The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists had its quarterly Board Meeting in which there was standing room only and overflow into the hallway.  Twenty-six (26) non-professionals signed up to testify or provide written statements. The primary public interest at the meeting involved debates focused on the role of Forensic Evaluators who are licensed by the TSBEP in family court litigation.  

Previous TSBEP board member, Alissa Sherry, sent out an email soliciting support for her testimony at the Feb 14th meeting. The email can be viewed here:

Dr. Sherry was advocating for immunity for Custody Evaluators against complaints and lawsuits, her testimony can be heard here:

Prior to addressing the Board, individuals were required to sign in with their full name and signature.  After signing in, each speaker was allocated 3 minutes to speak. The 3-minute time limit was enforced until Dr. Sherry spoke.  Instead of enforcing the 3-minute rule, the Board allowed her to speak for 11 uninterrupted minutes.

Of the non-professionals in attendance, all 12 of the individuals who testified against immunity for Dr. Sherry were required to sign in before being allowed to speak while the only individual to speak in support of Dr. Sherry was allowed to testify without signing in and without providing a last name.  

The optics of favorable treatment to former board member Dr. Alissa Sherry are disturbing as the Board has summarily dismissed the last five complaints filed against her. Open forum meetings are essential for the public to maintain faith in their governing bodies and all participants should be treated equally.

The next board meeting for TSBEP will be May 16, 2019

Board members in attendance: Tim Branaman, Ph.D., ChairpersonLou Ann Todd Mock, Ph.D., Vice ChairpersonHerman Adler, M.A.John BielamowiczRyan T. BridgesAngela A. Downes, J.D.Susan Fletcher, Ph.D.Ron Palomares, Ph.D.Andoni Zagouris, M.A.Darrel Spinks, Executive Director

For more information or interviews contact:

Petition: TSBEP investigation into Custody Evaluator Dr. Alissa Sherry


Petition Letter to TSBEP

To: Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (TSBEP) Board Members

333 Guadalupe Street
Tower 2, Room 450
Austin, Texas 78701

As a follow up to the TSBEP Board meeting on February 14, 2019, we the undersigned to this petition wish to reiterate our grave concerns about one of the TSBEP licensees, Dr. Alissa Sherry (Lic 32248), who conducted deeply-flawed forensic custody and psychological evaluations for family courts which irreparably harmed our children, our families, and us personally.  We are saddened that we must take these actions today, but in doing so, we hope to prevent this tragedy from happening to other members of the public who are court-ordered to obtain evaluations.

We urge you to take this petition and our individual complaints about Dr. Alissa Sherry seriously and investigate her actions thoroughly.  

As a critical component of the family law system, we ask that this Board consider taking the actions below, among others, to remedy troubling issues pertaining to misconduct in forensic evaluations and implement long-overdue reform.  It is incumbent upon the Board to uphold its professional integrity by strengthening its policies pertaining to forensic evaluations conducted by its licensees, and enforcing those rules rigorously by identifying and disciplining unethical practitioners.  

Thus, we ask that the board instill more oversight and provide more direction to forensic psychologists involved in family court cases.  Taking these and other steps will prevent needless devastation to Texas children and their families.  It will also better inform the court as to the best interests of the children, which is the clear mandate in these cases.

To not address this important issue would be negligent; it may place the public, especially one of its most vulnerable populations – children – at further risk of irreparable damage and may further erode the public’s faith in the psychological profession.  

As a result of the damaging effects that Dr. Sherry’s misconduct had on our and our children’s lives, we request that the Board conduct a comprehensive review of its policies and rules regarding forensic evaluations.  Due to the critical and extensive nature of the problems discussed herein, we request that the Board create a committee to conduct such a review, and have among its members at least two (2) parents to represent the public’s perspective.  

Requests and Recommendations

Given the sheer volume and patterns of misconduct in her custody and psychological evaluations, we request

  1. that you require Dr. Sherry to undergo a physical and mental evaluation due to a reasonable suspicion of impairment per Texas Occupations Code Section 501.158 Competency Requirements.  In conjunction with its own investigations, this action will inform the Board as to this licensee’s competency and further, prevent this potentially impaired practitioner from putting other clients at risk of harm.  
  2. Until a proper investigation can be completed, we request that the Board suspend forensic evaluations conducted by Dr. Alissa Sherry altogether from the Texas family law courts.

