Month: July 2015

An Alert:  Going forward, I am going to begin using two phrases interchangeably to refer to identical psychopathology:

The first phrase is – attachment-based “parental alienation” – this refers to the psychopathology described and defined in Foundations.

The second phrase I am going to begin using from time-to-time to refer to exactly the same pathology is – attachment trauma reenactment pathology.  In my view, this phrase represents a more precise label within clinical psychology for the nature of the pathology which is traditionally called “parental alienation.”

From a clinical psychology perspective, the symptom-set associated with “parental alienation” represents the manifestation of attachment trauma reenactment pathology.  This is a technical professional psychology issue, not a general public issue.

I will continue to reference the construct of “parental alienation” in most of my discussions of the pathology so as not to disorient the general discussion (although I have obviously added the phrase “attachment-based” to the term “parental alienation” to differentiate the model of the pathology described in Foundations from the prior Gardnerian PAS model – we are shifting paradigms).

At the same time I will occasionally slip in the phrase “attachment trauma reenactment pathology” (probably in parentheses) to refer to exactly the same pathology.  The pathology is described in Foundations, and I honestly don’t care what we label the pathology for convenience in our discussions of it.

I will discuss this shift in terminology more in my Diagnosis book due out in the fall, in which I will propose this label for the pathology relative to future revisions of the DSM diagnostic system.  The pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” is a trauma pathogen involving the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent to the current family relationships, mediated by the narcissistic/(borderline) personality pathology of this parent (which itself is a product of the childhood attachment trauma).  The pathology belongs in the Trauma- and Stress-Related Disorders section of the DSM diagnostic system, with a very similar description as the DSM-IV TR diagnosis of Shared Psychotic Disorder (i.e., a shared delusional belief created within the trauma reenactment narrative).

---

So, with that bit of professional housekeeping out of the way…

Let me talk to attorneys out there.

Creating change in professional mental health can occur through a variety of channels.  One channel is through malpractice lawsuits that establish expected standards of practice for all mental health professionals to follow.

By way of example, one such landmark case regarding a psychologist’s “duty to protect” relative to dangerous patients is the Tarasoff case.  Let me be clear, I’m not saying “parental alienation” represents a dangerous patient, what I’m saying is that a similar type of lawsuit regarding a professionals “duty to protect” may be able to establish standards for mental health professionals relative to the psychological child abuse of “parental alienation” pathology.  I offer the Tarasoff case only as an example of the type of option possibly available for changing the mental health response to the psychological child abuse of “parental alienation.”

Tarasoff vs Regents of the University of California.

In the Tarasoff case, a therapist’s patient made a threat against an identifiable person who was not in the therapy session. The therapist took action by notifying the campus police regarding the patient’s threat, and the campus police detained the patient for questioning and then released the patient. The patient later went on to murder the target of his threat. The family of the victim filed a lawsuit claiming that the therapist had a “duty to protect” the identified victim by warning the victim of the threat made against her by the patient. The therapist claimed that since the identified target of the threat was not his patient he had no “duty of care” for that person.  In addition, the therapist had an established obligation to maintain patient confidentiality and the therapist discharged his duty to protect the potential victim by notifying the campus police of the threat made by the patient.

The court, however, found the following:

“When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. The discharge of this duty may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps, depending upon the nature of the case. Thus it may call for him to warn the intended victim or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the police, or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.”

From this landmark case, a standard of practice was immediately established regarding the responsibilities of mental health professionals relative to the treatment of dangerous patients.  Because of this case, there are now standard procedures regarding notifying potential victims which mental health professionals are trained in and must take relative to dangerous patients and threats made toward the general public.

My question to attorneys is… why couldn’t a similar legal route be used to establish  “standard of care” responsibilities regarding the mental health professional’s “duty to protect” the child in cases of the psychological child abuse created by “parental alienation” pathology, in which prominent developmental, personality, and psychiatric symptomatology is being created in the child by the pathogenic parenting of a clearly and severely pathological parent? Doesn’t the mental health professional incur a “duty to protect” the child in these cases?

In the case of clearly evident child psychological abuse, why wouldn’t the mental health professional incur “an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim” of parental abuse by taking “one or more various steps, depending upon the nature of the case”?  At the very least, making the appropriate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

This is where the paradigm shift to an attachment-based model for the construct of “parental alienation” alters the potentially available possibilities for a solution.  A malpractice lawsuit is not possible under Gardner’s proposal of a “new syndrome” because the citadel of establishment mental health has rejected this proposal of a “new syndrome.”

But an attachment-based model is not proposing a “new syndrome” and has instead defined the pathology called “parental alienation” from entirely within standard and established psychological constructs and principles of the attachment system, personality disorders, and family systems constructs (i.e., attachment trauma reenactment pathology).

The construct of “parental alienation” doesn’t exist.  Fine.  The construct of personality disorders exists. The construct of the attachment system and attachment trauma exists.  The construct of the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma exists; of splitting and role-reversal relationships.  These things all exist in the established research literature.

When serious parental pathology is responsible for inducing significant developmental, personality, and psychiatric psychopathology in the child through the highly aberrant and distorted parenting practices of a psychologically decompensating and delusional narcissistic/(borderline) parent, which then creates the child’s loss of an affectionally bonded relationship with a normal-range and affectionally available parent, why isn’t this a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Psychological Child Abuse, Confirmed?

The pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation” is child psychological abuse.

To argue that it is somehow acceptable for a parent to produce this level of psychopathology in a child is ludicrous. The serious level of psychopathology involved in an attachment-based model of “parental alienation,” as described in Foundations, reasonably represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

This would seemingly engage a mental health professional’s “duty to protect” the victim of the psychological child abuse.

I’m not an attorney, I’m a psychologist.  But it seems to me that if a mental health professional failed in this “duty to protect” the child from the clearly evident psychological abuse inflicted on the child by the parent (i.e., the pathogenic parenting that is producing serious psychopathology in the child) that this would seemingly represent malpractice because of the mental health professional’s failure to take “reasonable care to protect” the victim of child abuse (i.e., a failure in the professional’s “duty to protect”).

Professional Malpractice

I’m not an attorney, I’m a psychologist, but it seems to me that a malpractice lawsuit may represent a method to create change in the response of the mental health system relative to the pathology of “parental alienation” (based on the definition of the “parental alienation” pathology provided by Foundations).

Malpractice is not an available option under the old Gardnerian PAS model because no such thing as “parental alienation” exists.

However, by reformulating the construct traditionally called “parental alienation” from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, an attachment-based model activates professional constructs and standards of practice to which ALL mental health professionals can be held accountable.  Personality disorders exist, role-reversal relationships exist, splitting exists, delusions exist, attachment trauma exists, etc. These are established and accepted psychological constructs and principles that can be applied to the pathology, and to which mental health professionals can be held accountable in their assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.

The pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” is fully defined and described within standard and established psychological principles and constructs that are an established part of the professional knowledge-base to which ALL mental health professionals can be held accountable (especially if they are diagnosing and treating clients exhibiting these forms of pathology, i.e., attachment trauma pathology, personality disorder processes, family systems disturbances).

Within the reformulation and redefinition of the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation,” the issue for mental health professionals becomes one of child psychological abuse being inflicted on the child through the pathogenic parenting practices of a narcissistic/borderline parent by means of a role-reversal relationship in which the parent is inducing significant developmental, personality disorder, and psychiatric pathology in the child in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent.

Furthermore, the severe psychopathology that is being created by the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/borderline parent’s psychopathology is directly responsible for the child’s loss of an affectionally bonded relationship with a normal-range and affectionally available parent who would otherwise be available to support the child’s healthy development in response to the other parent’s evident psychopathology, and who could thereby mitigate the severe distortions to the child’s normal-range and healthy emotional and psychological development being created by the pathogenic parenting of the pathological parent.

The pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation” elevates the clinical considerations from those of parent-child conflict to prominent child protection concerns.

The pathology described within an attachment-based reformulation for the psychological processes traditionally called “parental alienation” (i.e., the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the allied and supposedly favored parent to the current family relationships, mediated by the narcissistic and/or borderline personality pathology of the allied parent through the formation of a cross-generational coalition with the child against the other parent), and the severely damaging impact of this pathology on the child’s normal-range emotional and psychological development, reasonably represents child psychological abuse.

In cases of child psychological abuse, the mental health professional is obligated to provide an accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed and to take “reasonable” protective actions that are then documented in the patient’s record.

