NOTE: This is a version of an article first published on Frank Report. Go to Frank Report for full coverage.
By Richard Luthmann
Reunification therapy, often a family court-ordered treatment to repair fractured parent-child relationships, is, in some experts’ opinions, child abuse and torture.
Journalists Michael Volpe, and Megan Fox joined me on “The Unknown Podcast” to discuss the matter.
One case we spoke of was one that Volpe broke.
Tori Nielsen recounted her traumatic experience with reunification therapy camp to Volpe.
Nielsen described the journey as terrifying. She said she and her brother were threatened during the ride.
“They told us that if we didn’t do what they said, we’d never see our mom again,” she said.
Fox has covered similar cases and compared reunification therapy camps to the “tough love” camps of the 1990s, which were later widely considered abusive.
“This is going to be another dark chapter in history,” Fox predicted. “We’ll see documentaries exposing these reunification camps, just like we did with those tough love camps.”
Dark Chapter of the King of Reunification Randy Rand
One of the central figures in the controversy is Randy Rand, a psychologist who got into trouble with the Board of Psychology more than a decade ago for two cases, one of which involved his reunification therapy.
In a Florida child custody case, the father had sole custody. The mother sought to pay to change custody. Three conspirators volunteered for the paid assignment.
A child custody evaluator was paid to conclude the child was alienated from the mother and recommended counseling with Dr. Robert Evans. Evans, in turn, was paid to testify the child needed a parental alienation program designed by Rand, an expert in parental alienation syndrome.
Rand testified that his reunification camp reunifies an alienated child with the non-custodial parent. He compared alienated children to children abducted and brainwashed by a cult. His program required the court to order the child to participate in his camp with the mother and then go “home with the previously rejected parent” as a “permanent arrangement.”
The judge asked Rand whether this particular child should go to the camp. Rand said the child was severely alienated and, “for the child’s best interest,” custody should be permanently flipped to the mother – but only after the child and parent went through his (expensive) intervention program.
Rand knew that if the court ordered the intervention, he would perform it with the child and mother at camp and later train the child’s therapist in his reunification technique. Both of them—teacher and student—would bill for the services, opening the door to many more child-flipping referrals.
A complaint was made. The Board determined Rand neglected to tell the court that he had never once met, interviewed, or evaluated the child but testified that the child was severely alienated (as if a cult abducted him) and made a recommendation to change custody.
The Board also determined Rand lied when he told the Board that the judge only asked “generic information pertaining to a program [that he] developed.’”
The Board, which could, after all, get the court transcripts, was annoyed with his direct lies to them and his lies by omission to the court, not to mention his naked greed. They revoked Rand’s license, but because money is at stake, and money rules the day in child custody matters where experts are involved, they stayed Rand’s license revocation for five years upon condition that he pay an ethics and billing monitor to oversee his practice.
A defiant Rand took the case to trial. The trial court upheld the Board’s decision that he was grossly negligent and violated the legal standards governing psychologists. Rand appealed and lost. Meanwhile, Rand continued to operate the reunification camp Family Bridges, which helps the more affluent parent purchase custody in family courts across the land.
“It’s outrageous,” Fox said. “This guy lost his license, but the courts still let him operate. It’s a complete failure of the system.”
Gottlieb Will ‘Get the Truth Out’ and Then Again She Won’t
I want to be fair and get the other side. I have been seeking an interview with Linda Gottlieb, the “Queen” of reunification therapy camps and the owner of Turning Points for Families.
I share many of Volpe and Fox's concerns. However, the debate should start with a fundamental question: Is Parental Alienation (PA) legitimate?
“Reunification therapy is supposed to treat Parental Alienation (PA), but we need first to determine whether this condition is real,” I explained on the podcast.
What better place to go than to the source?
According to her media consultant, Gottlieb will interview if I did not ask about any of the multiple lawsuits pending against her in various courts.
I agreed to limit the interview’s scope and told her what I wanted to ask:
A) Why parental alienation has a medical/clinical basis and what is it? Opponents say PA isn’t in the DSM, but at least five of the underlying conditions defining PA are.
B) Why are those who deny PA are mistaken? Albert Einstein said in his letters that he was “alienated” from his son based on his ex-wife’s actions. Einstein is a pretty good spokesperson for your cause.
C) How is PA medically/clinically diagnosed?
D) How is PA as a clinical condition different from PA as a legal doctrine?
E) What is reunification therapy, and how does it affect/treat PA?
F) What is your / Turning Points methodology for treatment?
G) What is your response to those who claim reunification therapy is a form of coercive control and child abuse?
The media consultant replied.
“Linda… is willing to speak with you and get the truth out. Here are our conditions:
“1) We will both record the whole interview.
“2) Please leave out any questions or mention of pending litigation….
“3) All of your questions look good, with the exclusion of D) How is PA as a clinical condition different from PA as a legal doctrine? Linda is not a lawyer and will only agree to this interview if you leave out all legal questions. Linda is available next week some time. Please let me know the details and format you’d like to use….”
Later last week, I received word that Gottlieb would not do the interview.
Meanwhile, I’m trying to get someone, anyone, to explain why reunification therapy is based on sound medicine, good science, and valid clinical practice.
Maybe Randy Rand will agree to interview.
Share this post