Posts Tagged ‘sex with an inmate’

An Open Letter to the Complainant Dr. LM in RFI 08-23 TREZISE

Monday, January 5th, 2009

 

Dear Dr. LM—

 

While I do not know you, I attended the Complaint Screening Committee hearing Wednesday, December 17, 2008 and I attested upon the behalf of the merits of your complaint RFI 08-23 John Trezise, Ph.D. before the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners not knowing what exactly your complaint was about.  Nonetheless, as the case was discussed, it became apparent that your complaint compliments previous complaints I have filed against John Trezise, Ph.D.

 

Apparently, Trezise has a history of treating subordinates harshly way back to 1995 when he harassed Enos into leaving ADOC after only three weeks.  Trezise has a history of “making people suffer” and when Public Board Member (and politician) Joseph Donaldson referenced the threat of “progressive discipline” you became the member of a rather large crowd—that includes me.

 

Half of those Trezise pursues are below the doctoral psychologist level.  Half are older than he.  Half perhaps more are female.  Trezise makes it impossible to succeed and makes life miserable for his victim.  He always has a victim.  He is unstable and should never be allowed to supervise anyone.

 

It is such a long standing pattern that it has become a way of life for Dr. Trezise; he couldn’t function if he wasn’t shoring himself up on the back of another vulnerable subordinate.  So, your complaint that you don’t want to see this happen ever again to anybody else is appropriate.  You are the 5th female target.  There have been at least five males.

 

Sadly, with age people’s flaws tend to become more pronounced.  It must have been particularly hard for you to file, but I am curious about you.  He might be getting worse with time.  More sadistic.  Here’s the rub:

 

When one complains about the internship upon which obtains a license, it taints one’s postdoctoral training.  It makes one question your training and even your licensure as a psychologist.  Indeed, had you complained before successful completion of your internship, it would have assured starting over elsewhere and setbacks.  But that is what we do when it gets bad.  We vote with our feet.  We toughen up, sacrifice more and become better.  Sadly, in this case it appears you cheated yourself.

 

You cheated yourself out of an opportunity to grow even more and become a far better psychologist.  Don’t tell me “I don’t understand.”  I was fired from my first site because I filed a report with law enforcement as required by law when a male health aid molested his 13 year old female patient.  Unfortunately for me, the man in question’s mother was the sister of my boss’s superior.

 

Chuck fired me and they fired Chuck to cover it all up.  (ADOC has done the same thing in one of their more notorious cover-ups.)  Thereafter I spent four years under the supervision of two very fine psychologists.  Having given so much time at such meager wages was only possible because I did not have a family to support.

 

Back to your currently open RFI:  I have filed several complaints against John Trezise; however, one Board member, I believe Dr. Karp, a forensic psychologist member, mentioned that she only knew of one other complaint—even though I had filed at least four personally against Trezise this year!  I shall post those here for you and apparently for the benefit of other Board members!!!

 

The Board processes are problematic and I suggest you attend each meeting concerning your RFI.  However, if you are out of State at the least order the CD copy and listen to the proceedings.  In particular you need to hear Public Member Joseph Donaldson’s continual efforts to get your complaint dismissed.  I believe RFI No. 08-23 only remained under investigation because of my presence and my presentation.  I posted my address before the Board earlier in my blog.

 

While we were educated that the purpose of licensure is “to protect the public” the reality is that “this Board functions to protect the State.”  Trezise did not appear at the CSC hearing and I am certain he knows from experience that as “a member” of the State, the Board’s members will bend over backwards to protect the State and him.

 

However, you may have another problem.  If you work in any capacity for ADOC you definitely will have a problem.  Donaldson repeatedly stated that you failed to file a complaint with ADOC while you were employed at ADOC.  Actually, I think you were working for the private prison but still, it comes under ADOC.   In my opinion, no internships should be allowed to be conducted at any ADOC facility.

 

Donaldson holds to the idiotic idea the ADOC are a bunch of angels and can do nothing wrong.  He said they are a large organization explaining that they would have handled any complaint you filed efficiently.  Donaldson cannot think straight.  You see, Michael has it right:  “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.”  At the very least, liberal thinking causes Mental Disorders.  We have become such a Savage Nation.

