Complaint Review: The Dr. Phil Show - Philip C. Mcgraw PhD - Chere Graham Producer - CBSParamount Television

I feel that this is a typical example of the "real" problem. It is easier to blame others instead of accepting self-responsibility. Wouldn't it be grand if we could just point fingers, complain and write letters about anyone?

Why don't you simply sue/complain/hold responsible the lady in Customer Service when she is rude and doesn't give you the solution YOU prefer, especially on the days you are having a personal emotional meltdown. Maybe you should blame the traffic that you were caught in? Why not go for those that are part of the illegal activities that have found you through your (ex)wife instead of holding her responsible for her own activites?

Heck, blame the yellowpages for not crawling under your fingertips with a local professional selected for you.

People claim to be professionals daily (customer service reps for example) and fail to meet the professional standard they profess.

I am sure you can be accused of the same, but at what point is it acceptable to file formal complaints? When it happens to you at a "bad time personally"?

I feel if there is no personal LOSS or personal DAMAGE and you are left unable to find complete resolution as a DIRECT result of "xyz" encounter than proceed formally, otherwise you could just raise formal complaints across the board. (Flight was uncomfortable, traffic was slow, lady at the store was rude while you were in an emotional crisis...)

JMO

The damage to the viewing public is growing as the list of celebrities grows that need to get legal help for the lawsuits and criminal charges brought by the district attorney for misrepresentations and lies to the public as viewed on OPRAH many times.  How many people have to die before the public says STOP THIS MADNESS!!~!

this is ray in corning arkanas if the person wants to get something done about this problem use the place in the above title the tv station an studio is responseable fo what they broad cast  on the net work an can have a big fine if they do to contact the federal goverment use this email an it is fccinfo@fcc.gov who ever that sent the stuff to the an if they nev got back to them by this time because they know what can happen if the federal communications commission find this out they will sweep it under the rug an for get about i know about the fcc because back when i was growing up i had a friend that was a rep fot the fcc an also worked on th tv an raido equipment when you send the email you will receive a auto reply with a reference # it wil tell you if you to contact either by phone use use the reference @ if by email put it in the subject on the auto reply you will have a phone # on one of th links i will be sending some of these compliant pages to the fcc.ray corning arkanas feb 7th 10o2

Jim,

While I appreciate your opinion and that you get some of the picture, I respectfully, believe you dont get it all. I appreciate you mentioning being in the entertainment business. It explains an inherit bias and an inability to defend flawed logic.

What is Dr. Phil promoted as: a talk show host or an expert psychologist? He wants to be Americas consummate psychologist while, at the same time, convincing people, like you, that hes nothing more than a harmless little talk show host. Problem is, now, its becoming a hard-sell because the majority of his audience has been under the impression that he holds everything included to be called a psychologist license, included. He even refers to himself as a psychologist not a man who just possesses an academic doctorate. If hes just a talk show host, why would he have to claim adherence to accountability?

To whom or what body of authority is he accountable to? And just what exactly is he accountable for - the practice of talk-show-ology? He holds no license because he wishes to avoid accountability for what he does.

If a few people actually getting help is just icing, then what is when people get hurt collateral damage? Acceptable loses in the name of entertainment? If the loss of limb is the only thing that defines the breach of public safety, then all laws; rules; and ethics governing the counseling profession should be eliminated, if your logic is to be followed. Nothing would matter outside of losing a life or limb everything else would be acceptable and the sole responsibility of the one suffering loss.

While I agree in the importance of the public verifying the license status of a professing professional, to suggest that an unlicensed individual has a pass for his/her illegal activity because someone trusted them (out of naivety, or not) is a ridiculous thought.

Appearing on the Dr. Phil Show was never my priority. Making a five or ten minute appearance was an incidental part of what was important to me. I was not disappointed I didnt appear on the show; I was disappointed I didnt receive any assistance they led me to believe they had intention to give. My experience was more about what took place behind the camera than in front of it.

I asked for a referral to a local, qualified therapist. What Dr. Phil did was refer himself. He did defraud me by presenting himself as a qualified professional whose concern went beyond just making a television show. He has defrauded America by promoting himself as a consummate professional among psychology professionals. That is why he is suffering the backlash of public opinion as they react to the news that he holds no license within his proclaimed field of expertise - proof within its self that he has misrepresented himself to America.

I do not blame Dr. Phil for my entire circumstances. He is just a part of the trauma my daughters and I went through. Most of the hell we had to go through was due to another unlicensed individual who was anything but a legitimate professional. Dr. Phil is a visible example of a bigger issue unlicensed; unaccountable people posing themselves as qualified experts that engage the public with harmful results.

Its taken three years to see this issue addressed. Its become a current topic because of his latest antic involving Britney Spears sad circumstances. Dr. Phil just happens to be followed by a camera crew to document his sincere concern for the well-being others since their well-being as a consummate professional is he only concern. (Yeah, right.)

If you think I dont understand what youre saying about moving passed trauma, then it would be due to the effect of trauma impeding me from moving on. Theres no denying the traumatic nature of what my daughters and I have been through. To go into a personal account of our trauma and the devastating loss associated with it would be inappropriate for this venue.

Although, its related as far as unlicensed counseling is concerned, its more appropriate for the purposes of this site to address the issue of illegal activity by addressing the highly visible controversy surrounding Dr. Phil. He did add undue stress to an already traumatic set of circumstances. Like with Britney, he irresponsibly and inappropriately engaged me in the midst of intense chaos that he should not have willingly inserted himself.

This is about standing up for justice and seeing laws upheld rather than dismissed away in the name of entertainment. No other medical profession can be practiced on television by unlicensed individuals. Engaging individuals in the midst of crisis as an expert is an abuse of the mental healthcare profession when done so irresponsibly.

You need to get over the fact a television cameras are involved. Youre displaying the mesmerizing effect a camera has on individuals by your cool-aid drinking mentality by believing what would be considered illegal anywhere else, is acceptable as long as a camera is involved. I think thats because youre looking at this from an entertainment industry point of view rather than a healthcare profession and the legalities governing it.

I appreciate your well-intended words of encouragement to move on. I may not have lost a limb, but I did lose what cannot be repaid or replaced. To see some good from it to protect others from similar experiences is my desire.

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. I believe your concern is sincere but, dont worry. I wont be looking to you for counseling. :-)

Regards.

Jim,

While I appreciate your opinion and that you get some of the picture, I respectfully, believe you dont get it all. I appreciate you mentioning being in the entertainment business. It explains an inherit bias and an inability to defend flawed logic.

What is Dr. Phil promoted as: a talk show host or an expert psychologist? He wants to be Americas consummate psychologist while, at the same time, convincing people, like you, that hes nothing more than a harmless little talk show host. Problem is, now, its becoming a hard-sell because the majority of his audience has been under the impression that he holds everything included to be called a psychologist license, included. He even refers to himself as a psychologist not a man who just possesses an academic doctorate. If hes just a talk show host, why would he have to claim adherence to accountability?

