Chowderheads, glaikit chowderheads one and all.

Am I saying the same thing over and over again?

Yes.

I do that a lot.  Say things over and over again.  Pretty much the same things.

My goodness gracious, I’ve been saying pretty much the same thing over and over since 2010.  Recently, when I moved my website and was moving essays over, there was an essay from 2010, same things.

Childress (2010) Negative Parental Influence and Spousal Conflict

“Within an alienation dynamic, the personality disorder with the alienating parent, and the re-enactment processes produced by the personality disorder, result in the development of encapsulated, persecutory, non-bizarre delusional processes regarding the abusive-inadequate nature of the targeted parent…” (Childress, 2010)

See that, “encapsulated, persecutory, non-bizarre delsusional processes”.. since 2010. Ten years, I’ve been telling everyone for… ten… years.  Exactly the same thing.  Truth is truth, knowledge is knowledge.  it hasn’t changed in 10 years, it’s not going to change in another 10 years.

“It is the child’s diagnosis of a Shared Psychotic Disorder that is the key feature of making the clinical diagnosis of a Parental Alienation Dynamic.” (Childress, 2010)

Why do I say the same things over and over again? I don’t know, you tell me. Why do I HAVE to say the same things – the same knowledge – DSM-5 – ICD-10 – for years?  Here is the definition from the American Psychiatric Association (notice the date for this citation, 20 years ago, this is not new knowledge).

From the American Psychiatric Association: “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.” (APA, 2000).

Does the child present as being “malevolently treated in some way” by the targeted parent?  Yes.

Is it a persecutory delusion?  Use the BPRS to anchor the symptom rating.  This is the description of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale from Wikipedia:

From Wikipedia: “The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) is a rating scale which a clinician or researcher may use to measure psychiatric symptoms such as depression, anxiety, hallucinations and unusual behaviour. Each symptom is rated 1-7 and depending on the version between a total of 18-24 symptoms are scored. The scale is one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms and was first published in 1962.”

“One of the oldest, most widely used scales” – “first published in 1962” – “which a clinician or researcher may use to measure psychiatric symptons” – this is not new knowledge.

The rating of a delusion turns on the issue of “full conviction.”  The instructions for rating delusions (Item 11 Unusual Thought Content) direct the rater to “Consider the individual to have full conviction if he/she has acted as though the delusional belief was true.”

Has the child acted as though the false persecutory belief in supposed victimization – in being “malevolently treated in some way” – was true?

Yes.  Then the child has “full conviction” in the persecutory delusion.

The anchor point for a rating of 3 (non-delusional) states, “Content may be typical of delusions (even bizarre), but without full conviction.”

“Without full conviction” – the child has acted as if the persecutory belief is true, i.e., “full conviction,” the BPRS rating for the child’s persecutory belief is higher than a 3.

The anchor point for a rating of 4 on the BPRS states, “Delusion present but no preoccupation or functional impairment.”

Does the child’s persecutory delusion create “functional impairment”?  Yes, to the child’s family relationships and bonding.  Then the child’s symptom rating on the BPRS is higher than a 4.

The anchor point for a rating of 5 Moderately Severe states, “Full delusion(s) present with some preoccupation OR some areas of functioning are disrupted by delusional thinking.”

“OR some areas of functioning are disrupted by delusional thinking” – this appears to adequately capture the functional impairment of the child. The child’s rating on the BPRS is a 5 Moderately Severe persecutory delusion… at least.  Higher levels of preoccupation or functional impairment would elevate the rating.

The BPRS is from the 1960s, it is “one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms.”  I should not have to be educating mental health professioals about the BPRS and the rating of delusional symptoms in order to have a professional-level discussion with them about their patients.

This is all – all – information they should ALREADY know, and that they should ALREADY be applying – at least – at least for the past 10 years (I told everyone in 2010, and again and again and again since then, even now, right now), and STILL they REFUSE to apply the DSM-5, the ICD-10, and the BPRS, “one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms.

Am I that smart, or are they that stupid?  Is it me?  Am I some sort of brilliant human of superior intelligence?  Or are they simply stone-cold stupid? Ten years, at least, and even still today, right now, they continue to be… stone-cold ignorant.

