult protection law. In the winter session, however, the National Council passed a motion asking for precisely this. Psychologists have also reacted. They recently formulated guidelines for psychological reports and quality indicators in several specialized journals.
