Every psychological expertise claims to be objective. But objectivity is not automatic — it depends on how data is collected, which methods are chosen, and how results are interpreted. In my case, the outcome was in my favor. Yet the methods used — and the way they were applied — left essential blind spots.
Interviews
What should happen: Interviews with parents and children should be balanced, consistent, and framed in neutral language.
What happened: The interviews were not equally weighted. Some questions invited detailed narrative from one side, while the other side was limited to short, factual responses. The children’s voices were noted, but not explored with the depth required to reflect their perspective fully. The result was a fragmented picture, where some accounts carried more weight than others.
Observation of Parent–Child Interaction
What should happen: Observations are meant to provide insight into natural parent–child dynamics.
What happened: The settings were highly artificial — restricted in time, controlled in space, and conducted under the constant eye of the expert. This environment inevitably influenced behavior. What was presented as “neutral observation” was, in reality, a staged encounter. Instead of showing how children and parents interact in daily life, it showed how they behaved in a test-like setting.
Psychological Testing
What should happen: Psychological tests should be standardized, reliable, and relevant to the core question of parenting capacity. They must measure the individual, not just the performance within a test situation.
What happened: In practice, the test became about the test itself, not about the person. My youngest daughter, for example, did not feel well performing in front of the psychologist. Her behavior changed in that unfamiliar setting — a natural reaction for a child under pressure. This crucial context went unnoticed. Instead of recognizing that her behavior reflected discomfort with the situation, the psychologist interpreted it as part of her personality.
By treating performance as reality, the expertise risked misrepresenting the very people it was supposed to understand.
Why Neutrality Matters
Neutrality in methodology is not a luxury — it is the foundation of trust in a psychological expertise.
In my case, the conclusions supported me. But the process relied on selective tools, artificial settings, and incomplete exploration. Without methodological balance, even a favorable outcome raises doubts. Did the process truly serve the children’s best interests — or merely the appearance of thoroughness?
Next in the series: Institutional Weight and Missing Criticism – Why No One Challenges the Expert.