Failure to make an accurate diagnosis and to take appropriate steps to protect the child would represent a failure in the mental health professional’s “duty to protect” which would then continue to expose the child to ongoing psychological abuse by the pathogenic parent, and which would lead to the subsequent destruction of the child’s normal-range emotional and psychological development.

I am not an attorney. I am a psychologist.  I can define the pathology, I cannot speak to the legal issues.  But surely there must be attorneys out there among the community of targeted parents who are willing to examine this issue of possible professional malpractice, or else who can enlighten me as to why it is acceptable professional practice to ignore and misdiagnose the psychological abuse of children when this is an established DSM-5 diagnosis.

If I was an attorney rather than a psychologist, I might look to form a collaborative legal team of like-minded attorneys, and to then seek to locate a particularly egregious “test case” of professional incompetence and malpractice in the diagnosis and treatment of this pathology, where the psychopathology of the parent was clearly evident yet the mental health professional failed to make the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

I Wonder…

I wonder what would happen within the citadel of establishment mental health if a malpractice lawsuit was filed against a mental health professional relative to the pathology of “parental alienation” and the mental health professional’s failure in his or her duty to protect?  

I wonder what would happen if two or three such lawsuits were filed against different mental health professionals in different jurisdictions?

I wonder if it might be possible to establish a landmark legal case similar to what was done in Tarasoff for patient dangerousness, only in this case it is the professional’s “duty to protect” relative to child psychological abuse by a clearly pathological parent who is inducing severe developmental, personality, and psychiatric symptoms in the child that devastate the child’s normal-range development?

I am not an attorney.  I’m a psychologist.  I can only define what the pathology is within the standard and established constructs and principles of professional clinical psychology.

But from where I sit as a psychologist, the legal issues seemingly parallel those of the Tarasoff ruling that defined the responsibilities for a mental health professional’s  “duty to protect” relative to dangerous patients, only in this case it the the mental health professional’s obligations to “use reasonable care to protect” the child from the pathogenic parenting of a psychologically decompensating narcissistic/(borderline) parent. 

But then, I’m not an attorney, I’m a psychologist.  So I may not fully understand the legal issues involved in why it is legally acceptable professional practice to not provide an accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed when the pathogenic parenting practices of a psychologically decompensating narcissistic/(borderline) parent are inducing significant developmental, personality, and psychiatric psychopathology in the child that is destroying the child’s normal-range emotional and psychological development.

Maybe there’s something I’m missing.  Or maybe not.

Paradigm Shift

This approach is NOT available under a Gardnerian paradigm.  Because using a Gardnerian model, the construct of “parental alienation” doesn’t exist in professional psychology.

Holding mental health professionals accountable only becomes available under an attachment-based reformulation for the construct of “parental alienation” that defines the pathology from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs (i.e., attachment trauma reenactment pathology).

Everyone has been lulled to sleep by the years of the Gardnerian model; i.e., that establishment mental health needs to accept a “new syndrome” and that we need to prove Gardnerian PAS in court.  No.  This is a mental health issue.  The vulnerability of the pathogen is in achieving an accurate mental health diagnosis, which means defining the pathology entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs. 

Attack the professional incompetence in the mental health system.  But to do so, we need a definition of the pathology from entirely within standard and established constructs and principles to which all mental health professionals can be held accountable.  Foundations provides this.

The paradigm shift to an attachment-based model redefines EVERYTHING, and opens up entirely new doors to the solution that are unavailable using the Gardnerian PAS paradigm.

Standard 2.01:  Mental health professionals are prohibited from practicing outside the boundaries of their competence – Q: Is the mental health professional competent in the necessary domains of professional knowledge regarding personality disorders, attachment trauma, and family systems dynamics to competently and accurately assess, diagnose, and treat this type of pathology?

Standard 9.01:  Mental health professionals must conduct assessments sufficient to substantiate their diagnosis – Q: Did the mental health professional conduct an adequate and sufficient assessment for the potential pathology associated with an attachment trauma reenactment pathology, and did the mental health professional document in the patient record the results of that assessment?

Standard 3.04:  Mental health professionals are prohibited from actions that harm their clients – Q: Did the mental health professional’s failure to possess the necessary professional competence in the relevant domains of professional psychology and failure to adequately and sufficiently assess the pathology occurring in the family result in a misdiagnosis of the pathology and inappropriate treatment that caused harm to the child and to the targeted parent?

Duty to Protect:  Did the mental health professional fulfill his or her professional obligation to protect the child from the psychological abuse inflicted on the child by the evident psychopathology and pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent?

The pathology traditionally termed “parental alienation” is a child protection issue.  It is a form of child psychological abuse.  Gardnerian PAS cannot make this case.  An attachment-based model can.

Will the malpractice suit win?  I don’t know.  As I’ve said, I’m a psychologist, not an attorney.  I can only define the pathology.  However, from where I sit as a psychologist, I suspect that with the selection of the right “test case” there would probably be an exceedingly good chance of proving that the mental health professional failed in his or her “duty to protect” because of a misdiagnosis of the pathology as a direct consequence of their practicing beyond the boundaries of their competence regarding the pathology described in an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” (attachment trauma reenactment pathology).

Possibly a more conservative approach to a lawsuit might be to first file a licensing board complaint and wait for the licensing board to rule that the mental health professional was practicing beyond the boundaries of competence, and then to bring the malpractice lawsuit.  But I suspect that with the right test case the legal team may be able to get boundaries of competence (Standard 2.01), inadequate assessment (Standard 9.01), and harm to the client (Standard 3.04) along with failure in the “duty to protect” all in a single case.  But I’m not an attorney, I’m a psychologist.

The pathology of “parental alienation” is not a child custody issue; it is a child protection issue.

Foundations defines the pathology entirely within standard and established psychological constructs and principles.

There is no such thing as “parental alienation.”  But we’re not talking about “parental alienation.”  We’re talking about the trans-generational transmission of attachment-trauma through the formation of a cross-generational coalition of the parent with the child, that is mediated by the narcissistic/(borderline) psychopathology of the allied parent.  Call it “parental alienation,” call it “pathogenic parenting,” call it “attachment trauma reenactment pathology.”  I don’t care what you label it.

What’s in a name?  that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet – Shakespeare

Or we can simply use one long paragraph-description each time we refer to the pathology.  I don’t care.  But no matter what we call it, the pathology as defined in Foundations is definitely child psychological abuse.

I am not an attorney. I am a psychologist. But surely there are attorneys out there in the targeted parent community, or their allies, who can put the pieces together.  Standards 2.01, 9.01, 3.04 and “duty to protect” – massive damage to the child’s normal-range emotional and psychological development – massive trauma to the normal-range and affectionally available targeted parent – massive professional ignorance and incompetence.  I find it hard to believe that you can’t make something out of that?

Wake Up and Fight

It is time to wake up from the slumber of Gardnerian PAS.  An attachment-based reformulation for the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” empowers you to fight back, to hold mental health professionals accountable for an appropriate assessment of the pathology and for an accurate diagnosis of the pathology.

Professional ignorance and incompetence is not allowed by existing standards of professional practice.  The theoretical Foundations on which you can stand are rock solid.  Bowlby, Beck, Millon, Minuchin, Kernberg… and on and on.

The paradigm is shifting.

Attachment-based “parental alienation,” pathogenic parenting, attachment trauma reenactment pathology… I don’t care what you call it… it is V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

What we want – what we expect – is that all mental health professionals who are working with this “special population” of children and families possess the appropriate specialized knowledge and expertise necessary and required for professionally competent practice.  These domains of professional knowledge are specifically identified in Foundations; expertise in the attachment system; in personality disorders, and in family systems constructs. 

We want, and we expect, all mental health professionals to make the appropriate and warranted DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed whenever the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology are present in the child’s symptom display (call it attachment-based “parental alienation,” call it pathogenic parenting, call it attachment trauma reenactment pathology).

• The three diagnostic indicators are noted in Professional Consultation

• They are described in Foundations

• They are offered in a Diagnostic Checklist form on my website

As you are all probably aware, I’m not an attorney, I’m a psychologist.  But as a psychologist, I wonder what sort of damages might be sought in a case of malpractice involving the misdiagnosis of child abuse?  And I’m wondering, might the mental health professional’s malpractice insurance carrier settle the case before trial because they determine it will cost them more financially to fight the case than it will cost them to simply settle the case? (and if they go to trial they might lose)

I don’t know these things, I’m not an attorney, I’m a psychologist.

What I do know, is that we will not abandon a single child to the pathology of “parental alienation.”  It stops.  Today.  Now.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

I just read the Huffington Post article by Dana Laquidara entitled:

Hope and Empowerment for Alienated Parents and Their Children

I am deeply honored and appreciative of the kind words of support from Ms. Laquidara.

