[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6659861,"mediaKeyId","2444352-79c7a137270a6cd236c1d2c158035d4f","parentId",2444352,"title","Board of Psychology holds petition hearing for psychologist seeking early termination of probation","audioSeconds",6459,"startMs",3805000,"endMs",10264000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2444352-79c7a137270a6cd236c1d2c158035d4f&start=3805&end=10264","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2444352-79c7a137270a6cd236c1d2c158035d4f/thumbnail_3805000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6659861/California/Board-of-Psychology-holds-petition-hearing-for-psychologist-seeking-early-termination-of-probation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6659861-2588997b42d2cff7d8e1b7ef50de7342/orig.mp4?Expires=1772769056&Signature=BELQ-wminQGjmqQeRPubrNnHoPkU8qqxmOjLffqdVFV2MRXRgw9J4eRKaZeYnW8yi6jJAgHJQzspaXymI60J5M4VUfpjc4IxgOMoYy4zH5hvn3fHXMnLRmRlgBGRf7GE-wDIW0WQEdy~vKh1uTj2nEcRLRVymgbm4ZOjHxWQmJ16Y8IAvjGjSu0LH~zIPZSqmgl1BRqHwdjXh3MUb0WnDCQJOD0yhfYk1bEoFRcmTFgNfCoabMm9UxWKt9c8aq41k1uerq3LQnHiNrRqe-I8I~PwNKsbTHqB06SMY10nBhyI5DTO0DkfA0bkgSB5a-~M8UPILZeXOKPOK1UKZRW73Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Respiratory Care Board of California","date","2025-02-28T06:19:28.75Z","article","The California Board of Psychology on Feb. 27 heard a petition by William Brito, PhD, requesting early termination of a probationary term tied to criminal convictions from the early 1980s and a stipulated settlement he entered years ago.

An administrative law judge, Sean Gavin of the Office of Administrative Hearings, presided. The Office of the Attorney General was represented by Deputy Attorney General Matthew Fleming; counsel for the petitioner appeared as well. The hearing opened at 10:05 a.m. with the judge and hearing officers confirming exhibits and quorum of board members.

Why it matters: The petition asks the board to remove professional restrictions imposed after a long-ago criminal history. The board must weigh public protection against evidence of rehabilitation and decades of subsequent practice in other jurisdictions.

From the state: DAG Matthew Fleming summarized the licensing and disciplinary history and told the board he had concerns about whether the petitioner had supplied “clear and convincing evidence” of rehabilitation. Fleming pointed to gaps in the record the board relied on in a previous denial and emphasized the board’s published guidelines for lifting terms of probation.

From the petitioner: In testimony, Dr. Brito acknowledged the underlying conduct and told the panel, “I was not trying to hide anything. I’ve, you know, take full responsibility for the crimes,” and described decades of therapy, stable family life and a long practice history outside California. He said he completed terms of supervision and paid cost recovery and submitted letters of support. Brito described his work in Washington, D.C., and said he has worked with trauma-exposed populations for many years.

Witness testimony: The petitioner called Marilee Aronson, PhD, as a witness. Aronson — who described a personal and professional relationship with Brito — told the board she had known him about 12 years and said she has “no question about his rehabilitation whatsoever.” Aronson described Brito as a respected clinician who works with traumatised clients and has referred clients and conferred professionally with peers.

Procedural rulings and exhibits: The parties exchanged and sought admission of numerous exhibits, including the original stipulated settlement and probation documents, a 2021 denial of an earlier early-termination request, probation compliance reports, letters of support and submitted curriculum vitae. The board admitted exhibits 1 through 9 after an objection to exhibit 5 was overruled; additional updated letters and CVs were also accepted as exhibits during the hearing. The judge granted a motion to exclude witnesses from the hearing room until called. The judge announced that two items (exhibits numbered 8 and 9 in the hearing binder) would be subject to a protective order and directed redaction or restricted filing as needed.

Board role and next steps: Board members took no public vote at the hearing. After closing arguments by the parties — the state opposing early termination and the petitioner’s counsel urging release based on rehabilitation and the passage of time — the judge declared the matter submitted to the board. The board then moved into closed session to deliberate under the Government Code provision for disciplinary matters. No final decision was announced in open session during the meeting transcript.

What the record shows: The hearing record includes the original criminal convictions from 1980 and 1983 that led to the statement of issues, a stipulated settlement and a five-year probationary term. Brito testified he later obtained licensure in Washington, D.C., and practiced there for more than a decade without discipline; he also provided evidence of continued therapy and community work and said he had a certificate of rehabilitation. The state noted Brito reoffended while on parole years ago and emphasized that the board’s early-termination guidelines call for a thorough showing of current rehabilitation.