To whom or what body of authority is he accountable to? And just what exactly is he accountable for - the practice of talk-show-ology? He holds no license because he wishes to avoid accountability for what he does.

If a few people actually getting help is just icing, then what is when people get hurt collateral damage? Acceptable loses in the name of entertainment? If the loss of limb is the only thing that defines the breach of public safety, then all laws; rules; and ethics governing the counseling profession should be eliminated, if your logic is to be followed. Nothing would matter outside of losing a life or limb everything else would be acceptable and the sole responsibility of the one suffering loss.

While I agree in the importance of the public verifying the license status of a professing professional, to suggest that an unlicensed individual has a pass for his/her illegal activity because someone trusted them (out of naivety, or not) is a ridiculous thought.

Appearing on the Dr. Phil Show was never my priority. Making a five or ten minute appearance was an incidental part of what was important to me. I was not disappointed I didnt appear on the show; I was disappointed I didnt receive any assistance they led me to believe they had intention to give. My experience was more about what took place behind the camera than in front of it.

I asked for a referral to a local, qualified therapist. What Dr. Phil did was refer himself. He did defraud me by presenting himself as a qualified professional whose concern went beyond just making a television show. He has defrauded America by promoting himself as a consummate professional among psychology professionals. That is why he is suffering the backlash of public opinion as they react to the news that he holds no license within his proclaimed field of expertise - proof within its self that he has misrepresented himself to America.

I do not blame Dr. Phil for my entire circumstances. He is just a part of the trauma my daughters and I went through. Most of the hell we had to go through was due to another unlicensed individual who was anything but a legitimate professional. Dr. Phil is a visible example of a bigger issue unlicensed; unaccountable people posing themselves as qualified experts that engage the public with harmful results.

Its taken three years to see this issue addressed. Its become a current topic because of his latest antic involving Britney Spears sad circumstances. Dr. Phil just happens to be followed by a camera crew to document his sincere concern for the well-being others since their well-being as a consummate professional is he only concern. (Yeah, right.)

If you think I dont understand what youre saying about moving passed trauma, then it would be due to the effect of trauma impeding me from moving on. Theres no denying the traumatic nature of what my daughters and I have been through. To go into a personal account of our trauma and the devastating loss associated with it would be inappropriate for this venue.

Although, its related as far as unlicensed counseling is concerned, its more appropriate for the purposes of this site to address the issue of illegal activity by addressing the highly visible controversy surrounding Dr. Phil. He did add undue stress to an already traumatic set of circumstances. Like with Britney, he irresponsibly and inappropriately engaged me in the midst of intense chaos that he should not have willingly inserted himself.

This is about standing up for justice and seeing laws upheld rather than dismissed away in the name of entertainment. No other medical profession can be practiced on television by unlicensed individuals. Engaging individuals in the midst of crisis as an expert is an abuse of the mental healthcare profession when done so irresponsibly.

You need to get over the fact a television cameras are involved. Youre displaying the mesmerizing effect a camera has on individuals by your cool-aid drinking mentality by believing what would be considered illegal anywhere else, is acceptable as long as a camera is involved. I think thats because youre looking at this from an entertainment industry point of view rather than a healthcare profession and the legalities governing it.

I appreciate your well-intended words of encouragement to move on. I may not have lost a limb, but I did lose what cannot be repaid or replaced. To see some good from it to protect others from similar experiences is my desire.

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. I believe your concern is sincere but, dont worry. I wont be looking to you for counseling. :-)

Regards.

Jim,

While I appreciate your opinion and that you get some of the picture, I respectfully, believe you dont get it all. I appreciate you mentioning being in the entertainment business. It explains an inherit bias and an inability to defend flawed logic.

What is Dr. Phil promoted as: a talk show host or an expert psychologist? He wants to be Americas consummate psychologist while, at the same time, convincing people, like you, that hes nothing more than a harmless little talk show host. Problem is, now, its becoming a hard-sell because the majority of his audience has been under the impression that he holds everything included to be called a psychologist license, included. He even refers to himself as a psychologist not a man who just possesses an academic doctorate. If hes just a talk show host, why would he have to claim adherence to accountability?

To whom or what body of authority is he accountable to? And just what exactly is he accountable for - the practice of talk-show-ology? He holds no license because he wishes to avoid accountability for what he does.

If a few people actually getting help is just icing, then what is when people get hurt collateral damage? Acceptable loses in the name of entertainment? If the loss of limb is the only thing that defines the breach of public safety, then all laws; rules; and ethics governing the counseling profession should be eliminated, if your logic is to be followed. Nothing would matter outside of losing a life or limb everything else would be acceptable and the sole responsibility of the one suffering loss.

While I agree in the importance of the public verifying the license status of a professing professional, to suggest that an unlicensed individual has a pass for his/her illegal activity because someone trusted them (out of naivety, or not) is a ridiculous thought.

Appearing on the Dr. Phil Show was never my priority. Making a five or ten minute appearance was an incidental part of what was important to me. I was not disappointed I didnt appear on the show; I was disappointed I didnt receive any assistance they led me to believe they had intention to give. My experience was more about what took place behind the camera than in front of it.

I asked for a referral to a local, qualified therapist. What Dr. Phil did was refer himself. He did defraud me by presenting himself as a qualified professional whose concern went beyond just making a television show. He has defrauded America by promoting himself as a consummate professional among psychology professionals. That is why he is suffering the backlash of public opinion as they react to the news that he holds no license within his proclaimed field of expertise - proof within its self that he has misrepresented himself to America.

I do not blame Dr. Phil for my entire circumstances. He is just a part of the trauma my daughters and I went through. Most of the hell we had to go through was due to another unlicensed individual who was anything but a legitimate professional. Dr. Phil is a visible example of a bigger issue unlicensed; unaccountable people posing themselves as qualified experts that engage the public with harmful results.

Its taken three years to see this issue addressed. Its become a current topic because of his latest antic involving Britney Spears sad circumstances. Dr. Phil just happens to be followed by a camera crew to document his sincere concern for the well-being others since their well-being as a consummate professional is he only concern. (Yeah, right.)

If you think I dont understand what youre saying about moving passed trauma, then it would be due to the effect of trauma impeding me from moving on. Theres no denying the traumatic nature of what my daughters and I have been through. To go into a personal account of our trauma and the devastating loss associated with it would be inappropriate for this venue.

Although, its related as far as unlicensed counseling is concerned, its more appropriate for the purposes of this site to address the issue of illegal activity by addressing the highly visible controversy surrounding Dr. Phil. He did add undue stress to an already traumatic set of circumstances. Like with Britney, he irresponsibly and inappropriately engaged me in the midst of intense chaos that he should not have willingly inserted himself.

