Mental Health Practitioners As Predators Facilitating False Diagnoses To Counter Abuse Allegations In Order To Secure Custody Transfer Of Children To Well Documented Abusers

Previously the name of a reunification processor was in this article, but she contacted us under threat of suit, so at her request we removed her name from this article. However, we wish to be very clear that this individual was referred to the client by the court who demanded that the child be reunified with her abuser.

The Foundation was retained by the maternal grandfather of the child on behalf of his daughter and his granddaughter immediately following a well-documented evidence that the child returned to mother, with clear and present evidence that the 5-yo child had recently been vaginally raped by the father.

The Foundation took immediate action to stop further visitation and to take action on behalf of the mother. Further action was about to be required opposing contact between the abused child and her abuser.

It was the decision of the mother not to pursue any further litigation against the father because she felt she ha already “sacrificed enough” and did not want her career disrupted. Therefore she returned the child to the father and would not be continuing any further litigation on behalf of the child.

The child’s grandfather and grandmother could not persuade their daughter from abandoning work with the Foundation.

Not only did this parent return her child to the abuser, but she also agreed to her own “treatment” with this therapist who was described as a liar and suffering from a sadistic personality disorder, as indicated in the reports written about the parent and child that were grossly departed from any and all medical, psychiatric, forensic, proper scientific training and treatment protocol.

The statements and directives of the court-appointed so-called therapist were so egregious and alarming to the Foundation that complaints against this practitioner’s license were forwarded to her licensing boards. The actions of the court and this individual were documented with the local FBI office, who as per our intervention and complaints by psychiatric experts of the Foundation were about to investigate the case

All attempts at protecting the child and litigating against this court and the team of child traffickers engaged in delivering this child into the isolation of her abuser and expected further sexual attacks on her were undermined by the activities of this mother in cooperation with court personnel and a highly incompetent practitioner who would best be described as practicing under the Marquis de Sade as opposed to any professional medical or psychiatric treatment plan of therapeutic intervention

The Foundation has filed complaints against this individual with every agency of state government that has oversight over her license.

However, because of the facilitation of the mother to abandon her child to the abuse of the child’s father, and certain events exposing the child to intense emotional deterioration unopposed by the mother, there was no further action that the Foundation could take other than filing complaints against the mother.

It is very rare that we find when clients engage the services of the Foundation that they abandon their cases, as the services of the Foundation were engaged by the child’s grandparents and not with the cooperation of the mother, who was interviewed and evaluated as a client of the Foundation.

We were to say the least extremely disappointed and distressed at this mother’s distorted sense of self interest and her willingness to abandon her child to certain ongoing physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

The fact that she sealed the child’s fate and inability to reach for protection by working the abusers that codified the compliance with a corrupt child trafficking court is exactly the type of case that the Foundation and our experts rail against.

We will find ways to litigate and prosecute and communicate to the public in hopes that an awareness of the successful tactics of threats and intimidation disseminated by the courts have a chilling effect on the public, and especially on those who are self-serving and more concerned with their own immediate interests and are willing to abandon the long term and short term consequences to their child.

***

In yet another case in which the child was giving to the alleged abuser, the following complaint was written by one of our colleagues.

Dear Grievance Committee Member:

I am writing to support a formal complaint against a certain Mental Health Counselor [MHC]. I myself am a forensic psychiatrist, and a brief summary of my credentials is attached.

