Posts Tagged ‘Complaint Screening Committee’

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.

 

 

 

 

“The Thought Police” RFI number 08-21 Daniel Christiano, Ph.D.

Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

 

Sometime a while back clients were assured almost complete confidentiality; however, over the course of time laws were enacted requiring psychologists to report upon their clients. This, of course, destroyed the relationship between a psychologist and the client, but that didn’t matter. All that mattered is that “feel good” legislation was passed and that it felt as though the government was “taking control.”

 

While this has proven to be beneficial in certain cases, but in many cases it has been a disaster. For one, there is no longer “a safe place.” There is no more confidentiality, anywhere. Records are subject to subpoena and psychologists are subject to being forced to testify against the best interests of their clients. We have become “The Thought Police.”

 

My last supervising psychologist during my 4 1/2 years of postdoc internship & residency, Louis Masur, III, Ph.D., Clinical Director lamented that he lost 19% of his business because of this change in statutes. Once mandated reporting became the law, it was no longer necessary for psychologists to weigh the costs & benefits of notifying authorities about possible child abuse, exploitation or neglect. They needn’t think about the possibility of destroying a fragile relationship. Nor did they need to think about the benefits achieved and the current status of the child even when the child was completely safe under the current circumstances of treatment. All that mattered was one was required to report upon threat of being charged with a felony for failure to report as mandated by law.

 

So, while mandated reporting as required by legislated mandate made it a “no-brainer” and removed any stress from the psychologist regarding whether or not to report, mandated reporting destroyed many therapeutic and beneficial relationships. Dr. Louis Masur lamented that he lost 19% of his practice due to this. Those were parents who appeared in his office because they feared that they might be possibly harming their child because of the discipline they were administering

 

Generally, it was a mildly “neurotic” concern because the parents were not harming their child but it was so difficult for them to administer appropriate discipline including corporal punishment. It was neurotic meaning it was an unfounded fear, but at least at that time prior to the change in statutes they could go in confidence and seek the opinion of the professional and be assured that they were not harming her child without fear of being it turned into law enforcement and/or the power of the state. They would seek and receive the sense of support they needed in rearing their children properly. For the vast majority it was really merely a confirmation that they were doing what was right.

 

For a few parents they were trying to work through their leftover issues from their own childhood including discipline. This is not an uncommon experience. Often as we progress along the trail rearing children we are reminded of our past and we get to relive our own childhoods to a certain extent. And work through them again and resolve them, hopefully successfully, as we rear our home children. This is why the lyrics “as the child is the father of the parent” make so much sense.

 

Nonetheless, the fact is that in many ways state legislatures have attempted to turn psychologists into “The Thought Police.” During my training I learned one critical aspect: that is there is no relief in the statute from the requirement to report. Even should the matter have already been reported or even if it’s actually been adjudicated, psychologists are always required to report reasonable suspicion of child abuse, child exploitation, or child neglect. All it takes is a simple phone call and a corresponding entry in the client’s files.

 

It is the psychologist’s prerogative but the psychologist’s duty. It is not the psychologist’s choice but the psychologist’s imperative—regardless of what he or she thinks. We are not allowed to consider our own value judgment. At times we are forced to ignore our clinical judgement and even our gut feelings.  If there is any reasonable suspicion, we are forced to report to authorities.

 

In a certain sense this makes it easier for psychologists. Why? Because we don’t have to think about it; we merely have to do it. We have to perform the behaviors required by law. Most statutes provide for protection for psychologists who filed a report in good faith.

 

But it would be better if we were not required to report. For one, in those many instances that we know the child is safe and we can conduct therapy confidently knowing that the child is safe, we must risk losing the therapeutic relationship with the parents or parents because of obligations and our duty to report. For another, multiple reports may have already been filed and the authorities often vocalize their frustration over receiving another report about the same matter they have for over and over.

 

Also, when it involves a crime, it is not our duty to collect evidence nor is it our duty to prosecute; nonetheless, police and other authorities often try to impose unreasonable duties upon us. These include collection of evidence, possibly revealing diagnoses, treatment methods and prognosis when such confidential matters have nothing to do with the possible child abuse by the interrogators merely seek power is beyond what they actually need and/or are entitled to.

 

In many ways it would be better to create “safe places” by removing such mandated reporting especially redundant mandated reporting. Nonetheless, we as a society have seen fit to make it a felony to fail to file a report. When we come upon a case in which a psychologist has failed to file an obvious we mandated report, we sometimes try to “accommodate” and “excuse” that psychologist’s failure in order to avoid such serious criminal prosecution.

 

As in all such matters today things all too often and so quickly take out a political overtone. For instance should the psychologist who fail to make the report be a conservative or a registered Republican, then we hold their feet to the fire and we burn them. On the other hand should the psychologist who failed to file the report be a liberal or a registered Democrat, then we bend over backwards to make excuses for them and avoid having to enforce the “feel good laws” with all of their terrible penalties that we once thought were so wonderful we eagerly engaged in creating them making it a life changing event when a professional might be prosecuted for dereliction of duty, failure to report.

 

Such is the case in RFI Number 08-21 Daniel Christiano, Ph.D. When I heard the case presented and defended before the State of Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners Complaint Screening Committee on Wednesday, December 17, 2008, my immediate reaction was to acknowledge that the psychologist had failed in his mandated duties to file a proper report and that a “letter of concern” should be entered into his file and no more action be taken.