This is about standing up for justice and seeing laws upheld rather than dismissed away in the name of entertainment. No other medical profession can be practiced on television by unlicensed individuals. Engaging individuals in the midst of crisis as an expert is an abuse of the mental healthcare profession when done so irresponsibly.

You need to get over the fact a television cameras are involved. Youre displaying the mesmerizing effect a camera has on individuals by your cool-aid drinking mentality by believing what would be considered illegal anywhere else, is acceptable as long as a camera is involved. I think thats because youre looking at this from an entertainment industry point of view rather than a healthcare profession and the legalities governing it.

I appreciate your well-intended words of encouragement to move on. I may not have lost a limb, but I did lose what cannot be repaid or replaced. To see some good from it to protect others from similar experiences is my desire.

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. I believe your concern is sincere but, dont worry. I wont be looking to you for counseling. :-)

Regards.

Jim,

While I appreciate your opinion and that you get some of the picture, I respectfully, believe you dont get it all. I appreciate you mentioning being in the entertainment business. It explains an inherit bias and an inability to defend flawed logic.

What is Dr. Phil promoted as: a talk show host or an expert psychologist? He wants to be Americas consummate psychologist while, at the same time, convincing people, like you, that hes nothing more than a harmless little talk show host. Problem is, now, its becoming a hard-sell because the majority of his audience has been under the impression that he holds everything included to be called a psychologist license, included. He even refers to himself as a psychologist not a man who just possesses an academic doctorate. If hes just a talk show host, why would he have to claim adherence to accountability?

To whom or what body of authority is he accountable to? And just what exactly is he accountable for - the practice of talk-show-ology? He holds no license because he wishes to avoid accountability for what he does.

If a few people actually getting help is just icing, then what is when people get hurt collateral damage? Acceptable loses in the name of entertainment? If the loss of limb is the only thing that defines the breach of public safety, then all laws; rules; and ethics governing the counseling profession should be eliminated, if your logic is to be followed. Nothing would matter outside of losing a life or limb everything else would be acceptable and the sole responsibility of the one suffering loss.

While I agree in the importance of the public verifying the license status of a professing professional, to suggest that an unlicensed individual has a pass for his/her illegal activity because someone trusted them (out of naivety, or not) is a ridiculous thought.

Appearing on the Dr. Phil Show was never my priority. Making a five or ten minute appearance was an incidental part of what was important to me. I was not disappointed I didnt appear on the show; I was disappointed I didnt receive any assistance they led me to believe they had intention to give. My experience was more about what took place behind the camera than in front of it.

I asked for a referral to a local, qualified therapist. What Dr. Phil did was refer himself. He did defraud me by presenting himself as a qualified professional whose concern went beyond just making a television show. He has defrauded America by promoting himself as a consummate professional among psychology professionals. That is why he is suffering the backlash of public opinion as they react to the news that he holds no license within his proclaimed field of expertise - proof within its self that he has misrepresented himself to America.

I do not blame Dr. Phil for my entire circumstances. He is just a part of the trauma my daughters and I went through. Most of the hell we had to go through was due to another unlicensed individual who was anything but a legitimate professional. Dr. Phil is a visible example of a bigger issue unlicensed; unaccountable people posing themselves as qualified experts that engage the public with harmful results.

Its taken three years to see this issue addressed. Its become a current topic because of his latest antic involving Britney Spears sad circumstances. Dr. Phil just happens to be followed by a camera crew to document his sincere concern for the well-being others since their well-being as a consummate professional is he only concern. (Yeah, right.)

If you think I dont understand what youre saying about moving passed trauma, then it would be due to the effect of trauma impeding me from moving on. Theres no denying the traumatic nature of what my daughters and I have been through. To go into a personal account of our trauma and the devastating loss associated with it would be inappropriate for this venue.

Although, its related as far as unlicensed counseling is concerned, its more appropriate for the purposes of this site to address the issue of illegal activity by addressing the highly visible controversy surrounding Dr. Phil. He did add undue stress to an already traumatic set of circumstances. Like with Britney, he irresponsibly and inappropriately engaged me in the midst of intense chaos that he should not have willingly inserted himself.

This is about standing up for justice and seeing laws upheld rather than dismissed away in the name of entertainment. No other medical profession can be practiced on television by unlicensed individuals. Engaging individuals in the midst of crisis as an expert is an abuse of the mental healthcare profession when done so irresponsibly.

You need to get over the fact a television cameras are involved. Youre displaying the mesmerizing effect a camera has on individuals by your cool-aid drinking mentality by believing what would be considered illegal anywhere else, is acceptable as long as a camera is involved. I think thats because youre looking at this from an entertainment industry point of view rather than a healthcare profession and the legalities governing it.

I appreciate your well-intended words of encouragement to move on. I may not have lost a limb, but I did lose what cannot be repaid or replaced. To see some good from it to protect others from similar experiences is my desire.

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. I believe your concern is sincere but, dont worry. I wont be looking to you for counseling. :-)

Regards.

Lane - this is all on you. You are trying to somehow link your hurt feelings and emotions to somehow breaking the law. Your Public Safety was never in jeopardy, though your feelings were - of that there is no doubt. However, you should never confuse your hurt emotions and feelings to any broken laws. You did not lose any limbs through actions they took, and your life was not in any danger as a result of your experience with them. They did nothing illegal to you; there was no fraud perpetrated upon you; again your perception of reality is part of the naivete I was trying to explain to you earlier, but you don't get it. I suspect you still may not understand this because you're still hurt and angry and you want to blame him for your current woes.

All of the evidence regarding his lack of a license is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE for the entire world to see. If you didn't take the time to research any of this, is that Dr. Phil's fault? NO. Is the purpose of the show to pump up Dr. Phil? Well, gee that's why they call it the Dr. Phil show, and not the Lane show or the Jim show. The purpose is to promote Dr. Phil, and if a few people actually get help in the process, that's just icing. This is not a show for you to get help - that is what a real licensed psychologist should be doing for you because you need it - you suffered a deep trauma and going to Dr. Phil for ANYTHING was NOT smart, and you're wife was very wise in not going.

I have been in the entertainment industry - from what you've written so far, there is absolutely nothing that they've done to this point that is illegal. You may not like how you were treated. You may not like the fact you didn't get on TV. You may not like the fact your estranged wife didn't come with you. All of that is irrelevant. Someone had mentioned you went on the wrong show - that Jerry Springer was a more appropriate venue. While I disagree with that assessment, you are far more likely to have an actionable case against his show than against Dr. Phil's show because of the various physical assaults that take place.

I've been where you are, and the blame falls on the person in the mirror. It's time to get help and move forward. It hurts and it stinks to make that decision, believe me I know. It's also the right thing to do.

