A Call for Unity: A Single Voice for Solution

Well, it seems like the deadline for the Gardnerian-based solution has come and gone, and all we’ve heard is crickets.

They propose no solution to “parental alienation.”

The Gardnerians have no solution using the Gardnerian PAS model except 30 more years of exactly the same thing.

I am therefore calling for unity in our fight to save the children.  We need to come together to enact the solution as quickly as we humanly can.  Targeted parents and their children need a solution.  They don’t need professionals arguing about how many angels can dance on a head of a pin. They need this pathology to stop – today.

I have posted the path to the solution that is available from enacting a change to an AB-PA diagnostic model:

Solutions: A Return to Professional Practice

Solutions: The Dominoes

We need to bring all of our voices together – all of them – into a single voice for change.  We need to stop the suffering of targeted parents and their children as quickly as we possibly can.

I am therefore calling specifically on:

Bill Bernet

Karen Woodall

Amy Baker

the Parental Alienation Study Group

and all of the Gardnerian PAS contingent of “experts” – and on everyone who wants to see the pathology of “parental alienation” come to an end – to JOIN US in advocating for a professional standard of practice using the AB-PA diagnostic model.

Join us in advocating for a professional standard of practice and standardized assessment protocol for attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce using the AB-PA diagnostic model for the pathology.

AB-PA offers a solution (The Solution series: Return to Professional Practice; Dominoes).  Gardnerian PAS does not (crickets).

I don’t care if the Gardnerians “think” their diagnostic model is better.  The issue is a solution.  We need a solution.  Targeted parents and their children need a solution.

If the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model with its eight symptom identifiers produces NO SOLUTION – then we need to change to the AB-PA diagnostic system that leads to an immediate solution.

And everyone – everyone – should be working toward that SAME goal.

I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  That’s not relevant.  The ONLY thing that’s relevant is a solution – targeted parents and their children are suffering – daily.  Day-after-day their grief and suffering continues, and day-after-day we continue to lose more and more children and families to the pathology.

There is urgency.

This cannot wait, we cannot delay.  Each day that is lost can never be recaptured.

Mental health professionals – the Gardnerian PAS “experts” – need to STOP arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and they need to work WITH US – not against us – in bringing a solution – one that is achievable today – to end the suffering of targeted parents and their children.

The time has come for ALL mental health professionals – including Bill Bernet, Karen Woodall, Amy Baker, and the PASG – to endorse an AB-PA diagnostic model that provides these parents and their children with a solution – an end – to the nightmare of “parental alienation.”

Let’s put the two models for a solution side-by-side:

AB-PA:  The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: nothing.

Let’s now make a reasoned decision on the path moving forward.

AB-PA provides a clear and actualizable path to a solution.  Gardnerian PAS offers no solution.

It is time for ALL mental health professionals – ALL mental health professionals – to bring our voices together into one single unified voice for change – into one single unified voice for the solution to “parental alienation.”

I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – that’s not relevant.  Each day that passes is another day lost in the lives of a loving targeted parent and child that can NEVER be recaptured. Children are only 10-years-old for a year – they are only 12-years-old for a year.  Times of love and bonding that are lost during childhood are lost forever.

Childhoods are being lost as we stand by and bicker about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  ENOUGH.

It is time for a solution.  It is long-past overdue for a solution.

It is time we come together into a single voice for change that will bring these targeted parents and their children a solution – today – now.

The grief of targeted parents is immense and utterly overwhelming.  Day-by day –  each day – they suffer so terribly.

We must ALL do everything we possibly can – everything we possibly can – to bring this suffering to an end as quickly as is humanly possible.

I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That’s not relevant. The ONLY thing that’s relevant is a solution to end the suffering of targeted parents and the psychological abuse of their children.

Delaying the solution by a single day when we possibly could have solved it is abhorrent and unacceptable.  We need to solve this as fast as we possibly can.

It is time for ALL mental health professionals to join together in a single voice for change, in a single unified voice advocating for a professional standard of practice using the AB-PA diagnostic model for the pathology:

AB-PA:  The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: nothing.

