Karen recently posted a blog about Fairy Tales and splitting that was kind of all over the place, but the central premise is that she’s some sort of expert on “splitting” and she’s sort of simultaneously discovering splitting and reporting on her discovery.
There’s so much nonsense being put forth, I need to address it. But there’s so much to address, I’m going to do it in multiple posts. This first one on just the general nonsense of her grandiosity, and then I’ll devote the second one to the more specific nonsense of what she says.
Fairy Tales from the Woodalls
In her blog, Karen seemingly admits that her approach to understanding complex family conflict surrounding divorce is to create a fairy tale – a make-believe story she creates about a new form of pathology she thinks she’s “discovering.”
How exciting that must be for Karen, she thinks she’s discovering something.
But, for starters, Karen, I’m unclear which is the title for your blog?
Is it, Fractured Minds: Kaleidoscopic Thinking in Parental Alienation or is it the bigger banner of, Fairy Tales for Unwanted Children. Or perhaps it’s both? I think it’s both.
Karen, you are familiar with projective processes, right? You are aware that everything we do is a projective statement about ourselves, not an actual statement about the world. You do understand projective process, right Karen?
So the phrase “fractured minds and kaleidoscopic thinking” – does that refer to you, Karen? Does that represent your inner experience as you struggle to psychologically hold onto your collapsing world of “parental alienation,” and is the other, Fairy Tales title, does that refer to the mythical story of pathology you’re creating as the grandiose defense of self against your collapse into obscurity and irrelevance?
Are both titles true, Karen? The split inside you? And what are you writing about? Splitting. You are familiar with projective processes, right Karen?
I suspect both titles are true, Karen. You appear to be manifesting an inner splitting of yourself, right before our very eyes, Karen. How cool is that, you’re talking about splitting at the same time you’re projectively manifesting your own split.
Inside, your world is a kaleidoscope of fractured thinking, a fractured mind, and to cope, to hold your world together, you’re creating a psychological Fairy Tale of being an “expert” discovering a “new pathology” – how exciting for you, Karen… a new pathology. Do you think you’ll get the Nobel prize for your discovery? Seriously. You’re discovering a whole new pathology, Karen.
Aren’t you? Of course you are. What do you call it? Right, “parental alienation.” Oh, you’re not inventing it? This Richard Gardner guy discovered it, huh. And now you’re on this fantastic journey of discovery too. Wow. That’s great, Karen. A narcissistic paradise. Can anyone play? Can I play too? Any rules, or can I just make up anything I want about this “parental alienation” thing?
Far as I can tell, there’s no rules here at all, are there Karen? You just have to self-identify as an “expert” in this new pathology and, there ya go, you’re now an “expert” and can start making stuff up, whatever you want. Or is there some sort of “experts” club that you have to join? Is there a club, Karen? Some sort of certificate you need to have bestowed on you before you become an “expert” – like the Free Mason’s or Shriners or something, some candlelight ceremony with people dressed in togas?
How is it that exactly, that you’re an expert? Is that just a self-designation thing?
Or is it sort of like wishing Tinker Bell back to life, “I do believe in fairies, I do believe in fairies…” is that the way it works? I am an expert, I am an expert. Is that how we develop new pathologies in professional psychology, Karen? Somebody says, “I’m an expert” and proposes a new pathology, and then everyone goes, “Okay” and we have a new pathology. Is that the way it works, Karen, in the Fairy Tales?
So how should we handle that, Karen? When someone… like you or Gardner… propose the existence of a whole new form of psychopathology that is supposedly unique in all of mental health… how should we handle that? In professional psychology, how should we handle that?
Should we just say, “Okay” to everyone who proposes a new form of pathology? No, of course not. So how do we handle that then, eh Karen?
Do you know how we handle that in professional psychology, Karen, when someone proposes a new pathology? We say, “Show us the research base for the proposal.” That’s what we say. And when we say, “research base,” we mean like autism-level, ADHD-level, PTSD-level, attachment-level, schizophrenia level research. If you’re asking for a whole new pathology… that’s an autism-level/schizophrenia level research base we’re looking for to support a “new pathology.”
