Is Child Protective Services in Wake County North Carolina contracting services for Pagan Worship??? Witchcraft??? And using Federal Funds to finance these evil attacks on THE FAMILY??? OUR FAMILY???
Michaele Worrix is the owner of Discovery Counseling & Wellness in Fuquay varina, NC. As a self-proclaimed, allegedly trained & certified Art Therapist, her business is booming; and has been growing with the help of Child Protective Services and their very lucrative (and guaranteed) contracts. Guaranteed so long as Ms. Worrix continues to produce reports that favor CPS…
What others have said…
Really, this counselor does not getting a ranking from me. Due to this counselor not going by code of ethics. If you are looking for a counselor like this is your Counselor.
This counselor never had a conversation with me nor my sister and had a letter notarized about who should have custody of my son in a legal custody battle. The father came to this counselor and provided his side of the story. And she without talking with me or anyone else that was around my son and I sent a letter to the courts on the father’s behalf. So really this counselor get no star for me.
September 19, 2008 by April Coleman in Marietta, GA
I would not recommend this Therapist to anyone. She doesn’t provide a plan and my child thought it was arts and crafts class. Her staff was not very friendly, her reports didn’t match the feedback she provided to the parents, so we could not trust her. There are several other negative reviews on the internet about her dating back to 2008. Do your research and choose another Therapist with a better therapy style. We found another Therapist and my child is doing much better.
Michaele (Micki) Worrix, LPC, NCC, ATR…
claims to be a specially trained and well qualified “Art Therapist,” while voluntarily participating for the past few years in the ever-growing CPS Mafia Cash4Kids & Legalized Kidnapping schemes. OK, well it’s not exactly volunteer work. Better defined as an associate in the CPS MAFIA Micki Worrix is compensated substantially ($125/hr. plus) for her so-called Art Therapy services.
So here’s a simple question? Are the art expressions that are created by a patient maintained, stored, and disposed of under the same rules of a clients File? In the case of Discovery Counseling and Wellness (Micki Worrix) you will find these “client files” displayed in every corner of the building, from the lobby to the art rooms and even on into each of the client therapy rooms. Is this appropriate? Micky?
It seems you can find the answer to that question here (directly below; statement form the AATA, 1994), but how does this address the confidentiality of the clients at Discovery Wellness and Counseling. It doesn’t. Poor Carlos Mendoza has a drawing posted in the waiting are of this so-called treatment facility.
The latest draft of what is now referred to as the Ethical Standards for Art Therapists (AATA, 1994) states: Art Therapists shall maintain patient treatment records for a reasonable amount of time consistent with State regulations and sound clinical practice, but not less than seven years from completion of treatment or termination of the therapeutic relationship. Records are stored or disposed of in ways that maintain confidentiality. (section 2.6) Hmmm…
More interesting data on Pediatric Trauma Patients reveals the following…
The efficiency of treatment interventions for post traumatic disorder in children have not been researched upon extensively. Psychologists however, have researched on the effectiveness of art therapy on pediatric trauma patients. Early in the research, analysis showed that there were no significant reductions in PSTD (post traumatic stress disorder) symptoms between the patients and the control group.
Witchcraft and the Pagan Rituals… The connection to Art therapy!
The mandala is often described as an interesting construct found in many cultures. It has potential for use in both art therapy and in pagan ritual, and it’s applications and occurrences are said to be infinite.
The word mandala is a Sanskrit term which means literally “circle”, or metaphorically, “completion”.
Pagans and witches usually gather in ‘circles’, a word used to describe the gathering of souls to do a working or observe a sabbat. It is also believed that circles have connotations of equality, where everyone is of equal voice and import (Micki Worrix is fond of this statement). And also believed that we cast circles to do workings, which reflect movement of the sun, the moon and the planets in the solar system. Circles and circular movements are found throughout pagan practice. Casting the circle, and opening the circle, is a favored aspect of rituals. The circle is often referred to as a “powerful form.”
