The Oregon appellate court returned its decision in support of the Oregon licensing board and I have been sanctioned $7,500 for a report I wrote to my client, Dorcy Pruter and the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, a business organization located in Southern California.
I conducted no treatment with anyone in Oregon. I gave no diagnosis to anyone in Oregon. I assessed no one in Oregon. I spoke with no one in Oregon. What service I provided in Oregon remains unclear.
It begins.
I am a whistleblower on the unethical malpractice of forensic psychologists in the family courts. This is retaliation against me from the forensic psychologists. The licensing boards are corrupt from the influence of the forensic psychologists.
No clinical psychologist is safe in the family courts.
My CRM report was bait. It’s fine. Just wait til you see it. The forensic psychologists took the bait. I appealed to the courts to expose the court’s participation or not.
Now it’s all done. I have all the documentation. Some call it data. Some call it evidence. I think of it as documentation.
Now a new phase begins. I will be providing information in layers.
Today I am beginning by providing my attorney’s email to me notifying me of the court’s decision.
Tomorrow I’ll post to my blog my response to my attorney.
Saturday, I’ll post my de-identified CRM report to my website.
Sunday I’ll provide my first formal response on Facebook Live at 8:00 Pacific, these are saved to my YouTube channel, and I’ll also post the court’s decision to my website on Saturday.
That will lay the foundation. Later within the flow of information, I will post the transcript of the testimony of the Oregon board’s forensic psychologist with my line-by-line analysis.
This will give you a sample of what my line-by-line notes look like.
Today, I start with my attorney’s email to me informing me of the court’s decision:
Craig,
I’m sorry to report that the court of appeals affirmed the Board’s decision in the attached opinion. I was hoping the length of time this was under advisement meant something positive. This supports my continued cynicism about the appellate review of agency decisions, as it appears they took the time seeking ways to affirm.
They reached quite far to hold the agency’s interpretation of its rules and statutes was correct, turning to things that neither of the parties had argued or addressed. As they note, Oregon courts usually reject legislative intent/ history arguments based on advocates before the legislature, as opposed to statements from legislators themselves, but this panel did accept it apparently when it serves the desired end result. What they don’t say is how a person reading the rules about consulting would have the requisite “notice” of the rules the court now embraces.
The opinion does also hold, as the AG argued, that the definition of “evaluation” is broad enough to support the Board’s finding. That was one of the issues we were worried about, particularly after argument.
We did not expect to win on the issue of the father being an Oregon resident. That was added as a backup argument, and since the Board can look not only at the facts, but also inferences from those facts, it was a stretch.
Also, on the penalty argument, the court relies on agency’s broad discretion to affirm the agency- saying the amount assessed was within the Board’s discretion. Seems like a cop-out based on the single violation, and the lack of clarity of the rules. While they note the State’s preservation argument, they still addressed this issue as they should have, as whether we objected based on the terms “exorbitant”, “excessive” or “disproportionate” is effectively the same, but again deferred to agency discretion.
We have 5 weeks to file a petition for review with the Oregon Supreme Court. As much as I disagree with this decision, I don’t recommend taking that step, as this is a relatively fact- specific matter, and relies on the agency’s ability to interpret and apply its rules as it sees fit, and its exercise of discretion, and I don’t think we have much chance the court would accept review. The fact that the court chose to make this a “precedential” opinion, would support review, but in the end, our Supreme Court has been affirming agency decisions right and left in the cases they take, and I hate to incur the cost of briefing only to have the Supreme Court affirm this decision.
Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Janet Schroer
Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based "Parental Alienation" (AB-PA) 