By a preponderance of evidence, this MHC appears to have produced a fraudulent evaluation in order to facilitate the transfer a child rape victim to her rapist.  The reasons I say so are multifold:

1. A now six-year-old child has made serious, credible, articulate, and diagram-based sexual abuse and rape allegations, including one as recently as August 23, 2023, and this MHC ’s letter dated September 5, 2023, mentions none of this.
2. This MHC, despite claiming to be conducting “co-parenting counseling,” describes the two parents in highly biased and polarizing language that appears deliberately to stigmatize one parent: “Joshua has been more than cooperative and open minded,” versus “Heather has outright refused … joint sessions.”
3. When a child has been raped, what this MHC describes as “concerning behaviors” could actually be caring behavior that is normal and healthy for a mother and critically-needed for the protection of the child victim—but she takes none of this critical possibility into consideration.
4. This MHC makes serious and highly-consequential conclusions such as, “Heather has a very unhealthy attachment to her daughter,” citing almost no evidence and seemingly based on her biased view of statements made in the couple’s counseling sessions alone.
5. This MHC mentions she has “met briefly with the child” but gives no mention of the most critical and basic safety concerns, and appears not even to have discussed the sexual abuse allegations with the mother, either in the couple’s session or alone.
6. This MHC states, without citing any evidence, that she is “very concerned about emotional abuse” from the mother and shows no differential reasoning as to why she may have withheld her child from school (leaving out the child’s allegations of sexual abuse, the mother’s awaiting a court date while fearing that the father, who comes from a family with a criminal history and exhibits considerable psychopathic traits, may abduct the child).
7. Clear bias and incompetence are shown at the end when this MHC is “requesting a referral” for psychological testing only for [the mother] and not for [the father], when she should have by then received my urgently-written, mandated-reporting letter, dated September 1, 2023, warning of dangerous personality traits in [the father] that require further evaluation, and at least a notification that I had completed a full psychiatric evaluation of [the mother] and was in the process of writing up my report.

Therefore, on the face of it, this MHC appears to have deliberately made conclusions that are not supported by evidence or clinically highly distorted, in order to abuse her title as “Mental Health Counselor” to produce a fraudulent report that has, indeed, facilitated [the father]’s “legal” abduction of his child victim.  The fact that the court, on September 22, 2023, allowed for this total custody switch, seemingly based on this MHC’s letter alone and without any sign of [the mother]’s unfitness, corroborates this assertion.

[The mother] has also noted a number of inconsistencies, if not mendacity, in this MHC’s report, as follows:

1. [The mother] cannot identify which recommendations this MHC claims [the father] implemented, especially as he has proceeded to slander and character assassinate [the mother] on GoFundMe and Facebook.
2. [The mother] claims to have met with this MHC alone twice, and the next two joint sessions with [the father], in which [the father] did not speak about coparenting but rather the fact that he has made friends with her ex-husband and her biological father (who gave up his parental rights of [the mother] when she was five years old). Seeing that this MHC allowed his tangential provocations to continue, [the mother] stated that she would like to continue coparenting sessions with this MHC but not jointly with [the father].  These sessions never transpired because of this MHC’s failure to reschedule, and thus [the mother] took it upon herself to do an online coparenting course, on her own initiative.
3. [The mother] objects to this MHC’s statement that she has a “very unhealthy attachment” to her daughter, based on seeing them together only briefly.
4. [The mother] denies ever having stated: “the child is mine and I shouldn’t have to share.” She is the one who, after the relationship broke up many months before the child was born, announced the pregnancy to both families, never denied visitations to [the father] even before the paternity test, and continued to comply for years despite allegations from the child of [the father]’s inappropriately touching and “hurting” her. [the father] allegedly stated to his cousin or aunt that he had the paternity test because he had suspicion of [the mother]’s dad being the father.  As a matter of fact we have a picture of him holding Makenzie in the NICU along with his mother the day after she was born.
5. [The mother] adamantly denies ever having stated that she doesn’t care what the court says.
6. [The mother] adamantly denies ever having told [the father] that she knows what is best for the child and his opinion does not matter!
7. [The mother] and her parents have done lots of painting and crafting projects with the child, and she has never been observed to worry about getting paint on her hands.
8. [The mother] adamantly denies ever having come to v’s office angry and grabbing the child, and in fact she was the one who told the child to give her dad a hug goodbye!
9. [The mother] cannot identify how this MHC could state concerns about emotional abuse from herself, when this MHC has only seen her with the child rarely.
10. [The mother] denies that this MHC has ever offered to do roleplay on responses to negative remarks, nor does she have any proof of negative remarks from [the mother], except for what [the father] probably told this MHC.
11. [The mother] objects to this MHC’s assessment that she has mental health issues that she refuses to address, and she wonders how this MHC can know this after just four one-hour sessions with her. She suspects that this MHC is going purely by [the father]’s narrative, despite his preliminary diagnosis of psychopathy—which makes him prone to being a pathological liar.