In this context, the mandala can be interpreted as another representation of circular energy at work. It can be used to add greater depth to the interpretation of ‘the circle’ in pagan practice.
So what is our family’s contribution to Discovery Counseling and Wellness; aside from the obvious cash4kids benefit and the Federal Funds provided to Micki Worrix by and through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act? Well, our entire family has now been forced to participate in these so-called therapy sessions with Discovery Counseling & Wellness; that’s right against our will. And by the way make no mistake about it, the client is not our children nor my wife, nor I. Wake County Child Protective Services has directly contracted Discovery Counseling and Wellness and Wake county Child Protective Services uses Federal Funds to not only claim their reimbursement for payments made to Discovery Counseling and Wellness, but also to capture their 50% administrative fee through the very same Federally Funded bonus and incentive programs found in Title IV-E; thereby generating more revenue for the Wake County Government (once again on the backs of our children).
Backing up a bit I should mention that our girls Hannah (9) and Sarah (8) were assigned to Micki Worrix back sometime in August, 2011. They were presented to Micki’s agency Discovery Counseling and Wellness along with our boys Stephen (13) and Matthew (11), who were actually assigned to a contracted therapist Brian Wall who was working for Discovery Counseling and Wellness at that time while continuing with his own private practice. From the beginning Brian Wall in fact presented himself to be fair, honest, and a person of integrity. Micki Worrix and Brian Wall were the 3rd and 4th therapists assigned to our children, preceded by Laurie Scholl of Wake County Human Services and Joyce Williams in Jacksonville, North Carolina.
My wife and I met with both Brian Wall and Micki Worrix very early on (sometime in August if my memory serves me accurately) as they began to have sessions with our children. We were all in agreement from the beginning that both my wife and I should be part of the sessions ASAP (remember here that I emphasize ASAP). To this point, My wife and I also expressed our objection to our children being in any therapy at all; explaining our position that our children have never experienced any abuse or neglect in our home, that the continued exposure to this so-called therapy for adjustment disorder (attributed to their separation from their parents and each other) seems to have made things worse rather than better for them (even considering the forced separation from my wife and I and of course their separation from each other). By now our children were screaming from the mountaintop to be reunited with their FAMILY!
“Most of my clients see me once a week for 3 to 4 months. After that, we meet less often for several more months. Therapy then usually comes to an end.” M. Worrix
Really? Unless you are on the CPS Money train! Then you will happily milk the process for every dime. On the backs of children!
This is an email I recently sent to Micki Worrix requesting her immediate withdrawal from our case.
From: EXPOSING THE RECORD.ORG [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 8:07 PM
To: ’Micki Worrix’
Cc: ’email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
I would like to take a moment to address some concerns I have with regard to your involvement with our children and in our CPS case. I have spent the better part of that past few months taking a special interest in your background, and more specifically in your relationship with CPS over the past few years. I have even had the opportunity to speak with, interview, and even obtain affidavits from some of your prior so-called clients (I would call them victims).
As always, I mean not to offend you in my use of such strong language throughout this email, but feel it very important that the overall effect of this communication is such that you understand clearly what my approach will be moving forward. By now, you must be well aware that I am nothing if not transparent. My strength comes from my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and I feel quite led (through prayer) to present EVERYTHING as I see it, and in the most respectful manner possible. I apologize in advance if I fail at the latter from time to time. That is not my intent, but it can be quite difficult at times to formulate just the right words that are both non-offensive and unambiguous. I also proceed in a manner which puts my wife and children first! ALWAYS!
As my kids dad, and aside from the aforementioned concerns with regard to your involvement with my children and relating to what I have discovered in your background; I also have very specific concerns with regard to your treatment modality, your inability to acknowledge that my children are in fact presently exposed to critical levels of abuse and neglect and have been throughout this process, and the inappropriate nature as to your direct approach and your direct interactions with them during their so-called therapy sessions.
