Dina Shacknai: "Parental Disclosure Act" Proposal

[K_Z]

I agree, Lash, that Senator Barto has MANY more pressing issues on her plate than Dina’s idea for a new bitter ex-wives’ stalking law.

What seems so incredibly odd to me is that with Dina’s “impressive A- list roster of supporters” (language from the Phoenix Mag article) on her BOD, that the whole process of launching this idea for a bill, thus far, has been so amateurish. As though perhaps only one individual, Dina, is managing the process, and it appears she has only a passing familiarity with how state government actually works.

Perhaps Dina has access to an A-list roster of supporters, but it seems to me that Dina is either not asking her “impressive A- list roster of supporters” for advice, or she is ignoring anything they tell her. Or, perhaps they are tired of her and her rhetoric, and they have many other, more pressing, real world job responsibilities. Perhaps Dina has worn out the sympathy factor with her impressive A-listers…who knows.

There are at least 2 people on that A-list roster of supporters that have MUCH more than a passing familiarity with how state and federal government works. There are, IMO, a number of ways Dina could go about introducing her bitter ex-wives’ stalking provisions, and it seems to me she has chosen the least effective way to go about the process. And I’m okay with that.

It will be interesting to watch what happens this fall, and next session. (Especially with that $10 million wrongful death lawsuit soaking up Dina’s time and attention.)

Roughly 1000 bills are introduced each session in AZ, but an average of just 300 are successful. The process is long and difficult “on purpose”, involving many stakeholders, and many layers of opinion before approval. That’s a good thing for the citizens, IMO.

 

[time]

BBM - In my opinion, the "voluntary part" is an attempt to down play the privacy issues surrounding Dina's proposal. At this time our legislators are on high alert when it comes to privacy issues and are likely to steer clear of proposals that could be seen as an invasion of privacy. Senator Barto appears very passionate about the loopholes in Obamacare that affects the patients right to privacy. I believe Senator Barto has more pressing matters on her plate. I think it would be irresponsible of her should this bill ever see the floor, but unfortunately money talks.

Yeah, I think that was insightful of you. I'm also wondering if the voluntary part is voluntary at the beginning and then on to the next phase? On the other hand, I'm not so sure Dina didn't just do all this for attention - it makes headlines. Well, and, hey, headlines might bring donors.

 

[*Lash*]

I agree, Lash, that Senator Barto has MANY more pressing issues on her plate than Dina’s idea for a new bitter ex-wives’ stalking law.

What seems so incredibly odd to me is that with Dina’s “impressive A- list roster of supporters” (language from the Phoenix Mag article) on her BOD, that the whole process of launching this idea for a bill, thus far, has been so amateurish. As though perhaps only one individual, Dina, is managing the process, and it appears she has only a passing familiarity with how state government actually works.

Perhaps Dina has access to an A-list roster of supporters, but it seems to me that Dina is either not asking her “impressive A- list roster of supporters” for advice, or she is ignoring anything they tell her. Or, perhaps they are tired of her and her rhetoric, and they have many other, more pressing, real world job responsibilities. Perhaps Dina has worn out the sympathy factor with her impressive A-listers…who knows.

There are at least 2 people on that A-list roster of supporters that have MUCH more than a passing familiarity with how state and federal government works. There are, IMO, a number of ways Dina could go about introducing her bitter ex-wives’ stalking provisions, and it seems to me she has chosen the least effective way to go about the process. And I’m okay with that.

It will be interesting to watch what happens this fall, and next session. (Especially with that $10 million wrongful death lawsuit soaking up Dina’s time and attention.)

Roughly 1000 bills are introduced each session in AZ, but an average of just 300 are successful. The process is long and difficult “on purpose”, involving many stakeholders, and many layers of opinion before approval. That’s a good thing for the citizens, IMO.

