Chapter 21 - FENELLA’S PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
We did not receive her private therapy details.
Good.
But sentencing/trial competency-related reports disclosed limited relevant findings through proper process.
No psychosis.
No dementia.
No inability to understand right from wrong.
No cognitive impairment.
She was not detached from reality.
She had rigid beliefs about obedience, family hierarchy and deserved authority.
That was not a legal insanity defense.
Then childhood history entered only because Fenella raised it herself.
Her father had withheld meals as punishment.
Locked children in a cellar for hours.
Her mother called it discipline.
Fenella said:
“I hated him.”
Then later:
“I also understood why he did it.”
There.
Repetition.
Not inevitability.
Auberon heard and went pale.
He had never known about the cellar.
That history explained her punishment logic.
It did not excuse recreating it.
Then one evaluator wrote:
Fenella tends to interpret disagreement as ingratitude and loss of relational control as moral wrongdoing.
That described every argument I had with her.
May you like
Still, diagnosis was not the story.
Choices were.