I would agree that naivety is a big problem, but would argue that the problem includes you, as well. When did public safety become irrelevant in the name of entertainment? Are building codes suspended when Extreme Home Makeover comes to town? Are public safety laws and liabilities eliminated because they put together an entertaining show in the process?

For too long, television has had its hypnotic effect on the publics ability to reason beyond the bright-light, entertainment only mind control. Its not about entertainment; its about making money by entertaining people who may or may not realize or care what damage is done to others in the process. If Extreme Home Makeover destroyed your home to build you another one, and stopped because they were cancelled in the middle of your project, would that be ok because it was all in the name of entertainment? If an unlicensed electrician incorrectly wired your new home for Extreme Makeover and it burned down, would that be ok since it was just entertainment?

Public safety laws are never suspended for entertainment purposes. Part of the inordinate costs of television and movie production is the requirements to protect public safety. From special effects to child labor laws; from O.S.H.A. inspections and requirements to state and local permits; there are as many, if not more, requirements of the entertainment industry to insure the protection of the public, as well as, the professionals paid to execute their craft in the production of project.

The issue of Dr. Phils activities is as much of what takes place off-camera as on. Philip McGraw did not present himself as Dr. Phil, a Dr. Frazier Crane-like character, he once played on TV. He hasn't presented himself to America as a talk show host; but, as a thirty-year expert psychologist. That's fraud in any medium.

The point of this is that Philip McGraw represents a non-publicized number of individuals across this country who justify their as activities as unlicensed counselors by (brace yourself) even a higher authority than entertainment - God. Many are engaging in the practice of giving advice, counselor, and therapy for personal gain in the name of God. They circumvent laws in the name of a higher authority. Being in front of a camera or behind closed doors, both are incidental to the legitimacy of the activity.

By your standards, I could have my own show about medicine and operate on guests without a medical license to do so. Though the outcomes would be less than healing, it would be ok as long as it was filmed for the purposes of entertainment by your logic, which is ridiculous. I'm hopeful you will give more contemplation to your logic before completely subscribing to it.

Jim,

I would agree that naivety is a big problem, but would argue that the problem includes you, as well. When did public safety become irrelevant in the name of entertainment? Are building codes suspended when Extreme Home Makeover comes to town? Are pubic safety laws and liabilities eliminated because they put together an entertaining show in the process?

For too long, television has had its hypnotic effect on the publics ability to reason beyond the bright-light, entertainment only mind control. Its not about entertainment; its about making money by entertaining people who may or may not realize or care what damage is done to others in the process. If Extreme Home Makeover destroyed your home to build you another one, and stopped because they were cancelled in the middle of your project, would that be ok because it was all in the name of entertainment? If an unlicensed electrician incorrectly wired your new home for Extreme Makeover and it burned down, would that be ok since it was just entertainment?

Public safety laws are never suspended for entertainment purposes. Part of the inordinate costs of television and movie production is the requirements to protect public safety. From special effects to child labor laws; from O.S.H.E.A. inspections and requirements to state and local permits; there are as many, if not more, requirements of the entertainment industry to insure the protection of the public, as well as, the professionals paid to execute their craft in the production of project.

The issue of Dr. Phils activities is as much of what takes place off-camera as on. Philip McGraw did not present himself as Dr. Phil, a Dr. Frazier Crane like character, he once played on TV. He hasnt presented himself to America as a talk show host; but, as a thirty-year expert psychologist. Thats fraud in any medium.

The point of this is that Philip McGraw represents a non-publicized number of individuals across this country who justify their as activities as unlicensed counselors by (brace yourself) even a higher authority than entertainment God. Many are engaging in the practice of giving advice, counselor, and therapy for personal gain in the name of God. They circumvent laws in the name of a higher authority. Being in front of a camera or behind closed doors, both are incidental to the legitimacy of the activity.

By your standards, I could have my own show about medicine and operate on guests without a medical license to do so. Though the outcomes would be less than healing, it would be ok as long as it was filmed for the purposes of entertainment by your logic which is ridiculous. Im hopeful youll give more contemplation to your logic before completely subscribing to it.

Dr. Phil's unlicensed status was not made public until I discovered it earlier last year and published on December 18th, 2007. It became news when he demonstrated with Britney Spears the same behavior he's engaged in from the beginning of his television show. Dr. Phil has not disclosed his unlicensed status. There is a difference between disclosure and exposure.

No waiver can provide permission for anyone to break the law. Can you sign a waiver to give someone permission to perform an operation on you? Does a waiver give someone the right to remove your tonsils; give you a nip and tuck; or remove your wisdom teeth? Of course, not. Even if you give your best friend written permission to provide you medical treatment he has no license to administer, will not change the fact he/she is breaking the law should he/she do so.

This is exactly why I continue to make this information available - to educate an uninformed public aware of what most (me, included, at one time) do not understand; but, need, and have the right to know.

It is only the incredibly naive and simple who can look at the Dr. Phil show with anything OTHER than the fact it is entertainment. If you wanted REAL advice from a REAL psychologist, you should have sought out someone locally to you. To go on a TV show to expose yourself to this was a choice you made and was not entered into with any sort of clear thought. Your wife was VERY wise to not particpate in such a thing because shows like this are somewhat equivalent to a 3-ring circus.

What you require is healing from a legitimate psychologist and counselor to deal with moving forward, not trying to get back what you don't have. To expound on the failures of your experience with Dr. Phil only keeps you in the past, clinging to something that is no longer there. To be honest, the comparison to Dr. Laura is very apt in this situation for the very same reason; it's not to say Phil McGraw or Dr. Laura are unwise people who give poor advice most of the time - it's just you have to remember they are where they are for the purpose of entertainment only and the comments they make have to be taken in context with the background each of them have.

They sign waivers and agreements when they go on these shows. The facts are plainly written. The people sign them and go on to embarass themselves.

They have nobody to blame, but themselves.

I see Dr Phil is in trouble in California for doing the exact same thing...Practicing without a License. Who'd have guessed?

Dear Give me a Break,

If a disclaimer is a defense, then all any criminal needs to do is film the commission of his/her crime with the disclaimer For Entertainment Purposes to avoid prosecution. What then, delineates reality from fiction the venue? Does the size of the venue determine the difference between legal and illegal activity? Does a You-Tube audience qualify as entertainment only; or is a national television network audience required before immunity is bestowed?

Throwing Dr. Laura in with Dr. Phil doesnt negate McGraws illegal activities. Phil McGraw engages real people with real problems who are not entertainers. Any other individual would be subject to penalty if he/she were licensed; and, subject to prosecution, if not.

The lack of understanding regarding the law demonstrates how television can legitimize anything to some in our society. The field of counseling is not something to be taken lightly; nor, should it be abused by anyone engaging in related activities as an qualified expert whether in front of a camera or behind a closed door.