Everything I do, I do for the children who are caught in the pathology of “parental alienation,” and reading Dana’s story inspires me once more as to why I’m doing this.  This is not a child custody issue, it is a child protection issue.

We must rescue the children caught in the pathology of childhood “parental alienation.” This is an imperative of the highest order.

While I can empathize with the tragedy, loss, and grief felt by targeted parents, your loss is not my primary concern.  My concern is rescuing and protecting the children.

While your loss is great and your suffering is deep, you must not wait for someone to rescue you – because your children are waiting for you to rescue them. I understand the barriers you face.  Foundations eliminates those barriers.  There is nothing standing between you and your children except the ignorance and inertia of establishment mental health.  But this is your fight, for your children.  It is up to you to rescue them.

After reading Ms. Laquidara’s account of her childhood, a fire lit once more for me. This pathology stops. Today.  Now.  We will NOT abandon one more child to the pathology of the narcissistic/borderline parent. Not one more child.

I am so done with mental health ignorance and incompetence that enables, colludes with, and supports the psychological abuse of children by a narcissistic and/or borderline personality disordered parent.

Mental health professionals have a professional OBLIGATION to protect children – not collude with and support their psychological abuse by overtly pathological parents.

Let me explain something to non-professionals (and to remind professionals)… mental health professionals have two legally binding obligations, called “duties,” the “duty to care” and the “duty to protect.”  Failure in either of these legally binding professional duties would represent malpractice.

The “duty to protect” involves our professional obligations surrounding suicidal patients, dangerous patients, domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse.  All mental health professionals receive training in our professional obligations regarding our “duty to protect” (e.g., suicide assessment and hospitalizing suicidal patients, warning the police and potential targets regarding threats made by dangerous patients, assessing and risk-management planning in cases of domestic violence, and assessing and reporting child and elder abuse).  Mental health professionals have a defined professional obligation called the “duty to protect.”

Licensing Board Complaints

Licensing board complaints are about procedural issues, such as violations of the Ethics Code. The licensing board doesn’t care about whether the diagnosis was accurate or inaccurate, or whether the right treatment was conducted.  The licensing board will simply examine whether proper professional standards of practice were followed. Licensing boards are not going to reopen and reexamine details of the case to determine whether the mental health professional made the correct diagnosis or provided the correct treatment.

Our argument to the licensing board is that the mental health professional lacked the necessary professional competence based on their prior education, training, and experience to appropriately assess, diagnose, and treat the issues involved with your children and families. We’re not going to re-argue the specifics of your case, we’re going to attack the education and training of the mental health professional in specific areas of professional competence (i.e., the attachment system, personality disorders, and family systems therapy).

This is important to understand: licensing boards don’t care if the mental health professional made the correct diagnosis or did the correct treatment based on the details of the case, they just care whether the correct professional standards of practice were followed.  Our argument in this regard is that the mental health professional did not possess the proper education, training, and experience to properly assess, diagnose, and treat this “special population” of children and families.

Malpractice Lawsuits

Malpractice lawsuits, on the other hand, are different. Malpractice lawsuits do care about what happened. Did the mental health professional get it right? Malpractice lawsuits will look at the details of the case. Was the correct diagnosis made and the correct treatment provided?

The upside to licensing board complaints is that they are free to file. The downside is that within the current climate surrounding the construct of “parental alienation” the licensing board is not likely to take action against the license of the mental health professional at this time. That’s okay.  One parent files, and another, and another, and another… eventually the licensing board will become exceedingly uncomfortable covering up for the professional incompetence of ignorant mental health professionals.  And board complaints are extremely stressful for the mental health professional and they cost you nothing to file.

Malpractice lawsuits have the downside that they will require the targeted parent to hire an attorney, so that they can be expensive. The upside is that they are exceedingly dangerous for the mental health practitioner because they do look at what was done; was the correct diagnosis made, was the correct treatment implemented? 

In addition, there is the added danger for the mental health professional that the malpractice insurance carrier will settle the case prior to trial, resulting in higher insurance rates and a permanent stain on the professional record of the mental health professional.  It’s this potential for settlement by the insurance company that makes malpractice lawsuits extremely dangerous for the mental health professional.

Professional Collusion with Child Abuse

After reading Ms. Laquidara’s article and consulting recently on several cases of “parental alienation,” I am so done with mental health incompetence that enables, colludes with, and supports the psychological abuse of children by overtly pathological parents.  The collusion of mental health professionals with the psychological abuse of children is not only a direct violation of the mental health professional’s “duty to protect,” it is a perversion of it.  Instead of protecting the child, the mental health professional is colluding with the abuse of the child.

Any mental health professional who, through willfully maintained ignorance or willfully negligent practice, enables, colludes with, and supports the psychological abuse of children, rather than fulfilling his or her professional obligation and “duty to protect” the child, deserves to lose their license to practice.

Willfully colluding with child abuse either through willfully maintained ignorance or willful professional negligence is outside the boundaries of responsible professional practice.

Ms. Laquidara’s article has lit a fire in me.  This is about the children, and this is about preventing child abuse and the destruction of children’s lives.

I will therefore do everything in my power to get the professional license revoked of any mental health professional who willfully or negligently enables, colludes with, and supports the psychological abuse of children inflicted on them by an overtly and clearly pathological parent.  Mental health professionals have a defined “duty to protect” which is a non-negotiable professional obligation.

Willful and negligent failure in the professional’s “duty to protect” is to collude with the abuse of children.  For a mental health professional to willfully or negligently collude with child abuse is reprehensible.

To Mental Health Professionals:

So let me speak directly to ignorant and incompetent mental health professionals who are, through your willful ignorance and willful negligence colluding with and supporting the psychological abuse of children by overtly pathological parents:

When you’re in the courtroom being sued by a targeted parent for malpractice, guess who’s going to be the expert consultant for the plaintiff, instructing the plaintiff’s attorney in exactly where your professional vulnerabilities are?  That would be me. Do you really want that?

And guess who’s going to be reviewing and critiquing, in detail, your chart notes, your assessment procedures, your diagnosis, and your treatment plan?  I am.  Again, do you really want that?  Do you really want me looking into and critiquing your assessment, your diagnosis, and your treatment plan – in detail – with your license on the line for a failure in your “duty to protect”?

And guess who is probably going to be writing an exhaustive 50 to 125 page report excoriating your professional practices, the accuracy of your diagnosis, the appropriateness of your treatment plan, and your abject failure in fulfilling your professional “duty to protect” – item by item, detail by detail.  Most likely me.  And when I do, I’m going to bring the full power of the theoretical material discussed in Foundations – John Bowlby, Aaron Beck, Theodore Millon, Salvador Minuchin, Marsha Linehan, Jay Haley, Peter Fonagy, Otto Kernberg, Alan Sroufe, Edward Tronick, Bessel van der Kolk, Mary Ainsworth, Marinus van Izendoorn, Mary Mains, and the wealth of scientific literature in attachment theory, personality disorders, and family systems theory – down upon your head as the standard of professional competence in assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of this special population.

All with one goal… to revoke your license to practice.

If you are a mental health professional, who through your willful maintenance of professional ignorance, negligence, and incompetence enables, colludes with, and supports the psychological abuse of children by overtly and clearly pathological parents, I am going to be your worst nightmare.

Do you really want that?  Do you really want to be sitting in a courtroom being sued for malpractice and have me as the expert consultant for the other side?  Do you really want all the power of the theoretical formulations of Foundations and your own professional ignorance being brought down upon you in an excruciating cross-examination by the plaintiff’s attorney?

V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed is an established DSM-5 diagnosis.

Mental health professionals are expected to make this diagnosis when it is warranted under their professional obligation and “duty to protect.”

When a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed is made by a mental health professional, that mental health profession is then required to take appropriate protective actions which they then document in the patient’s record.

THAT is the professional standard of practice to which you WILL BE HELD… accountable.

Just so you’re fully aware, what you will be required to defend is why you did NOT make the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed in response to significant and prominent developmental psychopathology (i.e., attachment system suppression), personality pathology (five a priori predicted narcissistic/borderline symptoms in the child’s symptom display), and psychiatric pathology (the presence in the child’s symptoms of a delusional belief and possibly induced phobic anxiety directed toward a parent) in the child’s symptom display that can ONLY be the product of pathogenic parenting by the allied and supposedly “favored” narcissistic/borderline parent (Foundations).

