BPDFamily.com

We are researching some possible alternatives to my SS´s current (catastrophic) T.
One of the possible T´s we talked to said that their office will not go to court and they will not accept the children if we do not sign a waiver. We have some other options.
But I am wondering what are pro`s and con`s of that?

My son had a therapist specifically for court, because that was my specific reason for obtaining the therapist.

But then his second one wouldn't testify in court. (Perhaps it's common practice for some who don't want to mess with that part of therapy - just want to focus on the client)

What specifically do you want the therapist for? Is it for court purposes?

We had no intentions at first of using the kids T in court. Our main focus was to just get help for the boys.

But now the catastrophic T that BPDxw found and withheld from DH for 3 months until she could be sure that the T is completely on her side and then she had this T write a letter to our lawyers pointing out how fragile the children are and that my DH nor I know how to deal with the children (mind you, the T never talked to us, so all of the horrible things she says about us are built on BPDxw reportings to her).

So, if we now get a T for the kids that will not report in court then the only official document available to the court (as far as my legal knowledge goes) is this letter from the catastrophic T.

That is why I am not sure wether we should consider a T that will not report to the court.

My son's first therapist had us sign a waiver. It was the right move because kids with a BPD parent tend to have trust issues, and the T wanted to create a genuinely therapeutic relationship, not looking over her shoulder about court this and court that. Anecdotally, it seems like good Ts are the ones who won't testify. There is a whole industry built around "therapeutic jurisprudence," including forensic child psychologist who make a lot of money testifying. I can feel my blood pressure rising just typing that sentence, so I'll just leave it at that 

Son's T, however, did have the freedom to talk to the parenting coordinator in our case (also a child psychologist). So bit of a loophole there.

I also gave son's T permission to talk to my T, who could testify if necessary. Another loophole.

Does your L recommend getting a testifying T involved? If not, perhaps your L could make the case that not talking to both parents is a curious, potentially unethical way to do things.

It seems what you are looking for is a third party to shine light on the behaviors that court needs to pay attention to. Are there other therapeutic third party professionals that your state uses? Like co-parenting counselor, or parenting coordinator?