So… do you have that research base for your pathology, Karen, this “parental alienation” thing you’re proposing? Amy Baker and a smattering of poorly designed “studies”? That’s it, Karen? Okay, no worries, you keep working on it. In the meantime, Karen… your pathology, your “parental alienation” thing that you’re proposing… it doesn’t exist as a real thing.
That’s how it works, Karen. Oh… but you’re special. We should skip all that for you, because you’re an “expert.” So we should just do without the research base – and a coherent description of the pathology, and we should just accept whatever you say… because… you’re an “expert.” I know you’re an “expert” because you say so, and that’s how we can tell who the “experts” are… they tell us they are. That’s so helpful.
It’s a unicorn, Karen. Your “parental alienation” pathology. A Fairy Tale. I know you like your stories, your Fairy Tales. They’re simple and easy to understand, because you just make up the story to be whatever you want it to be.
But Karen, just saying – “It’s a pathology, it’s a pathology” over and over like a petulant 3-year-old is not how we adopt new forms of pathology in professional psychology. You can imagine the chaos that would create.
Why, somebody might come up with a Carrot Rejection Syndrome (CRS) for all we know. The child engages in a campaign of denigration toward carrots, rejecting carrots for weak and frivolous reasons. The child shows a lack of ambivalence regarding carrots. Their rejection of carrots spreads to other related vegetables, like broccoli and peas. Oh… and here’s a good one, the independent rejecter phenomenon, the child claims that their hatred of carrots is not being influenced by the other kids at school not liking carrots, that it’s the child’s own beliefs… carrots are yucky. Carrot Rejection Syndrome.
And you know, Karen, kids with Carrot Rejection Syndrome show this splitting thing where carrots are all-bad and pizza is all-good. Wow, you should look into that, Karen. You’re an expert in splitting. Carrots are all bad, pizza is all good. Splitting, right?
But that’s silly, right Karen? We don’t just go around making up new pathology at the drop of a hat for any old thing… Carrot Rejection Syndrome, a campaign of denigration toward carrots for weak and frivolous reasons. Sheesh, nobody is going to just make up a new syndrome like that, Carrot Rejection Syndrome. Any real mental health professional will first do the work of collecting the research data – like for PTSD when they added that as a pathology.
No one just goes around making up new forms of pathology entirely on their own with NO research support and expecting everyone to accept it, because then we’d have a thousand types of Carrot Rejection Syndromes. Homework Refusal Syndrome – a campaign of denigration toward homework for weak and frivolous reasons, a lack of ambivalence toward homework, an absence of guilt about not doing homework, the presence of borrowed scenarios (the dog ate my homework).
So obviously, we can’t have that, right Karen. I know my examples might seem outlandish – Carrot Rejection Syndrome, Homework Refusal Syndrome – I mean, seriously, no one would be so unprofessional and insane to propose something THAT stupid, but it’s the principle, Karen. If people can just go around being self-proclaimed “experts” and making up any old pathology they want willy-nilly… things could get out of hand quickly.
So what was that pathology of yours again, Karen? Parent Rejection Syndrome? Was that it? Parent Refusal Syndrome? I forget. Anyway, in order to have a pathology accepted in professional psychology… you need a research base for the proposal. And that’s a research base like for autism, or PTSD, or attachment.
Now because professional psychology deals with real pathology, Karen, I’m going to ask you to please stop using your position as a mental health person to mis-inform people about professional psychology. You are deceiving people, Karen. There is no new form of pathology, Karen.
“Yes there is”? Well then, Karen, show me the research base for your “new pathology” proposal. See how that works? No Carrot Rejection Syndromes. Research base, Karen. Autism-level, attachment-level, PTSD-level research base. Until then, Karen, your “new pathology” doesn’t exist.
You like Fairy Tales, don’t you Karen. You remember Pinocchio?
Remember the Fox and Cat at the crossroads, who convince Pinocchio to go to Pleasure Island instead of going to school, and the cricket says, “No, no, Pinocchio, go to school” but the Fox and Cat tell Pinocchio, “Don’t listen to the cricket, Pleasure Island is wonderful.” And then Pinocchio goes to Pleasure Island and gets turned into a donkey, and is sent to the salt mines and has to be rescued by the Blue Fairy. You remember that Fairy Tale, don’t you Karen?