Anyone who relies on Dr. Phil McGraw and Dr. Laura Schlessinger for "real" psychological theraphy needs their heads examined. Dr's Phil's television show does have a disclaimer at the end that states the show is for entertainment purposes.

Schlessinger's Ph.D. is in physiology and not psychology.

Thanks, Robert; I did.

Your observations are correct regarding the Boards of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. My complaints were filed based on Dr. Phil practicing without a license. I understand the only thing they can do is investigate and recommend him to be prosecuted for practicing without a license which is what I believe should take place. Whether it will or not, remains to be seen.

What made the ordeal with Dr. Phil so significant to me was the intensity of my personal circumstances as I was already dealing with an unlicensed counselor. How about that for irony? Being taken for a ride on both ends of the continent was not what I needed. As a single father raising two daughters, I was already dealing with enough chaos. Dr. Phil is the smaller part of my story; howbeit, a visible one.

From tinsel town celebrity types, to small town soap opera types, I discovered an underground of so-called counselors who portray themselves as qualified professionals counseling for compensation. Its my hope to see the public become more educated and aware of what a legitimately qualified counselor is; and to see stepped-up efforts by authorities to enforce laws to protect the public from harmful imposters.

in your area. Perhaps you should check with some social services agencies or some local hospitals for referals to folks who are licensed to help you.

As to Dr. Phil. He's a doctor because of the "piled hired & deeper" after his name.

""I've been assured by the California Board of Psychology that my complaint will be given the proper attention and due-process. I've also received confirmation by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (with whom I also filed a formal complaint) that my complaint is being processed.""

Neither of these boards can DO anything to Dr. Phil. He's not a member, so they can't fine him, censor him, apply sanctions, revoke his license, (he has none) etc.

The best you might hope for is that one of these boards MIGHT recommend that he be prosecuted for practicing without a license. Based on your report, I think that isn't likely to happen. It's not "practicing" if someone refuses to help you in the manner you anticipated.

""The significance of this is that Dr. Phil does not even possess a license to counsel as a marriage counselor, let alone, as a psychologist. "" And this is the reason that neither board can do anything to him.

You could hire an attorney and bring a civil suit against him, but I don't know what grounds you could use to win. Have you consulted with an attorney about this matter?

I think you would do well to find a licensed therapist/counselor in your area and move on from this.

Good luck.

As I made public in December, the media is, finally, catching up due to the Britney Spears fiasco. Dr. Phil's antics involving Britney Spears is only a visible example of his behavior with me and others that has been going on for years. Dr. Phil is a walking conflict of interest that any licensed psychologist would be subject to punitive action for such inappropriate behavior involving people in need.

I've been "a voice in the wilderness" about Dr. Phil's unethical behaviors since 2003, and made his unlicensed status public through web sites, such as this one; as well as, professional organizations and news media. Greeted by death ears until now, the media is starting to pay attention. More importantly, the legal authorities are, as well, investigating my formal complaint along with others that are flooding their offices. I'm confident that once the conjured bandwagon complaints have been weeded out, an objective investigation of the facts will demonstrate the abuse of a trusted health car profession.

I've been assured by the California Board of Psychology that my complaint will be given the proper attention and due-process. I trust Dr. Phil's "celebrity" status will not influence the authorities to dismiss his actions. I've also received confirmation by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (with whom I also filed a formal complaint) that my complaint is being processed. The California Board of Behavioral Sciences is the authority that oversees every counseling profession (such as marriage/family counselors, social workers, etc.) other than licensed psychologists and psychiatrists. The significance of this is that Dr. Phil does not even possess a license to counsel as a marriage counselor, let alone, as a psychologist.

I will keep you posted.

I've wondered if others have had similar experiences with Dr. Phil and the Dr. Phil Show and sent on their way none the better, if not worse, for having been there. I've become aware of other dealings with "guests" behind the scenes who have had less than appropriate experiences experiences that would be considered unethical in any other setting.

After some research, I discovered that Phillip C. McGraw is not licensed as professional psychologist or counselor in any capacity in the state of California. He is listed with the State of Texas (where he was once licensed) as "retired." I would beg to differ with that description.

I have filed formal complaints against Phillip C. McGraw with the California Board of Psychology and the Board of Behavioral Science for practicing psychology and counseling without a license. Dr. Phil comes to America as the consummate professional psychologist an expert among experts. When I asked for a referral to a local, qualified professional, his staff referred me to Dr. Phil; and Dr. Phil, referred me to himself.

Because he is a trained professional with "30 years of experience," he should be subject to the same laws, rules of ethics, and accountability as any other professional in his state engaging the public in regards to their problems. By presenting himself to the public as an expert psychologist, and to legal scrutiny as an entertainer, Dr. Phil plays both sides as he involves himself with the public without any accountability - or, a venue for anyone he engages to address a problem in the way he does so.

If the same experiences were with a licensed therapist, there would be grounds for action based on a conflict of interest and abandonment. Since Dr. Phil is compensated very well for dealing with people and their problems as an expert psychologist, it only stands to reason that he should be equally accountable as any other professional for exercising expertise in a licensed field of practice.

As recommended by the Rip-off Report.com site, I will be forwarding a copy of this complaint report to The Dr. Phil Show. Although, to date all attempts to address with The Dr. Phil the nature of my experience with Dr. Phil and show producers have been summarily ignored, it will be interesting to note their response, if any, upon receiving a copy of this report. As also recommended, I will inform them of the ability to file updates to this complaint.

Stay tuned for further updates...

Thanks, Mike for the additional information.

Was "the book" you were referring to in your first paragraph "The Making of Dr. Phil" that you referred to in your second? If not, could you give me the title and author of it or any others, including locations (dates, issues, etc.)of written articles - documented sources would be helpful.

Although, I don't recall claiming that Dr. Phil doesn't scream at people; but, since you mentioned it, I can't recall ever witnessing him "screaming" at anyone - at least, by my definition of "screaming."

Since he came on the national scene, he style and approach has been no secret to anyone. There's plenty of room for strong debate about the appropriateness of his demeanor in the realm of counseling. While there probably is some "out-there" psycho-therapist who actually endorses a "scream therapy" as some new, bold and innovative treatment(most likely paid for by wealthy eccentrics), most practicing professionals would not subscribe to the "just stop it" therapy approach.

My complaint goes more to the lack of accountability for Dr. Phil's involvement as an experienced professional in people's lives and problems. On or off camera, the rules that apply to any other professional counseling someone (whether for an hour or fifteen minutes) should apply to him since he applying his expertise on them.

The information about Dr. Phil's indiscretion dates back a ways; but, since he has no hesitation about referencing his "over thirty years of experience," events dating back that far are relevant and included within that experience - good and bad. After all, isn't it Dr. Phil, himself, that says that "Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior?"