If you feel up to defending your lack of diagnosis as we come at you full-bore, fine by me.  Not my license.  You’ll probably want to start preparing yourself by reading up on Millon, and Beck, and Kernberg, and Bowlby, and Linehan, and Minuchin, and Haley, and…

Oh, and if you decide to go the “child was traumatized” route, I suggest you look at criterion A in the DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD, because that’s the definition of “trauma” that you’re going to be held accountable to prove, “Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence.”

But then again, maybe you’ll never have to testify in court, because maybe your malpractice insurance carrier will look at the case against you and decide that it’s in their financial interests simply to settle the case before ever reaching trial.  Let’s see, how will that be for you, having a malpractice lawsuit that was settled before trial on your professional record?

Collusion with Child Abuse Stops

I am serious as a heart-attack.  Mental health collusion with the psychological abuse of children by clearly and overtly pathological parents stops.  Today.  Now.

Mental health professionals have a professional obligation and “duty to protect” which they are expected to fulfill.

If mental health professionals think that this pathology doesn’t exist, they can take it up with Dana Laquidara, they can take it up with Ryan Thomas, and they can take it up with me.  Because we are DONE abandoning children to the psychopathology of narcissistic and borderline personality parents.

Not all post-divorce parent-child conflict is “parental alienation.”  The three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” can reliably and consistently differentiate the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation” as described in Foundations from ALL other forms of parent-child conflict, including parent-child conflict caused by authentic domestic violence and authentic physical and sexual child abuse. 

Children from authentic domestic violence and authentic physical and sexual abuse will NOT evidence a haughty and arrogant attitude or a sense of entitlement toward the authentically violent and abusive parent, so that these children will NOT meet Diagnostic Indicator 2 for attachment-based “parental alienation.”  Also, their belief in the abusive parenting practices of the authentically abusive parent is accurate, meaning that it is not delusional, so that these children will also NOT meet Diagnostic Indicator 3 for the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation.”

There is NO OTHER pathology that will produce the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” other than the psychological processes described in Foundations.

We must protect 100% of the children 100% of the time from ALL forms of child abuse, INCLUDING child psychological abuse inflicted by a psychologically unstable and decompensating narcissistic/borderline parent.

Professional collusion with child abuse stops.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

The nightmare of “parental alienation” is solved.  It’s just that no one knows it yet.

You don’t know it.  The citadel of establishment mental health doesn’t know it.  The legal system doesn’t know it.  The Gardnerians don’t know it.  But the solution to “parental alienation” is now available.

The second support booklet for Foundations – Professional Consultation – is now available on Amazon.com.

You now have the solid bedrock of Foundations on which to stand; you have a structured and defined assessment and remedy protocol you can take to the court, and you have my professional-to-professional consultation to the mental health treatment providers working with your children and family.

Foundations:  Provides the solid bedrock on which to stand.

Professional Consultation:  Obtains an accurate mental health assessment and diagnosis.

Single-Case ABAB Assessment & Remedy:  Offers the court a structured proposal for the remedy (requiring a period of protective separation).

Done.  The structural framework for the solution is in place, it simply needs to be actualized.  I’ll have additional support materials coming in the fall; including my book on Diagnosis as a companion to Foundations, and a second, and even better, court-related approach regarding a Treatment-Needs Assessment protocol.  But these will represent improvements.  With Professional Consultation, the structural framework for the solution is now in place.

Everyone has been lulled by 30 years of Gardnerian PAS into falsely believing that we need the mental health system to “accept something” and that we need to prove “parental alienation” in court.  Neither of these premises are true.

The construct we have traditionally called “parental alienation” is not some “new syndrome” that requires acceptance.  Instead, it is simply a manifestation of established and well-defined psychopathology ALREADY ACCEPTED by the citadel of establishment mental health.  We don’t need them to accept anything.  We just need them to stop being so incredibly ignorant and, because of their ignorance, so incredibly incompetent.

Professional Consultation solves this.

Professional Consultation is a 50-page booklet designed for you to give to the mental health professional involved with your children and family.  It is my professional-to-professional consultation with this other mental health professional.  I have posted the Introduction to Professional Consultation to my website so you can see the tenor and tone of the book.

In the Introduction I alert the mental health professional to the Ethics Code issues to which they will be held accountable.  In professional-speak, I am clearly being no-nonsense in getting their attention.  The clear implication of the Introduction in professional-speak is that if they don’t attend to what’s in the booklet, they do so at their own peril.

We don’t need anyone to accept anything.  We just need them to stop being so incredibly ignorant of what they should ALREADY know in order to work with you and your families.

Professional practice standards (as defined and mandated by the American Psychological Association in their Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct) do not allow mental health professionals to be ignorant (Standard 2.01a) and do not allow them to hurt you and your family because of their ignorance (Standard 3.04).

Professional practice standards also REQUIRE that mental health professionals consult with other mental health professionals “in order to serve their client/patients effectively and appropriately” (Standard 3.09), and professional practice standards REQUIRE that mental health professionals “undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence” (Standard 2.03).

These are not suggested professional practices, these are REQUIRED professional practices.

What Foundations and Professional Consultation do is fully activate all of these professional practice standards for you and your family.

If you give them Foundations, the mental health professional is likely to be arrogant and lazy, and so they may not read it.  It’s too big.  It takes too much effort to learn something.

So I intentionally limited the size of Professional Consultation to 50 pages.  A little book, not so intimidating, easily digestible.  It’s just enough information to put them on notice and hold them accountable.  It’s essentially establishing a trail of documentation that we tried to enlighten them regarding their professional obligation to be knowledgeable and competent with this “special population” of children and families.

Once they read Professional Consultation, one of three things will happen:

1.)  They will decide that the pathology being expressed in the family is over their head and beyond their competence, and they will decline the case. 

Good.  We have eliminated a “binding site of ignorance” for the pathogen who was poised to collude with the pathology in destroying your relationship with your child.

2.)  They will buy Foundations (or perhaps you can ask if they would like you to provide it to them; but based on their request for it), they will then read Foundations, and they will become competent in their assessment and diagnosis.

Excellent.  As a result of their professional competence, they will provide your child with a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed regarding the parenting practices of your ex-, which you can then take into court seeking a protective separation (Single-Case ABAB protocol).

In addition, the mental health professional will file a Suspected Child Abuse report with Child Protective Services concerning the parenting practices of your ex-.  You won’t need to make this report, the mental health professional will make this report.  When CPS comes to interview you (or the professional), give them a copy of Professional Consultation.

3.)  The mental health professional will decline to be educated but will nevertheless continue to diagnose and treat.

In which case they will be in violation of at least four professional practice standards as defined by the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association:

Standard 2.01 regarding the requirement to be professionally competent.

Standard 3.09 regarding consultation with other mental health professionals.

Standard 2.09 regarding maintaining professional competence.

Standard 3.04 regarding avoiding harm.

If the mental health professional chooses Option 3, he or she does so at their own peril.  If they choose to remain ignorant and incompetent and yet nevertheless assess, diagnose, and treat then the full weight of Foundations can be brought to bear to indict them regarding the four Standards of the Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct listed above.

If, however, they choose to develop professional competence and do the right thing, conduct the proper assessment (the Diagnostic Checklist) and make the proper DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed when the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” are present in the child’s symptom display, then they will have the full weight of Foundations to support them.

Their choice.  They can defend their diagnosis against Foundations, or they can use Foundations to support their diagnosis.  Up to them.

With Professional Consultation, all the primary pieces for the solution are now in place.  It’s just that no one knows the solution surrounds them.  Like the reference to the kingdom of heaven in the Bible, that people will look for it to arrive in some sort of thunder clap of signs to be observed but that instead it is already within our midst, the solution to “parental alienation” has not arrived with a thunderclap, but is already in our midst, and in fact the solution to “parental alienation” has been available all along.  It’s just that no one saw it.

Everyone was looking to a “new syndrome” and no one bothered to actually define the pathology within already existing, standard and established psychological principles and constructs.

Foundations corrects that.

Foundations establishes the definition of the pathology from entirely within standard and ALREADY ACCEPTED psychological principles and constructs, and in doing so it immediately empowers you, and it immediately provides the solution to the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation.”

Parental Alienation Doesn’t Exist

The solution has arrived, but no one yet sees it.  Not even you.

First, understand this: There is no such thing as “parental alienation.”

The construct of “parental alienation” does not exist as a defined construct in professional psychology.  There is NO SUCH THING as “parental alienation.”

