Child Abuse is Serious

So I’ve told you of the power of diagnosis.  Let me begin to reveal its power.

I’m a licensed clinical psychologist – a legally authorized pathology giver, and I’ve given your children a pathology:

DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed (pathogenic parenting).

Now when a pathology giver gives someone a pathology, the person has it.  I’m a pathology giver, I’ve given your child the pathology of child abuse.

The question now becomes… why isn’t everyone else giving your child the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse?

Either I’m wrong, or they are.

If other mental health providers are NOT diagnosing your children with DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed (pathogenic parenting)…

…why not?

I’m diagnosing Child Psychological Abuse, they’re not.  One of us is wrong.

If they’re wrong…

If they’re wrong, that is really bad for them, because then they are failing in their duty to protect… and you can sue them.

Look it up, it’s a legal case… Tarasoff.  Failure in the duty to protect.

In Tarasoff, it’s a failure in the duty to protect because the therapist did not warn a potential victim of the danger posed to them by the client, and most people think of this as a “duty to warn” case.  It is.  But the duty to warn the victim is based on the more fundamental obligation – the duty to protect.

In the Tarasoff case, the therapist failed in their duty to protect by not warning the potential victim.  It’s a failure in the duty to protect.

Well, that would be you too.  Therapists, all therapists, have a duty to protect.

Your child is being psychologically abused.  That is a fact.  How do we know that is a fact.  Because I said so.

It’s a fact because Dr. Childress said so.

But Dr. Childress, you’re just one person. Don’t other people need to agree with you?

No.  I’m a licensed clinical psychologist.  It is V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse… because that is my diagnosis.

I am not on the defensive.  They are.  I’ve made a diagnosis, why aren’t they?

I have diagnosed the pathology.  The moment I give a person their pathology, that’s truth.  I have defined reality with my diagnosis.  The child did not have ADHD when the child entered my office.  When the child leaves my office the child has ADHD.  Because I said so.

That… is the power of diagnosis.

I’ve said your children have V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Anyone, any mental health professional who is involved with one of your children who does NOT make a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse Confirmed, (pathogenic parenting) is failing in their duty to protect.

Remember Tarasoff?  That’s not a good thing, to fail in one’s duty to protect the client.  As a licensed mental health person, you can get in a lot of trouble if you fail in your duty to protect.

If your client says they are suicidal and you don’t do a risk assessment with the client, you’ve failed in your duty to protect.  When the patient’s family sues you because you failed to protect your client, they’re going to subpoena your charts.  You better have documentation that you did a suicide assessment with the client, or you could be in big trouble.

You failed to protect your suicidal client by not doing a proper risk assessment. There’s all sorts of questions you’re supposed to ask a suicidal patient to assess their risk; if there is a plan; what means would they use; past attempts; family history; alcohol and drugs…

I spend one whole class session in my Assessment and Treatment Planning class for graduate students covering risk assessment for suicide.  We have a duty to protect.  It is taken very seriously.

I’ve given your children V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed (pathogenic parenting).  They have it, child abuse.  You’re children are now being psychologically abused… because I say so, and I’m a legally authorized pathology giver.

But Wait

Oh… but wait… you still have to get the child’s shadow, their pathology, attached to them… because I’m only allowed to give someone their pathology in person.

In a recent case, the parent got a court order for me to personally do a trauma-informed six-session clinical psychology assessment of the family.  I gave the child a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51, Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed (pathogenic parenting).  I testified to that.  So, in that case, the child now has confirmed psychological child abuse… because I saw them in person.  

That is now reality.  I personally attached the shadow in that case

But in your case… you’re going to need a local mental health professional to attach the child’s shadow, their pathology.

So you’ll have to get the child’s shadow attached… but now, look what happens…

Sewing Shadows

All of you are going to start asking mental health professionals to confirm… confirm… the pathology I have given you, just like you are asking a different trauma-ish psychologist to confirm your diagnosis of PTSD (complex trauma; traumatic grief). Just like for that, you need a trauma-informed assessment of your children and families…

…to confirm or dis-confirm the diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.

After all, if there is any concern about possible child abuse… we should at least look, right?  At least look.

At first, they’re going to say, “The child is bonded to the allied parent, that’s not psychological child abuse.” And I’m going to say, that’s because your assessment is not… trauma-informed.

This is a trauma pathology, I’ll say… it’s all a lie… a trauma dream… a trauma reenactment.  I’ll tell them that.  And then I’ll say, “The trauma symptom is Diagnostic Indicator 3 on the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting, the delusion.”

Uh-oh for them.  All of them will now need to look to see if Diagnostic Indicator 3, the encapsulated persecutory delusion, is present… and it is… you’re not an abusive parent.  That’s not true.  I know the child believes that, and they say that over and over, a thing that just isn’t true… do you know what that’s called?  A delusion.  A fixed and false belief that is maintained despite contrary evidence.

So they are all going to have to look.  Because one of us is wrong – them or me.

And if they’re wrong…. uh-oh for them… because then they are failing in their duty to protect… and you can sue them.  Uh-oh for them if they’re wrong.

I opened the line of ethics, now I’m opening the line of duty.

So it’s them or me.  Dr. Childress is playing serious hardball.  Because child abuse is serious.

If they don’t diagnose V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (pathogenic parenting) when it’s there, when it’s real, when the child is actually being abused, then they didn’t protect that child… they failed in their duty to protect.

Remember Tarasoff?