 

I see “old Joe” has been promoted from City Councilman to Mayor since I’ve become acquainted with him:

 

http://mayorjoe.net/about.htm

 

The fact is after I filed my first RFI (see my blog) for a treating psychologist marrying her hospitalized (psychiatrically!) inmate patient (She had treated him as her patient for approximately two years.), I was targeted for inordinate doses of harassment.  There is no way for one person to file anything with ADOC brass without risk of severe retaliation, extreme damage even if failing to file puts your license at risk or even your freedom because failure to report can be a felony for a psychologist. 

 

Let me give you one example (previously unpublished):

 

An inmate had died at the Supermax.  At SMU-I they found a dozen uneaten sack lunches in his cell.  Had the guards alerted my physician friend about his failure to eat, he could have prevented the death, but as it was, there was nothing he could do.

 

ADOC Director Dora Schriro wasn’t satisfied with the outcome of the investigation of that inmate’s death.  So Schriro had a second investigation done to get it “right.”  When the results of the second investigation into that inmate’s death came in, Dora still wasn’t satisfied.  The Director had it investigated for a third time.  You see, rather than admit she has an understaffing problem with officers; she wanted to put the blame on the physician!

 

And what did my friend do?  He quit!  He quit even though he didn’t have another job lined up.  Why?  He valued his medical license too much to risk it.  Even though ADOC brass wooed him incessantly and pleaded with him to return, that fraudulent investigation of Dora’s frosted him.  He never went back.  And after what’s happened to me, many people won’t even go to work for ADOC.

 

God luck with your complaint.  You have my support but I’m concerned for you because if you have continued working in corrections in sex offender treatment, your future remains at risk–unless you can drive this one home and nail Trezise with RFI no. 08-23. 

 

Having heard that Dr. Arnold agreed to provide possible hours for you, I have a question for you:

 

Do you know the circumstances under

 

which Dr. Arnold abruptly left her position

 

as Head of the Sex Offender Treatment

 

Program at Florence—West

 

and Dr. Trezise succeeded her?

 

Neither in my opinion is qualified to head such a specialized program in sex offender treatment.  Over a period of five years I worked closely with each and know them well. 

 

Feel free to contact me or post comments in my blog.  Listen to my talk radio show if you want a real education in psychology.  I hope to hear from you soon. 

 

Remember: 

 

You are responsible for your own education.

 

                                                            Respectfully,

                                                            Dr. Kent

 

 

 

 

 

RFI Arnold & Middaugh

Sunday, December 28th, 2008

 

rfi20041229arnold

 

P.O. Box 2325

Florence, Arizona 85232-2325

December 29, 2004

 

Board of Psychologist Examiners

State of Arizona

1400 West Washington, Suite 235

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

 

 

Re: Susanne Arnold, Ph.D.

Arizona Licensed Psychologist #3316

Florence, Arizona 85232

Work (520) 868-4011 ext 5208

Pager (602) 271-5068

 

Lack of Professionalism & Ethical Violations

 

 

Dear Board of Psychologist Examiners:

 

My complaint is two fold.  As a licensed psychologist in the State of Arizona, it appalls me that another licensed psychologist behaves thus.

 

The first part of my complaint is rather simple and succinct, yet it shows a lack of professionalism and demonstrates concerns about Dr. Arnold’s ability to practice psychology ethically.  This concern is somewhat limited; nonetheless, I anticipate the Board at least issuing a Letter of Concern to Dr. Arnold correcting and educating this licensed psychologist.  This may include some remedial training in ethics or whatever the Board deems beneficial and necessary for the safe practice of professional psychology in the State of Arizona.

 

Part I

 

On November 9, 2004 at approximately 9:45 AM, I called my former supervisor Dr. Arnold to see how she wanted me to deliver psychological testing materials to her for safe keeping and how she wanted me to transfer the two interstate compacts upon which I was working.  Shortly after the conversation began, Dr. Arnold went into a tirade and the conversation deteriorated.  It became very one-sided.  I tried several times to dissuade Dr. Arnold from further comment on matters not directly related to the business at hand, but she was relentless. I tried to get her to desist from further conversation but she would not stop.  Dr. Arnold insisted that I listen to her and her bitter and derisive statements.  She prefaced these with the qualifier: “I’m going to tell the truth.”