 

However, then I thought I heard significant confusion over “who is the client.”  Then again I thought I heard that Dr. Christiano was assigned a duty by the court to protect the child.  It appeared Dr. Christiano may have never met the child and that the report was filed against him as part of a child custody strategy or in retaliation.  Whatever it is doesn’t matter.  It was stupid to fail to file a report, especially considering it appears it was a court ordered matter subject to even more litigation.

 

But does Christiano deserve prosecution of a felony?  Strictly speaking, it appears the law has been broken and it requires enforcement.  The punishment is a felony conviction.  But is that justice?  No, there is no provision for “mercy” or relief in the Arizona Revised Statures.  Nonetheless, a couple of CSC members bent over backwards trying to accommodate logically why this psychologist failed to make his report.  There is no justice in laws that are not enforced and there certainly is no justice when laws and their consequences are so tightly (rigidly and nonfunctionally) written so that a judge is denied the option to show mercy.

 

In this case, a letter of concern placed in Dr. Christiano’s file is the least action the Board may take.  However, they are certain to consider “dismissal” in order to remove the possibility of felony prosecution. 

 

We need more “flexible” laws that are more functional and enforceable.  The motivation of the complainant is also highly questionable.  This is further evidence for the need to change complaints before the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners from “fully privileged” to “partially privileged.”

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

My Presentation 17 Dec 2008 Before the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners RFI No. 08-19 MCPHEE

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners

 

Complaint Screening Committee

 

17 December 2008

 

Re:     RFI No. 08-19, DAVID MCPHEE, PH.D.

 

 

In addition to what the Board already has in writing, the Board needs to know this.  It was not until our third 90-minute session Dr. McPhee failed to mention a possible conflict of interest.  During that next to last meeting, Dr. McPhee revealed he had previously hired and supervised Mary M. Desch, MD and in the past had worked closely with Dr. Desch. 

 

In spite of the fact it became apparent earlier during the assessment that I had had a terrible experience with Dr. Desch and there was a possible conflict of interest because of Dr.  McPhee’s prior relationship with Dr. Desch, rather than recuse himself from the case, a forensic assessment, and consider refunding my monies, Dr. McPhee continued to press on with his assessment emphasizing he thought he could help me with the Board.  “I think I can help you,” he said over and over until . . .

 

It was not until Dr. McPhee heard about the history of inmates’ deaths due to malpractice, other crimes and cover ups at ADOC that Dr. McPhee demonstrated a complete change in demeanor & attitude.  There was a significant transformation in his presence & presentation and it was readily observable.  It occurred right at and after the moment of that particularly sensitive & succinct disclosure.

 

Finally, I am not so certain Dr. McPhee did his own work and worked independently.  That is, rather than provide an independent workup and assessment, it appears Dr. McPhee may have relied upon the work of others, namely Dr. Desch.

 

However, let’s put this in context.  In contrast to Dr. Desch, Dr. McPhee’s conflicts of interest and Dr. McPhee’s conflicted nature (fear of involvement in a case of corruption of elected State officials and appointees) pales in comparison.  At the outset of the assessment Dr. McPhee answered my query and assured me he did not know my former wife Maria Kleine, whereas, Dr. Desch refused to answer my question in spite of the fact she had treated my former wife from October 2005 until approximately May 2006.

 

During her assessment Dr. Desch demonstrated gross counter transference often grimacing and she appeared deeply disturbed.  Desch repeatedly answered her own questions without giving me a chance to open my mouth, to respond.  Desch “fabricated” my “self-report” in order to support her erroneous conclusions and harsh recommendations.

My Presentation 17 Dec 2008 Before the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners RFI No. 08-23 TREZISE

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners

 

Complaint Screening Committee

 

17 December 2008

 

Re:     RFI No. 08-23, John Trezise, Ph.D.

 

 

What this Board needs to know is that Dr. John Trezise has a history and a pattern of targeting subordinates and coworkers.  Rather than use his position and skills as a supervising psychologist to shore others up, Dr. Trezise has targeted others unfairly in a sick manner.  Besides me I personally know three other mental health professionals he has targeted and harassed.

 

My concern is Trezise has a history and, although I have no professional opinion, it appears somewhat pathological.  I remember Dr. Trezise commenting to me candidly and often about his “paranoia.”  His words not mine.  Even during our last discussion in April 2006 on site at Special Management Unit II at the Arizona State Prison Complex—Eyman, he mocked himself and his own paranoia:  “You know, my paranoia.”

 

This Board stands apprised and needs to look into the sadistic nature of Dr. Trezise’s interactions in targeting his subordinate co-workers.  Rather than shore up & build up other employees, Dr. Trezise has a history of targeting others unfairly for termination.

 

Since I stopped working for Dr. Trezise, I am certain he has targeted other employees.  Moreover, I am confident he will continue his pattern of targeting others rather than attempting to groom them and help them develop.  In fact, right now he is probably working upon another subordinate.

 

Lastly, Dr. Trezise knows exactly how he got his position as head of the Sex Offender Treatment Program at Florence—West, the private penitentiary.  More importantly, Dr. Trezise knows exactly why Dr. Arnold was fired (getting caught in the act of having sex with her inmate patient by nursing staff), yet Trezise has failed to make the requisite report due this Board.