The Documented Record · Part II
The Licensing Boards:
The Refusal, In Writing
The American Psychological Association is not the only institution charged with protecting the public from the harm its own literature documents. Every state maintains a licensing board with a statutory public-protection mission. This page reproduces the retained correspondence with two of them, nine years apart: the North Carolina Psychology Board, which received a formal ethics complaint in 2017 and closed it without one word of explanation — and the California Board of Psychology, which in 2026 did something no institution in this record had done before: it put its refusal in writing, on letterhead, in enumerated bullet points. Every board reply on this page is verbatim and complete.
I. North Carolina, 2017–2018: Closed Without a Word
A formal ethics complaint concerning the psychologist in the sender's own daughters' case — filed September 2017, with documentary evidence, video submissions, and the clinical framework.
Good morning, Mr. Gottfried – The investigation into your complaint is continuing. Given the number of complaints we receive and the time it takes to conduct an investigation, it typically takes several months at a minimum to complete an investigation. If additional information is needed prior to the conclusion of the investigation, you will be contacted. You also will be notified once the investigation has been completed and a determination has been made by the Board.
Reader's note: in February 2018, a letter arrived. The complaint was dismissed. The letter contained no findings, no reasoning, and no response to any of the documented charges. The sender wrote back with specific questions — excerpted below.
I received your letter dated Feb 28th 2018 in response to my complaint filed against Dr. Michael. I am a bit confused and was hoping that you could straighten some things out. Is it OK for a psychologist not to conduct an evaluation but come up with a conclusion? Is it standard for a psychologist to refuse to communicate with a parent that is a joint legal guardian? Many emails sent with nothing returned. Is it standard for a psychologist to refuse records to a guardian of a minor? Is it OK for a psychologist to practice out of his/her field? Does the board know what the DSM-5 V995.51 is? Your letter was very placating. It obviously and intentionally did not go into any of my formal charges with emails that factually backed up the charges/complaints.
Good evening, Mr. Gottfried – We are in receipt of your email. As noted in the letter you received, your complaint was thoroughly investigated and the case was closed by the Board. The Board is unable to provide details of the findings in this case as the Board's deliberations of complaint investigations of licensees are confidential under state law. Therefore, no member of the Board nor Board staff can disclose the deliberations on how the Board reached its determination in this case.
Good afternoon, Mr. Gottfried – In response to your request, the following Board members were in attendance at the Board meeting when your case was reviewed: Helen Brantley Kristine Herfkens Stacie MacDonald Anthony Powell
Reader's note: a formal complaint alleging Child Psychological Abuse — the category the APA's own 2014 press release calls as harmful as sexual abuse — was reviewed by four people, behind a legal wall of confidentiality, and dismissed with no findings, no reasoning, and no answer to any documented question. The complainant's specific questions above have now gone unanswered for eight years. The father's contact with his daughters at the time of the complaint: less than three hours in 4.5 years.
II. California, 2026: The Refusal, Enumerated
Nine years later — a formal policy inquiry to the California Board of Psychology, citing the state's own statutes: Penal Code §11165.3, §11165.7 (mandatory reporting), and Welfare & Institutions Code §300.
My inquiry is not about the details of any specific investigation. It concerns the Board's statutory, ethical, and public-protection obligations when credible information indicates ongoing child psychological abuse affecting multiple children within California's family court system. Accordingly, I am requesting clarification on the following policy and legal compliance questions, none of which require disclosure of confidential investigative material: 1. Mandatory Reporting Duty — When the Board becomes aware, through complaints, expert submissions, or documentary evidence, of suspected child abuse affecting multiple children, does the Board have an independent obligation to ensure a report is made to appropriate child welfare or law enforcement agencies? 2. DSM-5 Recognition and Statutory Alignment — Does the Board recognize DSM-5 V995.51 (Child Psychological Abuse) and related DSM-5 conditions as falling within the statutory definition of abuse involving "mental suffering" under California Penal Code §11165.3 and Welfare & Institutions Code §300? 3. Systemic Abuse Awareness — If the Board receives credible information that child psychological abuse is occurring systemically — including documented refusals by law enforcement or child protective services to accept or document reports — what procedures does the Board follow to ensure compliance with California's mandatory reporting laws? 4. Interagency Notification — When suspected abuse is ongoing and involves children currently subject to family court proceedings, does the Board issue notifications, advisories, or referrals to child welfare agencies, law enforcement, or other appropriate state entities? 5. Ethical Duty vs. Confidentiality — How does the Board reconcile confidentiality of license investigations with its ethical obligation to prevent ongoing harm to children when recognized DSM-5 abuse indicators are present?
Reader's note: a follow-up was sent February 2, 2026, asking only whether a substantive response would be provided, and offering to accept "a brief written statement" that the Board does not provide such guidance. On March 16, 2026, the Board answered. Its response follows — verbatim and complete.
Exhibit: the California Board of Psychology's written response — March 16, 2026
"Good afternoon Mr. Gottfried,
The Board acknowledges receipt of your correspondence.
Your letter raises a series of questions requesting clarification of legal interpretations, internal policies, and potential investigative or reporting obligations… State agencies are limited to responding to requests for existing public records and are not required to create documents, provide legal interpretations, answer interrogatory-style questions, or issue advisory opinions in response to public inquiries.
…Consistent with these requirements, the Board does not provide advisory interpretations, policy analysis, or commentary regarding:
- The interpretation or application of statutory reporting obligations
- The legal characterization or recognition of diagnostic criteria or classifications
- Internal compliance, reporting, or investigative procedures
- Whether any review, referral, or investigation has occurred or may occur
…For these reasons, the Board is unable to provide further clarification or response to the questions presented in your correspondence."
— Enforcement Analyst, California Board of Psychology, Department of Consumer Affairs, Sacramento. Reproduced verbatim; complete original retained.
Your response declined to provide interpretation, clarification, or commentary regarding: statutory reporting obligations; recognition of diagnostic classifications related to psychological abuse; internal reporting or investigative procedures; whether any reporting or review actions occur. For the record, this correspondence reflects that position. What your response makes clear — whether intended or not — is that no clarification is being provided as to how children are protected when credible information indicating ongoing psychological abuse — resulting in mental suffering as defined under California Penal Code §11165.3 and Welfare & Institutions Code §300 — is presented. In practical terms, this leaves a documented gap between the recognition that such harm exists and any articulated mechanism by which it is reported, evaluated, or acted upon. The result is that children who may be experiencing mental suffering within the meaning of California law remain without clearly defined protection pathways at the point where such information reaches a regulatory body charged with public protection. This letter is not a request for further clarification. It is a formal statement documenting the Board's response and its implications.
Reader's note: the state body whose legal mission is the protection of the public, asked whether the diagnostic category of child psychological abuse falls within its own state's abuse statutes, answered — in writing — that it will not say. Not whether children are protected. Not whether reports occur. Not whether the category is recognized. The refusal itself is the record.
The Completed Map
Every institutional layer that exists to protect a psychologically abused child — and what each did, on the record, when asked.
Six institutional doors. Ten years. Every one of them, documented, chose not to answer whether children are protected. That is why USPsychology.com exists.
Every board reply on this page is reproduced verbatim and complete. The sender's letters are excerpted where bracketed, for length, with complete originals retained in the evidence file. This page invents no statement, attributes no crime to any person or organization, and publishes no private contact information. © Kenneth R. Gottfried.