Psychological Affliates Maitland

Complaint: Formal Complaint:To The Department of Health,Attention: Consumer Services UnitRe: Dr. Robin Meade License # MH3879, Dr Deborah Day and Dr. FogelDate: 15/15/2010I am a single mother with two teenage daughters. I have been in a protracted struggle with my former husband regarding visitation and related issues for years. In the context of this and most recently, the Court has appointed a therapist, Robin Meade, Dr Fogel and Dr Deborah Day to treat my daughters. In the process of that treatment improper actions were committed by Dr. Meade, Dr Fogel and Dr. Meade, which resulted in my loosing custody of my daughter. In fact,I have not seen my daughter since December 25th, 2008 and sporadically prior to this date.While serving as a court appointed therapist for my minor daughter, Robin Meade wrote a letter with specific recommendations regarding changes in my visitation with my daughter. It is my understanding that this constitutes a violation of Administrative Code. Even more disturbing than this was the fact that these improperly hatched recommendations were portrayed as stemming from an agreement made by me, which was never the case. Her portrayal of the nature of that meeting was completely false. The grandmother responded regarding her understanding and misrepresentation of facts as (Exhibit B), who was also present at that meeting with me. Dr. Meade then responded back with a letter, referring to this as a misunderstanding, as (Exhibit C) which it never was. I simply never would have agreed to what she was claiming, and my mother, the grandmother of Madison confirmed this. This was documented again though a conference call on 08/16/2008 that I arranged with Dr. Meade. The day of the conference call, I placed Dr. Meade on speakerwhereas, I had a witness Sharon Whitley document the conversations regarding our conversation see attached affidavit as (Exhibit D). That notwithstanding, my former husbands attorney used her letter as a tool to convince the court to remove Madison from my care, which is what occurred.It is my understanding that a therapist has a specific role in cases where visitation is under dispute, and that, as a therapist, she is prohibited from making recommendations regarding visitation and related issues. Please see FAC 64B19.18001, which clearly states that it is a conflict of interest to be both a therapist and a custody evaluator. Since Dr. Meades expressed opinion is tantamount to that of what is done in a custody evaluation, her actions constitute a violation of this rule. Further, according to FAC 64B19-18.007(3), while it is permissible for a treating therapist to provide factual information about the minor derived from treatment (the practitioner) shall not state an opinion about custody, residence or visitation disputes. Since her letter makes just such a recommendation, she is in clear violation of this rule. Further, it is my understanding that the making of recommendations regarding visitation, and other custody issues is to be reserved for licensees who must include many sources of information, as well as other requirements, before making such recommendations.Please see: 64B4-7.006 Requirements for Evaluations of Minors for the Purpose of Addressing Custody, Residence or Visitation Disputes.(1)To perform evaluations of minors for the purpose of making a recommendation regarding custody, residence or visitation, the licensee shall have: (a)Competence in performing assessments of a psychological nature on children and families; (b)Education and training in the areas of child and family development, child and family psychopathology, and the impact of divorce on children and families; and(c)Knowledge of the legal standards and procedures governing divorce and child custody. (2)When providing such evaluation of a minor, the licensee shall: (a)Be impartial, act in the best interest of the child, avoid conflicts of interest, and not have been the treating psychotherapist nor had a prior relationship with any of the parties to the evaluation; and (b)Use multiple avenues of data gathering, including testing and interviewing methods, and shall involve all persons central to the child in question, including, at a minimum, communication with the child, the parties seeking custody or visitation, any treating mental health professional, family physician, and relatives of the immediate families. Specific Authority 491.004(5) FS. Law Implemented 491.009(2)(s) FS. HistoryNew 12-21-97.Her actions constitute a clear violation of this rule. She did not remain impartial, and did not act in the best interest of my daughter. She did not utilize multiple avenues of data gathering, and did not rely on input from collateral sources. Therefore, even if she had been appointed as a custody evaluator, which she was not, her omission of these necessary ingredients, causes her conclusions and recommendations to be biased and flawed.Additionally, please see Department of Children and Families documents surrounding these false allegations that perpetratedthis complaint. See attachment as (Exhibit E). The attachment includes:a. Case Closed by DCFb. Case Chronological Recordings with Dr Meade with investigator Mrs., Lewis of the documented phone call with Dr.Meade.As you will see Dr. Meade states quote “The father threatens to fire her””

Tags: Civil Rights Violators

Address: I believe this is the premise that perpetrated the letters she wrote that my former husband used to gain custody of my daughter Madison Faller. Dr. Meade did not want to be fired therefore; she wrote these letters to support his false allegations as leverage to gain temporary custody and now permanent custody. Mr. Faller has retained Psychological Affiliates for the past 15 years on various issues. Again

Website: see attached Order Appointing Dr. Cam McCarthy as (Exhibit H) the joint therapist for the minor child Madison Faller and me. Just days after Dr. McCarthys court ordered counseling

Phone: I have attached a signed copy of the Court’s Order and transcript by Judge Robert M. Evans as (Exhibit F) stating that the mother can receive all medical information and records of the (2) minor children Madison and McKenzie Faller.Attached as (Exhibit G) the letter I wrote and hand delivered to Psychological Affiliates requesting such information. To date

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid Psychological Affliates Maitland in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Psychological Affliates Maitland. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Psychological Affliates Maitland is rated 1 out of 5 based on the complaints submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased complaints.
The above complaints and comments against Psychological Affliates Maitland were submitted by user(s) and have been published as-is. does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their complaints and will NOT entertain any request to remove the complaint on Psychological Affliates Maitland at any cost whatsoever.