It is not relevant how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  It’s not relevant if you think this or that way of diagnosing the pathology is “better” – NOT relevant.  The ONLY thing that is relevant is the solution – we MUST end the suffering.  What is the path to a solution?  That is the ONLY relevant question.

The answer:

AB-PA:  The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: nothing.

Both the AB-PA diagnostic model and the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model have had full and complete opportunities to describe their respective paths to a solution.  We can now make a reasoned and considered decision on our path moving forward.

AB-PA provides a solution to targeted parents and their children that we can actualize today to end the suffering of these parents and their children today, and Gardnerian PAS offers no solution whatsoever – just 30 more years of the same.

ALL mental health professionals MUST place the needs of their clients first.  I don’t care about your dancing angels.

There is NO rational reason that would prevent us from coming together into a single voice in advocating for a professional standard of practice using the AB-PA diagnostic model for the assessment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.

“Dr. Childress is wrong thinking only he has the solution.”

AB-PA:  8/6/17 – The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: 9/1/17 – nothing.

No, I’m not wrong.  The AB-PA diagnostic model provides a solution.  The Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model does not.

“Our model with eight diagnostic symptoms is better”

Dr. Childress: Does it lead to a solution?

“No.”

Dr. Childress:  Then your preferred approach is not relevant to a professional-level decision.  The ONLY thing that is relevant at the professional level is a solution – because a solution is in the best interests of the client.

AB-PA:  The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: nothing.

It is not relevant how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  The immense grief and suffering of targeted parents as they are forced to watch helplessly as their children are psychologically destroyed and abused by the pathology of their narcissistic/(borderline) ex- MUST STOP.

It MUST stop.

That is the ONLY relevant consideration.

It is time – in fact it is long past overdue – when ALL mental health professionals who authentically want to bring the suffering of targeted parents and their children to an end, bring their voices into a single unified voice for change to a standard of practice using the AB-PA diagnostic model that provides targeted parents and their children with a solution.

AB-PA:  The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: nothing.

I asked the Gardnerian PAS “experts” to provide us with their proposed path to a solution by September 1, 2017 so we could make a reasoned and considered decision on our path forward.   Day-by-day the immense suffering of targeted parents and their children continues.  There is urgency.  We don’t have time to waste.

September 1 came and went.  No proposed solution from the Garnerian PAS “experts.”

It is time to bring this professional squabbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to an END.  Enough!

AB-PA:  The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: nothing.

The reasoned and considered decision by all rational people who authentically want to bring the pathology of “parental alienation” to an end is that the path to a solution is through an AB-PA diagnostic model – because Gardnerian PAS offers no solution.

This solution will come more quickly if we unite all of our voices into a single voice for a professional standard of practice using the AB-PA diagnostic system.

Every day we lose – every day we delay – every day we spend pontificating about pinheads and dancing angels – is another day of immense suffering for targeted parents and their children.

I am calling on ALL mental health professionals – including Bill Bernet, Karen Woodall, Amy Baker and the PASG – to bring ALL of our voices into a single call for a professional standard of practice using the AB-PA diagnostic model.

AB-PA:  The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: nothing.

This is the ONLY rational path forward to end the suffering of targeted parents and their children.

It doesn’t matter if you think your “dancing angels” model is prettier and better.  The ONLY thing that matters is the solution – bringing an end to the immense suffering of targeted parents and their children.

AB-PA:  The Solution: A Return to Professional Practice; The Solution: Dominoes

Gardnerian PAS: nothing.

I am calling for a single unified voice.

Join us in bringing the nightmare of “parental alienation” to an end for these grieving parents and their children.

There is no rational reason not to join us in solving “parental alienation.”  From this point forward, continuing to sow division and discord that slows the solution offered by AB-PA is obstructionism.

If you are an obstructionist to the solution, then you are no ally to targeted parents and their children.  They need a solution.

The path forward into a solution is through AB-PA.