See, it surprises you that I’d say that doesn’t it?  Not even you see that the solution ALREADY EXISTS.  We don’t need some “new syndrome” of “parental alienation.”  The pathology is already fully described within standard and established psychological principles and constructs.  Call it “parental alienation,” call it “attachment trauma reenactment pathology,” call it “pathogenic parenting,” call it “Bob” for all I care.  The pathology is already defined within the established constructs of attachment theory, personality disorders, and family systems theory.  Nothing new.

In professional psychology, there are cross-generational coalitions (Haley, 1977; Minuchin, 1974), attachment trauma reenactments (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980, van der Kolk, 1989), and personality disorder dynamics (Beck, et al., 2004; Kernberg, 1975; Millon, 2011)… but there is no such thing as “parental alienation.”

The words “parental alienation” have NO power.

An attachment-based reformulation for the construct traditionally called “parental alienation,” on the other hand, as described in Foundations, gives you tremendous power.   Because all of the things described in Foundations exist as documented facts within established psychological principles and constructs.

The solution has been there all along.  This isn’t some sort of “new” pathology.

The attachment-based reformulation for the construct traditionally called “parental alienation,” as described in Foundations, provides the solid bedrock on which we can stand and fight, and from out of this solid bedrock of established psychological principles and constructs I have forged for you the sword of your empowerment.

There is no such thing as “parental alienation.” You will not find that diagnosis in the DSM-5, because there is no such thing as “parental alienation.”

There IS the pathology of role-reversal relationships, cross-generational coalitions, personality disorders, the reenactment of childhood attachment trauma, the pathology of splitting and projection.  All of these things exist within the accepted and defined constructs of establishment mental health.  These things exist.

And when these things are present and produce a child’s rejection of a normal-range and affectionally available parent (what has traditionally been called “parental alienation”) this fully-established and fully-defined pathology warrants the following DSM-5 diagnosis as specified in Foundations:

DSM-5 Diagnosis

309.4  Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct

V61.20 Parent-Child Relational Problem

V61.29 Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress

V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed

That is the DSM-5 diagnosis for the pathology people traditionally call “parental alienation.”

Notice two things about this diagnosis of the pathology:

First, nowhere is there a diagnosis of “parental alienation” – because the diagnosis of “parental alienation” doesn’t exist. There is no such thing within establishment mental health as “parental alienation.” “Parental alienation” doesn’t exist.

Second, notice the fourth diagnosis; V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. That exists. And that’s what the construct of “parental alienation” is within standard and established forms of psychological pathology. The pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” is child psychological abuse – confirmed.

When the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based reformulation and redefinition of the pathology that has traditionally been called “parental alienation” are present in the child’s symptom display, this represents child psychological abuse – confirmed.

We do not want, and we are not seeking, a diagnosis of “parental alienation” because no such diagnosis exists within professional psychology.  What we are fully expecting, however, is that when the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology described in an attachment-based reformulation for the construct of “parental alienation” are present in the child’s symptom display, that ALL mental health professionals WILL make the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51, Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed regarding the parenting practices of your ex-.

We are also expecting that all mental health professionals will file a suspected child abuse protection report with the appropriate child protective services agency.  Not you.  You won’t be filing this report, because you won’t have to.  The mental health professional will be filing this report regarding the “confirmed” psychological abuse of your child by the distorted parenting practices of your ex-.

Will CPS do anything?  Not just yet, not today.  Because they’re still ignorant.  But once they become knowledgeable and competent, they too will confirm child psychological abuse by your ex- when the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” are present in the child’s symptom display.  When you meet with the investigator, give them a copy of Professional Consultation.

Ultimately, we may not even need to get the court to order a protective separation of your child from the pathology of your ex-, CPS will do it based on a report filed with them by the mental health professional.  That’s the goal.

By defining the construct of “parental alienation” from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, Foundations activates Standards 2.01a and 3.04 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.  You can now hold mental health professionals… accountable.

But be aware… There is NO SUCH THING in professional psychology as “parental alienation.”

The words “parental alienation” have NO power.

The weapon I have forged for you is Foundations.  This book empowers you.

Our goal is not to file licensing board complaints against incompetent mental health professionals, our goal is not to seek revenge for past wrongs that may have been done. We don’t want to hurt anyone

Our goal is to require professional competence. Give Professional Consultation to the mental health professional.  Alert them.  Invite them into knowledge.  But if they defiantly choose to remain ignorant, and because of this ignorance they wind up hurting you and your children… well, they’re not allowed to do that based on the established Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

Q:  What about Master’s level professionals who aren’t psychologists, are they covered by the same Standards?

A:  No, they have their own professional ethics codes, but they all say pretty much the same thing.  Mental health professionals are not allowed to be incompetent, and we’re not allowed to harm our clients because of our ignorance and incompetence.  It’s not allowed.

(I’m only one psychologist working to solve this as quickly as possible, and there’s only so much I can do. Start coming together and developing resources for yourselves. I’d recommend signing up for Dorcy Pruter’s companion site to the Empowerment videos. She’ll be producing support materials throughout the summer and fall, that will probably be a good resource for you all as we roll out the solution.)

The Solution

Parental alienation is solved.  It’s just that no one knows it yet.  But perhaps you’re beginning to see it.  If you still think there’s something called “parental alienation” then you’re still trapped in the old mindset.  Notice I always put quote marks around the term “parental alienation.”  There is NO DSM-5 diagnosis of “parental alienation.”  The construct of “parental alienation” does not exist in establishment mental health.

But we’re not seeking a diagnosis of “parental alienation” – we’re seeking a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.  Is the window of the solution beginning to open for you?  Are you beginning to see the path?

Foundations establishes the solid professional bedrock on which we stand.

Professional Consultation activates the already existing Standards of professional practice.  What we’re seeking from ALL mental health professionals is an appropriate assessment of the pathology (i.e., the Diagnostic Checklist) and, when the three diagnostic indicators are present in the child’s symptom display, then we want ALL mental health professionals to provide the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed (and to file a suspected child abuse report with Child Protective Services).

Then we take this confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis into the legal system (and ultimately into the Child Protective Services system) to obtain the protective separation that’s needed to restore your child’s authenticity.  Perhaps through the Single Case ABAB protocol, or perhaps through the Treatment Needs Assessment that’s coming in the fall along with the book Diagnosis.

First mental health, then the legal system.  There will be a lot of inertia and ignorance in mental health that won’t do anything (think Jabba the Hutt).  But we will be relentless.  The professional bedrock of Foundations is solid.  You have a right under Standard 2.01 to expect and receive professionally capable and competent assessment, diagnosis, and treatment for your children and your families.  This is not suggested professional practice, it is required professional practice under Standard 2.01.

We must clear out the binding sites of ignorance within mental health that the pathogen is using to disable the response of the mental health system to the pathology.  Once we have cleared out professional ignorance – and so incompetence – every single mental health professional will assess for and respond to the presence of the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” with a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed regarding the parenting practices of your ex-

Because when we define what parnetal alienation is within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, that’s exactly what it is, child psychological abuse… confirmed.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

References

Beck, A.T., Freeman, A., Davis, D.D., and Associates (2004). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. (2nd edition). New York: Guilford.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger. NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and Depression. NY: Basic Books.

Haley, J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds.), The interactional view (pp. 31-48). New York: Norton.

Kernberg, O.F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Aronson.

Millon. T. (2011). Disorders of personality: introducing a DSM/ICD spectrum from normal to abnormal. Hoboken: Wiley.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press.

van der Kolk, B.A. (1989). The compulsion to repeat the trauma: Re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 389-411.

Preface:  The Authentic Parent

With the permission of parents who are targeted by the pathology of “parental alienation,” I’m going to start referring to you as the child’s “authentic parent” rather than “targeted parent.”   A mother of former alienation recently shared with me an insight she had that the term “targeted parent” subtly identified her as the victim.

She – and you – are not victims.  You are the child’s authentic and protective parent, and you are fighting to protect your children from a very severe and malignant psychological pathology. You are targeted by the pathology, but we are done with you being a victim of the pathology. From this day forward, you are the empowered authentic parent of your child in your fight to protect and reclaim your child – your children – from the pathology of “parental alienation.”

The Single Case ABAB Protocol

In the next two blog posts I will be discussing two new booklets available for the authentic and protective parents of children who are targeted by the pathology of “parental alienation.”  

The first of these booklets is intended to support parents in their efforts within the legal system to obtain a protective separation of their children from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

The second booklet, due out in less that two weeks, is to use in your efforts to obtain professional competence from mental health professionals involved with your children and families.  This booklet represents my professional-to-professional consultation with these mental health professionals.  I will discuss this second booklet in an upcoming blog post.

