CAMFT is suing the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS), demanding a ruling that the practice of marriage and family therapy has nothing unique to offer.
See updates below: The
court sided with the BBS on two out of three legal questions and CAMFT on the other. The ruling required the BBS to consult with the state’s Office of Professional Examination Services prior to determining whether a gap exam was necessary. OPES recommended doing the exam, and the
BBS voted unanimously to do a gap exam.
===
The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) followed through on an earlier threat and filed suit this week against the state’s licensing board, the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS). CAMFT is seeking a ruling that marriage and family therapists who wish to be grandparented into licensure as Professional Clinical Counselors (LPCCs) will not need to take an exam on the differences in practice between those professions. But the issue is bigger than it may sound: Such a ruling would require the BBS to first determine that there are no differences in practice between the professions, a ruling that would have major implications for the future of professional licensing in mental health.
But let’s start with where this is now. The law that brings the LPCC license into the state is quite clear (emphasis mine):
The board and the Office of Professional Examination Services shall jointly develop an examination on the differences, if any differences exist, between the following:
(A) The practice of professional clinical counseling and the practice of marriage and family therapy.
(B) The practice of professional clinical counseling and the practice of clinical social work.
– California Business & Professions Code section 4999.54(b)(1)
CAMFT argues in its suit, as it has in BBS meetings, that there may be differences between the professions, but that these do not amount to differences in practice. So they do not believe that an exam on differences between MFT and LPCC (a “gap exam”) is necessary. That argument has now lost twice: The BBS ruled on July 28 that there should be a gap exam, based on the language of the law. CAMFT threatened to sue (page 6), and the BBS vacated all earlier discussion and took the issue up again on September 9. Again they ruled that there must be a test. In a suit filed on Monday, CAMFT argues that requiring a gap exam amounts to an unlawful restraint of trade for MFTs seeking LPCC licensure. They ask to have the BBS decision again vacated, and an injunction issued preventing the BBS from requiring a gap exam.
===
While I am trying to present these facts as neutrally as possible, I am hardly an objective observer. I co-signed
AAMFT-CA’s letter to the BBS encouraging them to revisit their initial decision in May that no gap exam would be needed. And, fundamentally,
I believe there are significant differences between the professions — that’s why we have distinct educational programs and are distinctly licensed. Arguing that the professions may be different but their practices — the
doing of the professions — is the same is a giant leap of both language and logic. Indeed, as Dean Porter, head of the California Coalition for Counselor Licensure, has said,
proving LPCCs’ distinctiveness [currently-third item, “AMHCA lauds…”] was one of their biggest challenges in achieving licensure in California.
There is no need for a separate license if the professional group in question has nothing new or different to offer. That is why this is such a concern for me —
if CAMFT gets their way, and the BBS or a court rules that there are no differences in practice between the professions, it is an extremely short logical walk to an argument that MFTs and LPCCs (and even LCSWs) should not be separately licensed. I worry that that’s the idea. CAMFT has stopped publicly advocating such a shift (they openly projected such a
“one-license future” to members and to the California legislature in 2007), but they still seem to be walking down that road. Having earlier removed their opposition to LPCC licensing legislation, they appear to have taken no action when a 2008 version of the LPCC bill proposed to
study eliminating the MFT license entirely (see Section 6, at the bottom of the next-to-last page; that version of the bill, thankfully, failed). This week’s legal action seems to be a continuation of the “we have nothing unique to offer, so let’s all combine licenses” philosophy.
Why an association of marriage and family therapists would continue taking stances that appear to act against keeping the MFT license distinct is beyond my understanding.
I would love a different explanation, but cannot seem to come up with one.
The legal complaint and related documents can be downloaded
here *. They are referenced by case number (34-2010-80000689).
===
I know I say this over to the right, but it bears repeating: On this blog, I speak strictly for myself, and not my employers or contractors or anyone else. It also bears repeating, for those of you from outside California, that CAMFT is an independent organization with no ties to the
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) or its
California Division (AAMFT-CA).
===
* Updated 1-11-2011: Updated link.
Updated 2-3-2011: The court has issued its ruling, which sides with the BBS on two out of three legal questions and CAMFT on the other. See this post for details: Ruling mixed on CAMFT-BBS “gap exam” lawsuit.
Updated 2-27-2011: OPES recommended doing the exam, and the BBS has voted unanimously to do a gap exam.