The board will consider the hearing record and voted motions in closed session; it stated the matter was submitted and closed the hearing record for final action by the board. The board also issued a protective order limiting public access to certain probation file exhibits.

Provenance: The petition hearing was opened on the record by Judge Sean Gavin at 10:05 a.m.; the hearing record was later submitted and the matter closed for deliberation in closed session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","California Board of Psychology- Board Meeting- February 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The California Board of Psychology heard an administrative petition Feb. 27 from William Brito, PhD, who asked the board to end a probationary term tied to criminal convictions and a stipulated settlement. The board accepted exhibits and testimony, then took the matter under submission for closed‑door deliberation.","taxTitle","Respiratory Care Board of California, Boards and Commissions, Executive, California","taxId",76751,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6659856,"Board reviews CPA proposal to broaden qualifying degrees for Psychological Testing Technicians in 2025 sunset bill",3468,21182000,24650000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2444352-79c7a137270a6cd236c1d2c158035d4f&start=21182&end=24650","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2444352-79c7a137270a6cd236c1d2c158035d4f/thumbnail_21182000.jpg","/articles/6659856/California/Board-reviews-CPA-proposal-to-broaden-qualifying-degrees-for-Psychological-Testing-Technicians-in-2025-sunset-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6659856-38461c0754e173000068a9d31d8c2300/orig.mp4?Expires=1772769056&Signature=hnSoy8-weeayZQ2hvmsbi8iZurBofeKuBpH6d7Ce0CDGT4UDHgyHs3BJVxhTFdA3-6X1USiKOFekZrP1RKOixphUjLYpci6GbhMKv8okiL93GYT9K5NOCHSQmQlephs5v1W3o~iBN0s8J2nwqV8mJaLoxc-Z8Pj3p4xJUDd8AJGU3iNLd6oQIGquep4ekIxTeCGm-on9vmye36KinQpi538tWQ-CA~SLRG7ejjLkZMlP5uJvcShTZotyQ~~fWMx7s6uaYy-65nwx9HhQxhzmVFISVfGiSWnbceRF~d13VFtt4p4gxSILQm8H6T3ljtSk2jx1GadUvd9enDFwFep0Yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Board of Psychology reviewed a proposal Feb. 27 from the California Psychological Association (CPA) to broaden the list of baccalaureate degrees that would qualify applicants for registration as psychological testing technicians (PTTs) and considered whether to include the language in the board’s 2025 sunset bill.

Why it matters: The PTT registration was created to increase capacity for standardized test administration and scoring under licensed psychologist supervision; narrow statutory language has left some degree holders who otherwise have appropriate foundational coursework ineligible. The CPA asked the board to expand the statutory description so qualified candidates with degrees such as neuroscience, cognitive science or related behavioral-science majors are eligible without requiring case‑by‑case transcript adjudication.

What was proposed: CPA’s redlined draft would allow a bachelor’s or graduate degree in psychology or education with specified specializations, or in other “closely related” fields that provide a relevant foundation (the CPA listed neuroscience, cognitive science and behavioral science as examples). The proposal preserves the current requirement that a prospective PTT complete supervised, task‑specific training (the statute requires 80 hours of education/training and direct observation before full registration) and that a licensed psychologist supervise and attest to competence.

Board concerns and discussion: Board members and licensing staff acknowledged a tension between two goals — avoiding an unnecessarily narrow list that excludes qualified applicants, while also keeping statutory language sufficiently precise to avoid unpredictable or inappropriate qualifications. Some board members and attendees cautioned that an overly broad catch‑all phrase could lead to inconsistent adjudications; others said a rigid list of degree titles would quickly become outdated because universities add new interdisciplinary majors.

Change the board proposed: During discussion a motion was made on the floor to remove a proposed open-ended clause that would have allowed “any other closely related degree” as a standalone path; the motion also asked staff to retain broader but enumerated degree categories (for example, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science and behavioral science) and to preserve board discretion to review borderline applications. A seconded motion to delete the open-ended clause was put forward; the transcript records debate, but no final roll‑call decision on that motion was announced in open session during the meeting.

Process and next steps: Board staff said the licensing unit currently reviews transcripts and, when coursework is unclear, refers files to a board‑approved subject‑matter expert (a licensed psychologist) for evaluation. Staff also said the current volume of PTT applications is manageable; changes to statute would direct future eligibility, and the board discussed delegating case‑by‑case determinations to the licensure committee so applicants would not face long delays. CPA representatives said they favored language that expands but does not unduly constrain eligibility and expressed willingness to refine draft statutory text to reflect board concerns.