Well you and the Gardnerian “experts,” Karen, are the Fox and Cat at the crossroads. You’re telling all these parents to go the bad way, the way of tragedy and no solution, telling them that they have to prove “parental alienation” to a judge, in court, at trial. No, they don’t.
I’m like the cricket, telling people to “Stay on the path of established knowledge, go to school Pinocchio; Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck – don’t go to “Parental Alienation” Island Pinocchio, you’ll be turned into a donkey and sent into the family court system, and then you’ll have to hope that the Dorcy will come to rescue you from the family courts.”
The Fox and the Cat never should have told Pinocchio to go to “Parental Alienation” Island. The cricket was right. Parents who went that way were turned into donkeys and sent to the family courts. Lucky for Pinocchio that the blue fairy came. I hope Dorcy’s able to get you out of the salt mines and turn you back into a person instead of a donkey. But you shouldn’t have listened to the Fox and Cat.
Pinocchio should have gone to school, like the cricket said, and studied, and applied knowledge. But instead he went running after the easy path, the one the Fox and the Cat told him would be a good thing. They lied to Pinocchio. The Fox and the Cat did a very bad thing to Pinocchio.
They tell parents, “Don’t listen to the cricket, Pinocchio, don’t apply knowledge, come to “Parental Alienation” Island instead, you’ll play all day in the Funhouse of Experts. You’re leading them astray, Karen, the parents. That is a bad thing to do. You know “Parental Alienation” Island is a sham, it just funnels parents and families into the family court system. You know it offers no solution. You know that, Karen.
Yet you tell people to go to “Parental Alienation” Island, Shame on you Cat. You know that “parental alienation” offers no solution to parents.
But you know something, Cat? AB-PA is designed to expose the allies of the pathology. And it works.
All I’m advocating for is a return to Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, the established knowledge of professional psychology. You’re against that, “Don’t listen to Dr. Childress – don’t listen to that cricket on your shoulder telling you to apply the established knowledge of professional psychology.”
Who could possible argue AGAINST the application of established knowledge? Someone who doesn’t want a solution, the pathogen’s hidden allies. You, Karen.
Here, I’ll show you Karen… stop using the term “parental alienation” and rely ONLY on the established knowledge of professional psychology. “No.” See? You. You are arguing AGAINST the application of established knowledge. Why are you doing that, Karen? Oh, because you don’t actually want a solution, you just want to LOOK like you want a solution.
A Vanishing Expertise
Tell me, who says you’re an “expert” Karen? You do.
Wait, I’ll bet Bill Bernet does too, doesn’t he. He says you’re an “expert.” But wait, who says Bill Bernet is an “expert”? Oh, you do. I get it. You all just go around anointing each other as “experts” and then just make stuff up. Sweet. You know that’s a scam, right? You’re not a real expert in anything. You know that, right?
You are? You are really an “expert” for real? Okay, show us. On your vitae. Post your vitae, Karen. Show us how you developed your expertise. Where did you receive your training in the attachment pathology? Where did you receive your training in family systems therapy? Where did you receive your training in personality disorder pathology? Where did you receive your training in complex trauma? Where did you receive your training in the neuro-development of the brain during childhood?
You’re not an expert in anything, Karen, except in your own imagination and fantasies. It’s a Fairy Tale, Karen.
I suppose in Fairy Tales that’s all it takes, isn’t it Karen, a wave of the magic wand and, presto-chango, Karen Woodall is an “expert” who goes to the royal ball in her magical carriage of “parental alienation” dressed in her beautiful “expert’s” dress– ahhh, if only… what a nice fantasy, isn’t it Karen. If only everyone listened to you and did what you told them to do, then the world would be wonderful, wouldn’t it Karen? If everyone just listened to you and did what you said.
Thank you from all of us, for your magnificence, Karen. Whatever would we do without your magnificent brilliance. We’re so lucky to have “experts” like you to guide us in our ignorance. How’d you become an expert again? Can we look at your vitae? No? How odd.
But alas, they don’t listen to you, do they Karen? And never will, Karen.
So I guess we will be lost forever in the wilderness, because no one is listening to Karen Woodall, our savior. That’s the storyline, isn’t it Karen? It’s the “If Only” story, isn’t it? If only people listened to me, the world would be a better place. That story. You’ve also got the Star Wars mythos going too, right, the heroic rebel alliance fighting the evil empire, a never ending struggle of the heroic rebels fighting against the Death Star. Isn’t that the one? If only Karen Skywalker can destroy the Death Star in time to save us. Save us, Karen. We’re all counting on you, please save us Karen.