Google the word “ignorant” here’s what you get:

adjective: ignorant

1)  lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

2)  lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

By definition, they are ignorant. They are “lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.” They are ignorant.

Here are some of the synonym choices the google definition of ignorant gives me to select from in my description of these mental health people.

uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, unscholarly, unqualified, benighted, backward, inexperienced, unsophisticated, unintelligent, stupid, simple, empty-headed, mindless, pig-ignorant, thick, airheaded, (as) thick as two short planks, dense, dumb, dim, dopey, wet behind the ears, slow on the uptake, dead from the neck up, a brick short of a load, dozy, divvy, daft, not the full shilling, glaikit, chowderheaded, dumb-ass, dotish, dof

Glaikit (pronounced glay-kit; also spelt glaiket) is an adjective used to describe a stupid, foolish and thoughtless person or action. It is mainly used in Scotland and Northern England, like in: “Don’t just stand there looking glaikit, do something!”

So those are my choices to describe these mental health people.  All of them. If they are not applying and have not applied the DSM-5 and ICD-10… these are the descriptive terms Google says apply.

I like uneducated.  They are stone-cold ignorant.  How did they ever get out of school being this ignorant of knowledge and training.  I’d hold their graduate program accountable. Get their vitae, write their graduate program a letter saying what a lousy job they did educating this person, because they are simply pig-ignorant.

Unqualified most definitely applies.  Completely and totally unqualified to be doing what they’re doing, because they are so entirely pig-ignorant.  Yep, that one too.  I think that one is pretty spot-on.

Stupid.  That’s an option.  Ignorance is lacking knowledge, but ten years of lazy sloth, with the requirement of Standard 2.03 of the APA ethics code:

2.03 Maintaining Competence Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence.

That’s more than ignorance.  I think by this point, stupid applies. These mental health people are just stone-cold stupid. That’s descriptive.  I’m simply using the English language as the words of the language are defined.

Glaikit, what the hell is that?  Oh, yeah, that one too.  Don’t just stand there looking glaikit, get to work and diagnose the pathology. Stop being so pig-ignorant. What are you, stupid or something?

I guess so.

Or am I that brilliant?  Am I ten years more advanced, at least, than the average psychologist?  Am I some sort of Leonardo da Vinci making helicopters while the rest of the world is using swords and sticks?  Is it me? Am I that brilliant?

I’m going to go with them being that stupid. Just pig-ignorant chowderheads.  Seriously, if those are my choices for descriptive labels, they are a bunch of pig-ignorant cowderheads.

Why do I have to say the same things over and over again? Sloth and apathy. The persecutory delusion has always been there. Look, on the Diagnostic Checklist, it’s Diagnostic Indicator 3 – a persecutory delusion.

That’s from 2015. So I’ve been telling everyone about the persecutory delusion since 2015. Five years I’ve been saying – “This pathology is a persecutory delusion.”

Apathy and sloth.

Standard 2.03 of the APA Ethics Code:

2.03 Maintaining Competence Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence.

Apathy, sloth, and pure professional laziness. I shouldn’t even have to educate them.

The DSM-5 of the American Psychiatric Association and persecutory delusions are something they should ALREADY know.

Parents ask me, “How do I get a trauma-informed assessment?”  Honestly, with this crop of pig-ignorant chowderhead mental health people around you, I honestly don’t know.

How about family systems therapy – hmm, working with family conflict, you might want to know and apply family systems therapy. What do you think? Do you think that might be helpful?

Here… here is a diagram from Salvador Minuchin for exactly – exactly – this pathology.  It’s from 1993 – over 25 years ago – not new – 25 years ago – standard and established Slide1family systems therapy… for the past 25 years.

Do you see that “triangle” pattern?  Here’s what the Bowen Center website says about the Triangle:

From the Bowen Center: “A triangle is a three-person relationship system. It is considered the building block or “molecule” of larger emotional systems because a triangle is the smallest stable relationship system. A two-person system is unstable because it tolerates little tension before involving a third person.”

Do you see in Minuchin’s diagram how the child is being “triangulated” into the spousal conflict?  Do you see how the child has formed a “cross-generational” coalition with the father that elevates the child in the family hierarchy above the mother, to a position where the child judges the parent as if the parent were the child, and the child the parent?  That’s called an “inverted hierarchy,” a characteristic symptom of the “cross-generational coalition.”