BBM - Continuing with that thought. See below, Jonah has more than enough experience with the legislative process to assist Dina with her proposal. Maxie's Law not only uses their sons name, it was created using the false pretense that this bill could have saved their sons life. Somehow, I don't think Jonah would agree. Dina may have an A-list of supporters, but Jonah has much more support than Dina. Jonah could stop any further movement with this proposal with one or two phone calls. Dina may have the Shacknai last name, but she does not have the Jonah Shacknai money nor his influence. On the other hand, Jonah's powerful influence could work in Dina's favor if she had his backing. In my opinion, what happens with this proposal could likely be decided by Jonah. If the past is an indicator of the future, I don't believe Jonah will support this proposal.

Jonah From 1977 until late 1982, Mr. Shacknai served as chief aide to the House of Representatives' committee with for health policy, and in other senior legislative positions. During his service with the House of Representatives, Mr. Shacknai drafted significant legislation affecting health care, environmental protection, science policy, and consumer protection. In 1997, he received the Arizona Entrepreneur of the Year award, and was one of three national finalists for U.S. Entrepreneur of the Year.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=322491&ticker=MRX:AU

 

[Ausgirl]

Or if you're concerned about your ex's new partner just post their name and birthdate here and in 24 hours you will know everything about them including a google map image of them hanging underwear on a line in their backyard?

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:


I'd like to ask why she didn't get a background check for ten bucks on the non-family member she was leaving her son with.

Shoplifting does not equate to a propensity to murder children anywhere that exists outside of Dina's head. And as much sense as this proposal seems on first look, it's really just more ammo for countless stupidly bitter divorced couples to maul each other with.

Ten bucks, ten minutes online. It isn't hard.

 

[screecher]

...I'd like to ask why she didn't get a background check for ten bucks on the non-family member she was leaving her son with...

respectfully snipped by me

What I don't understand is why Dina Romano didn't have the "Right of First Refusal" entered in the custody papers. In any case, SHE and Jonah neglected their responsibilty for not insuring Max was not swinging from the damn chandlier (so to speak). They were Max's mother and father. Parents.


Or perhaps the Bitter One and Jonah DID have the "Right of First Refusal" written in custody papers.

And the Bitter One failed to exercise it? So now she has a need to project her own feelings of incompetence and negligence as a mother onto Rebecca and Rebecca's family. Remember how long it took the police AND JONAH to 'rouse' her from her bed? HOURS.

Yes. I think Bitter One, aka Dina Romano, is projecting.

There's no need for this new law she wants to write. People only need to be cognizant and mindful while writing up the custodial agreement. I guess it is hard to accomplish when one's mind is in a 'fog'.

Personal responsibility and accountability is what Dina Romano is lacking. Hence the war on Rebecca Zahau Nalepa and her family.

Just my opinion.

 

[K_Z]

BBM - Continuing with that thought. See below, Jonah has more than enough experience with the legislative process to assist Dina with her proposal. Maxie's Law not only uses their sons name, it was created using the false pretense that this bill could have saved their sons life. Somehow, I don't think Jonah would agree. Dina may have an A-list of supporters, but Jonah has much more support than Dina. Jonah could stop any further movement with this proposal with one or two phone calls. Dina may have the Shacknai last name, but she does not have the Jonah Shacknai money nor his influence. On the other hand, Jonah's powerful influence could work in Dina's favor if she had his backing. In my opinion, what happens with this proposal could likely be decided by Jonah. If the past is an indicator of the future, I don't believe Jonah will support this proposal.

Jonah From 1977 until late 1982, Mr. Shacknai served as chief aide to the House of Representatives' committee with for health policy, and in other senior legislative positions. During his service with the House of Representatives, Mr. Shacknai drafted significant legislation affecting health care, environmental protection, science policy, and consumer protection. In 1997, he received the Arizona Entrepreneur of the Year award, and was one of three national finalists for U.S. Entrepreneur of the Year.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=322491&ticker=MRX:AU

Thanks, Lash, for the reminder that Jonah has real experience in drafting legislation, and in policy development.

I very much doubt that Jonah will help Dina with her attempts to introduce this legislation. I have often wondered what he thinks about Dina's (IMO) exploitative attempts to attach Max's name to this proposal? He isn't part of Dina's video, and he hasn't stood with her to publicly support Dina's efforts. In fact, Dina hasn't even uttered Jonah's name publicly.