For all forensic custody and psychological evaluations conducted by Board licensees, we make these requests, including but not limited to:  

  1. Provide and enforce a strict requirement that opinions and statements be validated methodically and scientifically.  Require evaluators to clearly identify information that was not substantiated and rationale for not doing so.
  2. Establish and enforce rigorous rules when diagnosing individuals for forensic family law cases.  
  3. Require and enforce evaluators to spend equal amounts of time with parents (as well as their attorneys) and children (including time spent independent of parents).  
  4. Set and enforce stringent guidelines about collateral informants regarding their reliability and objectivity, including but not limited to, requiring all informants to sign affidavits certifying the truth, completeness, and accuracy of information attributed to them in the final evaluation.  
  5. Prohibit an evaluator from recommending the dismissal of other professionals.  
  6. Prohibit and enforce all psychologists from ex parte communications.
  7. Set and enforce limitations on time allowed for forensic evaluations, both psychological and custody.  
  8. Set and enforce fees and costs associated with, including a maximum cost, for forensic evaluations, both psychological and custody.  
  9. Conduct regular audits of forensic psychologists, including but not limited to, their methodology, conduct, and reports.  
  10. Provide a clearly defined process for review and authentication of the evaluation report prior to finalizing, including corrections, and include such in the final report.  
  11. Require all communications between evaluator, attorneys, and all parties are via email and made available to all parties involved. Any telephone conversations should be recorded.
  12. Enforce evaluators adhering to the court-ordered scope of services.  
  13. Require all forensic evaluators to be proficient in and employ trauma-informed methods.   

We make these requests as parents or families who were harmed by the unethical conduct and malpractice of Dr. Alissa Sherry.  Please recognize that we, the undersigned, may represent only a fraction of families negatively impacted by Dr. Sherry.  Due to fear of retaliation, legal advice, and pending litigation, others may not have come forward as of this date. In reality, once a family is court-ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation, there is little recourse to do otherwise.  

Though all of our stories are different, there are unignorable similarities and patterns in our forensic evaluations performed by Dr. Sherry.  In an attempt to counter the harm of these deeply-flawed evaluations, some of us obtained peer reviews of Dr. Sherry’s evaluations. These practitioners also identified a disturbing pattern of misconduct.

Misconduct and Unethical Conduct by Dr. Alissa Sherry

  1. Misdiagnoses after no significant contact with the client; with no client history of psychological issues; and which contradicted other professionals’ opinions.  Dr. Sherry regularly diagnoses psychosis in a statistically impossible percentage of divorced parents as compared to the percentage in the general public.
  2. Misuse of psychological testing, including the Rorschach test, and use of outdated tests
  3. The inclusion of unreliable, biased collateral informants and the exclusion of reliable collateral informants
  4. Failed to base forensic opinions on information sufficient to provide substantiation for each finding; selectively included and excluded information to the extent that it misled and inaccurately portrayed the situation
  5. Issued reports containing errors and unsupported opinions; failed to validate and substantiate information
  6. Failed to recognize a lack of objectivity; needlessly biased treatment of the two parents
  7. Failed to comply with court-ordered scope, including failure to assess parenting attributes
  8. Paraphrasing and misrepresenting events to the extent that it significantly confused and misled the court with inaccurate information
  9. Conducted evaluations without the requisite competency
  10. Violated ethical principles and Board rules
  11. Inappropriate billing practices
  12. Engaged in dual relationships
  13. Potential improper supervision
  14. Misrepresented her services as legal services (e.g., Legal Consensus, and online advertisements)

Harm Caused by Dr. Alissa Sherry’s Unethical, Flawed Evaluations

As you can imagine, these evaluations took a significant, damaging toll on our children, families, and us in many respects, including psychological, legal and financial.  Dr. Sherry’s evaluations of us resulted in these and other harmful effects.

  1. Partial and total loss of our children and grandchildren … precious time that we won’t get back
  2. Likewise, our children’s loss of us … also, precious time that they won’t get back  
  3. Financial hardship and even ruin … cumulatively, millions of dollars in direct expenses for Dr. Sherry’s evaluations, expenses for litigation relating to the evaluations, and expenses for second opinions and peer reviews of the evaluations.  Currently, our average cost of just the custody evaluation alone is $61,356 per person and the average spent on litigation and direct court expenses recovering from these false evaluations is $475,875 per person. Many of us have had to sell our homes and/or experienced homelessness.  
  4. Vulnerability and injustice in litigation.  Misdiagnoses and misleading findings are seized upon and exploited by opposing counsel in proceedings.  
  5. Stigma from misdiagnoses
  6. Trauma from the entire process

Dr. Sherry’s evaluations represent a form of harassment, not to mention potential malpractice.  

