Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Res Ipsa]

Was the psychologist trained in dealing with victims of sexual abuse? Her behaviour indicates to me that she was not.

The daughter's report to her father was more detailed than to the psychologist. That factor confirms research that children will be more open with people they trust and know. That works in Ron's favour.

This article makes for an interesting read.
http://www.secasa.com.au/pages/is-the-c ... the-truth/

Mary, the answer is in the second paragraph of her report. Did you read it?

How do you know that the fact that Ron gives a more detailed account than the psychologist does isn't due to Ron subjecting the daughter to repeated and leading questioning? All you have is his story about what she actually said.

[_Chap]

You stated a judgment about everyone in the state of Utah -- "would almost certainly make it next to impossible to get credence from the police or anybody else in Utah, including an LDS therapist, for the suggestion that a GA had molested a child."

Your criticism is reasonable on the 'anybody else' point.

My phrasing was too loose, since 'anybody else' could include several of the posters on this board most critical of the CoJCoLDS. I should still be very surprised to find that the police or any other Utah state authority showed much inclination to get into investigating a GA for alleged sexual abuse, unless he was caught doing it under circumstances that left no wiggle room at all. I'd also expect any professional with reason to be concerned to maintain their good standing with the church to feel about the same way too.

[_Chap]

... I am not a psychologist. ...

This is high-functioning autism in an adult. ...

Go ahead, flame away...

Who's flaming? I repeat the point that any qualified medical professional would refrain from making the kind of very positive (and lengthily expressed) statements you have made about an individual's mental disorders on the basis of reading their internet posts.

So maybe someone who is not a medical professional might feel they needed to be even more restrained in their expressions of opinion? You don't seem to think so, however.

[_Res Ipsa]

Rosebud, I've got no counterargument because I don't have the knowledge or experience in the area to make any kind of judgments. I do have a couple of questions. I do know some folks with high functioning autism, and lots of what you say describes them. One thing I haven't noticed in dealing with them is any sort of manipulation. It doesn't seem to be within their makeup. Ron seems to me to be fairly manipulative. Do you think it likely that what I'm seeing as manipulative conduct (e.g., sabotaging the children's relationship with their mother) is actually due to not understanding social boundaries and appropriate social conduct?

[_kairos]

Yet the statement that an allegation was "unsubstantiated" is widely taken as suggesting that the investigating authority have reason for thinking that the allegation is false or imaginary.

When the daughter said that the authorities hadn't believed her, she explained that it wasn't that they didn't believe her -- that it only meant they didn't consider what happened to be sexual abuse.

Excuse me? Apart from the child's statement - basically that her grandfather not infrequently took her on his lap and had erections - how did they have any grounds at all for judging "what happened"? And would that not be 'sexual abuse" in Utah?[/quote]

Only in Utah would something like this not be considered sexual abuse, especially when it's by a GA. I had a LDS Sunday School teacher growing up in the morg who taught that incest is biblical as LDS doctrine. The church may not make it an official stance, but unofficially it's as legitimate as polygamy is.

A little incest here, a little there. When it's higher up the ladder just more reason to turn a blind eye instead of dealing with it as the pedophilia and child molestation that it is.[/quote]

So far I have concluded : "It is grandpa mickelson in the rocking chair with his Johnson"

[_Res Ipsa]

You stated a judgment about everyone in the state of Utah -- "would almost certainly make it next to impossible to get credence from the police or anybody else in Utah, including an LDS therapist, for the suggestion that a GA had molested a child."

Your criticism is reasonable on the 'anybody else' point.

My phrasing was too loose, since 'anybody else' could include several of the posters on this board most critical of the CoJCoLDS. I should still be very surprised to find that the police or any other Utah state authority showed much inclination to get into investigating a GA for alleged sexual abuse, unless he was caught doing it under circumstances that left no wiggle room at all. I'd also expect any professional with reason to be concerned to maintain their good standing with the church to feel about the same way too.

Thanks, Chap. Going by the LDS records, I think something like 60% of Utahns are Mormons of record. And if I recall correctly, about 40% identify as active. That means there are a whole lot of people who aren't LDS and whose attitudes toward LDS folks and their leaders are a question mark.

