15 Known Complaints against Alissa Sherry / Legal Consensus since 2015 with TSBEP / TBHEC

PETITION UPDATE – www.change.org/p/texas-state-board-of-examiners-of-psychologists-tsbep-investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry-and-legal-consensus/u/25349698

Known Complaints against Alissa Sherry / Legal Consensus
(Note these are only people that have reach out to us, NOT a complete list, we are sure there are more): 

Complaints against Alissa Sherry Dismissed by TSBEP without Any Disciplinary Action Taken since 2015:

Complainant 1 – JH #2015-00110-9966 
Complainant 2 – RF #2015-00153-9966
Complainant 3 – BS # 2015-XXXXX-9966
Complainant 4 – CM #2016-0037-9966
Complainant 5 – KC #2016-00123-9966
Complainant 6 – TP #2017-00057-9966
Complainant 7 – CH #2017-XXXXX-9966
Complainant 8 – JN #2018-00053-9966 

Current Complaints against Alissa Sherry / Legal Consensus Under Investigation by TSBEP: 

Complainant 9 – LW #2019-00069-9966
Complainant 10 – CC #2019-00070-9966
Complainant 11 – CB #2019-0071-9966
Complainant 12 – SG #2019-000100-9966 
Complainant 13 – CR #2019-XXXXX-9966
Complainant 14 – DJ #2019-00130-9966
Complainant 15 – RF #2020-00004-9966 Dr. Alissa Sherry;
                                 #2020-00005-13268 Michelle Munevar;

Section 501.203(d) of TSBEP Rules States that “The Board shall analyze complaints filed with the board to identify any trends or issues related to certain violations.  

www.change.org/p/texas-state-board-of-examiners-of-psychologists-tsbep-investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry-and-legal-consensus/u/25349698

October 15, 2019 meeting of the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council  (TBHEC) - Speaker Regarding Parental Alienation 1

October 15, 2019 meeting of the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council (TBHEC) – Speaker Regarding Parental Alienation

The October 15, 2019 meeting of the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council in Austin, Texas (TBHEC)

Update on Complaints Against Alissa Sherry / Legal Consensus and TSBEP / TBHEC Complaint Process

PETITION UPDATE – www.change.org/p/texas-state-board-of-examiners-of-psychologists-tsbep-investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry-and-legal-consensus/u/25214343

Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (TSBEP) Instructions for complaints: 

“State in simple, narrative language why you think the professional violated the Psychologists’ Licensing Act or Board rules.” 

But then when you read the fine print: 
“There must be sufficient evidence to establish probable cause of the misconduct. Therefore, if no probable cause can be determined as a result of the investigation, or if there is not sufficient evidence to withstand a court hearing, the complaint is referred to the Dismissal Committee”  

You are lead to believe you can fill out one page of complaint information in layman’s terms.  The TSBEP takes 18-24 months to make a determination, eventually dismissing because the complaint won’t stand up in a court of law.  By this time people have moved on, are broke after battling the family court system and have no ability to draft a second complaint that will stand up in a court of law.  The TSBEP has set their complaint system up so that anyone that complains about custody evaluations or psychological evaluations is guaranteed to not succeed. 
www.tsbep.texas.gov/how-to-file-a-complaint-enforcement

And when an inquiry is made on how to appeal the decision Darrel Spinks the Executive Director of the TSBEP stated “The dismissal of a complaint may not be appealed by a complainant or a third-party”

www.change.org/p/texas-state-board-of-examiners-of-psychologists-tsbep-investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry-and-legal-consensus/u/25214343

Arguments for Custody Evaluator Immunity in Lawsuit

Sherry cites Jones vs Sherry case in support for her immunity  cases.justia.com/texas/third-court-of-appeals/2019-03-18-00279-cv.pdf?ts=1561724417  Quotes from that appeal:
“When a person is entitled to derived judicial immunity, he or she receives the same absolute immunity from liability for acts performed within the scope of his or her jurisdiction as that of a judge. Dallas County v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Tex. 2002) (concluding that court reporter was not entitled to derived judicial immunity)” 
“Applying the functional approach and considering Dr. Sherry’s relationship to the judicial process in the underlying divorce proceedings, we conclude that Dr. Sherry is entitled to derived judicial immunity for any acts performed within the scope of her delegated authority ” 

Most importantly Sherry violated the Texas Family Code (§107.108) to abide by all standards of care and all ethical standards guidelines ;
AFCC Rules –  Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation
www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/ModelStdsChildCustodyEvalSept2006.pdf5.1 ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION 
The scope of the evaluation shall be delineated in a Court order or in a signed stipulation by the parties and their counsel.

