This place in Texas is not a hospital or a real therapeutic environment subject to the normal oversight you would expect of a medical or psychological facility that treats children.

Everything about it is suspect at best, and there are known investigations into this facility related to child trafficking.  This was stated on the record in Forsyth County if you want to see the transcript.  Aside from that statement, when you hear teens and young adults reporting back about what they’ve been put through there and at other “deprogramming” and “reunification” camps, all doubt will be removed.

So why would judges, attorneys and custody experts in Georgia be so comfortable in taking children away from healthy parents and forcing them out of state to this place?

Why would Georgia divorce attorney Tera Reese Beisbier write to a New Jersey judge that her friend Judge Bagley would be willing to get on the phone about his recommendations for sending children to the Rachel House?

Why would Dr. Howard Drutman be named as the “doctor” in Georgia to use to enforce Rachel House recommendations during child custody cases?  (see below the examples of professionals associated with the Rachel House and the descriptions of their misconduct)

It is important that Georgia recognize why Dr. Drutman is used on this case and others involving damages to children, even though he doesn’t have the credentials to support his involvement.  It is also important to note that he has been investigated for billing fraud by an insurance company, and that he has committed billing fraud according to visible records. But these select attorneys still pay him top dollar on sensitive cases, and certain judges accept his recommendations in spite of overwhelming evidence against his positions.  Why is that?

Dr. Howard Drutman: why is it noteworthy that this is the “doctor” trusted by these judges?  Let’s take a look.  Reviews such as this one are telling:

“Doctor Drutman was unprofessional, biased, and writes his opinions in child custody to favor known proclivities of the court judges, not as an uninfluenced professional. He damages children’s lives by falsifying reports, skewing information and failing to follow established APA guidelines. His work is an embarrassment to the profession and he should be barred form child psychology evaluations.”

We can only imagine what their motives are, but we thought you might want to hear more specifics on why we were drawn to Forsyth County Superior Court to learn more about this case.  A case involving a teen girl pleading for her freedom from abuse.

If you have been reading our posts here, you will recognize the patterns across several cases, from Fulton, to Cobb to Forsyth…around how select custody experts and attorneys ensure that evidence does not work in favor of children or support the parent the evidence is actually in favor of on these cases. *In some cases the evidence supports the father as the healthy/nurturing parent, but the custody experts are going against that evidence also; it is not that they are against women, or in favor of affluent fathers with status. Select experts just choose to do the wrong thing, as apparently that ensures the need for their ongoing services.

We are asking our leadership and authorities to pay close attention to what makes sense here – and to compare the law to the conduct of these professionals.  Things do not match up, and it is way too easy to spin messaging and create glossy brochures that put a happy or normal face on top of the abuse that is being enabled and covered up using this and similar facilities. (Not all wrongdoing by professionals involves sending kids to these camps; they are just one method used to increase fees and to further destabilize children and nurturing parents.)

The following statements are excerpts from this news story, in which an investigative reporter in FL went after the facts surrounding the Rachel House.

From kids who were subjected to therapy here – therapy that is less humane that what arrested criminals are allowed to have done to them:

“The Rachel Foundation is a scary organization. It’s taken every day of my life since to put myself back together in a way I see fit.’

The Hochs “told us that if we didn’t obey our dad and if we didn’t agree to act happy with him that we would never see our mom again,” testified Kelli Carr, now 17.

She said she and her sister weren’t allowed to eat until they agreed to say positive things about their father.

“How many days did you go without being fed?” the judge asked.

“Just the first two days, because then my sister and I just started . . . making things up.”

More:

The foundation falls through licensing cracks because it is not a hospital, group home or mental health facility — all of which are regulated by Texas. Professionals connected with the Rachel Foundation are licensed, but several have run afoul of regulators.

The former clinical director, California psychologist Randy Rand, is on five years’ administrative probation for “unprofessional conduct” in child custody cases in Orlando and California.

A former member of the foundation’s advisory board, J. Michael Bone of Orlando, lost his Florida mental health counselor’s license in 2007 for failing to act in the child’s best interest in a custody case.

A Texas psychologist who has worked with the Rachel Foundation was put on probation for failing to disclose a DUI arrest and submitting a custody report with “numerous inaccuracies.”

And a California psychologist who has been to the Rachel House several times to help the Hochs does not have permission to practice in Texas, state regulators say.

“There are scientific standards and practice standards for how to go about delivering therapy to children,” Silberg of the Leadership Council says, “and nothing I’ve seen from the Rachel House follows any known standards about the delivery of mental health care.”

Stranger, and more disturbing yet, is the fact that one of the pro-pedophile “leaders” in the US was instrumental in making Rachel House so well known:

A onetime Columbia University professor, Richard Gardner thought society is too harsh on adults who have sex with kids.

“What I am against is the excessively moralistic and punitive reaction that many members of our society have toward pedophiles . . . far beyond what I consider the gravity of the crime,” he wrote in 1991.

Gardner argued [about pedophilia] that it’s common in many cultures and that children might be less harmed by sex abuse than by the “trauma” of the legal process.