I am quite opposed to your treatment modality, and I have been concerned about this from the beginning. Clearly this projective therapy is highly controversial (possibly more than Rorschach testing). Art therapy is unquestionably a controversial mental health practice. It has as many opponents as it does proponents, since the interpretation of art (both created by the patient and viewed by the patient) is so very subjective. The problem with this type of therapy is the fact that these interpretations are indeed subjective. One therapist may interpret a sculpture as indicating symptoms of sexual abuse, while another therapist may interpret the sculpture as a sign of victorious breakthroughs. The possibilities for interpretation are endless, and although art therapy specialists are trained formally with standards, no one can prove the reliability of those standards. Does a certain symbol always represent a certain emotion? Does that particular color always indicate a particular experience?
Regarding your true motives for treating my children (in my humble opinion of course), I think your mis-leading testimony during your last court appearance speaks for itself, not to mention the financial arrangement (highly profitable) you have with WCHS. It’s not really about the kids in this case, is it? By the way, are you certified and/or licensed in the State of North Carolina as an Art Therapist? Is Brian? Not according to the North Carolina Board of Licensed Professional Counselors. According to the American Art therapy Association there are only five states who grant such licenses (North Carolina is not one). I’m not saying that this is anything more that a technical question that may or may not be relevant, but our children have been subjected to this highly controversial process since being forced to attend sessions with you as far back as August, 2011.
After 685 DAYS of being in State/County custody WCHS, the GAL, Corrupt Court Officers, and other collaterals like yourself are still pressing on – trying to “make a case” of Abuse or Neglect. Trying to manufacture any shred of evidence that could point to such assertions. Truth be told, it is the same; WCHS and its agents, the GAL program and its agents, and the other collaterals like yourself that have exposed our children to environments contrary to their best interest, exposed them to neglectful and in fact abusive environments, and have had anything but their best interest at heart. Moreover, any treatment of our children for any alleged mental health challenges should absolutely be decided upon, approved by, and/or implemented by myself and my wife (i.e. Stephen). The bottom line… I don’t trust you, I never have, I have expressed this to you from the beginning, and I have never wavered from that position.
Prior to including me in sessions with our girls, you shared with me that both Hannah and sarah had expressed a “FEAR” that they would not be able to see you after this was all over. Are you kidding? What has been done to my children that might even remotely cause such feelings? Are you even using the right word? Was anything even remotely similar to the word FEAR ever used. Contrary to your statement, our girls have quite clearly and directly expressed to me that they “just want to go home” and were very clear with me in that they could take it or leave it when it comes to visits with you…
As I Participated and Observed your direct interaction with my girls during the only two sessions conducted at your office (the only two I have been invited to after over 8 months of individual WEEKLY sessions between you and our girls – and that’s not counting the previous 14 months of not being invited to previous session – contrary to the court’s orders), I was appalled at your “leading questions” and your embracing thoughts of allowing my girls to write questions to the JUDGE. I understand that these questions were based on the girls expressing anger and confusion about their current familial deprivation and even stating that THEY want to ask the Judge questions about why they are not allowed to see their daddy more and why they are not able to live with mom and/or dad (Sarah stating it best I think; “I want to be with my mom and dad forever”), but this goes against everything I have been fighting for on their behalf. Somehow you seemed to think involving them in this (court) process might be productive (for our family). Absurd, in my humble opinion. My children should be as far away from this (court) process as the East is from the West! Even if it is to work in favor of our family. You also Lied to them when you reassured them that you were supporting increased access to both my wife and myself as they cried in my arms during our session with you. your short-term memory loss must have paid you a visit since you had just prepared an email to Julie Riggins that very morning, only minutes before our session began. Of course you already know that you ONLY supported increased visits with their mother in that letter, in fact making no mention of their father whatsoever!