I wonder if Jonah would testify in opposition to this proposed bill, if it is ever written, introduced, and gets a hearing? Now, that would be a very interesting HHS committee meeting, IMO. hwow:

 

[time]

I know this point has probably been made, maybe even by me, but it keep bothering me.

This bill assumes that the 'parents' are all good guys and the person they are seeing are basically suspect, at least suspect enough to ID and possibly get some legal avenue to investigate them or change custody arraignments because of them. Dina claims her motive was....

* because Rebecca gave her a name she hadn't used in this country (that's a lie because I'm pretty sure Rebecca was married in the US)

* because what she found was cause (shoplifting).... but if shoplifting is cause then a whole lot of other things are not only cause but more cause; DUI's, domestic abuse, drug use/conviction, etc. (so does a police call to a house and a report count or must someone be charged with a crime?)

There are a lot more questions about all of this, many of them already raised. But it's cruelly ironic that the person promoting this was the HUGE danger in all of this. Even if Rebecca was still alive, some bill at some time might give someone like Dina power over another innocent person.

 

[time]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:


I'd like to ask why she didn't get a background check for ten bucks on the non-family member she was leaving her son with.

Shoplifting does not equate to a propensity to murder children anywhere that exists outside of Dina's head. And as much sense as this proposal seems on first look, it's really just more ammo for countless stupidly bitter divorced couples to maul each other with.

Ten bucks, ten minutes online. It isn't hard.

Yeah, exactly. All of what you said.

 

[screecher]

I know this point has probably been made, maybe even by me, but it keep bothering me.

This bill assumes that the 'parents' are all good guys and the person they are seeing are basically suspect, at least suspect enough to ID and possibly get some legal avenue to investigate them or change custody arraignments because of them. Dina claims her motive was....

* because Rebecca gave her a name she hadn't used in this country (that's a lie because I'm pretty sure Rebecca was married in the US)

* because what she found was cause (shoplifting).... but if shoplifting is cause then a whole lot of other things are not only cause but more cause; DUI's, domestic abuse, drug use/conviction, etc. (so does a police call to a house and a report count or must someone be charged with a crime?)

There are a lot more questions about all of this, many of them already raised. But it's cruelly ironic that the person promoting this was the HUGE danger in all of this. Even if Rebecca was still alive, some bill at some time might give someone like Dina power over another innocent person.

BBM

Yes, it is cruelly ironic. AND I can't help but think this parental disclosure act, Max's House and all her media miles are avenues for Dina to not only justify her own atrocious behavior towards Rebecca, but also to trash a DEAD woman and a young teenaged female.

 

[time]

BBM

Yes, it is cruelly ironic. AND I can't help but think this parental disclosure act, Max's House and all her media miles are avenues for Dina to not only justify her own atrocious behavior towards Rebecca, but also to trash a DEAD woman and a young teenaged female.

And, to stay in the media herself, organize social/society gatherings where she is the star and along the way get some power and income. I think it's the whole shebang. Perhaps one thinks she will make a name for herself in being involved in a social cause (uh, maybe a big fail there :facepalm ... it somehow also seems like a big in your face to JS and/or others.

I just can't really find the words, but it certainly seems calculated to serve a lot of purposes including have a website where cherry picked documents are posted and that seems to sere more as promoting DRS than whatever. I think one thought they were going to get unending attention and sympathy for being a 'victim', but on a national level that kind of ended when Melenik was taken to task... except for the touchy feely old guy who granted her a long interview.

Has anyone ever found out if Dina was booted from Melmed or if she just quit?

Strange that she gave up her career to do what.... try to get one piece of ill conceived legislation through?

 

[kittychi]

BBM

This is what was written in the Phoenix Mag interview:

http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/valley-news/201308/split-decision/


Bold emphasis by me. This is the "voluntary" portion of the proposal. IMO, this is currently available to every single divorcing parent in Arizona, as well as the other 49 states. IMO, legislators don't need to waste their time re-confirming what is already available and legal, nor mandating that attorneys tell their divorcing clients that they have the option to request voluntary consent for a background check from their ex-spouse's new love interest.