Let me know if you have any more information - past or present.

Thanks, again, Mike.

The most notable of the complaints outlined in the book and in investigative articles predating it come from a former therapy client of McGraw's who claims that he carried on a controlling and sometimes sexually inappropriate relationship with her. The client was 19 years old at the time, and alleges that McGraw touched her inappropriately, insisted that she check in with him often, and kept her "totally dependent" on him. S

he eventually filed a complaint with the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. Although McGraw settled with the board, disciplinary actions taken by the board were quite firm, including, according to "The Making of Dr. Phil," "a public letter of reprimand, a year of supervision by a licensed psychologist, complete physical and psychological exams, and an ethics class."

Oh and by the way....here's an example of what you claim is Dr. Phil not screaming at someone to just change their lives

"That dog won't hunt!" Dr. Phil blurts at guests like an impatient daddy, giving them firm instructions on how to stop messing up their lives, while disparaging softer approaches. "Trust me, I'm not going to spout a bunch of 'guru-ized' stuff about thoughts and emotions, or tell you to go up on a mountaintop and get in touch with your 'inner child,'" he writes in his bestselling diet book. "You can either sit around and stew about the situation, or you can make the choice to be self-directed, take action, and adopt a solution-side approach to your life."

Oh yeah, he's a real genious when it comes to getting to the root of your issues isn't he.

Thank you, Robert for the information.

I researched the article you sited in the archives of the Dallas Observer. I read it in its entirety. I believe it's important to be clear about what the facts are for the record. It is not my intention to accuse, or pass on any other accusation that is not founded on fact.

While there is understandable emotion in our opinions, and even from our experiences, I want to remain in the realm of facts - where I believe there is plenty of evidence to support my complaint.

1.) According to the Dallas Observer article, it is true that Phil McGraw was reprimanded for an "improper dual relationship" with a female client reportedly for establishing a business relationship with her by employing her on a part-time, temporary basis too soon after seeing her as a client. The details of the "settlement" (a word which gives me pause) between Phil and the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, were kept confidential.

2.) Although the words "improper dual relationship" does raise questions of its nature, they do not mean he had an affair with her. It is possible that he just became too involved in her life - period. Maybe, he was over-zealous in trying to fix her life. I don't know. In any case, I do know the State Board found it "improper" and reprimanded him for it.

3.) There was no mention of Phil losing license to practice. In fact, the article stated that he was to be supervised as he continued to practice for the next year - though he decided to sell the office practice before the year was up.

4.) Nowhere in the article did I read that Phil's father lost his license for having affairs with clients.

5.) There was enough in the article to give rise to question some of the events and relationship left Phil's wake. In fairness, it is possible that all of us would have some person(s)(known or unknown) that could have a not-so-favorable opinion of us. Based on my experience I don't find some of the unfavorable opinions of Dr. Phil hard to believe; but, I refuse to conclude from speculation and unfounded accusation, someone, even Dr. Phil, is guilty of something just because someone said they were and pass it along as such.

I appreciate your opinion of Dr. Phil and I probably agree with more of it than I may appear to. If you have any more evidence of Dr. Phil's practices with documentation to support it as it relates to my complaint, I'd be glad to learn about it.

I appreciate that your opinion of me may not be very high for even considering receiving help from someone like Dr. Phil. Please, keep in mind that what Dr. Phil 'is like' has been an on-going education that continues even now.

My "close, but not quite, encounter" with Dr. Phil took place long before his weight loss book and the Dr. Phil house - which if that isn't classified as therapy ("pseudo or otherwise), I don't know what is. I think his book on weight loss was more about being at a healthy weight than it was for everyone to be a light-weight.

It's one thing to write a book on weight loss while being a few pounds over, himself, but it's another to write a weight-loss book to help America and then try to market you own brand of products to sell them. That's a good example of the type of conflict of interest that exists and resulted in my personal experience with The Dr. Phil Show - and who knows how many others with similar experiences.

"...McGraw says that decision was in no way influenced by a ruling of the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, which slapped him on the wrist on January 27, 1989, for engaging in unprofessional conduct. The board found that McGraw had maintained an "inappropriate dual relationship" with a young woman because they had "an ongoing therapeutic relationship followed too closely by a business relationship in the form of part-time temporary employment."

McGraw says he won't discuss details of the case because of "doctor-patient confidentiality," but considers it little more than "a misdemeanor," an employment error that he has put behind him. The woman, who now lives in Dallas and wishes to remain anonymous, says she has not been able to do the same.

In 1984, she was a college student returning home after her sophomore year depressed, lonely, and suicidal. "I was emotionally abused as a child," she says, "and suffered from low self-esteem." When McGraw began treating her, she says, he became fully involved in her life, demanding to know with whom she spoke, when she went to bed at night, what she did that day. "If I was depressed or anxious, his first question was 'Why didn't you call me?' Every time I felt bad, he insisted only he could fix me." When she wanted to spend the following summer working for a professor at the Houston university she was attending, he persuaded her to work in his biofeedback lab in Wichita Falls. "He kept me totally dependent on him," she says.

Twelve months after she filed a formal complaint against him, McGraw and the psychology board reached a settlement in the case: He would be publicly reprimanded, and his practice would be supervised for a year. Before the year was out, McGraw had put his office up for sale and would shortly move to Dallas ..."

This is directly from an artticle in the Dallas Observer, dated 04/13/2000.

His father was in the scam along with Junior.

And you thought he would help you? The man is a fraud, any way you look at him. He wrote a diet book, while being at least 50-75 pounds overweight. That's like a crack addict telling you how to be healthy.

"...McGraw says that decision was in no way influenced by a ruling of the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, which slapped him on the wrist on January 27, 1989, for engaging in unprofessional conduct. The board found that McGraw had maintained an "inappropriate dual relationship" with a young woman because they had "an ongoing therapeutic relationship followed too closely by a business relationship in the form of part-time temporary employment."

McGraw says he won't discuss details of the case because of "doctor-patient confidentiality," but considers it little more than "a misdemeanor," an employment error that he has put behind him. The woman, who now lives in Dallas and wishes to remain anonymous, says she has not been able to do the same.

In 1984, she was a college student returning home after her sophomore year depressed, lonely, and suicidal. "I was emotionally abused as a child," she says, "and suffered from low self-esteem." When McGraw began treating her, she says, he became fully involved in her life, demanding to know with whom she spoke, when she went to bed at night, what she did that day. "If I was depressed or anxious, his first question was 'Why didn't you call me?' Every time I felt bad, he insisted only he could fix me." When she wanted to spend the following summer working for a professor at the Houston university she was attending, he persuaded her to work in his biofeedback lab in Wichita Falls. "He kept me totally dependent on him," she says.

