I hear people say, why can’t the Gardnerians and Childress just cooperate and come together in a single voice?
And the Garnerians are trying to pin the blame on me for not cooperating. That I’m being “divisive” and that it’s me who’s unwilling to cooperate with them. Nooooo, it’s the Garderian PAS “experts” who are being entirely obstinate and inflexible – and irrational.
It is the Gardnerian PAS “experts” who are not cooperating by insisting that we continue to diagnose the pathology in exactly the same way that is creating the current failed mental health and legal system response to the pathology.
I’m sure many of you are familiar with the communication pathology of your ex-spouse, who provoked, and provoked, and provoked you until you became angry, and then when you finally became angry, they blame you for being angry? You all know the pathology of this.
The Garnerian PAS “experts” are being irrationally stubborn and inflexible, and then when I call them out for being irrationally stubborn and inflexible, they accuse me of creating division.
Let me be entirely clear, Dr. Childress is in 100% agreement that we should come together into a single voice. So why aren’t the Gardnerian PAS “experts” joining us in a single voice?
Why can’t the Gardnerians support AB-PA and three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA that lead directly to a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed?
This is really important to understand:
The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA lead directly to a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.
The 8 symptom identifiers of Gardnerian PAS don’t.
That’s the truth. It’s as simple as that.
I’m a clinical psychologist. I can explain to you in detail why this is the simple truth. But a far more obvious explanation is this:
We are currently using the 8 Gardnerian PAS symptom identifiers (or random derivatives), and using the 8 Garnerian symptom identifiers to diagnose the pathology is producing EXACTLY the situation we have right now.
If you’re happy with the situation we have right now, fine… let’s continue using the Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers to diagnose the pathology.
If you’re not happy with the way things are right now, then we need to change how we are diagnosing the pathology.
I’m a clinical psychologist. Diagnosing pathology is what I do. I absolutely 100% guarantee that the moment we start using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA we will be able to get a DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.
I have already consulted with therapists who have used the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA and who have given the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse. This diagnostic solution is available right now – today.
But I think it’s pretty goll darn obvious to everyone that using the Gardnerian PAS 8 symptom identifiers produces a completely failed mental health system response to the pathology.
If we switch to using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA (the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting), then this leads directly to a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.
Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) is a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.
I am a clinical psychologist. I do diagnosis of pathology. Let me assure you, there is NO WAY that using the Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers will EVER lead to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse – EVER. I can explain in detail why this is, but simply accept this:
If the Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers COULD produce a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, don’t you think the pathology in your family would have received this diagnosis by now?
Has anyone out there gotten a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse from a mental health professional using the Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers?
Because the field of professional psychology is currently using the Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers (or random derivatives) to diagnose the pathology, so the response you are currently receiving from the mental health system is EXACTLY what is created by using the Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers.
That’s really-really important for everyone to understand. The Gardnerians are sowing confusion by acting as if the 8 symptom identifiers of Gardnerian PAS lead to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse. They don’t.
The Gardnerians are deceiving you by implying that “everyone agrees that parental alienation is child abuse.” There is only one path to getting the DSM-5 diagnosis. I’m a clinical psychologist. Diagnosis of pathology is what I do. There is NO WAY that the 8 symptom identifiers of Gardnerian PAS will EVER lead to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse. Ever.
If the Gardnerians are going to maintain that the 8 symptom identifiers lead to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse (rather than to alternative diagnoses of “bad parenting” by the allied parent, or shared parenting problems, or claims of “justified estrangement”), then it is incumbent upon the Gardnerians to lay out this diagnostic claim at a professional-level of detail.
Because, for the life of me as a clinical psychologist, I can’t see it – and the current absence of this diagnosis is evidence that no one else sees it either since we are currently using the Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers (or random derivatives) to diagnose the pathology and your family has not received the diagnosis of Child Psychological Child Abuse.
So if the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA lead directly to a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, and the Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers don’t and never will, then why are the Gardnerian PAS advocates REFUSING to advocate that all mental health professionals begin using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA?
