Marriage-and-family therapist Kathleen Toland asks board to end supervised-practice requirement

Kathleen K. Toland, a licensed marriage-and-family therapist on probation, asked the California Board of Behavioral Sciences on Feb. 27 to remove the weekly supervised-practice requirement from her probation conditions.

Toland testified at a petition hearing conducted by Administrative Law Judge Corin Wong and described steps she said she has taken since discipline, including weekly supervision for more than a year, completing required coursework, submitting quarterly reports to probation, and paying required fees. Deputy Attorney General Anahita Crawford summarized the underlying discipline and the probation conditions for the board prior to Toland’s testimony.

The petition stems from an accusation and stipulated settlement in which the board imposed three years of probation and conditions including supervised practice, confidentiality- and law-and-ethics coursework, and cost recovery. Crawford told the panel the accusation alleged gross negligence, failure to maintain client confidentiality, dishonest acts and unprofessional conduct, including a failure to identify a conflict of interest and inconsistent statements to investigators. The settlement placed Toland on supervised practice and required education and financial obligations; Crawford told the board Toland is currently compliant with those requirements.

Toland described the circumstances that led to discipline, then focused her testimony on rehabilitation. She told the board she has met with a supervisor weekly “pretty much so,” completed multiple law-and-ethics and confidentiality courses totaling dozens of continuing‑education units, and submitted required probation payments and reports. She said the supervision has benefited her practice but asked to end it because of the financial cost and travel time. Toland said in testimony, “I will not make this mistake ever again.”

Board members pressed Toland on specifics the board must weigh in deliberations, including whether she has sought personal psychotherapy to address emotional reactivity that contributed to the conduct, how she documents couples and individual sessions now, whether she consults on cases, and how she would handle future custody-related cases. Tolan testified she now keeps separate files for each client and a joint file for couples and that she consults routinely with her supervisor. She acknowledged she had not reported certain child-safety concerns at the time of the underlying events and told the panel she regrets that failure.

Judge Wong admitted the prosecution and defense exhibits, including a probation analyst memo, license history, the petition for modification and the stipulated disciplinary documents; Toland raised no objections to the exhibits. The judge and board members reminded Toland the board will deliberate in closed session and issue a written decision by mail; no decision was made at the hearing.

The hearing record also captured Toland describing the financial impact of discipline: she cited probation fees and cost recovery, supervision costs, higher liability insurance and course costs she said she has paid (as she stated on the record), and told the board she is self‑employed and relies primarily on Social Security income in addition to clinical practice.

The board did not act at the hearing. The matter was submitted for deliberation, and a written decision will be mailed to Toland when available.