Among the inner circle of the Loudoun County legal realm, especially within the governmental positions there is an unspoken code that you tolerate incompetence. Essentially Sandra Glenney and Judge Horne worked for the same boss, the government of Virginia. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayers.
In theory Judge Horne should be unbiased and autonomous but he was anything other than. The question is, was he coward or incompetent. Let’s take a look at what happened when Sandra Glenney suggested that Dr. Joyanna Silberg become involved an alleged sexual abuse case.
April 29, 2012: Portraits of Joyanna Silberg for her book, “The Child Survivor.”
Dr. Silberg comes with a history as the article at Grey Faction describes.
https://greyfaction.org/resources/proponents/silberg-joyanna/. Most notably is her testimony in some cases, what is most notable is the some Judges had courage and did not blatantly accept anything that came across their bench.
LS v CT (Nos. 24636, 24840), 2008
Dr. Silberg evaluated a four-year-old child the day before the trial using a standardized forensic interview. Based on this alone, she testified “with the highest level possible for confidence” that the child was sexually abused with “with all the symptoms and associated behavioral patterns.”
KM v SMM (No. A-0135-09T4), 2011
Dr. Silberg’s testimony was barred on the grounds that she failed to follow several guidelines and mandated procedures adopted by her own profession.
“The court finds Dr. Silberg’s conduct in doing an “urgency” interview was a deliberate attempt in haste to present her “opinion” to the court which had no scientific basis and clearly was not founded on “totality of the circumstances” known to or should have been known to Dr. Silberg as mandated by the professional guidelines and requisite findings made by the New Jersey courts in Michaels. [See Michaels, supra, 136 N.J. at 306 (“The question of whether the interviews of the child victims of alleged sexual abuse were unduly suggestive and coercive requires a highly nuanced inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding those interviews.”).] Dr. Silberg by her interview tested no plausible “rival” hypothesis under the “totality of circumstances” in this case.”
in the above examples, the Judges had courage and dis-allowed testimony. It is problematic that Sandra Glenney would even offer up a therapist like this, it is even more concerning that Judge Horne would not even question it. Is he intellectually lazy or was he a go with a flow kind of judge and didn’t want to rock the boat.