However, to answer your question, according to this information, Jonah AND Kimberley would have been entitled to background checks on both Dina and the BF that was staying with her in Coronado. However, Dina's ideas state that only "one" form of ID would be asked for. So that, in no way, covers every single name or alias that someone has gone by in the past. That is where the "stalking" issues begin, IMO.

There are so many monumental problems with this "idea" for legislation, IMO. I cannot even begin to see how bipartisan support would begin. And with all of Dina's multitude of issues, from the wrongful death suit, to everything ELSE, I cannot imagine a bunch of legislators will glom onto this and hitch their wagons together. It's a tremendously bad solution in search of a problem, IMO-- the problem being bitter ex-spouses who co-parent.

What Dina actually did with her "expensive and difficult" stalking of Rebecca was potentially illegal under stalking laws already in place in AZ and CA state law, IMO.

And, BTW, Dina does not hold a PhD in Psychology. That is an error. She holds a PsyD from Argosy. A completely different degree. She remains unlicensed in AZ according to state professional practice database.

BBM
I found Dina on LinkedIn. Here is the first sentence of her summary:
"Maxfield Aaron "Maxie" Shacknai was born on June 7th, 2005 in Scottsdale, Arizona. He was the only child of Dr. Dina Shacknai."

Here is more from her Profile:

Dina Shacknai's Experience

Founder / CEO
Maxie's House
July 2012 – Present (1 year 3 months)

Dina Shacknai's Education

Argosy University - Phoenix Campus
(PsyD) Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, (emphasis in Developmental Psychology)
San Francisco State University
Bachelor of Science (BS), Business Administration

She she is identifying herself a "Dr." and claims to have the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology.

The more I hear about her histrionics, I just shake my head in bewilderment.

:notgood:

BTW, Lash & K_Z :

:yourock:

 

[kittychi]

BBM - Continuing with that thought. See below, Jonah has more than enough experience with the legislative process to assist Dina with her proposal. Maxie's Law not only uses their sons name, it was created using the false pretense that this bill could have saved their sons life. Somehow, I don't think Jonah would agree. Dina may have an A-list of supporters, but Jonah has much more support than Dina. Jonah could stop any further movement with this proposal with one or two phone calls. Dina may have the Shacknai last name, but she does not have the Jonah Shacknai money nor his influence. On the other hand, Jonah's powerful influence could work in Dina's favor if she had his backing. In my opinion, what happens with this proposal could likely be decided by Jonah. If the past is an indicator of the future, I don't believe Jonah will support this proposal.

Jonah From 1977 until late 1982, Mr. Shacknai served as chief aide to the House of Representatives' committee with for health policy, and in other senior legislative positions. During his service with the House of Representatives, Mr. Shacknai drafted significant legislation affecting health care, environmental protection, science policy, and consumer protection. In 1997, he received the Arizona Entrepreneur of the Year award, and was one of three national finalists for U.S. Entrepreneur of the Year.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=322491&ticker=MRX:AU

Though this should be a non-partison issue, it is politics that move wheels in government. And remember, IIRC, JS is a Democrat. AZ is still very much a Republican state even though Democrats made some gains in the state legislature in the last election. Barto is Republican. I'm not so sure that JS would have that much power; IMO his power would be where he sends his campaign contributions. I know she is in CA, but as an example, perhaps to Bonnie Dumanis. :giggle:

 

[K_Z]

Has anyone ever found out if Dina was booted from Melmed or if she just quit?

Strange that she gave up her career to do what.... try to get one piece of ill conceived legislation through?

Snipped for focus.

Dina had moved from Arizona to the Coronado house in California at the end of the school term, in May 2011, IIRC. She had plans to stay there for the summer, a block from Jonah's home. In previous years, she had rented a place in La Jolla, CA for the summer-- a place that, according to public records, she had some serious issues with satisfying the rental agreement.