Twelve months after she filed a formal complaint against him, McGraw and the psychology board reached a settlement in the case: He would be publicly reprimanded, and his practice would be supervised for a year. Before the year was out, McGraw had put his office up for sale and would shortly move to Dallas ..."

This is directly from an artticle in the Dallas Observer, dated 04/13/2000.

His father was in the scam along with Junior.

And you thought he would help you? The man is a fraud, any way you look at him. He wrote a diet book, while being at least 50-75 pounds overweight. That's like a crack addict telling you how to be healthy.

"...McGraw says that decision was in no way influenced by a ruling of the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, which slapped him on the wrist on January 27, 1989, for engaging in unprofessional conduct. The board found that McGraw had maintained an "inappropriate dual relationship" with a young woman because they had "an ongoing therapeutic relationship followed too closely by a business relationship in the form of part-time temporary employment."

McGraw says he won't discuss details of the case because of "doctor-patient confidentiality," but considers it little more than "a misdemeanor," an employment error that he has put behind him. The woman, who now lives in Dallas and wishes to remain anonymous, says she has not been able to do the same.

In 1984, she was a college student returning home after her sophomore year depressed, lonely, and suicidal. "I was emotionally abused as a child," she says, "and suffered from low self-esteem." When McGraw began treating her, she says, he became fully involved in her life, demanding to know with whom she spoke, when she went to bed at night, what she did that day. "If I was depressed or anxious, his first question was 'Why didn't you call me?' Every time I felt bad, he insisted only he could fix me." When she wanted to spend the following summer working for a professor at the Houston university she was attending, he persuaded her to work in his biofeedback lab in Wichita Falls. "He kept me totally dependent on him," she says.

Twelve months after she filed a formal complaint against him, McGraw and the psychology board reached a settlement in the case: He would be publicly reprimanded, and his practice would be supervised for a year. Before the year was out, McGraw had put his office up for sale and would shortly move to Dallas ..."

This is directly from an artticle in the Dallas Observer, dated 04/13/2000.

His father was in the scam along with Junior.

And you thought he would help you? The man is a fraud, any way you look at him. He wrote a diet book, while being at least 50-75 pounds overweight. That's like a crack addict telling you how to be healthy.

Those are alarming statements. I was not aware of such information. Can you back it up with a credible source and/or documentation? A revoked license should be a matter of public record in the state in which it was held.

If what you say is true, it could be a mistake made years ago that could have resulted in an epiphany for him.

It is not my desire to dredge up a failure of anyone's past in an attempt to embarrass or cause them pain for something they have already suffered. I am, however, interested in the facts of your statements as it relates to the profession of counseling since that scenario doesn't fall far from the tree of my personal experience - since my 'ex' was posing herself as a legitimate, professional counselor practicing without a license while receiving private compensation for the same. Besides the illegal nature of her activities, she, too, involved herself with her "clients." I know because my daughters (who were specifically her 'clients') and myself were some of them. It's how she improperly established a relationship with us which eventually led to a marriage that should have never taken place exposing the realities of her fruadulent and deceptive practices.

Unaware and ignorant of ethical and legal practices of professional counseling, I received a first-hand education and baptism of what is and isn't proper through the abuses I've suffered within the profession - at great personal expense.

The lack of public understanding of proper counseling behavior, and the lack of accountability of those 'practicing' without a license, is frightful. Dr. Phil is just a part of those abuses -howbeit, a notable one.

Part of my argument, of Dr. Phil applying his expertise without the accountability of participating with such, was under the belief that he was in good standing assuming that he was licensed to practice, even though he claims exemption from doing so and from liability in the name of entertainment. I know he didn't do me any good. Participating as an expert in the problems of others (some in crisis), without a license because it was revoked, adds to concern.

He and his father had a practice. His father got caught having affairs with his patients. So did Phil. they both lost their licenses.

The nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

He and his father had a practice. His father got caught having affairs with his patients. So did Phil. they both lost their licenses.

The nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

He and his father had a practice. His father got caught having affairs with his patients. So did Phil. they both lost their licenses.

The nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

He and his father had a practice. His father got caught having affairs with his patients. So did Phil. they both lost their licenses.

The nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

The issue at hand is the behavior and treatment of "guests" invited to The Dr. Phil Show under the guise of receiving help. It's troubling to see the dismissal, if not the justification, of inappropriately taking advantage of someone in need through mis-representation.

1.) Dr. Phil is not a medical doctor or psychiatrist (which requires a medical degree), but he has a doctorate degree in psychology (clinical, if believe) which puts him at the top of the counseling therapeutic ladder since most psychiatrists evaluate and administer drugs. Most counseling and therapy is referred to a credentialed, counseling professional like Dr. Phil.

2.) Dr. Phil was not my first and only choice of professionals to see. He was one of several simultaneous attempts to find a local, qualified, licensed counselor. He was the first to respond with the invitation to help. I had no mis-givings to receive therapy in 10 minutes, but was expecting to receive help beyond that by the producer's and Dr. Phil's expressed interest and expressed desire to help any way they could.

3.) One would have to have been dealing with the confusion and complexity of my circumstances to understand the nature and timing of the events as they happened.

4.) After my ex's refusal to work with one local therapist (who was a "Dr.", as well, with a doctorate in psychology), she expressed the desire to speak with someone like Dr. Phil as mis-direction to avoid working with anyone. Something, I discovered clearly later and the reasons behind such mis-direction.

5.) To describe Dr. Phil as someone who just yells at people to change is an inaccurate over-generalization. Dr. Phil is trained, skilled, an experienced professional, and make not mistake about it, very, very shrewd.

I do not understand why you would attempt to contact a nationally syndicated show in an attempt to find a local referral for a therapist. Couldn't you have simply opened the Yellow Pages? Called your healthcare provider?

Many people are not aware, but "Dr" Phil is NOT A DOCTOR! He is a PhD "Dr", not a medically licensed physician or phychiatrist. Why anyone would go to a man who simply yells at you to change is beyond me.

I would recommend that anyone seek private, professional help for personal problems - especially, after my experience with The Dr. Phil Show - that is part of my message.

Although, it is valid discussion whether or not someone...anyone...should discuss their problems on television (particularly, The Dr. Show), the issue at hand is the inappropriate treatment by The Dr. Phil Show of those who accept their invitation to do so.

The most I hoped for was a referral, if I received any kind of a response from The Dr. Phil Show at all. I would have gladly and gratefully accepted a referral. I would preferred to have met and talked with Dr. Phil off camera, but I had nothing to hide and desperate to do whatever I needed to do to get help.

I went to get help; they brought me there to make a show. I was trusting (even naive) enough, to believe my circumstances were the priority. It never entered my mind that I would have been treated the way I was. Does that give the right to The Dr. Phil Show to take advantage of a person in the midst of overwhelming circumstances?

