A better analogy would be taking a child because a coach is accused of molestation and the parents side with the coach and continue to provide him with unsupervised access to the child. Presumably, the parents are following this person’s advice.
Yea I do like your analogy better, still you’d think prosecuting the psychologist would be the first action.
And I just realized we are talking about a mental health professional that can’t RX drugs, so who is?
Not at all. It would only be appropriate after it was determined that the psychologist had done something criminal, and that determination does not seem to have been made, as yet, and it may well not be. It is quite possible (even likely, I would say) that nobody, neither psychologist or parents, have done anything criminal, and are all acting in what they honestly consider to be the best interests of the child. However, it is also possible that they may, in fact, be very mistaken about that, and have actually been inadvertently harming her. That is probably the position of the hospital.
AFAIK, nobody is accusing anyone of deliberate child abuse here. Your talk of punishment and prosecution is all beside the point. That is not what this is about. It is about protecting the child, but probably from foolishness or delusion rather than malice.