Sidwell Sex Scandal

[Anonymous]

This case is not a matter of two consensual adults. It is not a matter of a lack of professionalism. Nor is it simply the matter of a husband scorned.

Rather, based on the facts reported in the news and this document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/55276950/Sidwell-Lawsuit), Dr. Huntington seems to have violated many aspects of the APA ethics code which ALL psychologists must strive to uphold. This is equivalent to medical doctors violating their Hippocratic Oath or the medical ethics code. It is astounding that Sidwell Friends allowed this unethical behavior to continue and looked the other way at the risk of the well-being of other students who may have been treated by Dr Huntington, who engaged in a sexual relationship with the client's mother at the risk of competently performing his job, and exploiting and harming the client. This is equivalent to looking away if a medical doctor was exploiting and harming a client. In line with their stated goals and values, Sidwell Friends had a duty to consult another psychologist or the APA ethics board to resolve the issue in a manner with the highest integrity and care for the student. In line with the price of tuition parents pay, Sidwell Friends has the highest duty to hire the most top notch child psychologist for their students; individuals with high integrity, high quality training and clinical skill and care for their students. Clearly, they did not.

Violation 1: AVOIDING HARM: Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming
their clients/patients with whom they
work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

Violation 2: SEXUAL INTIMACIES: Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with
individuals they know to be close relatives, guardians, or significant others of current clients/patients. Psychologists do
not terminate therapy to circumvent this standard.

Violation 3ERSONAL CONFLICTS: Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional
role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or
other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected
to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in
performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the
person or organization with whom the professional relation-
ship exists to harm or exploitation

Violation 4: MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS:
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psycholo-
gist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same
time is in another role with the same person...
A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple
relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be
expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, compe-
tence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as
a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the
person with whom the professional relationship exists.

[Anonymous]

You sound hot headed. What if he wasn't treating the daughter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You sound hot headed. What if he wasn't treating the daughter?

Not PP, but the fact was that he was "treating" the daughter--using her as an excuse to have an affair as well as sharing information from other cases at school with his mistress. The point is moot. He's scummy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This case is not a matter of two consensual adults. It is not a matter of a lack of professionalism. Nor is it simply the matter of a husband scorned.

Rather, based on the facts reported in the news and this document (http://www.scribd.com/doc/55276950/Sidwell-Lawsuit), Dr. Huntington seems to have violated many aspects of the APA ethics code which ALL psychologists must strive to uphold. This is equivalent to medical doctors violating their Hippocratic Oath or the medical ethics code. It is astounding that Sidwell Friends allowed this unethical behavior to continue and looked the other way at the risk of the well-being of other students who may have been treated by Dr Huntington, who engaged in a sexual relationship with the client's mother at the risk of competently performing his job, and exploiting and harming the client. This is equivalent to looking away if a medical doctor was exploiting and harming a client. In line with their stated goals and values, Sidwell Friends had a duty to consult another psychologist or the APA ethics board to resolve the issue in a manner with the highest integrity and care for the student. In line with the price of tuition parents pay, Sidwell Friends has the highest duty to hire the most top notch child psychologist for their students; individuals with high integrity, high quality training and clinical skill and care for their students. Clearly, they did not.

Violation 1: AVOIDING HARM: Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming
their clients/patients with whom they
work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

Violation 2: SEXUAL INTIMACIES: Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with
individuals they know to be close relatives, guardians, or significant others of current clients/patients. Psychologists do
not terminate therapy to circumvent this standard.

Violation 3ERSONAL CONFLICTS: Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional
role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or
other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected
to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in
performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the
person or organization with whom the professional relation-
ship exists to harm or exploitation

Violation 4: MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS:
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psycholo-
gist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same
time is in another role with the same person...
A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple
relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be
expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, compe-
tence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as
a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the
person with whom the professional relationship exists.

Terry, you loser. Get off the website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You sound hot headed. What if he wasn't treating the daughter?

the moment that the psychologist met with the child to test if she was gifted, she was treated and from thereafter, considered his client and the relationship subject to the ethics code

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound hot headed. What if he wasn't treating the daughter?

the moment that the psychologist met with the child to test if she was gifted, she was treated and from thereafter, considered his client and the relationship subject to the ethics code

Newmyer filed complaints against Huntington with the DC and MD State Boards of Psychology (page 5 - http://dcslapplaw.com/files/2013/01/Huntington_counterclaim.pdf ), but apparently Huntington prevailed, because both states list him as a psychologist in good standing with no record of any disciplinary actions against him. Indeed, the DC Board of Psychology seems to have issued a very favorable ruling for Huntington (page 7 - http://dcslapplaw.com/files/2013/01/Huntington_surreply_opp_slapp_mol.pdf ):

An independent regulatory body of the District of Columbia, after reviewing all of the documentation submitted by Mr. Newmyer, including Mr. Newmyer's Complaint that Dr. Huntington violated professional ethics, has determined that Dr. Huntington committed no wrong, and that there was "no evidence to indicate that Dr. Huntington provided psychological services...." Mr. Newmyer has sued Dr. Huntington for [various claims] deriving from the existence of a therapeutic relationship. As a regulatory body has determined that no therapeutic relationship existed ..., there can be no professional malpractice, there is no duty upon which is based a breach of fiduciary duty, and there can be no emotional distress caused by any alleged wrongs of Dr. Huntington.

[Anonymous]

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Re: the Boards....nothing is that simple. There are different definitions of "client" in the setting of school psychology.

[Anonymous]

In addition, resolution of Board proceedings can take years. Nothing should be posted until resolution.

[Anonymous]

Terry's suit against Sidwell and Huntington was thrown out on summary judgment today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Terry's suit against Sidwell and Huntington was thrown out on summary judgment today.

See other thread.

[Anonymous]

Still damaged the school enough

[Anonymous]

How so? Because a bunch of people speculated BS on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Recently learned that the PR firm that was pushing the case to the international press and posting trash here for Newmyer, Anne Schroeder Mullins & Co (former reliable source reporter at Post) is headed by a woman who is married to a reporter at the Washingtonian. As anyone following this case knows, the Washingtonian has covered this case like the New York Post would. Last week's article about the dismissal read as if the ruling last week were a mere bump in the road for Newmyer rather than a death blow to him.

Some gossip: the PR hack was subpoenaed to be deposed in the Sidwell case and at first dodged, and then simply failed to show up at the date and time of the deposition. She probably didn't want to throw her client (one of her first) under the bus.

Newmyer had testified under oath in the Florida custody case that neither he, nor his agents, had ever sent the Complaint to the press, or posted on DCUM. Meanwhile in the Sidwell case, Newmyer's discovery responses stated that he had paid the Mullins' PR firm nearly $10,000 for publicizing the baseless trash to the major networks and papers, and the Washingtonian.

Awkward when your PR firm has no choice but to 1. dodge the depo, or 2. show up for it and confirm that her client has committed felony perjury!

Washingtonian has refused to print a disclosure of the apparent conflict between Anne Schroeder Mullins & Co. and the Washingtonian. But I'm SURE that the tabloid style, completely one-sided coverage of the Sidwell case by the Washingtonian was just a coincidence. I'm sure that Mullins never spoke to her husband about her new case, and that her husband never spoke to his coworkers about the case. Insert snark emoticon here.

[Anonymous]

If true it is beyond sad that one woman would participate in the savaging of another women.