I strongly advise against working with Ms. Debbie Rasmussen or her partner.
Our family was court-ordered to participate in reunification therapy involving a child and the other parent after more than three years of no contact, with serious and well-documented concerns regarding prior physical and emotional harm. This required a highly skilled, trauma-informed, and ethically grounded approach. In our experience, that standard was not met.
From the outset, there was a push to move quickly toward unsupervised contact, despite the child expressing clear and repeated distress. In cases involving prior trauma, pacing and safety must come first. That did not appear to guide the process.
There were also significant concerns regarding professional boundaries. Ms. Rasmussen attempted to establish a level of personal trust that felt inappropriate in a therapeutic setting, encouraging me to share sensitive information. When I shared limited information to assess how it would be handled, it was later used in a way that appeared to create division and draw the child into adult matters. This type of triangulation is not appropriate in family therapy and can be harmful.
Additionally, statements were made to the child that appeared to minimize or question the child's reported experiences, including suggesting that certain behaviors had not been observed. At the same time, the other parent was allowed contact and exchanges outside of clearly structured sessions, including gifts and interactions that did not follow a consistent or transparent therapeutic framework. These actions blurred boundaries and undermined trust.
Professional practices were also concerning. Routine scheduling communications were billed without clear, upfront disclosure, resulting in unexpectedly high charges early in the process, despite minimal therapeutic progress. Scheduling was inconsistent, with frequent unavailability and no effort to provide a reliable system.
There were also inconsistencies between stated policies and actions taken regarding court involvement, which added further stress to an already complex situation.
In our case, it is critical to emphasize the importance of keeping detailed, factual records of everything--written communication, timelines, and, where legally appropriate, recorded interactions. Ms. Rasmussen submitted materials to the court that could have been detrimental to the child. However, because we maintained meticulous, factual documentation, we were able to provide the court with a clear and accurate record. This made the discrepancies evident, and her actions became quickly transparent to both the court and other state-involved professionals.
KEEP DETAILED RECORDS. This cannot be overstated. Documentation was essential in protecting the child and ensuring that decisions were based on facts rather than representations made behind closed doors.
Based on our experience, what occurred outside of formal sessions did not reflect a level of professionalism or a child-centered approach that families should expect in reunification therapy.
Families entering this process should proceed with extreme caution, advocate strongly for their child, and carefully evaluate alternative providers.
I am grateful to share that the child is now safe, healthy, and thriving. That outcome was achieved through persistent advocacy, vigilance, and thorough documentation. read more