Do you see those broken lines between the mother and father and mother and son? That’s called an “emotional cutoff.”  The emotional cutoff between the spouses, the mother and father, is the divorce.  The cutoff between the child and mother is the pathology created by the child’s cross-generational coalition with the father, in which the father is using a loyalty alliance formed with the child to require the child to similarly cutoff the mother.

See that, triangulation, cross-generational coalition, inverted hierarchy, emotional cutoff. all that in Minuchin’s 1993 Structural diagram for this type of family pathology?  See that?

Family systems therapy, one of the four primary schools of psychotherapy and the only one that deals with fixing family relationships, has been fully developed since the 1970s. Do you think the established knowledge of family systems therapy would use useful to apply in resolving family conflict?  Whaddya think?

Wait, is 1993 not current enough for you?  Do you want something more current?  How about this description from Cloe Madanes of the cross-generational coalition in her 2018 book, Changing Relationships: Strategies for Therapists and Coaches.

From Madanes: “ Sometimes cross-generational coalitions are overt.  A wife might confide her marital problems to her child and in this way antagonize the child against the father.  Parents may criticize a grandparent and create a conflict in the child who loves both the grandparent and the parents.  This child may feel conflicted as a result, suffering because his or her loyalties are divided.”

So have they ever applied family systems therapy to resolving the family conflict surrounding ongoing, high-conflict, court-involved child custody litigation?  No.

Why not?

Dead from the neck up?  Stupid?  Pig-ignorant?  Just standing around looking all glaikit while families are destroyed, while the lives of children are destroyed?  I don’t know, you tell me why no one has applied the knowledge of family systems therapy to the solution for the past 25 years, and why EVEN NOW, they are STILL not applying the knowledge of family systems therapy to solving family conflict.

Nor… nor… are they applying the established knowledge of the DSM-5 and ICD-10.  Nothing, they are applying no knowledge whatsoever, nothing.  Ten years of lazy, slothful, pig-ignorant, practice destroying the lives of children, destroying the lives of parents because these unqualified mental health people insist – insist – on remaining stone-cold stupid.  Completely ignorant chowderheads one and all.

Family Systems Therapy – DSM-5 & ICD-10.

Let’s talk for just a moment about the APA ethics code – required – mandatory for all psychologists – sanctions to license and potential malpractice for violating the APA ethics code.  There are no “optional” Standards in the APA ethics code for psychologists.

Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code:

2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.

That seems pretty clear to me.  Does that seem clear to you?  It seems pretty clear to me.

The DSM-5 and ICD-10 ARE the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.”  And, when assessing, diagnosing, and treating family conflict, family systems therapy IS the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.”

That’s not really in any rational dispute. That is reality.

And yet… none of them have ever applied the DSM-5 and ICD-10, and they STILL, to this very day, are not… and none of them have ever applied the constructs of family systems therapy to their “work” with family conflict, and STILL, to this very day, they are not.

They’re still not applying the knowledge, not “new knowledge,” the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline,” what they should have been doing ALREADY for the past 25 years, at least, and they are STILL not applying knowledge.

Why do I have to say things over, and over, and over again?  I don’t know, why don’t you tell me.

Why do they stand by glaikit while families are destroyed, the lives of children are destroyed, the lives of parents are irreparably destroyed by their… pick your word… ignorance – uneducated incompetence – stupidity and sloth.  Pick your descriptive words for it.

Am I that brilliant?  Or are they that stupid?

Absolute chowderheads, dead from the neck up.  Stone-cold stupid.  Pick your term.

I think unqualified is very apt.