The real bombshell for me was the Letter I just received from Stephen last week on May 2, 2012. Again, this was a letter that was prepared contrary to my objection. You may recall that I was very specifically against an exchange of written communication to initiate contact between Stephen and me after 685 days of NO CONTACT for NO REASON. I expressed this opposition to exchanging letters at the PPAT held at WCHS on April 25, 2012. Julie Riggins, Baccuhus Carver, and others were present and in agreement that Stephen and I should not engage in an exchange of letters or emails as a method of first contact. Julie confirmed that you were in agreement and we were all of like-mind and one accord in this area (or so she said). Somehow, you chose to ignore that request and suggested Stephen write to me. The contents of the letter will remain confidential to a select few unless you already have a copy for yourself (which I doubt – given its contents). It is absolutely quite revealing of what Stephen has been going through; and they should all be ashamed. In fairness, I say “they” because you have not had Stephen until recently…
In addition, Stephen is now confiding in and asking revealing questions of other adults in his life (without prompting), that are leading to the same conclusions; he feels a measure of guilt and expresses other feelings of anxiety about his current living conditions and/or his separation from his parents…
From a legal perspective I would also like to say that I am very serious about my implications in this email. As you may already know I filed a Federal Action naming 45 defendants at the Federal Courthouse of the Eastern District of North Carolina on November 28, 2011 on behalf of myself, my wife and our children. More importantly, I also filed a request for a Temporary Injunction in the same Federal Court which more specifically requests;
- A Preliminary Injunction be issued from this court to enjoin Wake County Human Services (“WCHS”) and any other person or agency acting in concert or participation with them, to immediately return and restore full legal and physical custody of the seven Plaintiff minor children T.R.B., S.R.R., M.R.R., H.M.R., S.M.R., J.R.R., and B.R.R. to Plaintiff Parents Ronald and Debra Reale absent an order of this court, made on notice to all parties, until such time as the allegations of the verified motion and affidavits filed in this matter shall be finally adjudicated.
- That a hearing upon this application for Preliminary Injunction be set for the earliest possible time of its filing as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65.
- In support of this motion, Movants show the court as follows: That a verified motion seeking the court immediately return and restore full legal and physical custody of the seven Plaintiff minor children T.R.B., S.R.R., M.R.R., H.M.R., S.M.R., J.R.R., and B.R.R. to Plaintiff Parents Ronald and Debra Reale; by them on this date, the contents of which motion are incorporated herein by reference herein as if fully set out.
The case was dismissed by Chief Judge James Dever, III on December 8, 2011. The request for Preliminary injunction was also dismissed as “moot” following the dismissal of the primary case itself. Of course I filed a timely appeal on January 6, 2012 in the United states Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond Virginia. I was informed on Monday that a three Judge panel ruled unanimously to Vacate that Order and to Remand the case back to Raleigh allowing it to proceed. I mention this only to say that I have decided to include you in the list of Defendants (Discovery Counseling and wellness, and you personally). I will prepare and file a supplemental pleading that will include 6 additional defendants and various other evidentiary documents obtained since the original filing date of November 28, 2011. I will also re-submit the request for a Preliminary Injunction seeking the return of our children immediately.
Additionally I will of course be pushing forward with my run for office and my request for access to the legislature. I have a meeting set for this upcoming Sunday in pursuit of that Endeavour, in fact.
