State of California v. Anna Runkle ("Crappy Childhood Fairy") – Thoughts?

[Etherial Cat]

I've been following the dispute involving Anna Runkle (Crappy Childhood Fairy) and California regulators, and I'm curious what people here think.

For anyone unfamiliar, Anna runs a large YouTube channel focused on trauma recovery, CPTSD, emotional healing, and related topics. She openly states that she is not a licensed therapist, psychologist, physician, or other mental health professional, and includes disclaimers to that effect. At the same time, she operates a business offering courses, coaching, groups, and paid programs related to healing and recovery.

According to her account, California regulators have challenged aspects of her activities on the grounds that they may constitute the unlicensed practice of psychology on pretty general claims. She has responded by filing a federal lawsuit alleging violations of her constitutional rights, particularly free speech protections.

Literally, where does the practice of psychology starts?  

[Lila9]

I follow her on YouTube. I can understand the need for regulation. However, psychology is a pseudoscience in and of itself. There are many people online offering all sorts of unsolicited psychological advice and courses, so unless she has done something really terrible and unethical, I don't understand the chase. She is also transparent about her background.

[Ulax]

Seems pretty ridiculous to me to go after a CPTSD person when the psychology profession only just recognised CPTSD as a mental health diagnosis.

[Opulence]

Not okay to do that. She was doing a good job to be honest.

 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

On 11. 6. 2026 at 9:07 PM, Lila9 said:

I follow her on YouTube. I can understand the need for regulation. However, psychology is a pseudoscience in and of itself. There are many people online offering all sorts of unsolicited psychological advice and courses, so unless she has done something really terrible and unethical, I don't understand the chase. She is also transparent about her background.

Wow. Never thought I'd say that, but I agree. LOL

[Leo Gura]

As long as she doesn't call herself a therapist or mislead viewers into thinking she is a therapist, I don't see a problem here. She should win the case on free speech grounds.

Life coaching is legal and unregulated. She should frame herself as a life coach.

Edited June 20 by Leo Gura

[Etherial Cat]

What seems important here is that this may be one of the first cases where a licensing board is going after a non-psychologist for giving self-help content and advice about healing.

Annie Runkle is clear that she is not a psychologist or therapist. She uses disclaimers and presents her work as coaching for people trying to heal themselves, even if she could have even more pushed that narrative. I guess she thought that what she did to draw the line was enough.

The broader issue is that regulated professions do not always react well when popular unlicensed people start working in areas they see as their territory. There is obviously a legitimate need to regulate diagnosis, treatment, false claims and dangerous practices. But that is not the same as saying psychologists should have a monopoly over all advice about trauma, emotions, relationships or personal growth and start expensive litigations.

Modern psychology is valuable, but it is not enough on its own. Good advice also comes from philosophy, spirituality, lived experience and wisdom. Mental health is not only a scientific question.

I was until quite recently on therapy - which I had to interrupt because my therapist thought that he didn't have the ressource to help someone like me. Not because I am insane ( ) but because after years of spiritual, self-help and investigation work, he feels like modern therapy left him unequipped with the challenge I'm going through or something.

Anyway...

That is why this case matters. It is really about where we draw the line between regulated psychological treatment and coaching, self-help, education and peer support. Choosing who you like to give you advices shouldn't be reduced to people with a licence.

Therapist do have trainings. But the most insightful people who have been giving life advices often are not. And going after B because A is seen as the legit thing when it's rather meh most of the time is something I would not want to see.

[Etherial Cat]

 

[Leo Gura]

They went after her because she talks about healing PTSD a lot. They regard that as therapy.

[Etherial Cat]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They went after her because she talks about healing PTSD a lot. They regard that as therapy.

Yep. Agree.

CPTSD is what she made her niche about. I am wondering if anything would have been done if the lingo was different, but this is still ridiculous.
 

[Leo Gura]

This is a good example of nebulosity. The line between therapy and coaching is fuzzy and science cannot define it.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura