Well actually its not that hard to see through it. Not being lawyers here we may take for granted the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty. The circumstances of the family court is such that the judge agrees that no one has a reason to believe the charges.
So how is it that a sheriffs dept psychologist can decide what to believe and then say the "patient" has to agree with him.
Isn't the bigger question, and the reason I am writing here instead of a legal forum relates to the concept of patient and therapist. Is there any form of accepted therapy where the therapist decides what goals the patient should have without consulting the patient?