Therapists      -  Therapy is a business.  The public should be aware the National Association of Marriage and Family Therapists hire lobbyists to introduce legislation to ensure therapists by law, will be part of the court system.  The public should also know the governing body for therapists - is next to useless.  See examples below, in addition to Custody Evaluators and Psychiatrists.  Especially the psychiatrists.

for exposing the profit-driven mental health croynism of King County's Family Court.  Courtesy of one Stuart A. Greenberg.  The excerpt below describes the lengths Greenberg went, with the courtesy of the State and various Psychology Boards, in hiding his record.  His cunning was apparently without limits. 

However, save just one judge, the pickings were easy with the Washington judiciary with the Seattle judges.  Greenberg handled the problem by going to another country and was shortly back in the swim.


Although this, too-long-in-the-making, expose could be reported in any city, we do thank reporters Ken Armstrong and Maureen O'Hagan for exposing King County's toxic Family Court dynamic. 

Lives shredded for cash.  (No waiting.)

The problem with therapists is not just a scary lack of oversight, although there's that,

it's that neither the State or those in "oversight" positions with so-called mental health boards, don't notice problems when the problem is the so-called, "highly respected" head of one's own organization.  Couple that with the too-cozy-for-words, relationship with local judges and commissioners on the court and families as well as justice, is doomed.

Quoting the piece, was how Dr. Greenberg went on the attack.

"A missing sentence. That's what made all the difference — that, and the

During the disciplinary proceedings, Greenberg had signed a five-page stipulation admitting that he had misquoted witnesses, misinterpreted test results, reached damning conclusions on flimsy foundations. But the document was also supposed to say: "That by entering into this agreement, Dr. Greenberg does not admit to any violation of statute or administrative rules governing the practice of psychology."

"That is boilerplate," says Terry West, who was the Examining Board of Psychology's program manager at the time. "That's standard language in any stipulation."

A lawyer for the state dropped the sentence while merging some documents. Boilerplate or not, that missing language represented an opening — and Greenberg seized it. He let the state know he was thinking of suing. The examining board caved.

Nick Wiltz, the board's chairman when Greenberg was suspended, says: "The thing dragged on and on and on. Then, suddenly, because of this error by this inept assistant attorney general, the case blew up completely."

In spring 1993, the board's departing chairman, David Gossett, wrote an open apology to Greenberg, published in the board's newsletter. Greenberg had been "exonerated" of "all allegations," Gossett wrote. The apology asked "all persons" who had kept an earlier board publication describing Greenberg's suspension to return their copies or destroy them.

For Greenberg, this wasn't enough. The agency's paper trail was still publicly available, meaning he might still be confronted on the witness stand with his past admissions.

So Greenberg went to court, asking for the state to be barred from releasing any records about his past suspension. In a remarkable twist, the Examining Board of Psychology joined in this request. Here was a public body — represented by another public body, the state Attorney General's Office — asking the courts to forbid the state from complying with its public-records requirements."

In King County, Judge R. Joseph Wesley refused to go along. So Greenberg went south, to Thurston County. In 1995, Judge Daniel Berschauer agreed to place the state's records off-limits to the public; also sealed was the entire court file describing Greenberg's secrecy request.

Within a year of getting his disciplinary history sealed, Greenberg was giving seminars to other psychologists on the ethics of parenting evaluations.

Greenberg also fended off another kind of challenge. Cathy Graden, the mother who temporarily lost her son, sued Greenberg, accusing him of falsifying evidence against her. But Greenberg cited a decades-old principle — that, as a court-appointed expert, he was entitled to the same "absolute immunity" accorded judges — and Graden dropped her suit, figuring it was doomed.

Greenberg used the same argument to squelch other lawsuits. He became such an expert on this shield that the American Psychological Association would ask him to deliver an address on: "The Liability and Immunity of the Expert Witness."