On Wednesday, before the Nicosia District Court, Kyriaki Ioannou, Head of the Mental Health Services, Kyriaki Ioannou, during her cross-examination by the defense attorney for the child’s father, Konstantinos Kazantzis.
Mr. Kazantzis suggested to the witness that the mother was dealing with mental health issues and that, as a result, her statements should not be taken “at face value.” Ms. Ioannou replied that the information about the situation at home did not come solely from the mother. “It was reported by the mother, the teachers, the school psychologist, the social workers, the parish priest—everyone who witnessed it,” she said.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Ms. Ioannou, who had worked with Stylianos’s mother as a social worker, explained that her role was not to diagnose the child, but to gather the necessary medical history and forward it to the psychologist. As she stated, at that time there was no written consent from the father to collect the child’s medical history, but she had been informed by the mother that his consent had been given.
When asked whether the agency’s involvement pertained to Stylianos’s evaluation, the witness stated that a child’s evaluation is intertwined with the family environment in which he lives and with the way in which the parents perceive and address his difficulties.
Mr. Kazantzis pointed out to the witness that during her direct examination she had stated that the purpose of her collaboration with the mother was to support her, and asked her whether the referral concerned Stylianos himself. Ms. Ioannou stated that this was a child living in a specific family environment and that his difficulties “most likely stemmed from his living situation,” adding that supporting parents was also part of the agency’s role.
When asked by the defense attorney whether the service supported every parent who approached it or only when there was a specific need, the witness replied that this depended on the nature of the problem. As she noted, in Stylianos’s case, the school psychologists, the teachers, the mother, and the social worker had reported that he was “a self-destructive child,” while, according to the referral, the incident had been deemed “extremely urgent.”
Mr. Kazantzis wondered how, given that the child had been characterized as self-destructive, the psychologist who examined him had not identified any psychological disorder. Ms. Ioannou replied that “a child who goes to a safe space does not exhibit self-destructive or dangerous behavior.”
The cross-examination then focused on the allegations of violence by the father and on what had been included in the witness’s report regarding the child. Mr. Kazantzis argued that her report contained no firsthand accounts of the father’s violence toward Stylianos, to which Ms. Ioannou replied, “Yes, none were found.”
Regarding reports that Stylianos had witnessed incidents of the father’s violence toward the mother, the witness stated that these were included in the case history she had documented following her meeting with the mother.
When asked whether she herself had ever seen the mother with bruises, she replied in the negative. As she explained, during her direct examination she stated that the mother had been seen with bruises by third parties, including the social worker, but not by herself. For this reason, she said, the relevant information was not included in her report as a personal observation.
Elsewhere, Mr. Kazantzis referred to an entry in the child’s case file, according to which the mother had described her relationship with the father as “very good,” next to which the witness had placed a question mark. Ms. Ioannou explained that the mother had initially described her husband as “very patient and caring toward his children,” while at another point she described him as “very short-tempered” and as someone who used profanity. As she said, she raised this question because she felt there was a contradiction between the two descriptions, something she intended to discuss with the social worker who would be seeing the child.
Regarding Stylianos’s presence on the farm, Ms. Ioannou stated that he performed auxiliary tasks, such as feeding the animals and cleaning the farm. When Mr. Kazantzis argued that these activities did not constitute work or the replacement of a worker, and that there was no mention of them in her report or notes, the witness replied “I respect that” in both instances.
Mr. Kazantzis also raised the issue of the mother’s mental health with the witness, stating that she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder several years later. Ms. Ioannou replied that she was not aware of that specific diagnosis. When asked whether the mother was experiencing mental health issues at the relevant time, the witness stated that she had depression but was functional. “I saw her as perfectly lucid, though with depressive feelings,” she said, adding that she had spoken with a psychologist and a psychiatrist and that “the young woman was not bipolar.”
During the witness’s cross-examination, the representative of the prosecution, Elena Konstantinou, asked her whether it was within her agency’s authority to remove Stylianos from his family, to which the witness replied in the negative.
The trial is scheduled to resume on October 15.
It should be noted that the case concerns the death of 14-year-old Stylianos Konstantinou, in September 2019, and examines whether there is liability both within the family and on the part of government agencies.
Source: CNA
