-Caveat Lector- California court won't allow lawsuit by parent against therapist in repressed memory case Copyright © 1999 Nando Media Copyright © 1999 Associated Press By BOB EGELKO SAN FRANCISCO (February 18, 1999 10:07 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - A parent falsely accused of molesting a child based on "repressed memories" elicited during therapy cannot sue the therapist, a California appeals court ruled. The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana ruled that a therapist must be free to act solely in the interests of the client and can be sued only by the client for negligent diagnosis or treatment. "A therapist should not be required to serve two masters," said Presiding Justice David Sills in the 3-0 ruling, issued Tuesday. Repressed memories have been controversial as evidence in a court trial. The theory that victims of childhood trauma can "forget" abuse for decades and later be cured of adult disorders by recovering their memories has lost much of its credibility among scientists, and might well be barred as evidence in California courts, the court said. The case that prompted Tuesday's ruling involved James Trear, who was sued in 1992 by his 47-year-old daughter, Kathleen Searles. Searles said her father had raped her during childhood, starting when she was 6 months old. She said she recalled the abuse in 1991 during therapy with Judith Sills, who is no relation to the judge. Trear maintained his innocence and sued Sills, saying she encouraged his daughter to sue him as an aid in her recovery. Sills "stepped over that line when she adopted the philosophy of repressed memory as being a valid malady without any scientific, analytical, academic justification for it," said Trear's lawyer, Tom M. Allen. Trear settled the suit by paying $7,500, but denies ever molesting his daughter and can prove he was overseas during part of the time covered by her suit, Allen said. Searles has not recanted. Allen argued that a therapist whose diagnosis lacks any scientific support, and who encourages a client to accuse an innocent third person of a crime, should not be immune from damages. But the court said a therapist is entitled to examine the possibility of past sexual abuse and should not be inhibited by the possibility of a suit by the alleged abuser. "The therapist risks utter professional failure in his or her duty to the patient if possible childhood sexual abuse is ignored," Sills said. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