At no point does the Jones appeal discuss the fact that Sherry did not perform within the scope of her delegated authority, and does not mention that Sherry did not follow the laws and codes as stated in Sherry’s own signed stipulation by the parties.   Sherry citing the Jones appeal is irrelevant because the cases are brought about on totally different claims.   Sherry’s scope of the evaluation was delineated in the signed agreement between the parties that stated

  1. Alissa Sherry and her corporation would, and were required to abide by the ethical standards of Psychologists, The Texas Psychologists Licensing Act, and the rules of the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.  
  2. Forensic assessments conducted through Legal Consensus PLLC are conducted with the highest regard for the ethical standards for licensed psychologists and the ethical standards for forensic psychologists
  3. Alissa Sherry and her corporation would be as legally, professionally, and financially independent of the parties as possible.  In this way the examiner maintains his/her personal integrity
  4. Alissa Sherry and her corporation would provide an independent, neutral, objective examination

Sherry specifically did not complete her contract within the above scope of the evaluation by violating the following laws and codes:

The Relevant and Controlling Statutes and Board Rules

  • The determination of whether or not Legal Consensus fulfilled or breached its contractual obligations requires the Court to consider the applicable contract terms, the relevant statutes, Board rules, and the American Psychological Association (“APA”) Ethical Principals and Code of Conduct applicable to the Legal Consensus Fee Agreement:

  • Tex. Fam. Code:
    • §107.0512. SOCIAL STUDY EVALUATOR: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND BIAS.
      • (a) A social study evaluator who has a conflict of interest with any party in a disputed suit or who may be biased on the basis of previous knowledge, other than knowledge obtained in a court-ordered evaluation, shall: (1) decline to conduct a social study for the suit; or (2) disclose any issue or concern to the court before accepting the appointment or assignment.
      • b) A social study evaluator who has previously conducted a social study for a suit may conduct all subsequent evaluations in the suit unless the court finds that the evaluator is biased.
    • §107.0513. GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CONDUCT OF SOCIAL STUDY AND PREPARATION OF REPORT.
      • (a) Unless otherwise directed by a court or prescribed by a provision of this title, a social study evaluator’s actions in conducting a social study shall be in conformance with the professional standard of care applicable to the evaluator’s licensure and any administrative rules, ethical standards, or guidelines adopted by the state agency that licenses the evaluator.
      • (c) A social study evaluator shall follow evidence-based practice methods and make use of current best evidence in making assessments and recommendations.
      • (e) To the extent possible, a social study evaluator shall verify each statement of fact pertinent to a social study and shall note the sources of verification and information in the report.
    • §107.0514. ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL STUDY.
      • (a) The basic elements of a social study under this subchapter consist of:
        • (2) an interview, conducted in a developmentally appropriate manner, of each child at issue in the suit who is at least four years of age;
        • (7) assessment of the relationship between each child at issue in the suit and each party seeking possession of or access to the child.
      • (b) The additional elements of a social study under this subchapter consist of:
        • (1) balanced interviews and observation of each child at issue in the suit so that a child who is interviewed or observed while in the care of one party to the suit is also interviewed or observed while in the care of each other party to the suit;
        • (2) an interview of each individual residing in a residence subject to the social study;
        • (3) evaluation of the home environment of each party seeking conservatorship of a child at issue in the suit or possession of or access to the child, regardless of whether the home environment is in dispute.
      • (c) A social study evaluator may not offer an opinion regarding conservatorship of a child at issue in a suit or possession of or access to the child unless each basic element of a social study under Subsection (a) has been completed.
    • §107.107 provides that: “before accepting appointment as a child custody evaluator, the person must disclose to the court, the parties’ attorneys, any conflict of interest, any relationship or confidence or trust the person believes the person has with an attorney in the suit, and or any other information relating the persons relationship with an attorney in the suit that could affect the ability of the person to act impartially in conducting the child custody evaluation. After appointment, the person shall immediately disclose to the court any conflict of interest.”
    • §107.108
      • §107.108(a) provides that: A child custody evaluator’s actions must be in conformance with the professional standard of care applicable to the evaluator’s license and any ethical standards or guidelines of the licensing authority that licenses the evaluator.
      • §107.108(c) provides that: A child custody evaluator shall follow evidence-based practice methods, and make use of current best evidence in making assessments and recommendations.
      • §107.108(d) provides that: A child custody evaluator shall disclose to each attorney of record any communication regarding a substantive issue between the evaluator and an attorney of record representing one of the parties. 
      • §107.108(e) provides that: A child custody evaluator shall verify each statement of fact pertinent to a child custody evaluation and shall note the sources of verification and information in the report.
      • §107.108(f) provides that: A child custody evaluator shall state the basis of the evaluator’s conclusions, in the extent to which the information obtained limits the reliability and validity of the opinion and the conclusions and recommendations of the evaluator.
    • §107.109(d) provides that: The additional elements of a child custody evaluations consist of balanced interviews and observations of each child.
    • §107.112 (c) provides that: Except for records obtained from the department in accordance with Section 107.111, a private child custody evaluator shall, after completion of an evaluation and the preparation and filing of a child custody evaluation report under Section 107.113, make available in a reasonable time the evaluator’s records relating to the evaluation on the written request of an attorney for a party, a party who does not have an attorney, and any person appointed under this chapter in the suit in which the evaluator conducted the evaluation, unless a court has issued an order restricting disclosure of the records.
    • §107.115 provides that: The court shall award the person a reasonable fee for the preparation of the evaluation that shall be imposed in the form of a money judgment.
  • Texas Board Psychology Rules (Tex. Admin. Code Title 22 part 21 §461.1 et seq) 
    • 463.8- Licensed Psychological Assistant
      • must practice under the supervision of a licensed psychologist and may not practice independently, unless meet certification standards
  • 465.9 Competency

