I recently received the following offer from a targeted parent, and I wish to respond on my blog because I believe my response may be of interest to other targeted parents,
“I would like to volunteer myself and my son to assist you in any way we can.” Shawn
That’s very kind, thank you. I appreciate your offer. Here’s what I would suggest…
This is important to understand: There needs to be a paradigm shift within mental health. The moment an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” becomes accepted within establishment mental health, the solution to the nightmare of “parental alienation” becomes available immediately.
The attachment-based model of “parental alienation” offers,
- Clear diagnostic criteria (the three diagnostic indicators) immediately become available to allow the consistent diagnosis of attachment-based “parental alienation” in EVERY case, for ALL therapists and ALL child custody evaluators. The nature and degree of the psychopathology becomes immediately identified the moment it enters any aspect of the mental health system.
- The pathology of “parental alienation” immediately becomes defined as “pathogenic parenting” (i.e., severely distorted parenting practices that are inducing significant developmental, personality, and psychiatric psychopathology in the child) that requires a child protection response.
The child’s protective separation from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent during the active phase of the child’s treatment and recovery immediately becomes the professionally responsible and required treatment response to the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.
- Children and families evidencing the three diagnostic indicators for an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” become defined as a “special population” requiring specialized professional knowledge, training, and expertise to competently diagnose and treat. Immediately, all child custody evaluators and all therapists working with this group of children and families must possess an advanced level of knowledge related to,
1. Narcissistic and borderline personality dynamics, their characteristic presentation and their impact on family relationships,
2. Family systems dynamics involving children’s triangulation into spousal conflicts through cross-generational parent-child coalitions,
3. The characteristic functioning and dysfunctioning of the attachment systems during childhood,
4. The nature and features of parent-child role-reversal relationships, and
5. The formation of delusional belief systems as a product of decompensating narcissistic and borderline personality processes.
This immediately prohibits diagnosis and treatment by unqualified mental health professionals under standard of practice guidelines laid out in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Standard 2.01a.
“2.01 Boundaries of Competence
(a) Psychologists provide services, teach and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study or professional experience.”
Since ONLY knowledgeable and competent mental health professionals will be able to diagnose and treat this “special population” of children and families, and, since professionally responsible treatment REQUIRES the child’s protective separation from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent during the active phase of treatment, no therapist, anywhere, will treat without first acquiring a protective separation of the child from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.
This will provide a clear and consistent directive from professional mental health to the Court that the issue is NOT one of child custody and visitation but is one of child protection, and that the child’s protective separation from the allied and supposedly “favored” parent is required during the active phase of treatment.
- Since the appropriate DSM-5 diagnosis for an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” includes the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed (see Diagnostic Indicators and Associated Clinical Signs), and since ONLY trained and competent mental health professionals will be diagnosing and treating this “special population” of children and families, then all mental health professionals involved in the diagnosis and treatment of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” will be aware of this DSM-5 diagnosis and will have the decision as legally mandated child abuse reporters to file a child abuse report with the appropriate child protection service agency (note: reporting psychological and emotional abuse is an optional not a mandated report).
If (when) child protective service agencies begin to receive an influx of these child psychological abuse reports related to the diagnostic indicators for an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” these agencies won’t know how to investigate and resolve these reports. They will seemingly have two options,
1. To accept the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed from the licensed and specially trained and competent mental health professional, which will then necessitate removing the child from the custody of the psychologically abusive narcissistic/(borderline) parent, thereby enacting the child’s protective separation from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/borderline parent, or
2. To train their investigators in the three diagnostic indicators and associated clinical signs of attachment-based “parental alienation,” so that ALL investigators at ALL child protection service agencies are trained to professional competence in the recognition of pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/borderline parent that is inducing significant developmental, personality, and psychiatric psychopathology in a child. I suspect this will be the option chosen by child protective service agencies once an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” becomes accepted within establishment mental health and these agencies begin to receive child abuse reports resulting from clinical diagnoses of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed
If (when) ALL investigators at ALL child protection service agencies are trained to professional competence in the recognition of the pathogenic parenting associated with attachment-based “parental alienation,” then this will help to resolve issues surrounding the reporting of false allegations of child abuse by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent, because a child abuse report now becomes a double-edged sword. Not only will the investigator be investigating the reported abuse, but also the potential for child psychological abuse from the pathogenic parenting of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent associated with an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.” If evidence for the reported abuse is insubstantial but the child’s symptoms display the definitive three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting associated with an attachment-based model of “parental alienation,” then the child protection services may initiate a child protection response of removing the child from the custody of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent due to a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse made by the investigator.