The first resource for the legal system is available now through Amazon.com:

An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Single Case ABAB Assessment and Treatment

Even as we engage the battle for establishment mental health, I’m already working on the legal side of things. We are still a ways off from being able to solve the legal side, but I am turning my attention to this battle as well since I know so many of you are trying to solve the pathology of “parental alienation” today, this moment, and need all the help you can muster in your current battle.  I’ll do what I can.

The Single Case ABAB Assessment and Remedy protocol is a booklet designed for your attorneys (or for you if you’re representing yourself pro se) to give to the judge as a proposal for either assessing for possible “negative parental influence” (i.e., “parental alienation”) or as a remedy if it is determined that “parental alienation” is present.

Before we can ask your child to reveal the child’s authentic love for you, we must first be able to protect the child from the pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent. Only the Court has the power to order the child’s protective separation from the pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent during the active phase of the child’s treatment and recovery. So we must be able to obtain a Court-ordered protective separation of the child from the pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

To accomplish this on a regular basis will require mental health as your staunch ally, so our first battle is to cleanse the mental health system of its infection by the pathogen, so that we can activate the necessary response from the mental health system (i.e., a consistent DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed when the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” are present in the child’s symptom display).

But until we are able to achieve mental health as your ally, you still need solutions that you can actualize today. The Single Case ABAB Assessment and Remedy protocol offers one possible solution for obtaining the necessary Court-ordered protective separation needed to recover and restore your child’s authenticity.

Within our currently broken mental health and legal systems, the Court is likely to be reluctant to order the child’s outright protective separation from the pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent, (the supposedly “favored” parent). The Single Case ABAB protocol offers the Court an alternative.  And since it’s an assessment protocol, you can ask for it without having to “prove” parental alienation; it’s an assessment for “parental alienation.”

The Single Case ABAB protocol uses a standard research protocol called a “single-case” research design that is used frequently in mental health research with only a single child (i.e., a single case). The single-case design involves systematically collecting data through a series of structured phases. What I’ve done is apply this standard type of research methodology (i.e., a single-case ABAB reversal design) to the assessment of “parental alienation” for the Court.

Up on my website, near the top, is a Chart from the book that briefly summarizes the phases of the protocol.

The following is a description of the Single Case ABAB Assessment and Remedy protocol from the back cover of the book:

“Assessing the cause of parent-child conflict following divorce can be a complex undertaking, especially in the context of allegations that one parent is exercising negative parental influence on the child that undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent.

While securing testimony is one way to evaluate the cause of parent-child conflict and allegations of negative parental influence, a more scientifically-based approach offers an alternative solution.

Single-case research designs are an established scientific methodology for determining causality as well as treatment efficacy. A single-case ABAB reversal design is considered the best scientifically-based research methodology for determining causality with individual children and individual situations (i.e., a single case).

A Single-Case Assessment and Remedy protocol offers the Court a structured approach for ordering the systematic collection of child and family information which is needed to address the decisions before the Court.”

The High Road Protocol

Be aware, the Single-Case Assessment and Remedy protocol requires the High Road to Family Reunification intervention of Dorcy Pruter and it requires the appointment by the Court of a “supervising clinician” to oversee the implementation of the protocol, so these may be hurdles for you to overcome at this point in time.

But I have reviewed the High Road protocol and it will absolutely restore the authentic child in a matter of days. I don’t care how symptomatic they currently are.   One of the reasons the High Road protocol can do this is because it is NOT therapy. It’s a totally different type of intervention (a “catalytic” intervention rather than a “healing” intervention).

Right now the availability of this protocol is through Dorcy Pruter, but as Dorcy gets interventionists trained-up across the country this barrier will begin to dissolve. We’ll only need a couple of trained interventionists in every region of the county. Because it’s an intensive 4-day psycho-educational intervention, it can be conducted at a hotel in one of the conference rooms, so that a regional interventionist could realistically cover an entire geographic area.

Another thing is that therapists will be particularly BAD at administering the psycho-educational High Road protocol. Therapists can’t help using healing interventions of bringing up the past and talking about feelings. This is exactly the wrong thing to do with the High Road protocol. The trained interventionist simply needs to follow the steps of the protocol, no improvisation, not trying to add something to “make it better.” Just follow the instructions and follow the steps.

The protocol will work all by itself. Mental health therapists, however, will have a hard time with this. We can’t help ourselves. We want to heal. But the High Road protocol isn’t using healing therapeutic interventions, it’s using step-wise catalytic interventions that restore an authentic brain.

Once the child’s various brain systems are back up and functional, the problem’s solved. We don’t’ need to do psychological archeology of dredging up past conflicts and talking about feelings. That’s actually counter-productive because it activates latent grief and guilt in the child.

That’s one of many things that make the High Road protocol so effective, it DOESN’T do psychological archeology. It uses an entirely different approach of restoring an authentic brain. Once the child’s various brain systems (e.g., empathy, attachment, cognitive interpretation, social communication) are functioning authentically and normally, the pathology goes away.

The pathology is present because the child’s various brain systems are being distorted by the pathogenic influence of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

Separate the child from the pathogenic influence of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

Restore the normal-range and authentic functioning of the child’s various brain systems.

Poof. Pathology’s gone.

Hopefully you know by now that I am direct and forthright in what I say.  I took on ineffective “reunification therapy” in On Unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, and Reunification Therapy, comparing current “reunification therapy” to a snake oil remedy of unknown and unreliable content.  I took on Child Custody Evaluations, highlighting the complete absence of scientifically established validity for the interpretations and recommendations contained in these evaluations, and comparing the practice of child custody evaluations to “voodoo assessment.”  I even spoke directly and forthrightly to you, the child’s authentic parent, in Stark Reality, where I told you that we cannot restore your child’s authenticity until you are first able to protect your child.

Hopefully, you realize that I will speak directly. So it should hearten you to hear me say that I have reviewed the High Road protocol, I completely understand what it’s doing and how it works, and it will restore your child’s authenticity in a matter of days (with a protective separation in place).

Dorcy Pruter has the intervention in her hip pocket once we’re able to get the Court to order a protective separation of your child from the pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

In order to get the Court to order a protective separation we will need mental health to be your ally and to consistently provide the correct and accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed when the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” (Childress, 2015) are present in the child’s symptom display.

In order to get mental health as your ally in accurately and correctly diagnosing the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation,” we must cleanse the mental health system of its current infection by the pathogen which is disabling the mental health response to the pathology. View my YouTube videos on Empowerment.

Once mental health consistently provides the correct and accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, we can then take this confirmed mental health diagnosis into the legal system (and into the Child Protective Services system) to obtain the necessary protective separation of the child from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/borderline parent.

Then, when we reach this point, we’ll be able to quickly restore your authentic child. But first things first.

First mental health, then the legal system, then we can recover your child’s authenticity. “Parental alienation” is not a child custody issue, it is a child protection issue.  We must first be able to protect the child. Only then can we restore the child’s authenticity.

Finding Solutions Today

But in the meantime, as we move relentlessly toward the solution for all families and all children, many of you struggle to find a solution today, amidst the broken mental health and legal systems that surround you.

For all of you who are struggling in the current reality of the broken mental health and legal systems, the Single Case ABAB Assessment and Remedy protocol MAY be able to help. It gives you something concrete to request from the Court, without having to prove “parental alienation” in an exceedingly expensive and difficult trial.

The Single Case ABAB protocol is an assessment protocol that can determine if the cause of the child’s excessive hostility, excessive anxiety, and rejection of a normal-range and affectionally available parent is the result of “negative parental influence” (i.e., “parental alienation”) by the allied and supposedly favored parent.

The Single Case ABAB protocol offers the Court an evidence-based approach to determining the cause of the family conflict.

The Single Case ABAB protocol offers the Court an evidence-based alternative to seeking a costly and time consuming child custody evaluation that has no scientific support for the conclusions and recommendations reached.

In as little as 10-12 weeks overall, and potentially only four to six weeks of protective separation (perhaps longer in some cases, depending on individual circumstances), the Single Case ABAB protocol can provide the Court with definitive empirically-based answers.

The Single Case ABAB protocol can be submitted by your attorney as either an Assessment protocol if there are questions about whether “parental alienation” is the cause, or as a Remedy protocol if “parental alienation” is identified and the question is what to do about it.

And… the Single Case ABAB protocol provides an instrument that can be submitted as either an Assessment or Remedy intervention by you, the child’s authentic parent, when you can’t afford legal representation and are representing yourself pro se (caveat: mind you, I am a psychologist, not an attorney, and I can’t and don’t offer legal advice.  I am discussing a possible psychological intervention).