Craig Childress, Psy.D
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Never see the light of day

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

They don’t care if AB-PA solves the pathology.  That’s not relevant to them.  Only they are allowed to solve the pathology.  It’s their game – it’s their pathology.  I’m the outsider.  I’m not part of their club.  How dare I come in and just solve the pathology. 

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

Even through AB-PA offers tens of thousands of children and families a solution to their nightmare, the Gardnerian PAS experts are willing to sacrifice your children to the pathology rather than allow AB-PA to solve the pathology.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” are the (semi-conscious) colluding allies of the pathogen who are disabling the mental health system response to the pathology.  The pathogen has access to them through their narcissistic self-inflation around being “experts” and it uses this entry point to motivate them into continuing to push an abundantly flawed and completely failed diagnostic model of the pathology that will never in a million years solve the pathology.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

I find the willingness of the Gardnerian PAS “experts” to sacrifice children and families to the pathology rather than support a solution that doesn’t involve Gardnerian PAS — to be morally reprehensible.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

People complain that the system is rigged.  For family law attorneys.  For court involved mental health professionals. 

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” are part of that failed system.  Thirty years – no solution.  Why?  There’s a reason for that.  The Gardnerian PAS “experts” didn’t want a solution, they wanted to be “experts.”

I came from outside the system. Look what I did. Returned to the standard and established principles of professional psychology and diagnosed the pathology.  In 30 years, they never diagnosed the pathology using standard and established  constructs and principles of professional psychology.

They don’t want things to change. They’re “experts” and they like being “experts.”  They want everything to remain exactly as it is.

Even if that means that more children and more families are sacrificed to the pathology.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

I knew the pathogen would attack once it recognized the threat I posed to it.  The threat?  I can see it.

I had always anticipated the attack would come from the Silberg-Meier contingent of Anti-Gardnerians.  I was wrong.  It’s from the Gardnerian PAS “experts” – wow, whaddya know.

It’s the Gardnerian PAS “experts” who are the enabling allies of the pathogen.  It’s the Gardnerian PAS “experts” who are clogging up and disabling the mental health response to the pathology.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

Why are they so afraid of AB-PA?  A: They are afraid that AB-PA is going to solve the pathology – and they are right to be afraid because AB-PA will solve the pathology.

They are afraid that AB-PA will solve the pathology, so they don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day. 

The pathogen is afraid that AB-PA will solve the pathology, so it doesn’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

Dorcy had her flying monkey overt allies of the pathogen who sought to discredit her and prevent the solution she holds from ever seeing the light of day – and I’ve got my Gardnerian “experts” covert enabling allies of the pathogen who will similarly try to prevent AB-PA from ever seeing the light of day – (somehow the image of flying Gardnerians is a little off-putting). 

The battle is now.  I’m on the battlefield with the pathogen now. 

The Gardnerian PAS experts don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

They don’t want mental health professionals to know about AB-PA, they don’t want mental health professionals to use AB-PA. 

They don’t want AB-PA to ever see the light of day.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” and I have different goals when it comes to “parental alienation.”  I want to solve it.  They want to remain “experts.”

I am on the battlefield right now, fighting for your children.  We must achieve professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of your children and families. To accomplish this, we must return to the standard and established path of professional psychology.

The Gardnerian PAS model invites – invites – rampant professional ignorance and incompetence.  Want proof – look around you.  Thirty years of the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model has given us exactly what you see. 

The Gardnerians want to bury AB-PA so that the same status quo can continue, and continue, and continue – they’re “experts” and they like being “experts.”  Everything needs to remain just the way it is.  We’re “experts” and we’re fighting a heroic fight for children and families.  Don’t disturb us by actually solving the pathology.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” never want AB-PA to see the light of day.

I am on the battlefield right now fighting for your kids.  I am on the field right now fighting with the pathogen. 

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” never want AB-PA to see the light of day.

They would rather sacrifice more children to the pathology than allow AB-PA to solve the pathology. 

I find that morally reprehensible.

And to the pathogen that’s on the battlefield with me right now… I see you.

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

Christmas 2017

I don’t go to read Karen Woodall’s blogs.  Occasionally, people send me a Woodall blog to get my reaction.