Isn’t that the storyline you’re running?
If only everyone listened to your magnificence. Ahhh, that would be lovely.
Your world of “parental alienation” is disappearing, Karen – it’s going to be solved. Really. We’re on the path to solving this family conflict pathology using Bowlby, Minuchin, and Beck… no Gardner. Which means… no you.
Uh-oh. What will you do, Karen? When there is no “parental alienation”?
Because… you’re not really an “expert” in anything except a pathology that you can simply make up, when that pathology goes away… you won’t be an “expert” anymore. What will you do, Karen, once the pathology is solved?
You’ve gotten locked into a rigidity that you can’t escape. You must, at all costs, hold on to the term “parental alienation” or else you… cease to be an expert in anything. Uh-oh Karen. What are you going to do as “parental alienation” fades from relevance in professional psychology?
No one’s ever going to say, “Hey, we should give this Gardner PAS a new look.” Read the writing on the wall, Karen. You, Karen Woodall, are everything status quo – Gardnerian PAS – you are no change, just more of the same – 40 years of the same, Karen. Forty years of no solution, Karen.
Uh-oh when change comes and the status quo is washed aside. What happens to you, Karen, when the source of your sole “expertise” disappears?
Dr. Childress is taking it away from you, isn’t he, your prized “expertise.” I’m leading everyone back to Bowlby, and Kernberg, and Minuchin. Away from you. Fight back, Karen. Hold on. Stop him, Karen, stop him from leading people back to the established principles of professional psychology… because then they won’t listen to you, and you won’t be… important.
That must be hard for you, Karen. To see your role as an “expert” vanishing along with the construct of “parental alienation.” You have so much of your ego tied up in being an “expert.” What happens when the pathology is solved? What happens when it’s solved without the construct of “parental alienation”?
Will you be happy, Karen, when the pathology is solved using Bowlby, Minuchin, and Beck, will you be happy? Or will you be sad and unhappy when the pathology is solved and families are reunited? What will you do when you’re not an “expert” anymore, when no one listens to you?
I tried to warn you, change is coming, we’re solving the pathology. I told you, I’m taking the field of professional psychology back to the standard and established – already scientifically established – knowledge of professional psychology – Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck.
Family systems therapy solves everything about this pathology, Karen. Why aren’t you using family systems constructs? Oh, because then YOU are not the expert, Minuchin and Bowen are. Why do we need the construct of “parental alienation,” Karen? What’s wrong with using cross-generational coalition and emotional cutoff from family systems therapy? Oh, because then YOU are not the expert, Minuchin and Bowen are.
We MUST hold on to “parental alienation” – we MUST, we MUST. No, Karen. That construct is going away in professional psychology. Oh, it will remain a construct in the general population, people prefer simple easy-to-understand things. But in professional psychology… we’re returning to the established constructs and principles of professional psychology.
Dr. Childress isn’t going anywhere, Karen. We are returning to Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, that is a fact. You will become irrelevant once we drop the construct of “parental alienation” and once we return to the established knowledge and constructs of professional psychology, that too is a fact.
Once we leave the make-believe world of “discovering” new pathology – once we leave the Fairy Tale world of Alice through the Looking Glass, where professional expertise is self-anointed, once we return to the real world of real pathology, we will solve the pathology.
No mermaids, Karen. No unicorns. I know you love your mermaids and unicorns, I’m sure they’re magical and make you feel warm and safe. But that fantasy is not real, Karen. There is no new pathology, Karen. It’s a delusion of grandeur. The world you’ve constructed for this new form of pathology, this “parental alienation” pathology you like so much… that’s not real. It’s an illusion. It’s a Fairy Tale, Karen. A creation of your fantasy.
I know, it’s a beautiful fantasy, to be an “expert” – so important, everybody listens to you. But the reality is, you’re not important, Karen. You’re not an “expert” in anything, that’s simply your egoistic hubris and your unbridled grandiosity. There is no new pathology you’re discovering. You’re an ordinary person, ignorant in many ways, over your head, beyond your capacity. The emptiness of your grandiosity will be deflating with the coming of reality. I’m sure that’s hard on you, watching your world vanish. I’m sure inside, it must feel like a kaleidoscopic and fracturing world.