(a) Licensees maintain current knowledge of scientific and professional information that ensures competency in every area in which they provide services.

(b) Licensees provide services in an unfamiliar area or involving new techniques only after first undertaking appropriate study and training, including supervision, and/or consultation from a professional competent to provide such services.

(c) In emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for preparatory training do not exist, licensees take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect patients,clients, research participants, and other affected individuals from the potential for harm.

(d) Licensees are responsible for ensuring that all individuals practicing under their supervision are competent to perform those services.

(e) Licensees who delegate performance of certain services such as test scoring are responsible for ensuring that the entity to whom the delegation is made is competent to perform those services.

(f) Licensees who lack the competency to provide particular psychological services to a specific individual must withdraw and refer the individual to a competent appropriate service provider.

(g) Licensees refrain from initiating or continuing to undertake an activity when they know or should know that there is a substantial likelihood that personal problems or conflicts will prevent them from performing their work-related activities or producing a psychological report in a competent and timely manner. When licensees become aware of such conflicts, they must immediately take appropriate measures, such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance in order to determine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate the engagement in accordance with Board rule §465.21 of this title (relating to Termination of Services)

  • 465.10 provides that: Basis for Scientific and Professional Judgments:
    • Licensees rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge when making professional judgments.”

  • 465.11- Informed Consent.

(a) Except in an inpatient setting where a general consent has been signed, licensees must obtain and document in writing informed consent concerning all services they intend to provide to the patient, client or other recipient(s) of the psychological services prior to initiating the services, using language that is reasonably understandable to the recipients unless consent is precluded by applicable federal or state law.

(b) Licensees provide appropriate information as needed during the course of the services about changes in the nature of the services to the patient client or other recipient(s) of the services using language that is reasonably understandable to the recipient to ensure informed consent.

(c) Licensees provide appropriate information as needed, during the course of the services to the patient client and other recipient(s) and afterward if requested, to explain the results and conclusions reached concerning the services using language that is reasonably understandable to the recipient(s).