Apologies for the length and detail included in this email, but I feel obligated to be fair and just when presenting my position on such a serious matter as our FAMILY. Based on the information include in this email, I certainly hope you will give serious consideration to the following request. I am asking that you consider releasing my children and withdrawing as their therapist immediately. As their father I feel quite comfortable that Hannah and Sarah will be just fine with such a transition. I absolutely will provide an alternative for Stephen after discussions with my wife and with the help of other professionals we have come to know and trust. As you know Matthew is no longer involved with your practice, therefore I will address his current situation as a separate matter. Also with regard to Stephen, I would ask that you do everything in your power to encourage him allow Julie Riggins to join us for our first contact (without you of course, per my previous request) and that this take place without delay. Ultimately however, I will follow through with the original plan to meet with Stephen next Wednesday in your office should my request here be denied. In that case, I think my stated objections in this email will serve me well enough in the future. The same holds true for my daughters with regard to pre-scheduled sessions scheduled at your office (I will be there as scheduled if you decide not to step aside) as it is absolutely in their best interest that they have more access to me and my wife and it is of course in their best interest that they see us together whenever possible. They MUST know and more importantly believe that our FAMILY UNIT is very much ALIVE and that I will NEVER stop fighting for their return and for the restoration of our FAMILY UNIT!
At the end of the day, I hope you will think long and hard about what it really means to have the “best interest” of children at heart, and what it means to “protect” the precious minds of young children as you ponder the right decision.
Please understand that this communication is not to be misunderstood as a quid pro quo, nor is it meant to be threatening in any way (I truly hope you do not perceive it as either), but rather a father fighting for his family in the midst of one of the greatest injustices, one of the worst examples of tyranny, and absolutely a time of helplessness and uncertainty for our entire family. I believe whole-heartedly that you have contributed to and/or directly caused irreparable damage to my girls and now Stephen, and I will therefore follow through with my decision to include you in our family’s Federal Action requesting relief and damages for civil rights violations regardless of what you decide.
I have not copied anyone (except for myself for preservation purposes), nor shared this information with anyone else, leaving that for you to determine. It truly matters not to me.
GIVE US BACK OUR KIDS!!!
Libertarian Party Candidate
NC District 40 House of Reps
11010 Lake Grove Blvd. STE 100-211
Morrisville, NC 27560
Here is yet another email outlining the debacle. I have a transcript to support all claims.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, EXPOSING THE RECORD.ORG <email@example.com> wrote:
Michaele Worrix, LPC, ATA
This is a follow-up to the first session with my son Stephen.
I have a few concerns:
And to be clear, I want you to know that I did not mention any of these issues in Stephen’s presence as I felt it would not be appropriate to do so. Obviously it was not the time nor the place. In fact, the overall session, it’s scheduling and planning (or should I say lack of planning) raises many logistical questions and even very real concerns; if not clearly shows your deliberate attempt to sabotage the process from the start.
My first concern… Scheduling. I cannot for the life of me understand how it is that you do not seem to want to afford me the same or similar fairness and/or courtesy as my wife (and probably each and every one of your other clients) when it comes to scheduling. In this case you NEVER even ‘officially’ scheduled me for this first session with Stephen. There was some word of mouth conversation that even involved the CPS social worker Julie Riggins, but nothing was ever properly scheduled. The last I heard was that you would be meeting with Stephen individually on May 9, 2012 and that everyone was hopeful that he would agree to meet with me the following week on May 16, 2012 (but it was still very much up-in-the-air pending the outcome of your session with Stephen on May 9, 2012). I never received any communication after your session with him on May 9, 2012. I don’t even know if any such session took place. I was not contacted by you or anyone from your office to confirm or even to set-up an appointment. The social worker Julie Riggins neither informed nor updated me on any such event. The truth is, vaguely realizing that the plan was to get together on May 16, 2012, I decided to wait for your office to contact me with the details (date, time, and anything I might need to know ahead of time). I never received any information whatsoever nor was I ever contacted. So in the afternoon of the day in question (May 16, 2012), having received no communication from you, your office, or the social worker Julie Riggins I decided to call your office around 2:30pm. I asked your receptionist what time my session was scheduled for? After a brief hold she came back to inform me that it was from 4:45 to 5:30. Then oddly, I received a call from Julie Riggins at 3:45pm asking if I was planning to attend the session in question today at 4:45 (really??? one hour before???). It should be noted that my wife, who attends regular bi-weekly sessions with you and our other children, receives her schedule in advance and receives prompt email reminders from your office on the morning of, or the day before each and every session. hmmm. I might also note that even as of today May 18, 2012 I have yet to receive the requested email from your office with the upcoming schedule for sessions with my daughters and Stephen.