My experience is that not all LDS members are mindless robots who would do anything to protect the reputation of a GA. I would expect any licensed therapist, regardless of religious affiliation, to be concerned about maintaining their good standing with the professional licensing board. I would also expect one that deals with victims of child abuse, as was the case here, that they would understand who their client is (the child) and that they act for the client's benefit. I read her report, and it looks to me like that's what the therapist did. It wasn't her job to investigate and/or prosecute a criminal case. It was her job to make a referral to the folks that do. It was her job to evaluate the situation and recommend to the parents and the court how to look out for the interests of the children.

I think it would be a smart thing to do to look out for religious bias in this case. But I don't think it would be smart to presume that all the particular characters in this story exhibit that bias. I've read the therapist's report, and I don't see it. I'm not sure I'd be able to tell from the report what religion the author was.

The police investigation may be an entirely different matter. I don't know what the daughter told the investigators, how the interview was conducted, who else the investigators talked to, etc. And I won't know unless I get to read the reports.

[_Rosebud]

Rosebud, I've got no counterargument because I don't have the knowledge or experience in the area to make any kind of judgments. I do have a couple of questions. I do know some folks with high functioning autism, and lots of what you say describes them. One thing I haven't noticed in dealing with them is any sort of manipulation. It doesn't seem to be within their makeup. Ron seems to me to be fairly manipulative. Do you think it likely that what I'm seeing as manipulative conduct (e.g., sabotaging the children's relationship with their mother) is actually due to not understanding social boundaries and appropriate social conduct?

I was just about to edit my previous post to clarify that my use of the word "your" in my ending was referring to the board in general, not you and I Have a Question. I'll go back and edit as soon as I'm done with this post for future readers.

The family members of adults with high-functioning autism report a lot of manipulation. My opinion, although there is no research, is that as intelligence increases and as autistic traits increase, or that as other factors increase (the addition of NPD, perhaps) the manipulation increases. But who knows......

One major problem is that adults with high-functioning autism will commonly report that they're victims of manipulation. From their perspective, their family members are often working behind their backs to achieve unjust goals. From the perspective of the typically developing family members, the individual with autism is being unreasonable and stubborn and is making all sorts of assertions that don't align with the social evidence and the typically developing family members, realizing there is little chance of the person with autism coming to a recognition of what is happening socially, will eventually just continue forward with whatever personal objective they had.The person with HFA, still confused about what is going on, consequently feels controlled and used and is sure he or she is being victimized. At that point, the person with HFA, if she/he is smart enoug justify lying..... feeling sure he/she is being lied to because he/she doesn't understand the other side's perspective. The lies get more and more out of hand over time.

Of course there is not much data on this. This is based on multiple anecdotes from families like the Karrens (meaning the families dealing with high-conflict divorces, etc.). So it could be that there is something additional going on in these cases that isn't going on in all cases of HFA. Another factor like the addition of NPD. Unknown, however.

[_Rosebud]

... I am not a psychologist. ...

This is high-functioning autism in an adult. ...

Go ahead, flame away...

Who's flaming? I repeat the point that any qualified medical professional would refrain from making the kind of very positive (and lengthily expressed) statements you have made about an individual's mental disorders on the basis of reading their internet posts.

So maybe someone who is not a medical professional might feel they needed to be even more restrained in their expressions of opinion? You don't seem to think so, however.

Nope. I think not being a qualified medical professional means I can say whatever the hell I want on a message board just like everybody else. It's an advantage. Besides, this is a cutting-edge field. Where are the qualified medical professionals for adults with high-functioning autism? The world needs a lot more of them because there are a lot of adults walking around with this without a diagnosis. There are a lot of families in desperate need of help. It's one thing when a child is coping with autism; it's another ball of wax when the family member is an adult. There's a genetic component as well. The same families may have adults and children on the autism spectrum.

eDit: annoying typo

[_Chap]

I think not being a qualified medical professional means I can say whatever the hell I want on a message board just like everybody else. It's an advantage.

Why so you can.

But given your lack of qualifications to make the judgements you so confidently express (and, as I have said, you do so much more confidently than any professional would under the circumstances), I take it that you won't be too upset if not a lot of people take what you say very seriously.

[_Mary]

RI, the article linked is about whether children lie about being abused. Short answer. They don't.

As for the psychologist, she was an expert witness in battered woman's syndrome. ( Bias there perhaps). And yes. I read her impressive list of qualifications. I also found a Deseret News article on the couple. We can all demonise people.
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/585120 ... tml?pg=all