I can tell them exactly what the diagnosis is, exactly the symptom features to look for – my goodness gracious, I even make it a simple 3-item checklist of symptoms for them, check, check, check – and that’s still too complicated for them.  Just stone-cold stupid, ignorant, and entirely unqualified and incompetent.  Choose your words for it:

adjective: ignorant

1)  lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

2)  lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.

uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, unscholarly, unqualified, benighted, backward, inexperienced, unsophisticated, unintelligent, stupid, simple, empty-headed, mindless, pig-ignorant, thick, airheaded, (as) thick as two short planks, dense, dumb, dim, dopey, wet behind the ears, slow on the uptake, dead from the neck up, a brick short of a load, dozy, divvy, daft, not the full shilling, glaikit, chowderheaded, dumb-ass, dotish, dof

Glaikit (pronounced glay-kit; also spelt glaiket) is an adjective used to describe a stupid, foolish and thoughtless person or action. It is mainly used in Scotland and Northern England, like in: “Don’t just stand there looking glaikit, do something!”

In Foundations I describe every little detail of the pathology – down to words and sentences that are used.

How much simpler can I make it?  I can’t make it any simpler for them… and… still, nothing, not a lightbulb on in the attic, dense, dumb, dim, and dopey, I can’t make it any easier, and still… nothing.  No movement whatsoever north of the shoulders.  Pig-ignorant chowderheads.  Pick your term.

Unqualifed is apt.  So is incompetent.

When parents ask them, “Is a persecutory delusion present?” they’re told… “I’m not going to tell you.” That’s what they’re told, “I’m not going to answer that.”

Holy cow.  That is absolute stone-rock professional lazy and a complete abdication of professional responsibilities.  They absolutely refuse – refuse – to apply knowledge. “Is there a persecutory delusion present?” – I’m not going to tell you.

All the Gardnerian folk have been pig-ignorant for years and years.  They’ve known about the diagnosis from my work since 2012-2013, and it is also information they should ALREADY know. The DSM-IV was not a secret, a Shared Psychotic Disorder and persecutory delusions were not secrets.

I told them. Did they do anything?  Did they apply knowledge?  No.  We still have people like Karen Woodall who think they’re “discovering” new pathology, coming up with new names for things she thinks she’s “discovering.”

Does she give an ICD-10 diagnosis of F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder and a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse?

No. Why not? That’s the diagnosis.

I honestly don’t know. She just refuses to apply knowledge. The ICD-10 and DSM-5 – nope, not going to do it.

Since 2013 – 2015 – 2018 – years and years, I’ve been saying exactly the same thing.  Do they listen?  No.  They just stand around glaikit, doing nothing while familes are destroyed, chldren and parents are abused, their lives destroyed irrevocably.

Do they tell us why they don’t apply knowledge – like the ICD-10 and DSM-5?  No.

They just… don’t.

Listen, no one is ever-ever going to say, “Hey, maybe we should give this Gardner PAS thing another look-see.”  That has been fully and completely reviewed – most recently in 2013 (7 years ago – seven years ago) by the American Psychiatric Association, and they said “No.”  Years ago, time to move on from that failed construct.

The American Psychiatric Association said no, there is no such thing as “parental alienation.” So, did any of the Gardner people, Bill Bernet, Amy Baker, Demosthenes Lorandos, did any of them start to apply the ICD-10 and DSM-5?

No.  They’re still telling people about Gardner’s PAS from the 1980s.  Just incredible.  Like rocks.  Just absolute rocks.

What about the other half, the forensic psychology people, all the “evaluators” and “reunfication therapists” who surround your families, what about them?

Same. They’re the ones telling parents, “No, I’m not going to even assess for a persecutory delusion in the child.”

Uhhh, okay.  Shall we ask the plumber to diagnose pathology then?  If not you, who should we go to for a diagnosis of pathology?

Seriously, that’s their job – that’s what the license means, they are “licensed” by the state to diagnose pathology – does the child have a persecutory delusion?  I’m not going to tell you.  Just incredible.

Then you’re pretty worthless aren’t you.  I guess we’ll have to find someone who does diagnose pathology because we need to know if this child and parent are psychotic.

Makes my head explode.  Blatant ongoing violations to Standards 2.04, 2.01a, 2.03, 9.01a, and 3.04 of the APA ethics code.  Do they care?  No.  Complete disregard for the Standards of the APA ethics code.

Completely and entirely unethical professional practices.  In 2018, we directly told the American Psychological Association in a Petition to the APA signed by 20,000 parents describing the multiple ethical code violations rampant throughout forensic psychology.

What’s been the response of the APA in two full years?  Nothing.  Complete and total silence.  They didn’t even deign to give these parents a reply.  Nothing.  Complete and total silence.

