First, the dust cover is not a part of the source (it wasn't written by the authors) and is irrelevant and not usable as a reliable source.  A case could be made that the reference made above was to the entire group of adults, and two of the five were unlicensed (the "therapeutic" foster parents), but they are not the subject of the present controversy.

Second, Ponder was licensed, and the fact of her licensure has been verified by the book. Continuing to refer to her as unlicensed is false and should stop.  Ditto with Jeane Newmaker who was also licensed (as a nurse) and was being used during treatment as a "co-therapist".

Third, both on page 28 and 44 of the source, the meaning of Watkins's unlicensed status was discussed and placed into the proper context I described before.  To take the term out of context and describe Watkins simply as unlicensed is to deliberately mislead and misinform the reader; her legal culpability and professional status was much more nuanced than that.  I grant that extensive discussion of the meaning of being "registered" to practice psychotherapy in Colorado would be awkward in an encyclopedia, but if the term is used, then such a discussion should or must take place to properly inform the reader.  It is avoided, however, by not mentioning it out of context, which is what I've been doing by removing the references (which are wrong in the case of Ponder in any case).

Fourth, mentioning the licensure twice (and indisputably erroneously in the case of Ponder) is gilding the lily, especially when I came up with a reasonable solution for the second mention (i.e., using the defendants' surnames) instead of characterizing them.

Fifth, the way is "unlicensed" is used in this article is unjustifiably POV. No justification for inclusion of this characterization has ever been tendered.