Oh my goodness, if they fail in their duty to protect… you could possibly sue them… that’s not good.  Failure in the duty to protect is not licensing board, it is but… it’s lawsuit.  They better look.   And when they look, they’ll see.

So now, – we have them looking for the trauma symptom of the dream… the lie… you’re not an abusive parent.

It then becomes the Escher paradox, the pathology identifying itself.  

We are asking the pathogen to identify itself, but it can’t because of its psychological defenses.  The therapist’s brain with the pathogen will collapse in response to trying to diagnose Diagnostic Indicator 3, the delusion.

A brain without the trauma pathogen will see the truth and will confirm the diagnosis of Psychological Child Abuse.  The brain without the pathogen will attach your child’s shadow, the child’s diagnosis.

For a brain with the trauma pathogen but that is close to breaking free, the Escher paradox will pop them out of the trauma matrix of lies, and they will confirm the diagnosis and attach your child’s shadow, the child’s diagnosis.

But for the brain with the pathogen and that is living in the trauma matrix… it will enter a feedback loop with its own psychological defenses against recognizing the lie, the trauma reenactment narrative.  

They won’t make the diagnosis… they’ll say that the lie is true… they’ll say you are a “bad parent” and you “deserve” to be rejected.  That’s what the pathogen brain will say.

Do you know what I’ll say?  I’ll say, “Show me.”  Tell me, using the Parenting Practices Rating Scale, tell me… what type of “bad parent” are they?

Do you see what I’m doing?  I’m anchoring truth.  They have to say – specifically, what type of “bad parent” you are.  They won’t be able to do that, because it’s a lie, and they’ll move to their next defense… but we won’t let them.

We won’t leave this point, we’ll make them tell us, specifically, what type of “bad parent” you are.  They won’t – they can’t – because what they’re saying is a lie.  You’re not a “bad parent.”

Tell us, we’ll say… tell us, we’ll demand.  If you’re a bad parent… tell us how.

This will be the collapse of the lie.  The Parenting Practices Rating Scale.

But I don’t think it will even get that far.  It think once they start looking for the trauma symptom, Diagnostic Indicator 3, then we’ll have therapists popping out of the trauma dream all over the place, pop, pop, pop.

That’s the situation that diagnosis puts them in.  Have you noticed all of these little double-bind situations.  They’re knots in the pathogen code, the points of lie.  Release them, and my-oh-my. 

This one… this lie, is the biggest lie of all… that you are a “bad parent.”

That’s Diagnostic Indicator 3, the delusion, the trauma dream symptom. 

I’m using the power of diagnosis.  I’ve given your children a pathology of Psychological Child Abuse. 

Truth.

If they don’t diagnose the child abuse… then that could represent a failure in their duty to protect… and you might be able to sue them.  Uh-oh for them if they’re wrong.  They’d better do a trauma-informed assessment of your child and family pretty quick, don’t you think?

And boy-oh-boy, if I’m a therapist, and a parent sues me for a failure in my duty to protect because I didn’t do proper trauma-informed assessment, and because of that I didn’t properly or accurately diagnose child abuse – and then there’s harm… my oh my – I know if I were sued, I’d definitely want proper documentation in my chart that I did a trauma-informed assessment and what the results were.

Because if I have documentation of the trauma-informed assessment in my chart, then whatever happens, one way or the other, whew, I’m safe.  Because I did a proper trauma-informed assessment with the family and it’s documented in my chart, just like I would do a suicide assessment for a suicidal patient.  So then, no matter what I find in my trauma-informed assessment of the child and family, I’d be safe from being sued because I did a trauma-informed assessment and it’s documented in my chart.

So they better look, and they better document that they looked, don’t you think?  Probably a pretty good idea.  Risk management, it’s called.  And when they look, they’ll see.

And then they will all begin waking from the false trauma dream of abuse and victimization – the abuse and traumatization of you.  I’ll be sitting at their bedside as they start to wake up, with some juice and cookies, and I’ll say, “That red pill… boy, it’s something, isn’t it.  Here, have some juice.”  That’s what I’ll say.

Because if they don’t even look… then they’ve failed in their duty to protect… and, who knows, parents may be able sue therapists for failure to protect (citing Standard 9.01a of the APA ethics code regarding conducting an adequate assessment – in this case a “trauma-informed” assessment – to support their diagnostic statements.  Look it up.)

If they fail to find child abuse… tell us why… specifically, tell us why… because if they are wrong… you can sue them for failing to protect your child.

Mental health professionals are supposed to protect you, and they’re supposed to protect your child.  That’s called our “duty to protect” – it is a very serious thing. Tarasoff serious.

What about you?  What about your trauma, your diagnosable PTSD trauma?  They failed to protect you too, didn’t they?  Yes, they did.  They failed to protect you.

This is not good.  Professionally, this is not good.

When people begin waking… uh-oh.  Things weren’t as they appeared, were they?  Uh-oh, for them.  They were supposed to protect… and they didn’t… uh-oh. 

I’m not waiting 10 years to get your kids back.  I want your kids back today.  Now.  Let’s get a six-session trauma-informed clinical psychology assessment for all of your families, let’s identify the pathology, and let’s get this fixed – as fast as is humanly possible.

I’m dead cold serious.  Your abuse stops.  The child abuse stops.

If you are a mental health professional, and you’re hurting one of these kids and one of these parents… uh-oh for you. 

Dr. Childress has made a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (pathogenic parenting) for these children… I just can’t personally attach it… but I will if needed.

If you’re not making that diagnosis… why not?  Tell us.

Duty to protect.  Look it up.  Tarasoff.

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

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s