Something similar happened when I began to participate in sessions with my girls Hannah and Sarah. The first appointment was scheduled fine, but then I was not notified of the appointment time for the second session until the morning of. In fact the original schedule was to be every two weeks, so I was simply planning that into my work schedule accordingly. Then, I received a call from your receptionist exactly 15 hours prior to the second session (two weeks after the first session) informing me that I would be on a four-week rotation while my wife would be on a two-week rotation. This was the first I’d heard of any such arrangement and had already arranged my schedule to attend these sessions every two weeks as previously discussed, prior to this last-minute change. Of course I also inquired as to why would my girls have ‘less’ access to their dad than their mom? Your response was that since the plan of reunification was pre-established by the court to be with mom, you felt that our children should spend more time with her than me. In my opinion, this philosophy only exposes your true motivation and your true desire to accommodate CPS (who writes the checks, and supports your business with the promise of future work), even above those in your care (again, in my humble opinion), and your history with CPS supports that theory. Isn’t there an ethics issue in there somewhere? Therapy is separate and apart from any plan of reunification (for the most part), unless you are working and/or strategizing with CPS as I believe to be the case here. Your focus should be solely that of your clients (our children in this case) needs and/or desires. This includes their expressed desire to be reunified with both parents (as mine have clearly expressed in open family sessions) regardless of what the court has ordered and/or what CPS recommends. Ultimately it seems clear that a professional in your position should simply ‘report’ findings and not be involved in any sort of pre-determined outcome, not concern yourself with the “court” case itself. Put another way, you should not present yourself as having a ‘dog-in-the-fight’ or as having an interest in the outcome of the “court” case itself in any way whatsoever. This has not been your approach, however… although it is likely directly related to Brian Walls departure from your agency as his concerns (as the therapist for my boys, and a contracted agent of yours) also seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Something else that I consider to be critical in moving forward and I touched on it briefly in the first paragraph… Planning… At the onset of this first so-called therapy session with Stephen you presented a document that you also referred to as a ‘contract’ without any prior notice or warning whatsoever. You did not email the document to me for review, nor did you even bother to discuss the concept of its application in this first session, or in future sessions prior to my arrival on May 16, 2012. I can’t help but wonder why this so-called ‘contract’ was not discussed and/or presented among the adults prior to this first session with Stephen.
As mentioned above, you presented a document during this first session that was titled “Recommendations for beginning family therapy” as a ‘contract’ between those present in this first session. In fact, this document was the subject of the entire first session. This so-called contract outlines a ‘treatment team’ and further defines that ‘treatment team’ as including the following members; Micki Worrix, Julie Riggins, Ron Reale, and Stephen Reale. I must note that this is the first time any document of its kind has been presented in any session involving Stephen, any of our other children, my wife or myself, with you or even Brian Wall before his departure. It seems to be a crafty, if not a creative attempt (albeit inappropriate in my opinion) to establish an excuse to involve social worker Julie Riggins and/or WCHS in this process, among other things. Although I agree with some of the simple guidelines, rules, and regulations that were presented and/or discussed throughout the introduction of this document, I do not agree with ALL of them. And certainly, we could have very easily established the same or very similar guidelines in a manner that simply involved a conversation as has been the case in prior sessions with our other children, my wife, yourself, and Brian Wall before his departure. Not sure why you found the need to introduce this document especially since it clearly seems to lend itself more to confusion than even close to being necessary to proceed. Once again it would not have been appropriate to discuss these issues in Stephen’s presence, in particular during our first contact in over 693 days, therefore I have reserved my comments for this email..