The Gardnerians can add their 8 symptom indicators of Gardnerian PAS to the three diagnositic indicators of AB-PA if they want to. It doesn’t matter to me.
Once we start using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA, the 8 symptom indicators of Gardnerian PAS become superfluous and unnecessary, but if the Gardnerians want to add them and continue to use them, that’s fine with me. They can say the moon is made of green cheese for all I care, just let’s all start advocating that all mental health professionals begin routinely using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA in assessing attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce so that targeted parents and their children will be provided with a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology in their families.
The 8 symptom identifiers of Gardnerian PAS do NOT lead to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse.
The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA do.
It is as simple as that.
The ONLY path to getting a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology is through the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA, so let’s ALL start advocating that ALL mental health professionals routinely use the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA in ALL cases of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.
But Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall and the other Gardnerian PAS “experts” are REFUSING to advocate that all mental health professionals routinely use the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA (the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting) in all cases of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.
Why are they refusing to join us in advocating for this? The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA lead directly to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse.
The REFUSAL of Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall and the other Gardnerian PAS “experts” to advocate that all mental health professionals routinely use the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA (the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting) is essentially denying countless families the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology.
Why are Bill Bernet, Karen Woodall, and the other Gardnerian PAS “experts” denying targeted parents and their children the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology? It makes no sense.
Wouldn’t the position taken by Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall and the other Gardnerian PAS “experts” essentially mean that more children and more families would be unnecessarily sacrificed to the pathology when there is a path out of the pathology”? Yes it would.
Why are they not joining us in providing targeted parents with the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology? It makes no sense.
Actually, it does make sense once we recognize that they want to remain “experts,” and that the moment we switch to using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA, they cease to be “experts,” because they are only “experts” in Gardnerian PAS and its 8 symptom identifiers.
“But they can still add their 8 Gardnerian symptom identifiers to the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA.”
Yes, I know. But that’s not the point for them. Once we switch to using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA, the 8 symptom indicators of Gardnerian PAS become superfluous and unnecessary, and they lose their importance as Gardnerian PAS “experts.”
Still, the Gardnerians can ADD whatever they want. If they want to add the Gardnerian PAS 8 symptom identifiers, fine by me. They can add that the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. Just join us in advocating that all mental health professionals routinely use the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA (the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting) in all cases of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.
The problem I have with the Gardnerian PAS “experts” is that they are willing to sacrifice countless children and families to continued pathology – by withholding their support and needlessly delaying our ability to provide these parents and their families with the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse available from the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA, which then serves as the professional rationale for the protective separation. I find their willingness to needlessly sacrifice more children and more families to the pathology to be reprehensible.
Why are they willing to deny targeted parents access to a simple diagnostic procedure (the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting) that gives targeted parents and their families the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Child Abuse for the pathology?
The Gardnerian 8 symptom identifiers do NOT lead to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse. The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA do. It’s as simple as that.
And the thing is… the Gardnerian PAS “experts” know this. Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall know this.
And yet, the Gardnerian PAS “experts” are advocating that we continue to do exactly the same thing we’re currently doing, that we keep everything exactly the same in how we diagnose the pathology, despite knowing that this creates EXACTLY what we have right now.
Oh, they ARE advocating that we increase the number of Gardnerian PAS “experts” from 100 to 200 (as if that’s going to do anything), but otherwise they are advocating that everything else remains exactly as it is, that how we diagnose the pathology remains exactly the same as what we’re doing right now.
Why are they doing this? Why are they REFUSING to join us in seeking a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA?
And once we get the accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology, this then provides the professional rationale for the protective separation. In all cases of child abuse – physical child abuse, sexual child abuse, and psychological child abuse – our first obligation is to protectively separate the child from the abusive parent.
Assessment lead to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.
Simple-simple-simple.
So why are the Gardnerian PAS “experts” – why are Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall – REFUSING to join us in our efforts to get the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse and a protective separation for this family pathology?
