![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lexie on January 14, 2001, at 17:21:58
Some of you that were not posting on the egroups site while the server was down do not know what was going on with my custody issue. I found out some things that I could not believe: Doctor Patient Confidentiality is not protected when the welfare of a child is involved and all records can be submitted in court. My husband was going to use my hospitalization (I was Bakers acted in 1999 for an overdose.) My doctors records as well as my therapists records and there was nothing I could do to stop it. I was told by 2 doctors that they had never seen anyone in my situation win custody of there child. I would not lose on my Doctor, Therapist records it would be the hospitalization that would get me. A judge would view that as someone who sits in a corner twittling there thumbs. I didn't won't to put my son through that. I found it very hard to believe that someone I had been married to for 17 years could do that to me. I was also told that Client Lawyer Confidentiality holds up no matter what! What kind of world do we live in. My doctor asked me last time I visited if I was suicidal, like I would ever say yes, what and lose my child all together, what am I stupid? Thanks for all the support. I think I will sleep tonight after all. Lexie
Posted by ksvt on January 14, 2001, at 19:32:54
In reply to Re: Out of the loop, posted by Lexie on January 14, 2001, at 17:21:58
>Lexie - I think you're doing the right thing under the circumstances. It's tough about the Dr-Patient confidentiality exception in your state. In my state,I don't believe the welfare of the child in a divorce custody case is grounds for lifting the confidentiality protections. If it's really an issue, the court can order a psychological evaluation. (maybe this is where tdaneen's husband is headed) Dr. records can be used in custody cases involving the state - like with termination of parental rights cases. I think everyone should understand that rules about the use and production of evidence vary substantially from state to state. Most states probably have some sort of statute which grants to a patient confidentiality rights, but most states also carve out exceptions, so the right is not as inviolate as you think. My therapist gave me, as she has all of her patients, a general written statement which made this clear. Lexie, did your attorney back up what your doctor was telling you - about him having to testify or relinquish records? ksvt
Some of you that were not posting on the egroups site while the server was down do not know what was going on with my custody issue. I found out some things that I could not believe: Doctor Patient Confidentiality is not protected when the welfare of a child is involved and all records can be submitted in court. My husband was going to use my hospitalization (I was Bakers acted in 1999 for an overdose.) My doctors records as well as my therapists records and there was nothing I could do to stop it. I was told by 2 doctors that they had never seen anyone in my situation win custody of there child. I would not lose on my Doctor, Therapist records it would be the hospitalization that would get me. A judge would view that as someone who sits in a corner twittling there thumbs. I didn't won't to put my son through that. I found it very hard to believe that someone I had been married to for 17 years could do that to me. I was also told that Client Lawyer Confidentiality holds up no matter what! What kind of world do we live in. My doctor asked me last time I visited if I was suicidal, like I would ever say yes, what and lose my child all together, what am I stupid? Thanks for all the support. I think I will sleep tonight after all. Lexie
Posted by Gracie2 on January 17, 2001, at 11:58:32
In reply to Re: Out of the loop » Lexie, posted by ksvt on January 14, 2001, at 19:32:54
Lexie-
I'm so sorry about your situation, I know you must be in a great deal of pain. However, I do believe it is best for the court - meaning the ruling judge - to have access to your medical records. There is no other way to determine whether you simply suffer from depression or whether you are a violent schizophrenic; some parents are just too ill to properly care for their children. As this does not apply to you, I think your husband and not the courts are at fault here. Shame on him.
-Gracie
Posted by Lexie on January 17, 2001, at 18:01:11
In reply to Re: Out of the loop, posted by Gracie2 on January 17, 2001, at 11:58:32
>
> Lexie-
> I'm so sorry about your situation, I know you must be in a great deal of pain. However, I do believe it is best for the court - meaning the ruling judge - to have access to your medical records. There is no other way to determine whether you simply suffer from depression or whether you are a violent schizophrenic; some parents are just too ill to properly care for their children. As this does not apply to you, I think your husband and not the courts are at fault here. Shame on him.
> -Gracie
Posted by Lexie on January 19, 2001, at 20:46:00
In reply to Gracie: I do Agree , Good Point :) (np), posted by Lexie on January 17, 2001, at 18:01:11
After reading the privacy information on this site I realized for the first time that if ordered by a court Dr. Bob would have to turn over any records and identifying information posted. I guess another nail in my coffin. Lexie
Posted by ksvt on January 22, 2001, at 7:34:36
In reply to Psycho-Babble Records, posted by Lexie on January 19, 2001, at 20:46:00
> After reading the privacy information on this site I realized for the first time that if ordered by a court Dr. Bob would have to turn over any records and identifying information posted. I guess another nail in my coffin. Lexie
I don't think anyone ought to feel that what they post on this site is secure, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you suggest either. The information you gave your pdoc was perhaps practically speaking revealable because he could be called as a witness by your husband. I guess, under the laws of the state in which you live, you would not be able to assert a privilege against his revealing his records because the health and well being of your child was at issue. This would not necessarily be the result in every state. Unless you live in Illinois, I don't think a judge in your state could compel Dr. Bob to produce himself for testimony or to produce his records. State courts just don't have that kind of far reaching powers. Federal courts are a different kettle of fish altogether which is why Ken Starr was able to find out what books Monica Lewinsky was buying from Borders or Barnes and Noble. A word of caution - you (not Dr. Bob) could maybe be ordered to produce transcripts of what you posted here and for practical purposes of course, everything is archived and pretty well available anyway. For what it's worth, from my vantage, your postings revealed someone who cared deeply about her child and was willing to place the needs of her child above her own needs and her understandable desire to lash out at her husband. I don't think you should be at all ashamed of the things you posted. ksvt
Posted by name on January 22, 2001, at 16:28:22
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble Records » Lexie, posted by ksvt on January 22, 2001, at 7:34:36
>Unless you live in Illinois, I don't think a judge in your state could compel Dr. Bob to produce himself for testimony or to produce his records. State courts just don't have that kind of far reaching powers.
In both civil and criminal proceedings, state courts routinely subpoena records and individuals located in other states. Practical limitations would be the cost of paying the out-of-state witness' expenses, the likelihood that the witness will be a hostile witness and the difficulty of proving who made the posts. But if state courts did not enjoy mutual faith and trust, divorcing partners or other civil litigants could simply hide their assets across a state line.
>A word of caution - you (not Dr. Bob) could maybe be ordered to produce transcripts of what you posted here and for practical purposes of course, everything is archived and pretty well available anyway.
It is more likely that the party would be called to testify and then confronted with transcripts of their posts. Fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination do not extend to civil processes, but witnesses often suffer unusual memory impairments in such situations. Pres. Reagan would not or could not recall certain details when he was called to testify to Congress. Pres. Clinton was roundly criticised for his memory problems, though they seemed less important to the nation's interest than were Reagan's.
Posted by Lexie on January 22, 2001, at 20:09:16
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble Records, posted by name on January 22, 2001, at 16:28:22
I guess all along I have been missing the point. My son loves me and accepts me for who I am. I am just taking my anger out on a system that is doing the best they can to protect the innocent from harm. I need to just put all this anger and hurt behind me. I AM getting better. Being angry is just destructive. For the first time in so long I am enjoying life and I plan on making my son the most important part of that equation. I guess a lot of this whinning I have been doing is just misplaced anger. Thank you all for listening. It's nice to have friends around to vent whether I am right or wrong. Lexie
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.