(d) When a licensee agrees to provide services to a person, group or organization at the request of a third party, the licensee clarifies to all of the parties the nature of the relationship between the licensee and each party at the outset of the service and at any time during the services that the circumstances change.

(f) At any time that a licensee knows or should know that he or she may be called on to perform potentially conflicting roles, the licensee explains the conflict to all affected parties and adjusts or withdraws from all professional services in accordance with Board rules and applicable state and federal law. Further, licensees who encounter personal problems or conflicts as described in Board rule 465.9(i) of this title that will prevent them from performing their work-related activities in a competent and timely manner must inform their clients of the personal problem or conflict and discuss appropriate termination and/or referral to insure that the services are completed in a timely manner.

  • 465.13
  • 465.13(a) In General:
    • 465.13(a)(1) provides that: Licensees refrain from providing services when they know or should know that their personal problems or a lack of objectivity have the potential to impair their competency or harm a patient, client, colleague, student, supervisee, research participant, or other person with whom they have a professional relationship.
    • 465.13(a)(3) provides that: Licensees do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory evaluative, or other authority such as students, supervisees, employees, research participants, and clients or patients.
    • 465.13(a)(4) provides that: Licensees refrain from entering into any professional relationship that conflicts with their ability to comply with all Board rules applicable to other existing professional relationships.
    • 465.13(a)(5) provides that: Licensees withdraw from any professional relationship that conflicts, or comes into conflict with, their ability to comply with Board rules relating to other existing professional relationships.
  • 465.13(b) Dual Relationships:
    • 465.13(b)(1) provides that: A licensee must refrain from entering into a dual relationship with a client, patient, supervisee, student, group, organization, or any other party if such a relationship presents a risk that the dual relationship could impair the licensee’s objectivity, prevent the licensee from providing competent psychological services, or exploit or otherwise cause harm to the other party.
    • 465.13(b)(2) provides that: A licensee must refrain from a professional relationship where pre-existing personal, financial, professional, or other relationships have the potential to impair the licensee’s objectivity or have any other potential to harm or exploit the other party.
    • 465.13(b)(5): provides that A licensee considering a professional relationship that would result in a dual or multiple relationship shall take appropriate measures, such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance, to determine whether there is a risk that the dual relationship could impair the licensee’s objectivity or cause harm to the other party. If any potential for impairment or harm exists, the licensee shall not provide services regardless of the wishes of the other party.
    • 465.13(b)(6) provides that: A licensee in a potentially harmful dual or multiple relationship must cease to provide psychological services to the other party, regardless of the wishes of that party.
  • 465.15- Fees and Financial Arrangements
    • (a) (3) Licensees shall not withhold records solely because payment has not been received unless specifically permitted by law.
    • (b) Ethical and Legal Requirements.
    • (2) Licensees do not misrepresent their fees.
    • (3) Licensees do not overcharge or otherwise exploit recipients of services or payers with respect to fees.
  • 465.16
    • 465.16(b)(1) provides that: “Licensees verify… that every evaluation… recommendation… evaluation statement… is based on information and techniques sufficient to provide appropriate substantiation for its findings.”
    • 465.16(b)(3) provides that: “Licensees who… utilize psychological assessment techniques… do so in a manner and for purposes for which are professional or scientific-based.”
    • 465.16(c)(1) provides that: “Licensees include all information that provides the basis for their findings in any report in which they make findings or diagnoses about an individual.”
    • 465.16(c)(2) provides that: “Licensees identify limits to the certainty with which diagnoses, judgments, or predictions can be made about individuals.”
    • 465.16(c)(3) provides that: “Licensees identify various test factors and characteristics of the person being assessed that might affect their professional judgment… when interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations.”
    • 465.16(c)(5) provides that: “Licensees provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions…”
  • 465.17
    • 465.17(e)(4)(A) Disclosure of Conflict and Bias provides that: “Licensees shall comply with all disclosure requirements set forth in Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §107.107.”
    • 465.17(e)(5)(A) Elements of Child Custody Evaluation provides that: “Licensees shall comply with Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 107.108, 107.109, and 107.1101 when conducting child custody evaluations.”
  • 465.18
    • 465.18(a)(3) provides that: All forensic opinions, reports, assessments, and recommendations rendered by a licensee must be based on information and techniques sufficient to provide appropriate substantiation for each finding.
    • 465.18(b)(1) Limitation on Services- A licensee who is asked to provide an opinion concerning an area or matter about which the licensee does not have the appropriate knowledge and competency to render a professional opinion shall decline to render that opinion.
    • 465.18(c)(4) provides that Describing the Nature of Services. A licensee must document in writing that subject(s) of forensic evaluations or their parents or legal representative have been informed of the following:… (4) The identity of the party who will pay the psychologist’s fees and if any portion of the fees is to be paid by the subject, the estimated amount of the fees…
    • 465.18(c)(7) The approximate length of time required to produce any reports or written results
    • 465.18(e)(6)(A) provides: (A) Licensees shall comply with the requirements of Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §107.112  regarding:
  • (i) the disclosure of communications between evaluation participants;
  • (ii) the creation and retention of records relevant to the evaluation; and
  • (iii) access to evaluation records
  • 501.351- General Authority to Delegate

