Randy Rand has proposed an after-care program

The notorious therapist currently still practicing without a renewed license may be expanding his repertoire.

Randy Rand, the man behind the notorious reunification camp Family Bridges, may be expanding his portfolio of child traumatizing services.

Family Bridges has been,

designed to deal with children “whom courts and therapists have traditionally viewed as beyond help.”. These include three main types of severely alienated children, those who (1) reject the TP after divorce, (2) refuse and/or resist contact with a TP and (3) have a seriously strained relationship with a TP, which manifests as either “extreme withdrawal or gross contempt.”. Using “evidence-based instruction principles to maximize learning and create a safe atmosphere,” in Family Bridges, alienated “children develop skills to resist outside pressures,” while TPs “learn how to sensitively manage their children’s behavior, and the family learns tools to effectively communicate and manage conflicts.

That’s according to literature he provides. In reality, he tortures children, forcing them into a relationship with parents who abuse them.

His camp is part of a program where children are removed from the parent they have grown to trust and rely on. They are forced into his camps, often by police force.

That’s what happened to Donna McCracken’s daughter.

McCracken’s daughter was sent to the reunification camp, Family Bridges.

In the last eight months, Family Bridges has been the subject of three exposés by NBC Bay Area, NBC New York, and the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Collectively the three exposés found that all the kids interviewed were forced to be there, and that reunification therapy failed to heal their relationship with the targeted parent, often making things worse.

{Check out my interview with Donna}

David Segui’s two sons were also forced into Rand’s quackery.

They Didn’t listen to a single thing I said Dr. Rand said that I’m a liar and none of the abuse happened and got pissed off any time I brought it up. I went outside and was talking with the Therapeutic Interventionist and I told her how are you going to send me and my brother back to her when she abused us and she told me that I need both parents in my life and I said no she physically and sexually abused me and I’ve been doing perfectly fine with my dad staying out of trouble unlike when I was living with her. She also tells me that my brother needs to have both parents and saying it’s harder for him since he stopped living with her when he was only 8 and maybe he misses her. She blatantly ignores the fact that me and {my brother} were abused by her and want nothing to do with her. Once we walked back in and said were not going through with the Program they had my mom contact multiple wilderness camps for kids with behavioral issues and they were three months long and me and my brother were going to be split up. While all of this was happening he read me the report and it stated that since my dad didn’t coerce us to go back to my mom. Coerce which means persuading an unwilling person to do something by force or threats. I told him so my dad was supposed to send us back with my mom when we don’t feel safe around her and he said yes. Since I didn’t want to be split up from my brother so I just said ok I’ll just bull shit the program and go through with it because I don’t want be separated from my little brother.

His reunification camp is part of a ninety-day program which isolates children from the parent they live with because some court actor has deemed that parent an alienator. That ninety days is a farce, and it is usually much longer.

This pseudo-therapy forbids children from talking about the abuse they have experienced.

Here is what Warshak stated, "And we declare a moratorium on discussing the conflicts because, in the past, the children come to therapy and think this is the place to complain about that parent, so they give a litany of complaints about the rejected parent and the therapy gets nowhere. The more they criticize the parent the more they feel like they better -- you know, that they have to be consistent; they have to see that parent in this terrible negative light. And sometimes we say they demonize the parents. So we attack it from a different angle where we say: That's the past."

In another deposition, Joann Murphy, who also implements Rand's program, states, "You have to understand there's a moratorium about speaking about the other family."

But a moratorium about speaking about the past, also means a moratorium about speaking about abuse the child may have suffered. 

Rand currently has no updated license, since he refused to update it.

David Carico and Law Offices of David Carico for Plaintiff and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Jose R. Guerrero, Kerry Weisel and David Carr, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. Leslie Ellen Shear and Stephen Temko for Association of Certified Family Law Specialists as Amicus Curiae.

Psychologist Randy Rand filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenging the authority of the Board of Psychology (Board) to discipline him for unprofessional conduct, gross negligence, violation of laws governing the practice of psychology, and dishonesty. (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 2960, subds. (i), (j), (k), (n).)¹ The trial court entered judgment denying his writ petition.

Rand contends on appeal that (1) the Board lacked jurisdiction to discipline him for his conduct as a special master because (a) he was acting in a judicial capacity, and (b) he was not acting as a psychologist; (2) he was denied due process of law because (a) he was not given fair notice of prohibited conduct, and (b) there was no logical nexus between the Board's findings and unfitness to practice the profession; and (3) the Board's factual findings do not support a determination that he was dishonest.

We conclude that (1) the Board had jurisdiction to discipline Rand for his conduct as a special master because Rand was acting as a psychologist in his special master role; (2) Rand's due process contentions fail because (a) the rules, standards and guidelines for psychology practice gave him fair notice of prohibited conduct, and (b) Rand failed to meet his burden of showing that there is no logical nexus between his unprofessional conduct and his fitness to practice the profession; and (3) substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings that Rand was dishonest.

We will affirm the judgment.

None of this has stopped courts from constantly forcing kids to go to his camp.

Thus far, the reunification therapy is the only thing that Rand provides, though he has been known to consult with courts after his therapy is over.

Now, that may be changing.