You did bring up some helpful ideas.

The heart of the matter is having to admit you are in denial about something that has not become a legal fact.

If you get a dui, beat up your wife and get convicted of it then it is a legal fact, and it makes sense that you would have to admit you are in denial.

My question is about a case where there is no legal finding by the court that has to be admitted to. Only the "medical?" finding by a sheriffs dept phychologist.

So why should she have to agree with the psychologist when the judge has agreed that the court does not have to believe the allegations.