The solution is on its way, and it’s time to address the Gardnerian faction. Karen Woodall is the most direct and active representation of the Gardnerian PAS approach.

I’ve read all the Gardnerian literature.  I don’t cite it because it’s not really relevant or valuable.  The Gardnerian approach is a proposal for a new form of pathology that requires an equally new and unique set of symptom identifiers.

According to the Gardnerians, this pathology is so unique in all of mental health, that its diagnosis requires its own set of new and unique symptom identifiers – that are unlike any other symptom pathology in all of mental health; symptom identifiers are made up by one guy to be unique for this pathology alone in all of mental health.

Historically, their label for this supposedly new form of pathology started as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) as they proposed the specialness of this pathology as a new “syndrome” – a unique new constellation of symptoms into a cohesive pathology.

Through controversial assertions made by Gardner and issues surrounding false allegations of sexual abuse by mothers, and Gardner’s troubling statements about child sexuality (Gardner Quotes on Child Sexuality), established mental health professionals grew uncomfortable with PAS.  Opponents of Gardner then correctly identified that his proposed model for a new form of pathology – a new syndrome – lacked professional grounding and scientifically established validity.

This was a valid criticism of a proposal for a new form of pathology.  I studied with Dr. David Foy at Pepperdine.  He was one of the principle figures in getting the diagnosis of PTSD accepted by the DSM system following the Vietnam war.  Lots and lots of vets with post-traumatic stress symptoms but no disorder – no diagnosis.

The group that formed the PTSD diagnosis in the years following the Vietnam war set about defining and describing the pathology from within standard and established constructs and principles of trauma and the traumatized brain.  They also collected lots-and-lots of prevalence data.  They never left the path of professional psychology.  No new “magical” symptoms.

While I wasn’t part of that process for the PTSD pathology, I know what they did and how they did it because I had Dr. Foy as an instructor in cognitive-behavioral theory and he told us what they did and how they did it.

As an aside since I’m talking about Dr. Foy and cognitive-behavioral psychology…

CBT has very good stuff – I’d recommend that Karen Woodall, Bill Bernet, and all of Gardnerians stop for a moment and try to explain the pathology of “parental alienation” and its treatment from entirely within CBT constructs.

It’s possible, and I can do it for you if you’d like.  But I think you’ll get more out of it if you try it for yourself – try explaining the pathology of “parental alienation” using ONLY the constructs and principles of CBT.

Gardnerian PAS was quickly discredited and locked in controversy.  This left the professional field adrift.  There is actually a pathology but the model for the pathology was fully rejected.

in the next phase the Gardnerian PAS people dropped the word “syndrome” from the construct – making the pathology just “parental alienation” (no PAS; small p, small a “parental alienation).  But although they changed the name from Parental Alienation Syndrome to “parental alienation” – no syndrome – everything else remained exactly the same.  Exactly the same 8 symptoms.  Exactly the same mild-moderate-severe (dimensional) diagnostic structure.  Exactly the same “new form of pathology” proposal.

In a 2009 article in the Journal of Child Custody, the PAS critic Joan Meier, a Georgetown University Law Professor, critiqued the transition from Parental Alienation Syndrome to “parental alienation” and the “alienated child.”  While I would take exception to her framing of issues, there are many of her lines of argument that are spot-on accurate.

Let me offer you Joan Meier’s description of Gardnerian “parental alienation”

From Meier: “The many critiques of Gardner have resulted in a shift—at least among leading researchers and scholars of custody evaluation—from support for PAS to support for a ‘‘reformulation of PAS’’ typically called instead ‘‘parental alienation’’ or ‘‘the alienated child’’ (Johnston, 2005; Steinberger, 2006).  Johnston and Kelly (2004a), along with Drozd and Olesen (discussed in Meier, in press), are among the leading credible researchers spearheading this trend.” (Meir, 2009, p. 246)