Why are the Gardnerian PAS “experts” – why are Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall – REFUSING to join us in advocating that all mental health professionals routinely assess for the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA that lead directly to a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed?
Why are the Garnerian PAS “experts” – why are Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall – sowing discord and disharmony with Dr. Childress by REFUSING to join us in advocating that all mental health professionals routinely use the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA that lead directly to a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed?
And they then try to hold me responsible for creating the discord and disharmony. When it’s their entirely stubborn and obstinate – and completely irrational – REFUSAL to join with us in obtaining the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse that is creating the rift between us.
The Gardnerians can add the Garnderian 8 symptom identifiers if they like. Fine by me. Once we start using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA the Garnerian 8 symptom identifiers become superfluous and unnecessary, but my goodness gracious, I don’t care what the Gardnerians add. If they want to propose that pathology is caused by ancient aliens, fine by me. Just start using your power, position, and voice to begin advocating that ALL mental health professionals should begin routinely using the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA so that we can get the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for this pathology.
But they refuse.
So for the people calling for unity between Dr. Childress and the Gardnerians, I’m all for that. Woo hoo. Let’s all come together into a single voice.
But I will not abandon targeted parents and their children as a price for this “professional unity,” and I will NOT sacrifice targeted parents and their children to the current situation if that is the price to be paid for “unity” in achieving a single professional voice.
The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA lead directly to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, and this then serves as the professional rationale for the protective separation of the child from the abusive parent.
Targeted parents and their children need this diagnosis and the protective separation treatment response to the pathology. I will NOT compromise on giving this to them. I will NOT abandon and sacrifice targeted parents and their children to the pathology as the price to be paid for inter-professional “peace.”
If, however, the Gardnerian PAS “experts” – Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall – begin to cooperate, and begin to advocate that ALL mental health professionals routinely use the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA in their assessments of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce – then targeted parents and their children will be provided with the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology – and then we will have peace between Dr. Childress and the Gardnerians – we will have a single united voice.
The Gardnerians can the add on whatever they want. I don’t care.
But as long as the Gardnerians – Bill Bernet and Karen Woodall – REFUSE to advocate with us for the routine use of the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA that will provide targeted parents with a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology in their families, then the Gardnerians become obstructionists who are seeking to maintain the status quo of no solution and rampant professional ignorance and incompetence – and they become willing to sacrifice targeted parents and their children to the pathology. That is not acceptable.
I will NOT sacrifice targeted parents and their children to the pathology as the price to be paid for professional peace with the Gardnerians. They have it in their power to bring peace between themselves and Dr. Childress.
They must join us in advocating that all mental health professionals routinely use the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA (the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting) that will provide targeted parents with a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology in their families, and that will then provide the professional rationale for the necessary protective separation period.
On that you will have no compromise from me. I will NOT sacrifice children and families to the pathology in order to achieve peace with the Gardnerians.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857
Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based "Parental Alienation" (AB-PA) 
Dear Dr. Childress,
Your collective work has been a large part of what has kept me alive.
I continue to try to harvest the energy to write the complaints to the state licensing agencies about the multitude of mental health professionals involved in my children’s lives who have violated their responsibilities.
At this time, I am writing to you to ask you to try and not fall prey and/or engage in this disagreement between Gardnerians and Childress’. You have written a large volume of factual information stating the pros and cons of all the information available to date regarding AB-PA.
The last article that I read from your blog was about someone taking credit for your work. Good for you for speaking up.
This one, upon first reading, sounds like you are becoming more like me than the person who has the answers and is leading the solution.
I’m just a mom. I’ve read all that I can find that you have written.
You are a true Hero.
Though I am grateful to Dr. Gardner for bringing this topic to our awareness, I am very, very grateful to you for taking what could have been swept under the proverbial rug, and running with it.
Please consider taking the High Road and don’t let your focus be taken off of the Solution.