In closing, in the coming months, we will be filing individual complaints and again, we urge the Board to take these licensing complaints, and others like ours, very seriously.  It would be extremely negligent of the Board to dismiss complaints against psychologists who are involved in family court cases. It would give unethical psychologists unabated opportunity to continue causing irreparable damage to Texas children and families.  

At your earliest convenience, please let us know what, if any, actions the Board will take as a result of the public comments from its February 14, 2019 meeting, this petition, complaints, etc.  

Thank you, in advance, for your consideration.

Tim Branaman, Ph.D., Chairperson
Lou Ann Todd Mock, Ph.D., Vice Chairperson
Herman Adler, M.A.
John Bielamowicz
Ryan T. Bridges
Angela A. Downes, J.D.
Susan Fletcher, Ph.D.
Ron Palomares, Ph.D.
Andoni Zagouris, M.A.
Darrel Spinks, Executive Director (


Dr Alissa Sherry – Public Alissa Sherry Testimony at TSBEP meeting

Hit play below to listen:


Dr. Alissa Sherry – Email soliciting support at TSBEP board meeting.


who gets the engagement ring after divorce

A Painful Reminder of The Past: Who Gets The Engagement Ring After Divorce?

who gets the engagement ring after divorce


There is no doubt that going through divorce is a difficult process.  It wears you down financially, emotionally and physically.  A common area of contention in divorce is the very symbol of the marriage itself – the engagement ring. A symbol of the excitement of what the future may hold now becomes a painful reminder of the past.

In 2018, Business Insider reported that American men spent an average of $6,351 on an engagement ring.  With the CDC reporting over 2 million marriages and 800,000 divorces per year in the United States alone, many individuals wonder what to do with the ring upon divorce.

Regardless of any sentimental value, the engagement ring is by itself best treated as an asset – and a costly one at that.  Like all assets, the engagement ring is one that must be dealt with upon divorce.

Be it a separation over an unfaithful spouse, mutual disinterest, or simply for economic reasons, one question remains pertinent – who gets the engagement ring after divorce?

What the Engagement Ring Means

Although marriage has changed significantly since the outset of the engagement ring, the meaning behind the ring has remained largely the same. Scholars have postulated different and distinct meanings of the engagement ring that reveal ancient ideological values of marriage.  These ideological values have survived to the present day in some shape or form, but one question remains – is the engagement ring merely a gift, is it is a symbol of love or is it representative of some type of legally binding agreement?

At its outset, scholars believed that the imagery of clasped hands often engraved onto ancient Roman wedding rings invoked the idea of a marital agreement. They also believed that the groom may have offered the engagement ring as a gift to embody the agreement of marriage and the additional responsibilities that come with it. In many ancient societies, the imagery symbolizes both a bond during life and a farewell in death – reminiscent of the poignant vow “until death do us part,” similar to that of modern society.

Who Should Keep the Ring?

Most states treat the engagement ring as a “conditional gift,” meaning that the receiving party is allowed to keep the ring on the condition that the marriage occurs.  Should the marriage not occur, the receiving party must return the ring. States that abide by this rule include Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In the state of Montana, engagement rings are treated as “unconditional gifts,” meaning that the receiving party will be allowed to keep the ring no matter what.

In California, Texas, and Washington, the engagement ring is treated as an “implied conditional gift.” Simply put, if a party backs out of the wedding, then the non-backing party can keep the ring.

More specifically in California, Civil Code Chapter 3 Section 1590 provides that “where either party to a contemplated marriage in this State makes a gift of money or property to the other on the basis or assumption that the marriage will take place, in the event that the [receiver] refuses to enter into the marriage as contemplated or that it is given up by mutual consent, the [giver] may recover such gift or such part of its value as may, under all of the circumstances of the case, be found by a court or jury to be just.”

The California statute states that any gift made in anticipation of marriage can be recovered by the giver in the event that the receiver no longer wants to become married, or both parties agree to no longer getting married.  Thus, if we consider the engagement ring a gift, this statute would entitle a groom to recover his engagement ring if his fiancée backs out of the engagement, or if they no longer agree to get married.

