Can You Impeach Stanton E. Samenow?

If you are currently using Dr. Stanton E. Samenow PhD., then it is my opinion that you should stop. It is my opinion that you will put your self and your children in jeopardy if you continue to meet with him. Please contact me immediately to learn how to protect your self. There exists a multitude of parents, patients, and mental health professionals that may share the same opinion of Dr. Samenow and his methods. Do some research on what Virginia Supreme Court Judges Koontz and Hassell think of Samenow.

If you would like to learn how you might be able to impeach or discredit the reports, opinions, or expert testimony of Dr. Stanton E. Samenow then you should contact me.

My Ex hired Dr. Stanton Samenow as an expert witness at trial in an attempt to take my 8 year old child away from me. I won the case ‘Pro Se! The expert testimony and report by Dr. Samenow was rendered worthless to the case by my information and cross-examination. If you would like to find out how I impeached his credibility and his report before the Judge, then feel free to contact me. It is my opinion that you will be able to use the court record and my information to do the same in your case.

If you are using Samenow as an evaluator, expert witness, therapist, consultant, you should check with me first. I have information that may change your mind.

“It is my opinion that Samenow, Lane and Zuckerman are nothing more than skilled opportunists who need to be exposed and stopped. If you agree–if you were defrauded by either Stanton Samenow, Christopher Lane or William Zuckerman–please come on the 24th. Let’s talk to network members about our experiences.” …..Stanton Samenow, Chris Lane, William Zuckerman: Pro-violence, anti-woman, eraser phd evaluators unsafe for children in litigated abuse & custody cases.”

From the Blog: Mommy-Go-Bye-Bye: http://mommygobyebye-virginia.blogspot.com/

There is a grass roots movement coming together to Stop Samenow from being a “professional witness”.

You can contact me by leaving a comment and inputting an email address in the appropriate field.

Samenow Not Qualified

Samenow not qualified!

I believe the Virginia court mistakenly allowed the prosecution to designate as an “expert witness” a psychologist whose views are not grounded in science or medicine and who, by his own admission, is unqualified to diagnose mental retardation. The prosecution’s “expert,” Stanton Samenow, is a professional witness, not a helping professional.

While Dr. Samenow is, of course, free to believe as he wishes, his views are politics, not psychology. No court should permit him to use trial proceedings to pander to law-and-order jurors when he cannot support his claims using the methodology recognized in the field of intellectual disabilities.

If courts and juries are going to engage in life-and-death decision-making regarding who is and is not properly diagnosed with mental retardation, they should hear from experts who are qualified by training and experience to render opinions in this area. Dr. Samenow does not meet this standard.

Full text of article

Author: Robert Perske, Citizen Advocate and Author, 159 Hollow Tree Ridge Rd., Darien, CT 06820. E-mail: Rperske@aol.com

Va. Supreme Ct. Justices: Place no credence in Samenow!

Justice Hassell:

I simply place no credence whatsoever in Dr. Samenow's opinion…

I would hold that Dr. Samenow's opinion is incredulous as a matter of law...

I am perplexed that Dr. Samenow, who did not administer a complete IQ test to the defendant and admittedly asked the defendant questions based upon outdated tests...

Dr. Samenow admitted that some of the questions he administered to the defendant were based upon a test developed in 1939!

Dr. Samenow used this obsolete test even though he acknowledged that the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Ethical Standards 2.07 (1992) of the American Psychological Association, prohibits the use of obsolete tests and outdated test results.

Dr. Samenow, however, could not validly pine about the defendant's adaptive behavior because he had not interviewed anyone who had observed the defendant prior to his incarceration!

Dr. Samenow's methodology is flawed because when he improperly administered portions of certain tests, he failed to comply with the relevant instructions for those tests.

I place no credence in Dr. Samenow's opinion…

Suprem Court Justice Koontz:

I agree with the view expressed in detail in Justice Hassell’s dissent in this case.

Read the dissent starting on page 24 of the opinion.

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1000395.pdf