The potential of having the child removed from the custody of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent when false allegations of child abuse are made may cause the narcissistic/(borderline) parent to reconsider before making false allegations of child abuse, and so may have a deterrent effect on the filing of false allegations of child abuse by narcissistic/(borderline) parents. Of note is that in cases of good faith but erroneous child abuse reports by parents, the child’s symptoms will not display the three diagnostic indicators associated with attachment-based “parental alienation.”
The cooperation of the Court will be necessary to obtain the required protective separation of the child from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent during the active phase of treatment. To gain the cooperation of the Court, the targeted parent will need the strong support of mental health, and mental health must speak with a single voice to the Court, so that all mental health professionals will make exactly the same diagnosis when the child’s symptoms display the three characteristic diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” – and all therapists who treat this “special population” are trained and expert in the attachment-based model of “parental alienation” so that no therapist, anywhere, will treat “parental alienation” without first obtaining the child’s protective separation from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.
When professional mental health speaks to the Court with a single voice, the Court can act with the decisive clarity necessary to solve “parental alienation.”
Note: We do not need to litigate the parental psychopathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent. The issue is pathogenic parenting and the diagnosis can be made solely based on the child’s symptom display of the three definitive diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation.”
The solution to “parental alienation” is not through the legal system. Any solution that relies on extended litigation to prove “parental alienation” in the legal system will fail. The legal system is far to expensive, takes far too long, and is far too easily manipulated by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.
Family relationship problems, particularly parent-child relationship problems, need to be resolved within the mental health system. The legal system needs to be able to rely on a single clear voice from ALL of mental health as to what is needed to resolve the family problems. The attachment-based model of “parental alienation” provides the solid bedrock of accepted and established psychological constructs and principles that can unite mental health into that single voice.
A paradigm shift is needed in mental health, away from the failed paradigm of Gardnerian PAS to an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” that is based entirely within accepted and established psychological principles and constructs.
Note: I’m not saying Gardner’s model is wrong, it’s just inadequate to the task of solving “parental alienation.” In proposing the existence of a new “syndrome” defined by a set of anecdotal clinical indicators, Gardner too quickly abandoned the professional rigor imposed by standard and established clinical constructs and principles. The attachment-based model of “parental alienation” returns to the basic clinical construct first identified by Gardner and applies the theoretical rigor necessary to define the construct entirely within standard and established psychological constructs and principles, thereby correcting the flaw in his approach that led to his construct of PAS being labeled as “junk science.”
There can be no such criticism of an attachment-based model since it meets the standards set by the critics of Gardner’s PAS model. The attachment-based model of “parental alienation” is defined entirely within standard and established psychological constructs and principles.
A foundational paradigm shift is needed to a theoretical framework that is grounded on the solid bedrock of established psychological constructs and principles. An attachment-based model of “parental alienation” accomplishes this.
The necessary paradigm shift in mental health is not an evolutionary progression from Gardnerian PAS into a new model, it is a revolutionary change in the foundational framework for conceptualizing “parental alienation.” The Gardnerian model of PAS becomes irrelevant.
We used to think that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and all the planets circled the earth. As we gathered knowledge, our scientific evidence then clearly indicated that the sun was the actual center of our solar system, and that the earth and the other planets circled the sun. Our paradigm for understanding the solar system shifted.
Yet it took many years for the Catholic church to accept the change in paradigms. Once it emerges, a paradigm shift can nevertheless take a long time to actualize. Thomas Kuhn, who described the model of paradigm shifts within science, said that the completion of the paradigm shift is accomplished when all the adherents to the old paradigm die.
The next generation of young psychology and law students will likely be the ones who will carry the paradigm shift in “parental alienation” into professional psychology and the legal system. The current experts in Gardnerian PAS will likely hold to their favored and familiar model, and the inertia within establishment mental health will simply ignore the attachment-based model for decades, until the current graduate students enter establishment psychology and law.
The solution to “parental alienation” is not to be found in the Gardnerian PAS paradigm. The Gardnerian model of PAS represents a failed paradigm. In the thirty years since Gardner first proposed PAS we have achieved the current abysmal situation of failed solution. For a variety of reasons, the solution to “parental alienation” cannot be found in the Gardnerian model of PAS. It is a failed paradigm. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m saying it is inadequate to the task of actualizing a solution.
The solution to “parental alienation is located in a paradigm shift within professional psychology to an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.” My estimate is that this paradigm shift will take about 10 to 15 years to enact. The empowered activism of targeted parents may be able to reduce this time frame to a year or two, depending on how actively targeted parents advocate for the paradigm shift.
All of the constructs within an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” are established and accepted psychological constructs and principles, so the only barrier to the acceptance of this paradigm by establishment mental health is awareness. The traditional approach to bringing this information into establishment mental health is through publication of professional papers in peer-reviewed journals. If I were younger in my career, just starting out and wanting to build my professional reputation, and if the need for a solution weren’t so pressing, I might take this more gradual approach to building the information regarding an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” into the professional literature of establishment mental health.