You should know that under the circumstances mentioned and discussed herein I find the introduction as wells as the application of this document inappropriate at best. I would further contend that this document has been effectuated and my signature obtained through the aforementioned coercive tactics and of course through intimidation, more specifically “under duress.” Of course then, I DO NOT agree with its contents in their entirety nor do I feel it appropriate that this document be considered valid in any way, and I object to its very existence moving forward with any future sessions with Stephen (although, as I mentioned I do feel that SOME (though not many) of the principles included in the document are perfectly acceptable and agreeable). Clearly I could not have expressed any sort of substantive objection to the introduction of this so-called contract in Stephen’s presence without causing more confusion, undermining the process as a whole and/or making him uncomfortable.
But I digress; I must also address the fact that Julie Riggins was part of this “family” session. Since she is not a member of our “family” I would like to know why she was present? As a foster care social worker for WCHS it seem highly unusual that she would even be involved in this part of the process. Additionally I think it is important to note that Julie Riggins has not been involved in any of the other sessions involving our other children, my wife or myself, with you or even with Brian Wall before his departure. Why now? Under what authority? To what end? This format and/or treatment modality is clearly confusing for Stephen and in my opinion WILL cause irreparable harm to him. I am not in favor of her participation in these sessions. Is Julie Riggins a Licensed Counselor? Even if she was, that fact would only serve to strengthen my objection since it would quite clearly be an ethics violation at a minimum for Stephen to be presented with two therapists. I must now ask, has Julie Riggins been present in any other sessions? If so, I find that to also be highly objectionable and certainly inappropriate for the reasons stated above, among others. Julie Riggins is not involved in Stephen’s day-to-day life (or the lives of any of our other children I might add). Therefore it is quite clear that she serves no purpose whatsoever in participating directly in therapy sessions, much less as a member of a so-called ‘treatment team.’
Aside from the general application of this document, I should also point out a few glaring concerns with its contents.
Generally speaking, I was flabbergasted when you mention that point number six was based on a “little girl” with whom you previously used this document. I hardly know what to say about this. I guess the first thing I would say is that; I shouldn’t have to say anything! Why would you not be keenly aware of the implications here? What does this “little girl” or more importantly, what does her treatment modality have to do with our son Stephen or our family’s current situation? To make matters worse you even cite very specifically that these quite questionable guidelines were presented to Stephen as “suggestions” to adopt as his own. So here again, is yet another clear example of the “coaching” and “leading” that has been taking place since our children were first abducted back in June 2010.
Here’s a great case in point; number 6c. states; “Affection i.e. hugging should be determined by the comfort level of Stephen. More specifically, Stephen shared he would be most comfortable with the rule: ‘no hugging, affection, etc. unless you ask first.’” During the session as you came to this point, you read the selection and then looked at Stephen and said, are you still thinking about that one? he replied, yes I’m still thinking about it (also seemed very confused). You then added, this was not Stephen’s but was from the “little girl” you used this with last, and that Stephen indicated in your prior session with him that he was not sure about that one and would like to think about it. So here’s a question for you. Isn’t this particular statement (6c), in this so-called contract, a perfect example of the direct fabrications, and that your continued efforts remain focused on falsifying and misrepresenting the facts as you continue to collaborate with WCHS and others? How is this type of conspiracy in any way therapy related?
Let’s talk about “good secrets and bad secrets”… You mentioned that you believe in good secrets and bad secrets? Wow, really? As you may recall I objected to this and politely questioned you about this during this first session with Stephen. In my opinion your declaration that there are “good secrets and bad secrets” was most certainly out of line, compromising of the values I have quite regularly instilled in our children, and absolutely had no place in this so-called therapy session. To think that a person (you, Micki Worrix) who my son obviously perceives as a person “in control” or a person “of authority” has NOW given him permission to keep secrets (so long as he deems them to be good secrets) is astonishing, and even more – an abomination to the very principles of proper parenting. And then, Julie Riggins feels the need to chime-in and suggest that Stephen may do “something” on a visit with his mom they he may not want his dad to know about, and that he should have the right to ask his mom not to tell his dad, and she should honor it. What??? Is that a “good” secret people??? This is a FRAUD to be sure! We are a Christian family and will not be infected with your evil concepts or your twisted social agenda!
