The court issued an amended endorsement concerning the appointment of a psychologist for a family assessment under section 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.
Initially, the parties could not agree on an assessor, leading to submissions on proposed candidates.
One party alleged parental alienation and proposed a specific psychologist, while the other party alleged domestic violence and proposed a different psychologist, raising concerns about the first psychologist's potential bias due to their involvement with parental alienation concepts.
The original decision was based on information later found to be untrue.
Subsequently, the parties reached an agreement on an alternative assessor, rendering the court's prior determination on the initial choice moot.
The endorsement was amended to reflect this development and remove references to the now-moot appointment.