I shouldn’t even have to educate them.  Just rocks.

Why?  Why are they such completely pig-ignorant, unqualified, chowerheads?  I know why.  These are my people, psychologists.

Why are they not applying knowledge?  Because they are exploiting parents, financially raping parents, then discarding them when their money runs out.

They solve nothing. They fix nothing. They just run through these families, one after the other, moving them down a path of family destruction.  They don’t care. They are making their money, they don’t care.

And.. they are collaborating in the pathology.  They are actually part of the abuse pathology… a shared delusion.  If you do not see the persecutory delusion, if you also believe the persecutory delusion, then you are PART of the… first word… Shared Psychotic Disorder – the shared delusional disorder.

Oh my god, do you have any idea how bad that is?  When the mental health person is PART of a shared psychosis with the patient?

That’s bad.  That is seriously incompetent – beyond incomptent.  They are part of the pathology that is abusing the parent.  Abusing… the.. parent – they are collaborating in the abuse of their patient.  The mental health person is assisting – assisting – in the emotional abuse of the parent – their client.

That’s bad, soooo bad.  Oh my god, my head… it just explodes.

Does the APA care?  No.  Does the AFCC care?  No.

I went directly to the AFCC national convention in 2017, told them all about it.  My slides from that talk with Dorcy at the National Convention of the AFCC are up on my website (AFCC Childress & Pruter Powerpoint; 2017).  I told them, the AFCC, at their National Convention three years ago, explained everything.

Did they do anything?  No.  Are they STILL – PART – of the pathology, are they STILL collaborating and participating in the savage and brutal emotional abuse of their clients?  Yes.

Years.  Not months, years.  Thousands and thousands of emotionally abused and traumatized parents, thousands upon thousands of children abandoned to the pathology of their parent, left in a Shared Psychotic Disorder with a deeply pathological parent.

Misdiagnosis, rampant incompetence, abject ignorance, complete sloth and professional indolence, lazy, slothful, ignorance… for years.

They should already know everything.  I did, back in 2010 I posted an essay that describes it (Parental Alienation as Child Abuse; Childress, 2010).  In 2015 I published a book, Foundations, that describes the pathology in every detail. In 2017 I went and told the AFCC directly at their National Convention. In 2018 I went and told the APA directly in the Petition to the APA.

So… the question is… why am I saying the same thing over-and-over again?  Because of their… pick your word, I like pig-ignorant stupidity.  I think that’s apt.

My question to you is, why do I HAVE to say the same things over and over again?  This is not new, it is the ICD-10 diagnostic system of the World Health Organization – the standard diagnostic system used everywhere – and the DSM-5 diagnostic system of the American Psychiatric Association.

The “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” (Standard 2.04)

And they refuse, for years and years and years.

Even now.  Even now, today… ask the involved mental health professional, “Does the child have a persecutory delusion?” – go ahead, ask them.

Instead, parents ask me, “Where can I find someone to apply the ICD-10 and DSM-5?” Honestly, over here, I haven’t got a clue.

In 2020-2022 I’ll begin my training seminars. I don’t know how much I can do if they don’t care to be ethical, all of them, if they don’t care to apply knowledge, if they are rock-solid ignorant chimps.

I should NOT have to educate a mental health professional about the pathology in order to have a professional-level discussion about that pathology – they should ALREADY know.  Do you know what it’s called if I have to educate you in order to have a professional-level discussion with you about your patient?  Unqualified.  You are unqualified to be treating your patient.

First learn what you are doing, and THEN start treating patients, not the other way around.  Oh my god, that I would even need to say that is insane professional indolence and pure professonal sloth.  You figure you’ll just come here to these families, take their money, solve nothing, leave destroyed families, childhoods, and the devastated lives of parents, and you don’t even care.

I have made it as easy as I possibly can for them, spoon feeding simple basic stuff.  Still, they do not lift a finger on their own to learn and apply knowledge.

2.03 Maintaining Competence Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence.

Do they care?  Not a whit, not a one of them.

Pick your term.  Unethical, unqualified, pig-ignorant, works for me.

Chowderheads, glaikit chowderheads one and all.

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