But I’m not a young psychologist trying to establish my professional career, and the need for a solution is dire. As for me, I’m 60 years old and I have already had one stroke. I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be around. Probably at most another 10 or 12 years before I leave or simply start winding down. So if I were you, the community of targeted parents, I’d try to get this information into establishment mental health as quickly as possible in order to make as much use of me as you can while I’m still here.
What I understand is that with every passing day the tragic nightmare of “parental alienation” continues. A solution is already too long overdue. Targeted parents and their children don’t have time to wait 10 or 15 years for establishment psychology to gradually accommodate to and adopt a new paradigm. You need a solution today.
So when I began my journey to define the clinical phenomena of “parental alienation” entirely from within standard and established psychological constructs and principles, I decided to post material to my website as soon as it became available in my work, rather than delay it by writing for publication, and I’ve decided to write for this blog to make the information as broadly available as I possibly can as quickly as I possibly can, because I fully appreciate that the solution is needed yesterday. With each day that passes the nightmare tragedy continues for targeted parents and their children.
Once I get this information up and out in the public domain, then I’ll return to write for publication. But not now. The solution is needed as soon as possible.
But ultimately, this is not my fight. It’s your fight. I can give you the tools and weapons, but you must enact the solution. It is time to act into your power. The foundational paradigm in mental health needs to change to allow the solution, which means we need to bring the awareness of establishment mental health to the attachment-based model for “parental alienation.”
I have done my part. The theoretical foundations are solid and accurate. I have provided you with articles and essays, with a publicly available online seminar through the Masters Lecture Series of California Southern University, and with all of these blog posts. There are no conceptual barriers to professional acceptance of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation,” the theoretical foundations are strong. It is just a matter of awareness within the broader mental health and legal fields.
But an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” has no allies within establishment mental health. I am a solitary voice. Current Gardnerian experts in parental alienation will ignore an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” because it’s foreign to them and, ultimately, it will replace the Gardnerian model with which they have grown comfortable. They’ve spent decades arguing in favor of the Gardnerian model of PAS. They are experts in the Gardnerian model of PAS. It is known, familiar, and comfortable.
And in a blink of an eye, the Gardnerian model of PAS will be replaced and will become irrelevant, and it will be replaced by something foreign and unknown to them. It’s not an evolution of their favored Gardnerian model, it is a revolution that overthrows their favored, known, and familiar Gardnerian model of PAS. Where a moment before they were experts in “parental alienation,” now they become like everyone else, needing to learn a new model, a new paradigm.
But there are no arguments against the attachment-based model, because it’s accurate; it’s what “parental alienation” is. So Gardnerians will simply ignore the attachment-based model of “parental alienation” and continue talking about how the sun circles the stationary earth, until they are eventually replaced by the next generation in professional psychology.
Nor does an attachment-based model of parental alienation have allies within establishment mental health. For the most part, establishment mental health simply doesn’t care about “parental alienation.” In establishment mental health, “parental alienation” is simply a small pocket of limited professional interest surrounding child custody evaluations and high-conflict divorce. The only people interested in “parental alienation” are those who advocate for Gardner’s PAS model, and they’re going to hold onto their PAS model and ignore the attachment-based model of “parental alienation,” and a pocket of opponents to PAS who question the scientific validity of Gardner’s paradigm. If you’re not in one of these two pockets of professional interest, then the construct of “parental alienation” isn’t really much of a consideration.
Establishment mental health will simply lump an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” in with the Gardnerian PAS group without taking the time to understand the paradigm shift. So an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” will generally be ignored by establishment mental health simply because they don’t care all that much. That’s why the paradigm shift that will bring a solution to “parental alienation” will take between 10 to 15 years to achieve, because the attachment-based model of “parental alienation” that contains the solution will simply languish in obscurity because it has no allies to advocate for its acceptance.
So, you ask what you can do to be helpful? I am a lone voice. It would be helpful to have allies within the targeted parent community who will bring the awareness of establishment mental health to the existence of this new paradigm for understanding the construct of “parental alienation.” The sooner it becomes accepted within establishment mental health, the sooner the solution to “parental alienation” becomes available.
I might suggest the following:
1. Organize advocacy groups of targeted parents who are willing to contact leadership in professional mental health to increase awareness of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.” Send emails to the identified leadership in establishment mental health suggesting that they, 1) watch the online seminar available through the Masters Lecture Series of California Southern University, 2) read my blog posts, and 3) read the articles and essays on my website. You might want to also attach an article or essay from my website, such as the Professional-to-Professional letter, or The Hostage Metaphor article, or the Reunification Therapy article. Be gentle, be kind, but be relentless. You’re fighting for your child and you’ve tolerated the professional incompetence of mental health far too long. It is time that you demand professional competence from professional psychology. Be kind, but be relentless. Things must change within professional psychology.