What remains unresolved: The transcript records a motion and a second to delete the broad catch‑all clause and keep enumerated categories with an explicit board‑review fallback for borderline degrees; the audio transcript shows substantive debate and public comment in support of broadening eligibility, but the board did not announce a final enacted change during the Feb. 27 meeting. The committee/staff will return revised language to the board; CPA indicated it intends to seek the statutory change as part of the board’s sunset legislation.

Provenance: Discussion of the CPA PTT proposal (agenda item 18.b) begins in the transcript at the staff introduction of the item and continues through board debate and public comment; the board recorded a motion to remove an overly broad clause but did not announce final adoption on the record.","The Board of Psychology reviewed a California Psychological Association proposal to expand which college degrees qualify someone for the psychological testing technician registration, and debated whether to place the language in the board’s 2025 sunset bill.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6659851,"Board approves telehealth regulatory text; moves to publish rulemaking package",217,16343000,16560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2444352-79c7a137270a6cd236c1d2c158035d4f&start=16343&end=16560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2444352-79c7a137270a6cd236c1d2c158035d4f/thumbnail_16343000.jpg","/articles/6659851/California/Board-approves-telehealth-regulatory-text-moves-to-publish-rulemaking-package","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6659851-09792c838bebe28855e7f7cf2fa47245/orig.mp4?Expires=1772769056&Signature=Ffak8VKJHoLgKIAvS16wlSL6NFMx4GaoM5fXRX7gEOJpriTKC7Q7lB~0Yoa0YyO1Aey6IHGh37w8C54sxfGXQwrw2ovCOMmUB~lVveaavuG-QBNRMp4leqkS4~gWqX5xHjfzCLth0RxqT4zvzHDXyHq6QDHQtX5MF6JOSDK1vNnnXK0LZ1A4~EAFTA5PNSwBjH~5jcSAV7fdjh37y3LCIUAj5xToamdd59AYDJi0HBdVqr3G9AICHbdOTDOBwpR~Ff9lk9J3RfoBfaMyGLZdi-0LgFne~L6YmL5fE~8J985GxTH-yFRtWAdb1IZroT9GpU7xbnp67~F0E3lz2sopZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Board of Psychology voted on Feb. 27 to approve proposed regulatory text amending California Code of Regulations section 1396.8, which governs telehealth practice for licensees. The enforcement committee had reviewed stakeholder input and recommended the regulatory changes; the full board approved moving the package forward for rulemaking and directed staff to submit the text to the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency for review.

Why it matters: The regulatory changes were prompted by a 2023 survey of telehealth barriers; revisions clarify telehealth expectations for licensees and align enforcement guidance with existing statute and HIPAA obligations. The board’s action begins the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process, a required step before adoption.

What the board decided: The board’s motion authorized staff to submit the proposed regulatory language and to make non‑substantive edits before submission. If no adverse public comments or objections are received during the required 45‑day public comment period and no hearing is requested, the board authorized the executive officer to proceed through the rulemaking process and adopt the regulation following standard departmental and Office of Administrative Law review.

Vote and procedure: The motion was seconded and the board recorded a roll-call vote in open session with members voting in favor; the enforcement committee’s recommended language will now be routed through the departmental and agency review and then the formal notice period. Board staff will return the record to the board if substantive public comments are filed or if a hearing is requested.

Implementation: Staff will make technical edits as needed, coordinate required departmental reviews and publish the rulemaking notice. The board’s committee had concluded there were no recommended statutory changes but identified clarifications to the CCR 1396.8 telehealth text; the board’s action authorized the executive officer to complete the rulemaking steps if no adverse comments appeared during the 45‑day public notice period.

Provenance: The enforcement committee introduced the package during agenda item 14; the board carried the motion and recorded a roll-call vote on the regulation in open session.","The Board of Psychology approved proposed regulatory text for California Code of Regulations section 1396.8 (telehealth requirements) and directed staff to submit the package for the rulemaking process after non‑substantive edits, authorizing staff to proceed if no adverse comments are received in the 45‑day notice period.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board of Psychology holds petition hearing for psychologist seeking early termination of probation

Board reviews CPA proposal to broaden qualifying degrees for Psychological Testing Technicians in 2025 sunset bill

Board approves telehealth regulatory text; moves to publish rulemaking package