 

Sensing that the conversation was headed in the wrong direction, I tried to end it. Dr. Arnold pressed on: “You probably don’t want to hear what I have to say, but you have a lot of deep problems.  I mean you are very disturbed.”  Dr. Arnold continued to assert that I was very deeply disturbed without any regard for my well-being or for professional boundaries.  The statements had nothing to do with clinical practice, nor were they work related.  Moreover, there a distinct lack of an appropriate expression of concern for my welfare.

 

These were not a job related statements.  Nor was it said in a manner to support my growth and professional development.  Moreover, there was no open chart nor she did have permission to treat me.  She violated professional boundaries and attempted to use her psychological expertise as weaponry to harm me.

  

It is unethical for any psychologist to practice without an informed consent to treatment.  It is unethical for a psychologist to treat without having a chart opened.  It is unconscionable for a psychologist to attempt to use her tools to undermine the health and well-being of another person, especially if that person is another psychologist.  Furthermore, it is unethical to attempt to practice on one’s subordinates and it is a violation of professional boundaries and ethics to attempt to do so.  In my opinion, it is more heinous than forming a dual relationship.

 

I request that the Board investigate this matter.  It is my hope that Dr. Arnold will admit her errors.  And I anticipate the Board instructing Dr. Arnold on proper professional behavior and boundaries becoming a licensed psychologist in the State of Arizona.

 

It is impossible for me to approach Dr. Arnold informally to resolve this matter, and I suspect she will resist the Board bringing this query to her attention.  It is imperative that psychologists be trained properly in professionalism and ethics in order to assure the safety of the public.  For myself, I seek only an apology, and for our profession, I ask the Board to educate and redirect Dr. Arnold.

 

Part II

 

Some of my last communications with Dr. Arnold concerned the behavior of a former employee, another licensed psychologist, who was reported in our weekly staff meeting last summer to be marrying a former inmate-patient less than a year after the termination of therapy.

 

Dr. Ann Middaugh, Psychologist [Arizona License #3258] left DOC in September 2003.  Only a few months had passed when I heard about this last summer.  This was well under the two years recognized by the APA Code of Ethics as required before a relationship with a former patient could even be considered.  I was told by Mr. Johnson that Dr. Middaugh saw this client every week in therapy for two years up until the time she left DOC in September 2003.

 

According to a master’s level clinician, Darrel Johnson, Psychological Associate II at ASPC-Florence North Unit [work (520) 868-4011 ext 5741, pager (602) 271-1423], Dr. Middaugh testified upon her future husband’s behalf against DOC in approximately May 2004:

 

‘She ratted DOC out [sic] and told the Court everything bad that DOC had done to the inmate.   . . . The inmate is described by men and women alike as gorgeous, as an Adonis.  . . . It’s on record that he had murderous impulses since the age of eight.  . . . He filed [for permission to marry] at Baker Ward [DOC’s inpatient mental health unit] after being there inpatient for almost a year.’

 

I reminded Dr. Arnold of her responsibility as Supervising Psychologist III that she must report her former subordinate to the Board.  At one time, since Dr. Arnold was not responsive, in a motivational manner, I appealed to Dr. Arnold to call this other psychologist and see if how ‘salvageable’ she might be.  Nonetheless, I know that matters regarding sex with a patient are extremely serious and that these cannot be resolved informally.  These require Board notification.

 

No one should remain a licensed psychologist who shows such poor boundaries that they marry a client.  There is also the possibility of sex with a patient, felony sexual battery typically punishable by a two year sentence.  And perhaps even the possibility of sexual relations with an inmate, which brings an even higher seven year sentence.

 

Dr. Arnold refused to bring this to the attention of the Board yet suggested I could make the report.  However, I was not Dr. Ann Middaugh’s supervisor while she was employed at DOC and practiced at ASPC-Florence East Unit.  I have no access to the charts nor do I know the inmate’s name that is reported to have named Dr. Middaugh on his Request for Marriage Form filed approximately June 2004.  In short, I have no direct evidence of Dr. Middaugh’s reported indiscretion.  I am however reporting our supervising psychologist’s failure to report this matter to the Board appropriately.

 

It appears this failure to report to the Board may be based on gender discrimination.  Dr. Arnold would likely file charges against a male psychologist but refused to file a complaint against her female subordinate.

 

In these matters, I place my confidence in the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners to take appropriate action.

 

Sincerely,

  

 

 

John Kent, Ph.D.

Psychologist

Arizona #3339