Linda Gottlieb Sues ProPublica for Fraud

Linda Gottlieb LMFT, LCSW-R has sued ProPublica, reporter Hannah Dreyfus, and editor Michael Squires in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 152397/2026. The claims include fraudulent inducement, fraud, fraudulent concealment, tortious interference with her practice, and infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit concerns five ProPublica articles published between February 2023 and April 2024. Those articles are also why most people arrive at this page. Below is what the complaint says, and what ProPublica’s own published record shows.

The first article, published February 26, 2023, is about two children in Utah. It told readers they had been ordered to attend Turning Points for Families, described as a program run by Linda Gottlieb.

Ms. Gottlieb had no involvement in that case. She was never appointed to it, never treated that family, never met them, and had no information about it.

ProPublica’s own follow-up article, published May 18, 2023, describes the Utah children being sent to a program in Texas. That Texas program is separately owned and operated by a different therapist.

Two therapists asked Ms. Gottlieb for permission to use the Turning Points name. She said yes. She has no ownership in them, no role in them, and no say in what they do. It is the same arrangement as two restaurants sharing a name under different owners.

ProPublica never went back and corrected the first article.

Everything else in this story flows from that one error, because the abuse findings in that Utah case, which are serious, got attached in readers’ minds to a therapist who was never anywhere near it.

To be clear about what Ms. Gottlieb is and is not saying: she takes no position on the Utah family’s underlying allegations. That case was not hers, the evidence was not hers, and she never saw any of it. Her point is narrower and simpler. She was not in that case, and ProPublica told the public she was.

Ms. Gottlieb had turned down interview requests before. Here is how she came to give this one.

Late January 2023

Ms. Dreyfus calls Ms. Gottlieb on her cell phone, having already interviewed several of Linda’s colleagues in the field.

According to the complaint, Ms. Dreyfus says she is educating herself about parental alienation so she can write something accurate and balanced, that she is not working on any article about alienation, that she has no plans to publish anything soon, and that nothing from a conversation with Linda will be published without Linda’s permission.

Ms. Dreyfus confirms in an email that the call is introductory and for background.

The Zoom call takes place. Ms. Gottlieb adds one condition of her own: no specific cases. She has confidentiality and HIPAA obligations and cannot discuss individual families. The conversation stays on parental alienation in general. Utah never comes up.

Ms. Dreyfus asks for a follow-up interview. Ms. Gottlieb declines.

Ms. Dreyfus writes again, and this time says what she is actually after. She wants to discuss the developing Utah story.

Ms. Gottlieb writes back and withdraws any permission to publish anything from the February 1st call.

The article runs, quoting Ms. Gottlieb on Utah.

Nine days passed between the withdrawal of permission and publication.

The Quote ProPublica Corrected

The first article quoted Ms. Gottlieb saying something about Utah.

On June 8, 2023, ProPublica published a correction. In their own words, the quotation they had attributed to her “originally included extraneous words.” They then had to correct that correction, because their first attempt at fixing it was also wrong.

So the record is not in dispute on this point. ProPublica published words as Ms. Gottlieb’s that Ms. Gottlieb did not say, twice failed to state accurately what she actually said, and left the surrounding claim standing.

ProPublica Will Not Produce the Recording

Ms. Gottlieb says she never discussed the Utah case with Ms. Dreyfus, and that it never came up.

ProPublica says it has a recording of her doing exactly that.

Ms. Gottlieb has asked for it. Her attorney has asked for it. She has offered to have it examined by an independent forensic voice analyst.

In October 2023, through their deputy general counsel, they sent Ms. Gottlieb’s lawyer roughly 800 additional words they said she had spoken about Utah. More quotes, still no recording.

Over more than two years, ProPublica has never produced it.

It is a therapeutic intervention. Ms. Gottlieb works with one family at a time. The phrase “reunification camp” comes from the articles, not from the program.

Everyone involved, including the Court, knows where the therapy takes place.

She cannot. Only a Judge can. She accepts cases by Court order only, and she reports back to the Court on how the family is progressing. The Court decides everything else, including the length of any no-contact period.

The Court makes that determination, and it makes it before Ms. Gottlieb is ever appointed.

Learn About Turning Points for Families

A 2021 evaluation of the program was conducted by Dr. Jennifer Harman, a psychology professor at Colorado State University. It found the intervention safe and effective.

ProPublica told readers the success rate was self-reported by Ms. Gottlieb and that she helped design and run the study of her own program. Ms. Gottlieb’s only role was to hand over session videos from families whose alienated parent had signed a consent form.

Dr. Harman told the reporter this. Colorado State’s own disclosures about how the study was conducted were available to her.

Attorneys stopped referring cases. Courts stopped appointing her. Prospective clients called her office, asked about the articles, and did not hire her.

Opposing counsel now file motions to exclude her testimony with the ProPublica articles attached. That is the routine use of this material: not to inform anyone, but to keep a witness off the stand in a case about a child.

Her office has received death threats from callers citing the articles. She has had to enroll in New York’s Address Confidentiality Program.

Ms. Gottlieb has been doing this work for fifty-five years.

The action was commenced on February 25, 2026. The verified complaint was filed on June 21, 2026, and the defendants have not yet answered. Everything in the complaint is an allegation until it is proven in court, and Ms. Gottlieb would rather have it decided there than argued on the internet.

Read the Verified Complaint

It is also available through the New York State Courts Electronic Filing system under Index No. 152397/2026. The ProPublica articles are still online, corrections included. Read the February 26, 2023 article and the May 18, 2023 article side by side and look at which program the Utah children were actually sent to.

That comparison takes about five minutes and it tells you most of what you need to know.

If you have a question about Ms. Gottlieb’s involvement in a specific case, please contact her directly at NYLmft@gmail.com.

The Articles at Issue

• Barricaded Siblings Turn to TikTok While Defying Court Order to Return to Father They Say Abused Them, February 26, 2023
• A Court Ordered Siblings to a Reunification Camp With Their Estranged Father. The Children Say It Was Abusive., May 18, 2023
• Colorado Becomes the First State to Limit Court Use of Family Reunification Camps, May 26, 2023
• Parental Alienation: A Disputed Theory With Big Implications, August 19, 2023
• New Utah Law Prioritizes Child Safety in Custody Courts, April 8, 2024

The June 8, 2023 correction to the first article also appears on ProPublica’s own corrections index.