“So what” if people say this, that, or the other. We Alienated Parents have been living with this for a long time and you are showing us the light ahead. Don’t let anyone stop you!
I need you. Millions of others need you.
Ignore the ignorant.
Sincerely
Kim Koogle
>
I feel your pain. Kidnapped toddlers and severe abuse in evry way
He literally stole my children (toddlers over 160 days now) and left me with nothing. Literally threw Eben my positions –
My furniture and clothes. So
In rggards to your comment, you’re missing the point .
The PASers are emotionally tied to the lable. They feel like they are abandoning him and his efforts.
But that has nothing to do with solving the problem .
This pathogen has evolved over biology. Thdt makes it science. Aciencd is exact .
That means that x+x=y
There’s only ONE way to achieve y, and it takes X
you can’t use a or c or z or k.
It must be exact
It must be x
X In this case is using the same laws of science to fight science (the pathogen is biology and chemistry and neurology and blah blah blah ect) Testing the pathogen and using other well estblished cobsteucts in paychology and psychiatry to confirm aspects of other tests to show that the resulting behaviour of the pathogen ia exact. The context may vary, the the narrow tragectory of the pathogen functions the same way -EVERY. TIME. –
That means you can’t say x+x and a little bit of z = y
It just physically doesn’t
It’s important to recognize that x can only be X and nothing else. That’s why we must stand together.
Don’t let emotions get the best of you because… it will get the best of all of ys… and our children.
Playing “nice’ isn’t the issue.
We need to change the perspective of the dynamic and iand what the problem is
It’s formulaic and nothing else.
KG
IN SOLIDARITY WE WILL CONQUER
I am wondering if there is a possible template focused on the complaints process of the numerous and different jurisdictions/states/provinces/countries for which target parents can utilize in formulating their complaints efficiently? Woukd this eliminate mistakes in definitive interpretations or techinical dismissals by the bodies and licensing boards receiving said complaints?
If there are no such templates outside of your general and informed teaching and recomending of what to underline in making our complaint, (segment 7 on your youtube chanel-protecting the allys in mental health) could you possibly produce such templates in accordance with the numerous codes, standards and their subtle variations in wording?
If there’s a way I (or we) can help or and how or what we can do in the spirit of this idea or effect otherwise, what would that be?
Are all the specific and numerous psychological associations and colleges similar in their definitions of paractice ethics and values?
In terms of complaints relative to The Binding sites of ignorance and incompetence, are there any specific variables to watch for that would need further consideration when writing our complaints? Should these subtleties be factoted in to our complaints of the ignorant mental health professional’s faulty and damaging assessments by not administering the checklist into attachment based model of Parental alienation as specified in Foundations?
If these templates don’t exist, I’ll say that I think they would be very helpful. I think they could perpetuate progress in this united campaign to end ‘parental alienation’, (all in this together).
It could make the process and its interpretation more accessible and united.
These templates could potentially be a premtive defense factor to eliminate the hurdles in leaving no room for mistakes or missed opportunities, or dismissals based on “technicalities” in wording.
The differentiation of the numerous codes of conduct and practice standards that vary only slightly, but could make a difference in the success of the complaint in beating the pathogen one binding site at a time.
With the varying bodies and their individual specifications do our complaints and the their wording need certain considerations?
Is this even a problem? Or am I just ruminating over nothing?
Target mom in B.C Canada with a very viable complaint ready to send to the College of Psychologists of British Columbia
I wholeheartedly agree with you Kim!
Dr Childress has worked so diligently to solve this HORRIBLE EVIL pathology I am surprised his colleagues aren’t rallying around him celebrating his work! Isn’t that what they are all about, best interest for the children and families? No I’m not surprised. There’s always going to be jealous prideful people BUT we will prevail! The next generation is going to be all screwed up all over the world if we don’t STOP this PATHOGEN!
Parents will never STOP trying to save their children because they are a parent!
Great work Dr Childress!
Reblogged this on Parental Alienation.