Board - Psychologist must be supervised

From the Boston Globe

A psychologist at the center of a controversy over child abuse reporting will not lose her license, but must be supervised for the next 18 months, a state board said.

The state Board of Mental Health Practice also ordered psychologist Anita Remig to pay for the supervision and to take continuing education classes.

Remig was cited by the board after the mother of three boys she was treating filed a complaint against her. Remig claimed she was being targeted for reporting possible child abuse after one of the boys became suicidal.

Charles Proulx, a non-lawyer who represented Remig, called the disciplinary proceedings a "witch hunt" and accused the board of operating without clear rules, in violation of state law.

"This case has been followed nationally because what she did was based on the Child Protection Act," he said. "The CPA contains protection from reprisals. With this decision, the worst fears of the professional community have been realized, and what you will see is that mental health professionals will shy away from working with high-risk clients."

However, the board emphasized that it was not punishing Remig for making a child abuse report.

In fact, the ruling suggested Remig might have been required to report her suspicions of abuse and neglect sooner. Remig treated the boys over five years and told the board in testimony that "every single session was a litany of violence" committed by the oldest boy against the middle brother, the ruling said.

The board sanctioned Remig for keeping sloppy billing and treatment records, noting that her testimony frequently contradicted her own notes from sessions. It also found she failed to terminate her treatment of the boys properly and did not pass along their records to their new therapist within the required 30 days.

The board, in its April 20 decision, found that Remig did not admit her shortcomings.

But Proulx said Remig stood up for her principles at the expense of her career. He said Remig would file a motion for reconsideration and was considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"The die is cast for her," he said. "Her livelihood, her business, relies on insurance referrals, and those have dried up. She went public, dug in her heels and stood up to say this is not right. Her holding to her position has cost her dearly."