The Dr. Phil Show flushed out two things: my ex's undisclosed activities as she fled exposure; and their own behind-the-scenes unethical abuse of people in need that they decide they don't need for their gain. There is an inherit conflict of interest and contradiction between their professed and expressed priorities. That's the issue and the subject of this complaint.

I would never in a million years go on TV & put my business out in the street like that! Good for the wife for refusing to participate.

That being said, it's a pretty crappy way to treat someone who honestly wants some kind of help - herding them around like so much cattle only to toss them aside when they're not "used." I would imagine that - ironically - it would only make the person feel WORSE about themselves!

Dr. Phil & his staff should at least arrange the counseling for him after all of that.

1.) I e-mailed The Dr. Phil Show for a referral to a local professional. It was not my desire to "air dirty laundry." In, fact, it wasn't until later that I discovered how dirty the "dirty laundry" was.

2.) "Desperate times require desperate measures." There was a desperate need of help and Dr. Phil extended a "compassionate" offer to help. You might want to re-read the narrative of my complaint and the 20/20 hindsight vision of my experience - which doesn't excuse Dr. Phil's power-position abuse of circumstances.

3.) My 'ex'-wife has, and to my knowledge, still is participating in illegal activity. Discovered and documented, as well as, ultimately determined in court. She has been, and still is, under state investigation. Exposure of her behavior and activities was the reason for her refusal to participate.

4.) This was no ordinary marital problem. Dr. Phil initiated involvement to help a problem he had no idea, nor made the effort to discover, what he was dealing with. This complaint about The Dr. Phil Show & Dr. Phil's inappropriate actions.

5.) Unless you're a criminal defense attorney, you most likely would not be endorsement or defense of her actions if you had knowledge of all the facts beyond this complaint. Although, they are the biggest part of the incredible story, they are not necessary for the purposes of this complaint.

1.) I e-mailed The Dr. Phil Show for a referral to a local professional. It was not my desire to "air dirty laundry." In, fact, it wasn't until later that I discovered how dirty the "dirty laundry" was.

2.) "Desperate times require desperate measures." There was a desperate need of help and Dr. Phil extended a "compassionate" offer to help. You might want to re-read the narrative of my complaint and the 20/20 hindsight vision of my experience - which doesn't excuse Dr. Phil's power-position abuse of circumstances.

3.) My 'ex'-wife has, and to my knowledge, still is participating in illegal activity. Discovered and documented, as well as, ultimately determined in court. She has been, and still is, under state investigation. Exposure of her behavior and activities was the reason for her refusal to participate.

4.) This was no ordinary marital problem. Dr. Phil initiated involvement to help a problem he had no idea, nor made the effort to discover, what he was dealing with. This complaint about The Dr. Phil Show & Dr. Phil's inappropriate actions.

5.) Unless you're a criminal defense attorney, you most likely would not be endorsement or defense of her actions if you had knowledge of all the facts beyond this complaint. Although, they are the biggest part of the incredible story, they are not necessary for the purposes of this complaint.

1.) I e-mailed The Dr. Phil Show for a referral to a local professional. It was not my desire to "air dirty laundry." In, fact, it wasn't until later that I discovered how dirty the "dirty laundry" was.

2.) "Desperate times require desperate measures." There was a desperate need of help and Dr. Phil extended a "compassionate" offer to help. You might want to re-read the narrative of my complaint and the 20/20 hindsight vision of my experience - which doesn't excuse Dr. Phil's power-position abuse of circumstances.

3.) My 'ex'-wife has, and to my knowledge, still is participating in illegal activity. Discovered and documented, as well as, ultimately determined in court. She has been, and still is, under state investigation. Exposure of her behavior and activities was the reason for her refusal to participate.

4.) This was no ordinary marital problem. Dr. Phil initiated involvement to help a problem he had no idea, nor made the effort to discover, what he was dealing with. This complaint about The Dr. Phil Show & Dr. Phil's inappropriate actions.

5.) Unless you're a criminal defense attorney, you most likely would not be endorsement or defense of her actions if you had knowledge of all the facts beyond this complaint. Although, they are the biggest part of the incredible story, they are not necessary for the purposes of this complaint.

Why would ANYONE go on television to air their dirty laundry?

Seriously, what purpose does it serve, other than to humiliate one, or all parties in question?

If my wife ever told me she wanted me to go on National TV(pick the show), I'd simply tell her "no". We might make headlines, but it wouldn't be like she planned.

Your wife did the correct thing by refusing to be a part of it. good for her...

Why would ANYONE go on television to air their dirty laundry?

Seriously, what purpose does it serve, other than to humiliate one, or all parties in question?

If my wife ever told me she wanted me to go on National TV(pick the show), I'd simply tell her "no". We might make headlines, but it wouldn't be like she planned.

Your wife did the correct thing by refusing to be a part of it. good for her...

Why would ANYONE go on television to air their dirty laundry?

Seriously, what purpose does it serve, other than to humiliate one, or all parties in question?

If my wife ever told me she wanted me to go on National TV(pick the show), I'd simply tell her "no". We might make headlines, but it wouldn't be like she planned.

Your wife did the correct thing by refusing to be a part of it. good for her...

Why would ANYONE go on television to air their dirty laundry?

Seriously, what purpose does it serve, other than to humiliate one, or all parties in question?

If my wife ever told me she wanted me to go on National TV(pick the show), I'd simply tell her "no". We might make headlines, but it wouldn't be like she planned.

Your wife did the correct thing by refusing to be a part of it. good for her...

I informed the following of the events concerning The Dr. Phil Show:

1.) Newsweek - On-line Editor
2.) U.S. News & World Report - On-line Editor
3.) Chicago Tribune - On-line
4.) The Washington Post - On-line
5.) Los Angeles Times - On-line
6.) Miami Herald - On-line
7.) The Tampa Tribune - On-line
8.) St. Petersburg Times - On-line
9.) At Large/Fox News - on-line
10.) On The Record/Fox News - on-line
11.) Associated Press - (ap.org) - on-line
12.) Boston Globe - On-line
13.) New York Times - On-line
14.) New York Post - On-line
15.) Orlando Sentinal - On-line
16.) President of American Psychological Association - on-line

What a cavalier way to treat someone! As if you're just a commodity to be used for the show's benefit.

I understand that they have a show to produce, but the very LEAST they could do is arrange the local counseling for you. After flying you out, putting you through wardrobe & makeup, sitting you in the audience (even if it's only a possibility of speaking) -- for all of that they should be obligated to at least follow through with the counseling! That's a lot of hoops to make someone jump through, only to tell you to take his general words at the end & apply them to your situation. WHAT?

I generally like that show but knowing this kind of turns me off. It really makes them look opportunistic as opposed to altruistic.