Archive for the ‘RFI No. 05-04’ Category

RFI No. 05-04 MIDDAUGH

Saturday, February 7th, 2009

Why does the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners post some of its punishment and abuses on the open Internet for all to see on their Past Board Actions WebPages but failed to post the discipline given Psychologist Anne Middaugh?

Is this disparate treatment based upon gender?

Was this done to “protect” the State and the Arizona Department of Corrections?

Why was it not listed?

Why were neither of Psychologist II Anne Middaugh’s superiors consequated for their violation of the Rules & Regulations that require them to report such violations?

Why were neither Psychologist Susanne Arnold nor Psychologist Pamela C. McCauley consequated for their failure to report?  For dereliction of duty?

RFI No. 05-04 MIDDAUGH Outcome? ADOC’s Tradition of Falsehood

Friday, February 6th, 2009

 

 

While my attorney said he represented Dr. Anne Middaugh, the outcome of RFI No. 05-04 is difficult to determine.  In part because Dr. Middaugh is no longer listed as holding an Arizona psychologist license and there is no reference on the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiner’s WebPages on Past Board Actions to any action taken against this psychologist.  And in part because it appeared from his report that Dr. Middaugh was merely given a “slap on the hand” by the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners.

 

Please note I admired Dr. Middaugh’s presentation before the Board and her candor in her recorded presentation.  (See previous posting in my blog)  However, that does not mean the truth was completely told.

 

I was informed Dr. Middaugh was consequated with a 30-day suspension and assigned taking extra Continuing Education Units (CEU’s) (i.e. training) in “boundaries” and that was all.  It was reported to me that Dr. Middaugh informed the Board that she did not conduct “interpersonal therapy” with her new husband/former patient and ward of the State/ADOC inmate but, rather, ‘she had merely treated her husband for “substance abuse.”’

 

However, at the time it was against ADOC policy for psychologists or mental health staff to treat inmates for substance abuse.  For some time prior, all substance abuse treatment was delegated to the Corrections Officer III’s (CO III’s) otherwise known as “counselors” or “Care Bears” whose primary function is “classification” and the placement of inmates.  This was because of a turf battle over a tremendous amount of federal funding that used to be made available for substance abuse treatment.

 

Needless-to-say, mental health and health services lost that battle with Security to the CO III’s.  However, that has changed now that there is no funding for substance abuse treatment and Security has done its best to shuck off substance abuse treatment duties to mental health staff. 

 

Funny thing is one of the CO III’s at ASPC-F South Unit provided such wonderful substance abuse groups that I as mental health professional at ADOC was embarrassed!  It was cognitively based and even though Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was the only therapy approved for use in ADOC, I saw little to none of it conducted!

 

Back to my story, I was so impressed by this CO III, this Care Bear and his substance abuse treatment approach that when I caught wind his Deputy Warden wanted to shut his groups down and re-assign him towards more classification tasks, I bought the DW lunch and implored her to keep his program!

 

There is no treatment in ADOC in mental health.  For the most part it’s just like the rest of ADOC:

 

It’s a Paper Tiger.

 

ADOC’s Motto:

 

“If it’s not on paper, it didn’t happen.”

 

Likewise,

 

“We’ll make up and write up whatever lies we (ADOC) see fit to foist off, whatever “reality” we (ADOC) want—on the public, inmates and employees alike!”

 

 

 

RFI No. 05-04 MIDDAUGH Complaint Screening Committee February 14, 2005

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

05-04am

 

During this brief .mp3 recording one can hear Dr. Anne Middaugh address the Complaint Screening Committee.  At the end of this brief three person Complaint Screening Committee (CSC) discussion one may hear the 2-1 vote to forward the matter to the full Board of Psychologist Examiners for review.

 

While the CSC voted to drop the charges (see my report) against Dr. Arnold, because Dr. Anne Middaugh was no longer a State employee, the Board elected to pursue Dr. Middaugh.

 

The CSC voted with the exception of one individual to refer Dr. Middaugh case to the full Board.  The sole dissenter was public member Joe Donaldson—Donaldson always votes to defend the State.  I suppose a successful “professional politician” knows he’d better support the State machinery and State employees least they not support him.

 

After hearing this recording, I recall drafting a letter in support of Dr. Anne Middaugh.  While Dr. Arnold denied any culpability and any wrongdoing, I was impressed by Dr. Middaugh because she faced the CSC and admitted what she had done and submitted to the Board.  Dr. Middaugh’s presentation was quite honorable under the circumstances.