A- A psychologist licensed under this chapter may delegate to a provisionally licensed psychologist, a newly licensed psychologist who is not eligible for managed care panels, a person who holds a temporary license issued under Section 501.263…

B- Delegating psychologist remains responsible. Individual administering the test must inform each patient that the person is being supervised by a licensed psychologist.

C- The board may determine whether the test/service may be properly and safely delegated.

October 15, 2019 meeting of the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council 2

October 15, 2019 meeting of the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council

October 15, 2019 meeting of the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council

The council will oversees and regulates the Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists, Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors, Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners, and the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.

Dr Alissa Sherry – Legal Consensus Petition – Reason for Signing

www.change.org/p/texas-state-board-of-examiners-of-psychologists-tsbep-investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry

Steven Harp

REASON FOR SIGNING

Her diagnoses should be annulled and the people who have successfully abducted babies through her misdiagnosis should be informed.

Dr Alissa Sherry - Legal Consensus Petition - Reason for Signing 3

Dr Alissa Sherry – Legal Consensus Petition – Reason for Signing

www.change.org/p/texas-state-board-of-examiners-of-psychologists-tsbep-investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry

Victoria Cantu

REASON FOR SIGNING

I’ve witnessed the corruption in family courts and have experienced first hand the traumatic effects that this can have on children and their families.

Dr Alissa Sherry - Legal Consensus Petition - Reason for Signing 4

Dr Alissa Sherry – Legal Consensus Petition – Reason for Signing

www.change.org/p/texas-state-board-of-examiners-of-psychologists-tsbep-investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry

Marika van Eerden

REASON FOR SIGNING:

Still recovering…

Dr Alissa Sherry - Legal Consensus Petition - Reason for Signing 5

Dr Alissa Sherry – Legal Consensus Petition

www.change.org/p/texas-state-board-of-examiners-of-psychologists-tsbep-investigation-into-forensic-custody-evaluator-dr-alissa-sherry

Francis Sanchez: It is pretty sad when individuals in control abuse the power they are given. The victims that they hurt are the powerless and they are afraid to tell their stories.  Lets continue to be the voice of these victims and erase abuse of innocent victims.

Dr Alissa Sherry - Legal Consensus Petition 6

Press Release: FORMER BOARD MEMBER SOLICITS SUPPORT FOR HER TESTIMONY AT TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS (TSBEP) BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 14TH, 2019 IN TRAVIS COUNTY

Press Release: FORMER BOARD MEMBER SOLICITS SUPPORT FOR HER TESTIMONY AT TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS (TSBEP) BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 14TH, 2019 IN TRAVIS COUNTY

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: family-court-corruption.com/alissa-sherry-legal-consensus/dr-alissa-sherry-email-soliciting-support-at-tsbep-board-meeting/

Dr. Sherry was advocating for immunity for Custody Evaluators against complaints and lawsuits, her testimony can be heard here: family-court-corruption.com/alissa-sherry-legal-consensus/dr-alissa-sherry-public-testimony-at-tsbep-meeting/

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 www.tsbep.texas.gov/important-dates

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: txfamilycourtcorruption@gmail.com