So, I don't know exactly what kind of work arrangement she had with Melmed in May 2011, but taking off 3-4 months of the year during the summer and moving out of state would logically seem to be a "seasonal" or part time worker, or perhaps contract, or casual status. Certainly not full time, at any rate. Pretty hard to have continuity, or do any kind of counseling, or regularly lead social skills groups for teens with autism, when you are living out of state for 3-4 months at a time, IMO. But maybe her "fellowship" was only a 9 month contract? Perhaps the terms of her fellowship followed the usual school terms? She was in a fellowship status in May 2011, at least until she move to CA for the summer.

It was a puzzling work arrangement for someone who claims on her websites today to have an "established professional practice", but who was actually at the very beginning of her career as a clinical psychologist: still completing a supervised fellowship, and working toward getting her student hours and requirements fulfilled and documented accurately for the Board, in order to be eligible to sit for licensure. That isn't someone with an "established professional practice", IMO. That is a blatantly fraudulent statement, IMO.

It wouldn't be relevant, except that she continues to exaggerate her credentials and "career", as she promotes things like Maxie's House and her idea for a "Parental Disclosure/ bitter ex-spouse stalking" bill, IMO. And IMO, she continues to inflate her career and credentials.

I think it will be very interesting to watch what happens when AZ legislature is back in session in January. Because by the time session starts, the wrongful death civil suit will be further along, and hopefully into discovery and depositions. And undoubtedly attracting media attention again.

IMO, her idea for the bill is dead in the water already. No legislator in his or her right mind would take this on. It's poison, and would be a huge distraction to bigger legislative issues, such as state budget concerns, ObamaCare implementation, etc.

 

[*Lash*]

Though this should be a non-partison issue, it is politics that move wheels in government. And remember, IIRC, JS is a Democrat. AZ is still very much a Republican state even though Democrats made some gains in the state legislature in the last election. Barto is Republican. I'm not so sure that JS would have that much power; IMO his power would be where he sends his campaign contributions. I know she is in CA, but as an example, perhaps to Bonnie Dumanis. :giggle:

More about Jonah and politics -

Colgate University and COVE center - January, 2011

Snip - Creativity has been a hallmark of Shacknai’s philanthropic efforts on campus and across the country. Even as he has built Medicis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and made his mark on health policy as a legislative staffer and attorney, he has served as president of the Whispering Hope Ranch Foundation. The ranch, located in Payson, Ariz., introduces children who have special needs to animals who have been rescued from injury, illness, or harmful homes.

Shacknai repeatedly helps the underdog. Now, the former soccer player and political science major is reaching out to the broadest spectrum of the university family. “It’s hard to believe that this trip is actually becoming a reality,” said O’Shea. “Mr. Shacknai has given me an unbelievable opportunity as well as an understanding of what the Colgate community really is.”

http://news.colgate.edu/2011/01/shacknai-gift-a-trove-for-cove.html

 

[time]

Snipped for focus.

It was a puzzling work arrangement for someone who claims on her websites today to have an "established professional practice", but who was actually at the very beginning of her career as a clinical psychologist: still completing a supervised fellowship, and working toward getting her student hours and requirements fulfilled and documented accurately for the Board, in order to be eligible to sit for licensure. That isn't someone with an "established professional practice", IMO. That is a blatantly fraudulent statement, IMO.

It wouldn't be relevant, except that she continues to exaggerate her credentials and "career", as she promotes things like Maxie's House and her idea for a "Parental Disclosure/ bitter ex-spouse stalking" bill, IMO. And IMO, she continues to inflate her career and credentials.

Thanks for the rest also ... what I snipped. It reminds me of a woman I knew who already had Dr. on her checks as soon as she entered a PhD program. Dina WAS just at the start of her career .... reminds me that I searched and searched earlier for academic publications (and others did also, I'm sure).

I think it's telling that someone so blatantly and publicly distorts their background when promoting a nonprofit and legislation. Doesn't the "Parental Disclosure Act" require or propose some intervention involving 'professionals' sort of like Dina? I'll have to go back and read, but that thought is scary.