My psychiatric evaluation, after two hours of interview and twelve hours of objective record review, showed absolutely no concerns regarding [the mother]’s mental health.  Indeed, she shows only signs of sound mental health her entire life and exceptionally strong mother-child bonds when observed in interaction with her daughter.  Rather, credible allegations from the child of sexual abuse, penetration, and ejaculation in her by her father, which “hurt” her badly enough to make her recoil at the simple mentioning of him, led me to perform a Hare Psychopathy Checklist– Revised (PCL-R) on the father, as I am trained to do.  Of note, PCL-R’s rely more on collateral interviews and objective record reviews than on personal interview, because of the tendency for afflicted individuals to lie and mislead—nevertheless, I requested an interview of [the father] through his lawyer, and he refused.  [The father]’s score returned dangerously high—32/40 (30/40 is the cutoff for psychopathy)—a level where he should not have the child at all.

What accounts for this discrepancy?  this MHC’s actions need to be viewed in the context of the international crisis of too many underqualified “experts” taking part in a global crisis of human rights violations and violence against women and children happening in family courts, through the refusal to acknowledge or even the deliberate coverup of child abuse, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council (the April 2023 report is here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic–reports/ahrc5336–custody–violence–againstwomen–and–violence–against–children).

In the United States, rigorous scientific studies have shown that, whereas false allegations of child abuse are exceedingly rare (0.1% to 2%)—and the problem of underreporting more serious— family courts dismiss a vast majority of allegations as false, even when there is credible evidence.  This has resulted in a conservative estimate of 58,000 child victims being transferred to their tormentors and rapists every year, resulting in hundreds of unnecessary deaths by suicide or murder every year.  The driver behind this is billions of dollars per year in profits for family courtconnected actors, contingent on transferring child victims to their perpetrators (misappropriation of public funds has also been implicated in the high levels of unreliable Child Protective Services “investigations”, with the involvement of family court).

In this context, the integrity and professionalism of mental health experts are all the more critical.  Yet, this MHC, rather than acting as a neutral evaluator who should assess and respond to safety concerns first, she appears to have engaged in unethical, dangerous, and self-serving conduct, in breach of professional norms and in disturbing conformity with the patterns of the above abuses.  Her violations of the following Mental Health Counselors Association (AMHCA) Code of Ethics guidelines are of particular concern:

I. Commitment to Clients
A. 1. Primary Responsibility
A. 3. Dual/Multiple Relationships
A. 4. Exploitive Relationships

B. 1. Treatment Plans
B. 2. Informed Consent

B. 3. Multiple Clients
B. 4. Clients Served by Others
B. 7. Clients’ Rights

C. 1. Competence
C. 2. Non-Discrimination
C. 3. Conflict of Interest

D. 2. Interpretation and Reporting
D. 3. Competence
D. 4. Forensic Activity

E. 2. Fee Arrangements, Bartering, and Gifts (highly suspected)

F. 1. Consultant
F. 2. Advocate

II. Commitment to Other Professionals
A. Relationship with Colleagues
B. Clinical Consultation

Given the gravity and multitude of her ethical infractions, in direct and acute endangerment of a child, I urge the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services to conduct a detailed investigation into this MHC’s practices.  Ensuring the health and safety of clients and minor children, while upholding the basic, essential ethical standards of the mental health field, should be of paramount importance for any mental health professional.