You’re not an expert in anything, Karen.
“Yes I am” – Okay, let’s see your vitae. Post your vitae, Karen. You’re the one asserting that you’re an “expert,” so, back it up, post your vitae. My vitae is up online, where’s yours?
You are not an expert in anything, Karen. You just want to be. You want to be more than your are, more important, more special… everybody needs to listen to Karen… she’s important.
No, Karen. You’re simply an ignorant person who thinks she’s “discovering” something. You’re just making stuff up to hide your ignorance.
Is it to hide your laziness, Karen? Is that it? Are you simply too lazy to learn and apply knowledge? Or is it that you’ve tried to learn the material of Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck et al., and you don’t understand it?
Is that it, Karen? Is it that you don’t comprehend the information from family systems therapy and complex trauma? Personality disorders and attachment pathology? Is it that you don’t comprehend the information?
That’s it, isn’t it? That’s why your mind feels like a kaleidoscope of fractured thoughts.
Where did you receive your training in attachment pathology, Karen? My vitae is available for all to see. Where’s yours? You’re an “expert” – let us marvel in your expertise. Post your vitae, let’s have a look at exactly how much of an “expert” you truly are.
I wouldn’t have much of a problem with your grandiose arrogance, Karen, except that it hurts children and their parents. Your ignorance and your misdirection of parents into paths that offer no solution whatsoever, hurts people. You’re hurting people, Karen, by withholding the solution from them.
Are you diagnosing DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Karen? It turns on Diagnostic Indicator 3, the persecutory delusion. Is that present, Karen? A persecutory delusion in the child? If it is, that’s a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse. Add attachment system suppression and five personality disorder traits and the diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse is a lock. Are you diagnosing DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Karen?
You’re not are you? Because you don’t want to assess for AB-PA because then Dr. Childress will be the “expert,” not you… so you are withholding the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse – when it is an appropriate and warranted diagnosis – BECAUSE… you want to stay an “expert.” That… is reprehensible professional practice for your clients, Karen.
If you are not diagnosing V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Karen, please… tell us why you are not diagnosing this pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse?
You and I both know the answer, don’t we Karen.
Answer: You are not diagnosing a DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse because the construct of “parental alienation” doesn’t actually support the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, does it? Because it is not a real pathology is it? It’s only a pathology of your creation – you and Gardner, a Fairy Tale.
The only way to reach a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse is through AB-PA, and you refuse to apply the established knowledge of professional psychology and you INSIST on using a made up form of new pathology, so the DSM-5 diagnosis is being withheld from your clients because of your ego and desire to be an “expert.”
That is morally reprehensible professional practice, Karen.
A Pathogenic Ally, A Split Mind
If you are the “fractured mind and kaleidoscopic thinking” of your title, which a reading of your blog with professional knowledge suggests, then I suspect your fracturing might be a response to stress, Karen.
The world of “parental alienation” – the world of your self-identify as an “expert” is disappearing, Karen. You, as an expert, are disappearing too. We all are. Myself included. The world of “experts” and “evaluators” is leaving, like the boats of elves leaving the world of men at the end of Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings, we’ll be sailing to the distant shores. We won’t need “PAS experts” or “custody evaluators” anymore. That’s a narcissistic approach that leads to no solution.
The world of clinical psychology is returning – Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, van der Kolk, Tronick. The real world. No Fairy Tales anymore.
I’m leaving too, once my job here is done. That’s what clinical psychologists do, we work ourselves out of a job by fixing things. Dr. Childress never was an expert. I’m just a clinical psychologist. I’m solving the pathology. I’m working, Karen. You are watching a clinical psychologist at work. In this blog too, I’m working. I’m disabling an ally of the pathogen from causing further damage.
You are a pathogenic ally. You know that don’t you, Karen? Let me ask you this, who wants to stop Dr. Childress? The allies of the pathology, right? The allied parents, their attorneys, their flying monkeys. And you. You and Bill Bernet, and Amy Baker, Dr. Miller. You, the Gardnerian PAS group, you want to stop Dr. Childress too right? “How can we stop Dr. Childress,” you’ve had those discussions.