 

[K_Z]

It's too late to edit my earlier post #53 to include links to support my comments, so I'll add them here.

Regarding the La Jolla rental delinquency:

http://www.10news.com/news/evidence-sealed-in-coronado-mansion-death-investigation

The 10News I-Team obtained court records that detailed a delinquent payment on a La Jolla rental house involving Dina Shacknai. She rented the property for a month in 2009 for $32,500.

It remains unclear why Dina Shacknai rented it when she and her then-husband owned their Coronado mansion.

AZ Board of Psychologist Examiners, Minutes of Licensure Application Review Committee:

Dec 7, 2010:

Dina Shacknai, Psy.D. – Committee members proceeded with a substantive review of Dr. Shacknai’s application. Upon review, the Committee noted that Dr. Shacknai’s Supervised Psychology Internship or Training Experience Verification form from Melmed Centers, indicated, and Dr. Chao verified, that her internship experience occurred from “02/2006 – present” which does not fulfill the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-2071(F)(10). In addition Dr. Shacknai’s Postdoctoral Professional Psychology Experience Verification form, from Melmed Centers indicated, and Dr. Chao verified, that her postdoctoral experience occurred from “02/2006 – present 2010” which does not fulfill the thirty six month completion requirements of A.R.S. § 32-2071(G)(6). In addition, both verification forms indicated that Dr. Shacknai was accruing postdoctoral supervision experience simultaneously with internship supervision hours (02/2006 – present). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2071(G), postdoctoral supervision hours cannot be accrued until after written conferral of the applicant’s graduate degree and completion of internship supervision hours as described by A.R.S. §32-2071(F). It was the consensus of the Committee to issue Dr. Shacknai a RAID letter requesting clarification of the deficiencies.

www.psychboard.az.gov/PDF/agmn/mn34.pdf

 

[*Lash*]

If Dina passes her exam, will this help in passing her proposed legislation?

Application Review Committee Teleconference Agenda
October 1, 2013 7:30 a.m.

Requesting Approval to Sit for Examination (EPPP) & Licensure
• Dina Shacknai, Psy.D.

http://www.psychboard.az.gov/PDF/agmn/ag175.pdf

 

[bourne]

If Dina passes her exam, will this help in passing her proposed legislation?

Application Review Committee Teleconference Agenda
October 1, 2013 7:30 a.m.

Requesting Approval to Sit for Examination (EPPP) & Licensure
• Dina Shacknai, Psy.D.

http://www.psychboard.az.gov/PDF/agmn/ag175.pdf

Reasonable people would hope not as the "Maxie's Law" legislation would open a lot of cans of worms for not only investigating a divorcee's new partner/lover by a jilted, jealous, hateful, scorned, vindictive ex-spouse but also start a slippery slope on potential investigations into family members/relatives of said partner/lover. IMO, this should be properly called the "Stalker Ex-Spouse Law".

I think you're onto something as Dina's motive for obtaining her PsyD license. She wants to be seen as a "licensed expert" so that her "credibility" as "child psychologist" would be taken more seriously in both a court of law during the WDS, and also when her proposed legislation goes into deliberation by the local government.

I don't believe she will pass the licensing exam the first time around. From what I can tell, she's not as smart as she thinks she is. Quite frankly, her manipulative ploys to point fingers at the Zahaus for Max's death and divert attention from her own guilt have not been in the slightest way effective in the public eye but she appears to be trying her hardest to convince herself otherwise.

 

[K_Z]

If Dina passes her exam, will this help in passing her proposed legislation?

Application Review Committee Teleconference Agenda
October 1, 2013 7:30 a.m.

Requesting Approval to Sit for Examination (EPPP) & Licensure
• Dina Shacknai, Psy.D.

http://www.psychboard.az.gov/PDF/agmn/ag175.pdf

Thanks for this, Lash. Wonderful news-- Dina is finally doing something productive with her life!

