Maybe "narrow" was a bad word choice. I just meant it's specific to marriage and family therapy, and my point was just to empathize with some of what I've been seeing on my dash in terms of panel disappointment.lefthandedism wrote: Sat Jan 23, 2021 3:02 pm
Is there some way her license is narrow? A degree in Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT) is the typical degree for a licensed therapist (of any sort), at least in California, where she is licensed. And the MFT license itself requires many further qualifications beyond the degree, of course.
I am not an expert on licensing and certainly not in California. (My perspective is affected by the fact that my parents are therapists who do CBT and have PhDs, but I'm not trying to speak from their perspective of expertise or to assume that their way is better than anyone else's.) I don't have much knowledge of the LMFT and I wasn't meaning to demean it. My understanding is that it is a Master's-level license to practice specifically dealing with interpersonal dynamics in marriages/families/couples. Maybe that's different in California. I'm more used to others in my (non-California) experience (e.g., LCSW, PhD, LISW, LPCC).
Personally, I don't feel like I know enough about Kati Morton to say much there but my disappointment is that there's only one therapist on the panel, with experience in one type of therapy. (That is not a perspective I've seen more broadly in the phandom, as the objections seem to focus more on her.)




