Rand v. Board of Psychology
142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rand, a licensed psychologist, was appointed as a special master in a high-conflict Sonoma County divorce and later testified in a Florida custody matter.
- The Board disciplined Rand for unprofessional conduct, gross negligence, violations of psychology practice laws, and dishonesty based on both proceedings.
- The Sonoma case charged Rand with bias, partiality, and improper communications; the Florida case involved opinions about a child’s parental alienation given without direct interview.
- The Board revoked Rand’s license but stayed revocation for five years and imposed conditions including oversight and ethics/forensic psychology training.
- Rand petitioned for writ of administrative mandamus arguing lack of jurisdiction over special-master conduct, due process violations, and insufficiency of the Board’s factual findings to show dishonesty.
- Trial court upheld the Board’s decision under its independent judgment; Rand appealed challenging jurisdiction, due process, and dishonesty findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over Rand as special master | Rand: acts as judge; Board lacks authority | Board: discipline applies to licensed psychologists even in special-master role | Board has jurisdiction; Rand acted as psychologist in special-master duties |
| Due process and notice | No fair notice of prohibited conduct | Rules/guidelines provided notice of prohibited conduct | Due process satisfied; standards gave fair notice |
| Logical nexus to fitness to practice | No nexus between unprofessional conduct and ability to practice | Unprofessional conduct related to psychological practice; nexus established | Logical nexus exists; conduct relates to fitness to practice |
| Dishonesty finding supported | Dispute over whether Rand was dishonest | Evidence shows Rand minimized his Florida role; dishonest conduct established | Substantial evidence supports finding of dishonesty |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Olson, 14 Cal.App.4th 1 (1993) (special master neutrality and impartiality in judicial processes)
- Morrison v. State Board of Education, 1 Cal.3d 214 (1969) (unfitness and due process standards in licensing actions)
- Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 (1971) (limited trial de novo with independent judgment review)
- Evans v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 21 Cal.App.4th 958 (1994) (substantial evidence standard of review in administrative actions)
- Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 31 Cal.3d 124 (1982) (scope of substantial evidence and deference to agency findings)
- Barber v. Long Beach Civil Service Com., 45 Cal.App.4th 652 (1996) (standard for appellate review of administrative decisions; credibility determinations)
- Fukuda v. City of Angels, 20 Cal.4th 805 (1999) (substantial evidence and evidentiary conflict resolution on review)