No question - Malcolm Thompson, MA LPA LCADC ACS NCC SAC, Princeton Addiction Counselling Services, LLC. Google him. Affordable, reachable, and very much a "real person" who'll speak with you.
I'm short on time, so just throwing in a snippet from a recent case where he was very helpful. Court adopted his recommendations and found him credible.
-------------------------------------------
- Dave
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------
1. I am the plaintiff in the above-captioned matter and make this certification in reference to the Order to Show Cause filed by defendant. I am personally familiar with all the facts alleged herein.
2. I cannot say that I have never smoked pot. Susan and I smoked it occasionally during the marriage. I'm obviously in a difficult position here in that I want to be up front with the Court, yet I assume defendant will turn the certification over to the police.
3. I can say unequivocally that I have never operated a motor vehicle when impaired by marijuana. Both Susan and I smoked it enough to know how it affected us. Its intoxicating effects wear off in about an hour. Although I hardily have time to thoroughly research the issue, I am attaching print outs from credible websites that indicate that tests have shown that this is accurate (Exhibit A). The PI reports supplied demonstrate that I never drove anywhere close to within an hour of the minimal use that was recorded.
4. If the issue here were that I had drunk a small amount of alcohol, waited until the effects wore off, then drove Jon home, there would obviously be no hoopla. No emergency application claiming I needed to be in rehab. However, because defendant's allegations instead concern pot, it is being presented in the most dramatic fashion possible.
5. I am not trying to minimize the issues. I have taken every possible step that can be taken. I have contacted Malcolm Thompson of Princeton Counselling, who works with the Drug Court program and the IDRC (Exhibit B). I have taken a full panel drug test. They go back about 30 days and I may not pass. I will, however, pass a test given at the end of the week or on Monday, and am willing to be retested whenever the Court wants. I have asked Mr. Thompson to fax a copy of his evaluation report to the Court. I will absolutely comply with any recommendations made.
6. As was noted below, if defendant were truly concerned about plaintiff smoking marijuana, waiting until the effects wore off, and then driving, she would have immediately raised this issue rather than waiting for it to occur 5 times after she became aware of it, seeking to milk the situation for maximum litigation benefit. The first PI report on these issues was generated on February 15 (Da 34). Defendant waited several weeks before filing her emergent application on March 5 (Da 32).
7. Taking this situation with the utmost seriousness, plaintiff had an evaluation conducted by Malcolm Thompson, MA LPA LCADC ACS NCC SAC, an eminently qualified (Da 86) professional at Princeton Addiction Counselling Services, LLC. The resulting evaluation did not support the allegations in defendant's dramatic presentation, which were the result of strenuous advocacy. The evaluation is attached by defendant at Da 95-96. As plaintiff certified below:
4. If the issue here were that I had drunk a small amount of alcohol, waited until the effects wore off, then drove Jon home, there would obviously be no hoopla. No emergency application claiming I needed to be in rehab. However, because defendant's allegations instead concern pot, it is being presented in the most dramatic fashion possible . . . I am not trying to minimize the issues. I have taken every possible step that can be taken. I have contacted Malcolm Thompson of Princeton Counselling, who works with the Drug Court program and the IDRC. (Da 75).
8. Most importantly, the trial court absolutely made no decision as to any permanent effect on custody resulting from this situation. It ordered that plaintiff was to attend counselling for 6-8 weeks and supervision pending a further telephone conference.
9. Again, the proper course of action would have been to apply to this court to ensure that any decision as to custody as a result of the appeal be first reviewed by a trial court judge to take the current circumstances into account, not to apply to dismiss the appeal. There is absolutely no basis for this application.
Original Message:
Sent: 10-10-2013 16:29
From: C. Megan Oltman
Subject: Looking for Addictions Therapist/Counsellor who can testify
Does anyone have a recommendation for a psychologist or psychiatrist with an expertise in addictions, who could evaluate a client as to his recovery/sobriety, and testify to same? Preferably someone located in Middlesex or Mercer counties.
Thanks,
Megan
-------------------------------------------
C. Megan Oltman Esq.
Princeton NJ
(609)947-0784
-------------------------------------------