Will the Court order the Single Case ABAB protocol?  I don’t know.  I do know that the judge can’t accept it if you don’t request it. 

If nothing else, at least you will be educating the Court regarding an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.”  Maybe the judge will read the ABAB protocol and will become curious enough to read Foundations.  Wouldn’t that be wonderful, judges who understand the pathology.

Can you ask the judge to read Foundations?  No.  Can you or your attorney submit the Single Case ABAB Assessment and Remedy protocol to the judge as a proposed assessment or proposed remedy.  Absolutely.  Might this help educate the judge?  We can only hope.

For some of you, the Single Case ABAB protocol may represent a current hope. At the very least you would be acquainting the Court regarding an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” and giving the judge an alternative (and Dorcy will travel).

Our current fight is to obtain mental health as your ally. Once we have mental health as your ally we will turn to the legal system. Until we solve “parental alienation” for all children and all families, there will be no solution in your particular family.

But I know how precious your children are to you, and I know how anxious you are for a solution. As we move relentlessly toward the solution, the Single Case ABAB protocol may be of help to some of you. I am doing everything I can to get solutions out to you as soon as possible in case they might be helpful for some of you now.

Relentless

In less than two weeks another 50-page booklet will become available to you on Amazon.com entitled:

An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Professional Consultation

This 50-page booklet is what you can give to mental health professionals. It is my professional consultation to them. If you give the mental health professional Foundations they may or may not read it (likely they won’t) .

Professional Consultation is the booklet I’ve written specifically for you to give mental health professionals. It will be available on Amazon.com in less than two weeks.

I am serious. We will not tolerate for one day more the loss of your children to the pathology of “parental alienation.” The pathology of “parental alienation” ends today. Now.

We are moving relentless toward the solution. If there are five of us on the battlefield, then it will take us longer to get there, but make no mistake, we will achieve the solution. If there are hundreds of us on the battlefield, we are stronger; if there are thousands of us on the battlefield we are stronger still.

The question is not whether we will achieve a solution to “parental alienation,” the only question is how soon.

You are more powerful than you know, if you come together as one,

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

 

 

 

 

 

References

Childress, C.A. (2015). An attachment-based model of parental alienation: Foundations. Claremont, CA: Oaksong Press.

As we enter this fight to reclaim the citadel of establishment psychology as your ally I want to add a cautionary tone to the coming battle.

Our goal is not to hurt anyone.  Our goal is to protect your children.

I did not empower you with Standards 2.01 and 3.04 so that you could seek retaliatory revenge on those who you perceived wronged you.  I empowered you so you can protect your children.

Retaliation, revenge, and the expression of anger represent a narcissistic stance. 

Be kind.  Be relentless.  Expect professional competence.  But be kind.

When you interact with the world regarding our battle to protect and recover your children, you are a representative for all of us.  If you are angry, judgmental, arrogant, and contemptuous, this reflect badly on all of us.

Be kind.  Be relentless, but be kind as well.

Think Gandhi. 

Gandhi achieved independence for his country.  He was a significant pain in the rear end for the British.  But he was always kind.  Gandhi fought relentlessly against injustice.  But he was always kind.

Think Martin Luther King, Jr.  He too fought relentlessly against injustice. He would not tolerate injustice.  But he too was kind.  The whites said sit in the back of the bus. Rosa Parks sat in the front.  The lunch counter sign said “whites only,” so the black activists sat at the lunch counter.  We too can fight injustice, can fight for your children, and yet we can also remain true to our values  Our goal is not to hurt anyone.  Our goal is to protect your children.

Contradict by Being

In therapy, the child and parent will sometimes have this exchange,

Child: “You never listen to me.”

Parent:  “Yes I do.  I listen to you.”

No you don’t.  You didn’t listen just then.  In the response, “Yes I do” you just demonstrated that no you don’t.  You just made the child’s case behaviorally in your response.

Contrast that with this exchange

Child: “You never listen to me.”

Parent:  “Really, you think so?  Tell me more about that. What would you like me to know?

Home run.  The parent just hit it out of the park.  In this response, the parent demonstrated listening to the child.  The parent just proved that the child is incorrect, that the parent does listen to the child; not by the words of the parent’s response, but by the actions of the parent’s response.

The narcissistic/(borderline) parent and child are trying to frame you as being the mean and “abusive” parent.

So do you counter this by being angry and arrogant, demanding professional competence and retaliating against people who don’t do what you say?

Or do you counter this by being kind?  By dialoguing with others and expressing compassionate concern for your child?  Do you counter it by listening and by being kind?  Oh yes, and by relentlessly expecting professional competence.

Convince others that the narrative being constructed about you is false, not by your words, but by your actions.  Be kind.

But be relentless in your struggle to protect your children.  Neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King, Jr. were pushovers.  Both led heroic and successful struggles against injustice.  Neither would tolerate injustice.  They were tough as nails.  And both were, at the same time, kind.

Those in mental health who are now adversaries, will soon be your allies.  Be kind to your soon-to-be allies.

Represent Well

When you interact with the world – therapists, attorneys, the media – regarding “parental alienation” you represent all of us.

Control your anger and frustration.  Do not seek retaliation, even as you expect and require professional competence.  Be kind.

If you file a licensing board complaint you are threatening the livelihood of that person.  You are threatening their ability to provide for their families.  You don’t want to do that.  Do it if you must in order to protect your children from continuing abuse as a result of mental health ignorance that colludes with the pathology.  But don’t want to do it.

Up on my website is a Diagnostic Checklist handout for the indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation.” 

Before becoming problematic for the mental health professional, kindly suggest that the mental health professional read Foundations.and provide them with this Diagnostic Checklist.  Suggest that they “consult” with me.  Make every effort to be agreeable and pleasant, short of allowing your child to be psychologically abused because the mental health professional is ignorant and entrenched in his or her ignorance.

Represent us well.  Be relentless, and be kind.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Not one more day will we tolerate the abandonment of your children to the trauma of “parental alienation.” Not one day more.

The trauma and psychological child abuse of “parental alienation” stops. Today. Now.

My YouTube videos on Empowerment are currently available. Watch them.

It is time to stand and fight.

You are no longer a victim.  You are the fierce and powerful parent who is fighting to rescue and protect your children.

I have forged for you a weapon from out of the solid bedrock of Foundations. It is time to plant your feet firmly on the solid bedrock of scientifically established Foundations and fight… fight to protect and rescue your children. The time has come to rescue and recover your authentic children from the pathogen of “parental alienation.”

If you have not read Foundations… shame on you. Your empowerment is through the professional words-of-power I provide you in Foundations. There will be no place on this battlefield for Gardnerian PAS or for ignorance. If you simply want to complain about your victimization… go away. I have no patience for you. The rest of us have work to do.

If you have yet to read Foundations… get on it. Every day is another lost day. As you can tell from my Empowerment videos, I’m serious. We are going to get your children back. All of your children, from ages five to fifty. We will not abandon a single child to the trauma pathogen of “parental alienation.”

Your days of victimization are done. You are a victim no more. You are a fierce and mighty warrior for your children. You are empowered.

Reformulating “Parental Alienation”

This is important to understand… In the 1980s Richard Gardner proposed a “new syndrome” based on a set of anecdotal clinical signs that had no relationship to any established professional constructs or principles. In proposing a “new syndrome” of PAS Gardner allowed the citadel of establishment mental health to either accept or reject his new proposal. They rejected it. And for 30 years they have rejected a “new syndrome” of “parental alienation.”

With Foundations, I have reformulated and redefined the construct of “parental alienation” from entirely within established and accepted professional constructs and principles, to which ALL mental health professionals can be held… accountable.

There is NOTHING for them to accept or reject.

They have already ACCEPTED all of the component principles and constructs on which this reformulation of “parental alienation” is based.  

Because the citadel of establishment mental health could – and did – reject Gardner’s proposal for a “new syndrome” the standards of practice defined in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association did NOT apply to the construct of “parental alienation” – as defined by Gardnerian PAS.

HOWEVER, because I have reformulated the definition of what “parental alienation” is using standard and established psychological principles and constructs, this activates for you the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

You are now empowered.

Standards of Practice

The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association prohibit professional ignorance and incompetence.

The prohibition of professional ignorance and incompetence is Standard 2.01. Mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to be ignorant and incompetent. 

Being ignorant and incompetent as a mental health professional is a VIOLATION of professional standards of practice and is subject to administrative and possibly legal sanctions.

If they are ignorant and incompetent then this represents a “cause of action” against the professional license of the mental health professional under Standard 2.01 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.  These are not “suggested” standards of practice.  These are the established standards of practice developed by the citadel of professional psychology to which all psychologists are held accountable.