On the other hand, the landmark case of Simonian v. Donoian set a precedent that allows the receiver of the gift to keep that gift if the wedding is called off by the giver. The California Court of Appeals found that “the clear meaning of [Section 1590] is that the [receiver] of an engagement ring is entitled to retain possession thereof when the marriage contract is breached by the [giver] without any fault on [receiver’s] part.”  Thus, a fiancée would be entitled to retain possession of the engagement ring if the groom calls off the wedding unilaterally.

Additionally, engagement rings are sometimes considered to be a family heirloom. The Court of Appeals of Oregon found in the case of In re: Domestic Partnership of Ewing that the giver of a family heirloom ring was entitled to receive that ring back after separation.  However, it is always highly advised that future husbands and wives draft a prenuptial agreement when a family heirloom is involved.

The law can be unclear on who gets the engagement ring if the marriage is terminated at the fault of a giving party’s actions, such as an affair. There are arguments yet to be explored – the existence of common law marriage and contractual marriage lend credence to the notion that the engagement ring can symbolize some type of agreement, just as it did with the ancient Romans.

The post A Painful Reminder of The Past: Who Gets The Engagement Ring After Divorce? appeared first on Divorced Moms.


Parental Alienation: Allegations and the Favored Parent

Parental Alienation: Allegations and the Favored Parent



Parental Alienation: Allegations and the Favored Parent

Copyright © 2018 by Monika Logan, M.A., LPC, LSOTP


When a parent is identified as being the favored parent and accused of undermining the relationship between the other (rejected) parent and their child, the favored parent may feel discouraged and indicate that he/she is doing everything possible to promote the parent-child relationship.

The favored parent will often insist that he/she does not speak ill of the rejected parent, but rather encourages the child to communicate with the rejected parent. The favored parent may pronounce that the child’s rejection is a direct result of the rejected parent’s (in)actions and/or behaviors. The favored parent may also be inclined to attribute the child’s rejection to the rejected parent’s disposition and/or some other personality and/or behavioral flaw of the rejected parent. The favored parent may indicate that the child no longer wants to spend time with the rejected parent and that he/she cannot and should not force the child to do so.

What can a parent do? It is important for mental health professionals to realize that when working with families that the reason for rejection may be based in some fragment of reality. It is vital, however, that the favored parent does not mischaracterize the incident, behavior, and/or personality trait of their co-parent (the rejected parent). A common example is when a rejected parent has had an inappropriate response to anger during an isolated incident(s) in which he/she resorts to screaming and/or shouting at the child. Consequently, the child may have developed a fear reaction to the rejected parent. In addition, although the fear response by the child was observable in the past, it has now developed into a momentous concern by the favored parent.

After all, what can a parent accused of alienating behavior do, when his/her ex-spouse is “hot-tempered”? It is imperative that the favored parent does not perpetuate the child’s fear. It may become easy to claim that the rejected parent’s unmanaged anger problem is the cause of the child’s rejection, touting “See, his/her temper is why the child does not want anything to do with him/her.”

What can a parent do? Do not embellish your co-parent’s flaw, which only serves to further exacerbate fear(s).

When it comes to faults, rather than resorting to a myopic view, consider how the rejected parent’s flaw(s) were managed during the marriage/partnership. It is unlikely that your co-parent was flawless during the marriage/partnership. Perhaps the rejected parent’s temperament was an irritant during the marriage/partnership, however, it notably was not the reason for the relationship’s demise.

What can a parent do? Do not let the rejected parent’s temperament serve as weapon of rejection that can be used to sever the relationship with the child.

A common example observed by mental health professionals is a rejected parent who has worked outside of the home in order to provide the favored parent the opportunity to remain at home with the child. During the marriage/partnership, the rejected parent’s working hours were sometimes a frustration, however, he/she also earned an income that provided for many of life’s extras. Therefore, during the marriage/partnership the long hours were acceptable. When soccer games or dance recitals were missed on occasion, positive sentiments were made, such as telling the child that the rejected parent did not want to miss the event, and that he/she will attend next time.

What can a parent do? If the rejected parent went above and beyond to pay for activities and/or other extras during the marriage/partnership, do not use time as the weapon of choice after the marriage/partnership has ended by depicting the rejected parent as “absent” and/or “uninvolved” co-parent.