From Meier: “Johnston and Kelly have clearly stated that PAS does not exist, that Gardner’s version of it is ‘‘overly simplistic’’ and tautological, and that the data do not support labeling alienation a ‘‘syndrome.’’ Instead, they speak of ‘‘parental alienation’’ or ‘‘child alienation,’’ as a valid concept that describes a real phenomenon experienced by some children in the context of custody disputes.” (Meir, 2009, p. 246)

From Meier: “What is the difference between PAS and PA?  The primary shift in focus appears to be away from Gardner’s obsession with the purportedly alienating parent and toward a more realistic assessment of the multiple sources of the child’s hostility or fear of his or her parent, including behavior by both parents and the child’s own vulnerabilities (Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Johnston & Kelly, 2004b; Johnston, 2005).” (Meir, 2009, p. 246)

From Meier: “Johnston (2005) defines an alienated child as one ‘‘who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection and/or fear) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent.  Entrenched alienated children are marked by unambivalent, strident rejection of the parent with no apparent guilt or conflict’’ (p. 762).” (Meier, 2009, p. 246-247)

From Meier: “Another notable difference between PAS and Johnston’s reformulated PA is the renunciation of Gardner’s draconian and brutal ‘‘remedies,’’ including custody-switching to the ‘‘hated’’ parent.  Johnston calls instead for individualized assessments of both the children and the parents’ parenting, maintaining focus on the children’s needs rather than the parents’ ‘‘rights.’’  Reconciliation with the hated parent is not necessarily the only desirable goal; a more realistic and healthy attitude toward both parents is (Johnston, 2005).” (Meier, 2009, p. 246-247)

I’ll be interested to hear a law professor’s analysis of AB-PA and Foundations.  So far, we haven’t heard a thing from Meier about AB-PA.  I wonder what a law professor’s analysis of AB-PA would be?  I wonder if a law professor’s analysis of AB-PA and Foundations is even relevant to the clinical discussion of pathology?

Notice all the people that Meier cites: Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Johnston and Kelly, 2004a, Johnston & Kelly, 2004b; Johnson, 2005; Steinberger, 2006.

Basically the same people Karen Woodall cites.

Notice in my 40-page list of references I cite none of these.  Why?  Because they’re not relevant.

If Meier is citing all these sources, and I am citing none of them because they are irrelevant to AB-PA, then I guess that makes Meier’s 2009 analysis of “parental alienation” irrelevant to AB-PA too.  Poof.  All gone.

The references that are relevant to AB-PA are Bowlby, and Beck, and Minuchin, and Kernberg, and Kohut, and Stern, and van der Kolk, and Millon, and Haley, and Bowen, and Linehan, and Ainsworth, and Lyons-Ruth, and Fonagy.  These are among the leading figures in professional psychology.

Foundations is built upon the work of the leading figures in professional psychology.  I can cite chapter and verse for each component of AB-PA.

Look at the titles of the references in my 40-page personal reference list… you don’t think I can cite chapter and verse support for each piece of AB-PA? – I can absolutely cite chapter and verse.

Not one of the citations by Meier is on my reference list.  None.  Who is Meier going to cite in her discussion of AB-PA?  Bowlby?  Beck?  Minuchin?   I don’t know.  It will be interesting to find out.

As for Meier’s analysis of the “parental alienation” construct itself…

From Meier:  “More Similar than Different. The new approach to alienation blunts some of the more extreme elements of Gardner’s theory and places the problem of alienation in a more moderate and reasonable light (by recognizing the many reasons children can become alienated from a parent). Nonetheless, because the differences between ‘‘alienation’’ and PAS are not firmly established, many discussions of parental alienation still necessarily draw on PAS theory and scholarship, and, at least in practice, invocations of PA appear often to be simply ‘‘old wine in new bottles.’’ (Meier, 2009, p. 246-247)

“Old wine in new bottles.” – Meier, 2009.

Where have I heard that comparison before?

Old Wine in Old Skins – Bernet & Reay, 2015

Oh yeah.  That’s the title of Bernet and Reay’s critique of Foundations, a critique recently cited by Woodall.