Gardner’s proposal for a “new syndrome” of PAS DOES NOT activate Standard 2.01 for you because his proposal for a “new syndrome” has been rejected by the citadel of establishment mental health.

Foundations DOES NOT propose a “new syndrome.”

Foundations defines and describes the construct of “parental alienation” from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs.

Foundations (i.e., an attachment-based reformulation for the construct of “parental alienation”) activates Standard 2.01 for you.

You are now empowered. You are now dangerous to ignorance and incompetence.

You must now use your new-found dangerousness to ignorance, your weapon forged from the solid bedrock of scientifically supported Foundations, to entirely eliminate from mental health the ignorance and incompetence regarding the nature, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of this pathogen.

Not with pleading and asking and requesting. NO. We’re done with that. Use the white hot iron of Standard 2.01 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association to sear and cauterize each individual binding site of ignorance by which the pathogen of “parental alienation” is infecting and disabling the mental health system response to the pathology of “parental alienation.”

You CANNOT do this if you try to use a Gardnerian PAS model. If you claim that the therapist did not diagnose or appropriately treat “parental alienation,” nothing will change and you will remain entirely helpless and dis-empowered.

There is NO DIAGNOSIS of “parental alienation.” The diagnosis of “parental alienation” doesn’t exist.

You MUST use an attachment-based reformulation for the construct of “parental alienation.” Why do I always put the words “parental alienation” in quotes? If you don’t know, shame on you. Read Foundations, it’s in the Introduction chapter.  Or go to Dorcy Pruter’s companion site for the video series on Empowerment.  I’ve provided her with a pdf of the Introduction chapter of Foundations to offer to you free.

“Parental alienation” as a construct doesn’t exist.

It is, HOWEVER, a composite construct composed of underlying family systems, personality disorder, and attachment system processes.

The correct professional term for “parental alienation” is pathogenic parenting. Start there. That the therapist did not properly assess and treat pathogenic parenting (notice I did not put this term in quotes; because pathogenic parenting is a defined professional term that exists within the citadel of establishment mental health).

Then, you move on from there to question the professional competence of the binding site of ignorance in family systems theory.  What training did the binding site of ignorance have in family systems therapy?  Why did the binding site of ignorance NOT diagnose the child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational coalition with the allied and supposedly favored parent against you? Notice how I’m using the professional words-of-power that I’ve given you in Foundations.

I’ll be writing more about this as the summer progresses. Stay tuned.

BUT, you cannot fight ignorance by being ignorant.  The words “parental alienation” have NO power.

The words I give you in Foundations, however, activate Standard 2.01 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

With Standard 2.01 you become dangerous and someone to be reckoned with. You become empowered to protect your children.

Standard 2.01

Standard 2.01 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association states:

“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”

Essentially what this says is that psychologists are NOT ALLOWED to be ignorant or incompetent.

In the first three sections of Foundations I establish the theoretical and scientific foundations to activate Standard 2.01 for you. In Section 4 of Foundations I specifically define the domains of knowledge necessary for competent professional practice with this “special population” of children and families.

With regard to your children and your families, from this point forward, because of the reformulation provided by Foundations, mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to be ignorant and incompetent.  From this point forward, mental health professionals are expected to know what they are doing and they must make the proper diagnosis.

Professional competence is not a “suggested” professional practice, it is a required professional obligation.

And, it is NOT up to you to educate mental health professionals. It is THEIR professional obligation to already be educated.

Diagnosis

But be aware, the proper diagnosis is NOT “parental alienation.”  There is NO SUCH THING as a diagnosis of “parental alienation.”  The words “parental alienation” have NO power.

The professional words-of-power are in Foundations; role-reversal relationship, trauma reenactment, pathogenic parenting, decompensation of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality into delusional beliefs, cross-generational coalitions, splitting.

The actual DSM-5 diagnosis that we are requiring be made is:

DSM-5 Diagnosis

309.4    Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct

V61.20 Parent-Child Relational Problem

V61.29 Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress

V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed

It’s that final diagnosis, of V995.51 that we want.  Attachment-based “parental alienation” is not a child custody issue, it is a child protection issue.  Why do you think I drive that point home in the first video segment of Empowerment?  That is our framing of the reformulation.

Attachment-based “parental alienation” is not a child custody issue, it is a child protection issue, and we expect that ALL mental health professionals provide a diagnosis of:

V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed

When the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” are present

As described in Foundations.

There is NO diagnosis of “parental alienation.”  You cannot be ignorant and expect anything to change.  You must read Foundations and become knowledgeable about the professional words-of-power.

Professional Competence

There is nothing new about personality disorders. These are standard and established professional constructs.

There is nothing new about the attachment system, this is an established psychological construct.

There is nothing new about delusions, they are an established psychological construct.

There is nothing new about a cross-generational parent-child coalition, this is an established psychological construct.

If mental health professionals are working with a “special population” of children and families evidencing these forms of pathology, it is the OBLIGATION of the mental health professional to be knowledgeable about these domains of professional knowledge. If not, then that professional is practicing outside the boundaries of his or her competence in likely violation of Standard 2.01 of the APA Ethics Code.

It doesn’t matter if they’ve read Foundations or not.

All I’ve done in Foundations is made it easy for them – and empowered you.  But the component principles I discuss in Foundations are ALL standard and established psychological constructs and principles. I didn’t have a book Foundations to read when I first encountered “parental alienation,” yet I was able to immediately recognize the pathology. Because I know what I’m doing.

If they don’t know what they’re doing, that’s their problem, NOT yours. You do NOT need to educate them. They should already BE educated. You have a right to expect professional competence based on Standard 2.01 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

From this point forward, all mental health professionals MUST make the correct diagnosis of the pathology (V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed) when the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” are present in the child’s symptom display. We will no longer tolerate professional ignorance and professional incompetence.

Plant your feet on the solid professional bedrock of Foundations and fight. That is your right. In fact, that is your obligation as your child’s true and authentic parent. The first obligation of an authentic parent is to protect your children. Foundations empowers you to do just that.

If any mental health professional wants to argue about it, let them discuss it with their licensing board.  Or, if you want, just have them take it up with me. My email address is drcraigchildress@gmail.com.  Think of me (and Foundations) as your  psychological consultant to these binding sites of ignorance.  You do not need to argue with them, you do not need to educate them.  You just need to cauterize these binding sites of ignorance with the white hot iron of Standard 2.01… and Standard 3.04.

Standard 3.04

Standard 3.04 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association on Avoiding Harm states that:

“Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.”

Mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to harm their clients, especially if the harm is the result of practice beyond the boundaries of professional competence in violation of Standard 2.01.

Avoiding harm to clients is NOT a “suggested” professional practice, it is a required professional obligation.

From this point on, mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to collude with pathology because of their ignorance and incompetence to the destruction of your life and your children’s lives.

Has any mental health professional involved with your family failed to recognize the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation” as described in Foundations (remember, the simple words “parental alienation” have NO power), and as a result harm was done to you and your child because of their failure to appropriately diagnose the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed when the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” as described in Foundations were present?

If so, then the professional ignorance and incompetence of these mental health practitioners has:

Caused harm to you and your child (their clients) in violation of Standard 3.04 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association…

… as a result of their practice beyond the boundaries of their professional competence, in violation of Standard 2.01 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

From this point forward, mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to be ignorant and incompetent.

And, they are NOT ALLOWED to destroy the lives of children and families because of their professional ignorance and incompetence..

If they don’t like it then they have two choices;

• Become knowledgeable and competent.

• Go away and don’t treat this “special population” of children and families.
  

What they are NOT ALLOWED to do is to remain ignorant and incompetent and destroy the lives of children and families as a result. That stops. Today. Now.

Possible Causes of Action

Up on my website in the “Parental Alienation” section, right at the very top posting, is a handout regarding Possible Causes of Action against the license of a mental health professional who fails to identify the pathology and who fails to make the correct diagnosis (i.e., a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed as set out in Foundations).

I will be providing more supporting material across the summer.

Watch my new YouTube video series: Empowerment

Attorney Collaboration

Let me close by putting out this open call for collaboration with any attorneys out there who want to work with me on:

1.) Identifying particularly egregious cases of professional incompetence that could serve as “test cases” for professional malpractice.

2.) Collaborate on writing handouts for targeted parents on how to file their licensing board complaints.

Not one more day will we tolerate the abandonment of your children to the trauma pathogen of “parental alienation.” Not one day more.

 Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Psychologist, PSY 18857