The pathogen wants to stop a return to established constructs and principles of professional psychology, and YOU want to stop a return to the established constructs and principles of professional psychology. You and the pathology are on the same side, Karen. You are allied with the pathology AGAINST a solution.
Here, I’ll prove it… Karen, stop using the construct of “parental alienation” and ONLY use the established knowledge of professional psychology.
Karen’s Response: “No, Dr. Childress. I insist on creating a new form of pathology and advocating that everyone else adopt my new pathology, based on the work of my guru, Richard Gardner.”
Karen… you do understand how the projection thing works in psychology, right? Everything you do – everything, Karen… is a projection of your inside stuff. I’m a clinical psychologist, Karen. You know I can see your inside material, right? That “guru” thing you accuse me of… well, reality is that I’m saying it’s not me, Karen, it’s Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck. You’re the one saying it’s you – you’re the one claiming to be coming up with new forms of pathology and new forms of therapy. You’re the guru, Karen.
And your guru is Richard Gardner. You think in terms of “experts”- that’s YOUR organizing cognitive-relational structure. You see gurus, like Gardner, like yourself. So when you look at me, you see your reflection. You do understand how projection works, right Karen?
I’m a clinical psychologist. I’m working. I’m solving pathology. When I’m done, I’ll be out of a job. Yay. Then I’ll move on to the next client. I’m a clinical psychologist. I fix things. That’s my job. It wasn’t my mind that organized a return to the established knowledge as some sort of “guru” thing – that’s your mind that sees that, Karen – mirror, Karen, mirror.
Karen, I’d be worried if I ever found myself on the same side of something as this pathology. If you’re on the same side of the pathology as the narcissistic-borderline parent in trying to delay and prevent a solution… then you are an ally of the pathology. See how that works?
AB-PA – a return to the established knowledge of professional psychology – Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck – is designed to identify the allies of the pathogen. Did you know that, Karen? Yes, it is. Who could possible argue AGAINST applying the knowledge of family systems therapy and the DSM-5? You. It identified you as the ally of the pathology. You do not want to solve this, you want to keep this endlessly in conflict… so you can remain an “expert.”
Prove me wrong, Karen. Advocate for a return to the established constructs of professional psychology – stop using the construct of “parental alienation” and rely ONLY on the established knowledge of professional psychology.
You won’t do it. Oh hi, there you are, pathogenic ally. I almost didn’t see you there. You do such an excellent job of hiding. I must say, that false conflict you created as the “loyal opposition” was quite convincing… up to a point.
You… are not an expert in anything, Karen. You are simply grandiose.
Prove me wrong, post your vitae. Show us where you received your training in attachment pathology, in family systems therapy, in personality disorders, in complex trauma, and in the neuro-development of the brain.
Or do you think you don’t need to know things? Do you believe you can be ignorant, and that’s okay?
You’re the one claiming to be an expert, Karen. Post your vitae. I posted mine.
You’re not an expert in anything, Karen. You know it, and I know it. The only people who don’t realize your level of ignorance are the parents. They trust you. You betray them. That’s not good, Karen. You and the other Gardnerian “experts” are the Fox and the Cat at the crossroads. Shame on you, Karen. What you are doing is a bad thing to do. It hurts parents and children.
From Aaron Beck: “The core belief of narcissistic personality disorder is one of inferiority or unimportance.” (Beck et al., 2004, p. 249)
I imagine things are starting to get difficult for you as you see your supposed “expertise” vanishing into the illusion that it always was. We are going to solve this pathology, Karen, and it’s going to be solved without the construct of “parental alienation.” Where does that leave you, Karen, once the pathology is solved?
Will you be happy, or unhappy, Karen, when the pathology is solved, solved without “parental alienation” as a pathology? What happens to your self-importance? I suspect being average is going to be a hard adjustment for you. After all, in the Fairy Tales of your creation you’re a magnificent “expert” who is on a magnificent “journey to develop new approaches to family therapy” – oh thank you, Karen. God bless you Karen. You’re so magnificent.
Thank God we have your magnificent “expertise” Karen, to lead us in the right way, your way, this new pathology thing that you think you’re “discovering.”
I’m sure it will solve everything… eventually… some day… maybe.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857