I do think she could pass on the first try, if she is approved and takes the test. The EPPP is not a difficult exam, and not many candidates fail. Most of the licensure issues for psychologists have to do with their clinical practicums, and supervisory issues during their practicums, which is what the nature of the problems were that Dina had with the licensing board in 2010- 2011.

I'm not sure if there is a time limit on how recently a candidate has to have completed their supervised clinicals-- there may be a maximum length of time between the end of the supervised clinicals, and sitting for licensure. This may vary state to state, I'm not sure. What I'm getting at is that if too much time has elapsed (in this case, years), the candidate may have to have another period of supervised clinicals. It appears that the last time she worked as an intern was 3 years ago or so, in 2010. I wonder if the maximum time is 3 years? I'll look it up when I have time.

But perhaps this effort at completing licensure signals that Dina is considering entering the professional work force as a psychologist? That alone could be quite challenging for her to find a place to hire her to work directly with patients, with all of her issues that have emerged (police reports, domestic violence, etc).

It might be kind of challenging for her to find a malpractice insurance carrier that is willing to take her on, until the Wrongful Death lawsuit is concluded.

Then again, she could pass the exam and look for work that didn't require malpractice insurance, and that didn't require working directly with clients-- such as working for an educational/ cognitive testing company, etc. There are jobs for unlicensed psychologists, just not typically in direct patient counseling.

In any event, I think the effect of Dina being licensed, or not, will be neutral on the idea for the Parental Disclosure bill. There are simply too many issues with Dina herself, and with the proposed idea for a bill, for it to progress, IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_for_Professional_Practice_in_Psychology_(EPPP)

Pass rates discussion-- very interesting. Apparently, 39% of the candidates who fail are from just 15 programs. Unfortunately, Argosy is one of them, but a good candidate who is motivated could overcome that hurdle, IMO.

[ame="http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=896038"]EPPP Pass Rates Study | Psychology [Psy.D. / Ph.D.] | Student Doctor Network[/ame]

Search EPPP pass rates for more info.

 

[K_Z]

ARS 32-2071 details the requirements for psychologist licensure candidates. Scroll down to Article 2, Licensure, then R4-26-203, Application for Licensure.

http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_04/4-26.htm

27. Name, position, and address of at least two references who:

a. Are psychologists licensed or certified to practice psychology in a United States or Canadian jurisdiction and who are not members of the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners;

b. Are familiar with the applicant's work experience in the field of psychology or in a postdoctoral program within the three years immediately before the date of application. If more than three years have elapsed since the applicant last engaged in professional activities in the field of psychology or in a postdoctoral program, the references may pertain to the most recent three-year period in which the applicant engaged in professional activities in the field of psychology or in a postdoctoral program; and

c. Recommend the applicant for licensure;

BBM.

The wrongful death suit Dina is currently named in "could" (well, "should", IMO) be potentially disturbing to the board, and I could see where they "could" ask her to wait until the conclusion of the lawsuit to clear her to sit for licensure (see #14 below, "sanctioned"). For any other health care professional that I'm aware of, being named in a wrongful death lawsuit that is in progress would delay the licensure process. (It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to file an application for initial licensure while you are named as a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit that alleges murder, IMO!)

13. Whether the applicant is currently under investigation for or has been found to have violated a professional code of conduct by any jurisdiction;

14. Whether the applicant has ever been sanctioned or placed on probation by any jurisdiction;

15. Whether the applicant has been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor other than a minor traffic offense, or has ever entered into a diversion program instead of prosecution, including any convictions that have been expunged or deleted;

16. Whether the applicant has been sued or prosecuted for an act or omission relating to the applicant's practice as a psychologist, the applicant's work under a certificate or license in another profession, or the applicant's work as a member of a profession in which the applicant was not certified or licensed;

17. Whether the applicant has ever been involuntarily terminated or resigned instead of termination from any psychological or behavioral health position or related employment;

18. Whether the applicant currently has an addiction to alcohol or any drug that in any way impairs or limits the applicant's ability to practice;

19. Whether the applicant currently has any medical, physical, or psychological condition that may in any way impair or limit the applicant's ability to practice psychology safely and effectively;