Sometimes, favored parents will verbally say they want what is “best for their child,” but will behave to the contrary. Here are some actions that may aid to offset and/or curtail allegations of alienation:

  • Promote time with the rejected parent as valuable.
  • Do not schedule activities that your child values during the rejected parent’s parenting time.
  • Do not simply say you will cooperate, show that you will cooperate.
  • Enforce your parental authority. If your child reports they do not want to spend time with the rejected parent, consider how you make your child eat dinner, go to school, and/or any other activity that your child may not want to engage in.
  • Encourage the importance of family. Share positive memories with your child about the rejected parent’s extended family.
  • Do not overact when your child tells you something negative about the rejected parent.
  • Establish boundaries.
  • Do not overschedule your child so that the child does not miss out on valuable time with the rejected parent.
  • Seek help from a well-trained and experienced professional who is skilled in working with children, families, and resist/refuse dynamics.


Monika Logan is an owner and the Director of Texas Premier Counseling Services, PLLC (Texas PCS) located in Frisco, Texas. She specializes in Parental Alienation as well as troubled, damaged, and/or strained parent-child relationships. She provides counselling services for parents and their children in conflict and/or those struggling with issues related to separation and/or divorce. Ms. Logan offers Parenting Facilitation Services to help parents reduce conflict, and she helps repair parent-child relationship breaches as a Reunification Counselor.


child support across state lines

How To Juggle A Child Support Order In Multiple States

child support across state linesQuestion:

Child support for my son was initially opened in New York and also closed in New York. I later moved to Texas while my son, who is now 18, moved to Virginia.

Since neither of us no longer live in New York, do I still need to pay child support until age 21 since the case originated in New York?


While I am not licensed to practice law in your state, I can give some general guidance on this issue.

To properly answer your question, I would need to review all of the orders from New York, along with all of the orders from Virginia. If the case was terminated or closed in New York, and a brand new case was opened in Virginia, then I believe Virginia law would control how your child support order is handled.

If the case was simply transferred from New York to Virginia, and if Virginia follows the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, then I do not believe Virginia can modify the duration of the support order, just the amount of the support order.

Oklahoma Divorce Attorney Natalie Sears
Oklahoma Divorce Attorney Natalie Sears

However, this could all be moot if your son is no longer living with his mother.

I would recommend calling a Virginia family law attorney for a consultation first to review the support order that is currently in effect to see what language controls how it is implemented and terminated, along with gathering more information about your case.

To arrange an initial consultation to discuss divorce rights for men with a Cordell & Cordell attorney, including Oklahoma divorce lawyer Natalie Sears, contact Cordell & Cordell.

The post How To Juggle A Child Support Order In Multiple States appeared first on Dads Divorce.


Inept, corrupt, dishonest, worst of her profession (In my opinion)

Self-verified patient of Dr. Alissa Sherry – Posted on November 23rd, 2018

Let me first start off with saying that all of the following comments are my own opinions of Dr. Alissa Sherry: She is the worst psychologist that I have ever come across in my life and should have her ability to practice any type of psychological evaluations severely limited or revoked altogether. In my opinion it borderlines on malpractice at its highest level. Never ever allow her to evaluate you or someone you love no matter who appoints her, fight it to your death as she has the potential to destroy lives by her unprofessional assessments that seemed to be motivated by nothing more than money. This person could be your worst nightmare just look at the other reviews before this one, all rate her at the lowest level possible and basically say the same thing. Has an evaluation been court ordered of you for some reason? In my opinion, you will be risking everything by allowing her involvement with your case in any way shape or form. Go to your attorney, go to the court, go to anyone who will listen and do everything in your power to not allow her anywhere near yourself or a loved one. I personally would not even show up if ordered to. Do not take a chance with Alissa Sherry if you value your children, your marriage, your freedom, your life. Read the other reviews their not wrong in my opinion, proceed with caution and consider yourself warned…..

Have you been affected by Family Court Corruption in Texas or the Travis County and surrounding area?  

Have you been affected by Family Court Corruption in Texas or the Travis County and surrounding area?

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required


Self-verified patient of Dr. Alissa Sherry – Posted on September 13th, 2018

Dr. Sherry is not interested in your family or their welfare, only in making money in the divorce industry. Will not take both sides into consideration, is unfair and biased. Pitifully overpriced and underperforming.