Wow.  Isn’t that a curious coincidence.  Exactly – to the word – exactly the same critique made by Meier against “parental alienation” is being used by Bernet and Reay – and now Woodall – in their critique of Foundations and AB-PA.

Anybody else find that curious?  That exactly the same critique – word-for-word – that is used by an ally of the pathogen to discredit Gardnerian “parental alienation” is now being used by the Gardnerian PAS “experts” in their efforts to discredit and marginalize AB-PA?

Anybody else find that curious?

And you know what’s curiouser still?  I’m actually more Gardnerian than the Gardernians.  Listen to this, in summarizing her conclusions about the difference between Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and “parental alienation”:

From Meier: “In short, the reality is that whatever some researchers may say about the differences between PAS and PA, in practice, PA is rarely understood to be different.  Indeed, some proponents of alienation theory simply cite to both PAS and PA without distinction.”

From Meier: “Gardner himself noted that some evaluators used the term ‘‘parental alienation’’ instead of PAS in order to avoid the attacks that reference to a ‘‘syndrome’’ invites.  Gardner opposed this practice, arguing that PAS is a far more severe and entrenched problem than mere ‘‘parental alienation’’ (Gardner, 2002).” (Meier, 2009, p. 247)

Gardner believed that PAS was “far more severe… than mere “parental alienation.”  Wow.  I’d agree with that relative to AB-PA.

AB-PA is far more severe than mere “parental alienation.” Yep, Gardner and I are in agreement.

The cross-generational coalition is very common in families, and while pathological, the less severe forms of cross-generational coalition are far less intense and extreme in their symptom display.

But when we add the splitting pathology of parental narcissistic/(borderline) personality pathology to the already pathological cross-generational coalition, this transmutes the already pathological cross-generational coalition into a particularly severe and malignant form.  When we add the splitting pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent to the cross-generational coalition process, in the mind of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent the ex-spouse MUST also become an ex-parent.

The ex-wife MUST become an ex-mother; the ex-husband must become an ex-father.  This is a neurologically imposed imperative of the splitting pathology of the brain.

This psychological requirement for the narcissistic/(borderline) parent that the ex-spouse also become an ex-parent is so strong that it becomes an obsessive fixation – a neurologically imposed imperative – driving the behavior of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

The ex-husband must become an ex-father; the ex-wife must become an ex-mother as well.  This is a neurologically imposed imperative of the splitting pathology.

There is a qualitative and clinical difference in the severe form of this pathology (AB-PA).  Gardner and I are in agreement on this.  Woo, hoo. Chock up one for Dr. C; Gardner agrees with Dr. C.

“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).”

Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

So, Karen, while you focus your attention on those multitude of “hybrid cases” – “mere parental alienation” as Gardner might call it – I think we should go solve the pathology that Gardner was talking about… you know, that severe one – the real bad stuff.  How about we go solve that?

Gardner says that the severe form of the pathology is different from garden-varieties of “alienation” – and I am saying that AB-PA is a distinctly different, more severe manifestation of the cross-generational coalition (Minuchin; Haley) because of the addition of parental narcissistic and borderline splitting pathology to the cross-generational coalition.

The Solution:  So How Soon?

It was interesting when I reviewed my response to Bernet and Reay’s analysis of Foundations (Old Wine in Old Skins, I know they got the saying wrong), I noticed this statement from the conclusion of my response to them:

From Dr. Childress (2015):  “My challenge to Drs. Bernet and Reay is, I wonder how much faster we can achieve the solution to “parental alienation” offered by an attachment-based model (as described on my blog) with your active support in making establishment mental health aware of the new paradigm offered by an attachment-based reformulation for the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation.”

From Dr. Childress (2015):  “With your active support could we achieve the seven-step solution to “parental alienation” which I describe on my blog by Christmas of 2015?  By this Christmas?  That’s only three months away, but with your active support it might be possible.  There is nothing that stands in the way of a solution to “parental alienation” other than the ignorance of establishment metal health that an attachment-based reformulation of the pathology from entirely within established and accepted psychological principles and constructs exists.”  (Childress, 2015, p. 3)

Well, needless to say, Dr. Bernet, Dr. Reay, and Karen Woodall – the “parental alienation experts” – did not provide their “active support in making mental health aware of the new paradigm offered by an attachment-based reformulation for the pathology.”