2. Identify and create a list of leadership in professional mental health.
If I were to approach this task, I might look around the homepages of the American Psychological Association, along with various relevant divisions, such as Division 41: American Psychology-Law Society, Division 43: Society for Family Psychology, Division 53: Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Division 12: Society of Clinical Psychology, looking to identify the leadership of these groups and organizations.
I’d then google the names of the leadership to find email addresses, and I’d send them a brief and polite email suggesting that they watch the online seminar of Dr. Childress regarding a new attachment-based model for describing “parental alienation.” It’s not Gardner. It’s new. It describes a model for understanding “parental alienation” from the perspective of the attachment system. And attached is an article by Dr. Childress from his website, and you might want to follow up by checking out his blog, he has some very interesting pieces on “parental alienation” from an attachment system perspective on his blog.
I might also google State Psychological Associations, such as the Texas Psychological Association, the New York Psychological Association, the Ohio Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, etc. and do the same thing, identify and google the leadership of these organizations to find email addresses, and then send them brief and polite emails promoting their awareness for the attachment-based model of “parental alienation.”
I might explore other professional associations, such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Psi Chi is an International Honor Society in Psychology for undergraduate and graduate students in psychology. They might be interested in a new attachment-based model of “parental alienation. Identify and google the leadership to find email addresses, and send them a brief and polite email.
Google APA journals, such as Law and Human Behavior; Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice; Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment; Professional Psychology: Research and Practice; Journal of Personality Disorders; Child Maltreatment; Journal of Family Studies; Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies; Journal of Child and Family Studies; Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Identify and google the editors to find email addresses and send them a brief and polite email suggesting they watch the online seminar of Dr. Childress regarding an attachment-based model for “parental alienation.”
3. Begin a campaign of emailing the identified leadership in establishment psychology. Not all at once, but pinging them regularly from time to time. Different people, pinging them now and then. You have tolerated professional incompetence within mental health for far to long. Things need to change. But be kind and gentle, but also be relentless.
4. Email editors for various law reviews at university law schools, suggesting that they watch the online seminar on an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.” The hook for an article in a law school review is how changing the paradigm affects the presentation of “parental alienation” in court. Instead of “parental alienation” the issue becomes “pathogenic parenting” and instead of a child custody issue the issue becomes one of child protection. Students will be the ones who will most likely actualize the paradigm shift.
I think it would be interesting for a student bar association at a university law school to join with the Psi Chi honor society at the same university, or at another university, to host an online seminar or panel discussion on “The Changing Paradigm in Defining Parental Alienation in Family Law” or some such topic. I suspect you might be able to find interest and energy in graduate student organizations.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857
2 thoughts on “Finding Empowerment”
Brilliant and urgent. Yes, let’s get started. I want this paradigm shift in one year not fifteen. And it can happen with polite and kind but relentless advocacy. Thank you for the revolutionary analysis that uses known constructs and your blueprint for target parents on what to do to realize this essential shift in the mental health community.
Thank you Dr Childress for making this plea to our community. You are absolutely correct that many mental health clinicians fail to understand the complexity of the situation with pathogenic parenting . Sadly, this can result in clinicians supporting and even treating delusion as if it is fact, reinforcing false narrative and confusing the child even further . It is truly delicate work and it is imperative that we do it well . Your work has been formative in the work that I’m doing with parents whose relationships with their children have been disrupted in the very ways you describe.
Your website, posts and our conversations have been so clarifying and I look forward to my doctoral work continuing on the subject.
You are the trailblazer but you are not alone- and I see a long road ahead but hope as we work to shift this paradigm to be able to provide better treatment and support for these children and targeted parents.
One window into the shift may be Bill Eddy’s recent work in the High Conflict Institute with his blogs on helping the court understand the behavioral and mental health problems that are presenting.
I am working with a very talented and insightful attorney , Mark Baumann who is promoting the attachment-based framework in addressing lawyer client relationship as well as the work I am doing currently as I finish my coursework and wait for our collaboration . I am working as a rather “specialized parenting coach” working with parents on understanding interpersonal neurobiology , attachment-based parenting and repair and resiliency for issues caused by the pathogenic parenting. We even were heard on court( and won) on a recent case promoting the concepts of why a parent who has been reduced in their influence and relationship by a pathogenic parent has the right to have specialized services to improve their skills and relationship with their child. This was following a parents objection to my involvement with the father /child relationship if the child were present. There’s a component of what I do that is most effective if the child is present and I can coach the parent in real time.
My reliance on your efforts that you have graciously offered in such a timely manner has informed my work to be more effective and more comprehensive than it would have been. I’m grateful for that and I am on fire and forging ahead in developing this work to benefit families that we both know are suffering in a desert of meaningful support.,