As I move on I would like to make mention of the fact that you seem to have reversed yourself on previous statements made under oath in court. I was hoping you could clarify for me. When I questioned you under oath with regard to your need to “develop a rapport” with each of our children prior to including myself or my wife in sessions, you were quite clear in your response. The record will eventually speak for itself and be much more accurate when the time comes, but my recollection is that you clearly asserted that it can take weeks, even months (with weekly sessions) to develop such a rapport (at this point you had been ‘developing a rapport’ with our children for over 5 months). I further asked you if you were motivated by the money you receive from WCHS for your services. You responded, that money was not a factor, as I recall. Of course I disagreed and I maintain that position. Fast-forwarding to present day; since Brian Wall’s departure (Stephen’s original therapist) you have visited with Stephen for a total of three sessions (and at least one entire session was composed of you “coaching” him with the aforementioned so-called contract…). How is it possible for you to have “developed a rapport” so quickly (based on your previous testimony in court), subsequently inviting me to join the sessions? Why was this expedited approach not possible with our other children back in late 2011? Why was it necessary to put them through such torture? Was your testimony in court not so accurate after all?
Now, I would like to mention something that I find to be very much personally offensive and absolutely in violation of multiple ethics codes and codes of professional conduct. You had no right to mention to Stephen that his dad was seeing a therapist. I was appalled to say the least when you spoke those words to him. This revelation, especially with me not having the opportunity to discuss the details with Stephen, is absolutely unacceptable and I find it to be undermining, not mention a direct attempt to weaken Stephen’s perception of his father. He is confused enough, and now may very well have concerns of his father’s ability to even participate in these so-called sessions, among other things. You did not have my permission to make any mention of my personal therapy. Period!
Summarizing my concerns… Your sessions with my son, our daughters, our family, and your relationship with Child Protective Services, the Guardian ad Litem and others are a FRAUD! Clearly it seems relevant and proper that the appropriate North Carolina Licensing board of Professional Counselors be notified of your conduct and alleged violations of the ACA’s ethical codes; and possibly to explore the need for our family to file a claim with your insurance carrier for your continued efforts to cause harm to our children, and with regard to your questionable relationship with Child Protective Services, among other things. Similarly, I feel it appropriate to include these concerns in a formal complaint to the Judge in this case and of course as part of my federal complaint as to your continued contribution to depriving our entire family of our rights and protections afforded us by and through the United States Constitution and the Laws of the State of North Carolina. Note: I would ask that you preserve the “original document” referred to as “Recommendations for beginning family therapy” that was used as a template or specifically for the “little girl” as you mentioned, since I will be issuing a Federal Subpoena for the same in the near future (redacted of course).
Although I never received a response to the questions and/or comments in my last email, I want you to know that I welcome your responses to any questions I have posed herein. I also am open to your comments as you determine to be appropriate.
Finally, this Persian bazaar approach to such an important event has left me more convinced than ever that you should absolutely step aside as Stephen’s therapist (all our children for that matter), before more harm is done. Having said all that, I will also state that many of these issues can and will be addressed in court, which further leads me to say that I will continue to participate in Stephen’s so-called therapy with my objections noted herein. In addition, you have my word that despite my objection to you remaining as Stephen’s therapist (and my other children), and despite my other substantive objections I will never undermine you, or the process in Stephen’s presence or during the so-called sessions. I think you can agree, that has been my approach from the start and my actions have proven my words to be true.
Libertarian Party Candidate
NC District 40 House of Reps
11010 Lake Grove Blvd. STE 100-211
Morrisville, NC 27560
HEY MS. WORRIX… GIVE US BACK OUR KIDS!!!