Board adopts revised disciplinary guidelines; extends practice-monitor deadline to 90 days and makes psychological evaluations optional

The California Board of Psychology voted on Nov. 7, 2025 to adopt a revised disciplinary guideline package that staff will submit for rulemaking. The package updates Title 16, Division 13.1, Article 7 (section 1395.2) and includes several substantive changes: psychological evaluations will be optional rather than a mandatory standard condition in many disciplinary cases; probation tolling provisions for a two‑year period were clarified; voluntary license surrender with delayed reinstatement petitions will be permitted (examples in the draft: three years for surrenders not related to mental/physical illness and one year for surrenders due to mental/physical illness); standard probation terms were set to a consistent period of up to five years; and the timeframe to secure a practice monitor was revised during debate from 60 days to 90 days.

The sequence on the record shows an initial motion to adopt the text as drafted failed after roll call. Following public comment from the California Psychological Association (CPA) and other stakeholders urging greater flexibility (including Dr. Elizabeth Winkelman’s request to retain a 90‑day monitor window and to include a reference to the posted "spectrum of administrative actions"), board member Dr. Harpsheets moved an amended motion to change the 60‑day requirement to 90 days and explicitly add the spectrum of administrative actions into the package. That motion, seconded by Miss Nystrom, passed by roll call; the board authorized the executive officer to submit the text to the Department of Consumer Affairs and Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency for review, to proceed with the 45‑day comment period, to make non‑substantive edits (such as table of contents corrections), and to complete rulemaking if no adverse comments or hearing requests are received.

During discussion, enforcement staff clarified practical points: providing the name of a proposed probation monitor within the deadline is sufficient to meet the timeframe, monitoring can be done via video or in person, and staff can grant extensions on a case‑by‑case basis when good faith efforts are documented. Public commenters and board members expressed concern that a 60‑day period was too short in many areas of the state and that requiring psychological evaluations in minor cases could be unnecessarily punitive and costly.

The board directed staff to pursue rulemaking and to incorporate the agreed non‑substantive edits before publishing the final package, and staff noted it will post the regulatory materials and notify licensees. The adopted action moves the proposed regulatory text into the formal implementation pipeline; additional administrative steps required by California rulemaking law remain before the changes become effective.