Two years later, we are still working to make professional psychology aware of AB-PA – and we are still without the help of Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall.  And more and more children continue to be sacrificed to the pathology.

How many children could we have saved from the pathology in 2016 and 2017 if Dr. Bernet, and Dr. Reay, and Karen Woodall had helped us in 2015 “in making establishment mental health aware of the new paradigm offered by an attachment-based reformulation for the pathology”?  How many children could we have saved – and how many did we lose?

I don’t care if you call it the “pure form of alienation” – I don’t care if you call it Bob – let’s just solve it, okay?

Just as in 2015 – two years ago – I said that:

“There is nothing that stands in the way of a solution to “parental alienation” other than the ignorance of establishment metal health that an attachment-based reformulation of the pathology from entirely within established and accepted psychological principles and constructs exists.” (Childress, 2015, p. 3)

The same is true in 2017.  There remains only one barrier: ignorance.

We are making significant inroads.  Professional psychology is becoming increasingly aware of AB-PA, and AB-PA is beginning to be used in professional psychology.  I know this to be true.  I’ve consulted with the mental health professionals – I’m seeing the changes occur around us.  Mental health professionals are beginning to wake up from their conceptual slumber.

But how many children and families did we lose over the last two years, from 2015 to 2017.

If we had gotten the “active support” of Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall, could we have saved them?  I am of the opinion that we could have.  If we had gotten the active support of Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall in 2015, there are likely thousands and thousands of children and families we could have saved over the last two years.

You know why I’m being harsh with Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall?  That’s why.  For all of the children we lost in the last two years that we could have saved if Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall had given their active support to the solution.

In 2015, I made the call to end “parental alienation” (AB-PA) in three months, by Christmas of 2015.

In 2017, I make the call to end “parental alienation” (AB-PA) in three months, by Christmas of 2017.

Is that do-able?  With the active support of Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall, I think it is.  It’s an audacious goal.  But I think it’s do-able; and shouldn’t we at least try to end this nightmare as fast as is humanly possible?  I wanted Christmas 2015 – so for me Christmas 2017 is far too long.

What do you say, Dr. Bernet?  Karen?  The only thing that stands in the way of the solution is ignorance that AB-PA exists.  Can we solve this pathology, please.  Then you can play with your “hybrid cases” to your heart’s content, discussing this and that feature of the pathology – but can we please solve the severe form of the pathology that Gardner was talking about, please.

So many children and families are suffering.  They need the solution today – they needed the solution yesterday.

What do you say, Dr. Bernet?  Karen Woodall?  Will you actively bring your voices to educating professional psychology about AB-PA.

Do you want to know how?

On October 20th in Houston, Texas, I will be presenting a talk about the AB-PA Key Solution Pilot Program for the Family Courts.  Tell people you know about this October 20th seminar in Houston.  See if people you know would like to attend.  They can contact Dwilene Lindsey at Children4Tomorrow to register (although in Houston, registration may require a boat).

There is a booklet available through Amazon.com that describes the Key Solution Pilot Program.  Send this booklet out to various people you know.

There is a booklet available on Amazon.com regarding the Contingent Visitation Schedule.  Send this booklet out to various people you know.

On November 18th – 20th I’ll be presenting a set of AB-PA Certification seminars in Pasadena.  Alert people you know about these seminars and recommend they attend.  Make a public statement that you recommend that mental health professionals should attend the November 18th – 20th AB-PA Certification Seminars if they can.

That’s a full month before Christmas, 2017.  Do you think if you did that we could actually begin seeing the widespread solution to “parental alienation” by Christmas of 2017?

I do.

But if you choose to withhold your active support for the solution, then my question becomes how many more children will be sacrificed before we eventually achieve the solution?

Let’s solve “parental alienation” (AB-PA) by Christmas of 2017.  Bill?  Karen?  What do you say.  Can we please solve this pathology?

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