I have been sanctioned by the Oregon licensing board for practice without a license in Oregon because I provided consultation to the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, Dorcy Pruter, CEO. These sanctions were delivered despite Oregon law with exempts consultation with “organizations or institutions” from licensing requirements.
From my attorney: “Under ORS 675.090(1)(a), the above statutes do not apply to a “person who teaches psychology, conducts psychological research or provides consulting services to an organization or institution, provided that the person does not supervise direct psychological services and does not treat any behavioral, emotional or mental disorder of an individual.” (Emphasis added).”
I am appealing the Oregon licensing board ruling into the courts. I believe the decision was wrong. I believe the Oregon licensing board did not apply the Oregon statutes to my matter. I will have more to say in the days ahead. At this point, I need to be precise in my public statements.
To parents – this is why no clinical psychologist will work with you and your families, and this is why the quality of care you receive is so poor. The forensic psychologists control the licensing boards. Clinical psychologists know that, they won’t work with your families. This is why you have ONLY forensic psychologists who will work with you. The forensic psychologists control the licensing boards and will retaliate against any clinical psychologist who tries to help you.
They believe they own you. I am challenging that belief because it is incorrect. They’re wrong. You are not their personal “fiefdom” for their financial exploitation. We need to fix things. That’s treatment. That’s clinical psychology.
I will be appealing this decision by the Oregon licensing board. I will have more to say on the matter going forward. I must be precise in my public discussion and will want to consider my statements carefully, with appropriate consultation before more fulling discussing the situation.
Legal cases are tried in the court. I will, however, need to address this issue publicly because it affects court cases, my ability to provide professional consultation to the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, Dorcy Pruter, CEO, and the Custody Resolution Method which is offered into evidence in courts across the nation, and it interferes with my ability to speak with any Oregon resident, even once, and my ability to provide consultation and expert testimony to Oregon attorneys.
I am no longer providing any professional consultation to the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, Dorcy Pruter, CEO, regarding the data profiles generated by the Custody Resolution Method as directed by the Oregon licensing board.
I am no longer providing any professional contact – no contact – with any resident of Oregon. I have been sanctioned for having zero contact with an Oregon resident. I am now unclear whether I am allowed to have even one contact with an Oregon resident.
I am no longer providing any professional consultation or expert testimony for any attorney or for any litigation in Oregon pending greater clarity on who I can and cannot consult with and the scope.
Until I have greater clarity on who I can and cannot consult with, I am no longer having any contact with Oregon residents, not even once, I am declining contact. I have already declined consultation appointments with Oregon residents pending greater clarity on who I can and cannot consult with in Oregon.
Furthermore, I am now unclear on who I am allowed and not allowed to provide consultation to, and whether an analysis of the compiled data profile generated by the Custody Resolution Method of CCPI is allowed by the Oregon licensing board, and if so, by what means of presentation to me am I allowed to provide my analysis of the CRM data profile? Or am I simply not allowed under any circumstances to provide an analysis of the CRM data profile?
Until I have greater clarity on who I am allowed to consult with and about what, I am no longer providing consultation and expert testimony for any attorneys in Oregon.
Until I obtain greater clarity on who I can and cannot provide professional consultation to – Oregon is black to Dr. Childress. Oregon residents and attorneys will have zero capacity to access the consulting services of Dr. Childress per instructions to me from the Oregon licensing board.
This will affect child custody cases nationally, since one of the litigants in these cases, the targeted-rejected parent, will no longer be able to obtain an interpretive report regarding the CRM data profile that provides documented evidence for the nature of the pathology in the family.
I believe this Oregon licensing board complaint was generated by an organized conspiracy to tamper with the evidence provided to the courts in-between the court cases.
I have no idea what the litigants in these other cases will do. Per the instructions from the Oregon licensing board, I am not allowed to provide interpretive reports regarding the compiled CRM data profile of the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute.
I AM able to provide an interpretive report of the CRM data profile. The parent-litigants, CCPI, and the involved attorney want me to provide an interpretive report on the CRM data profile. However, I cannot provide an interpretive report on the compiled data profiles generated by the Custody Resolution Method of the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute per the instructions and sanctions of the Oregon licensing board.
So I’m not. Nor am I providing any professional consultation to anyone in Oregon, not residents, not attorneys, until I have greater instructional clarity on who I am and am not allowed to provide professional consultation to and the scope.
In the view of the Oregon licensing board, the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, CEO Dorcy Pruter, apparently does not represent an “organization or institution,” and I am not allowed to provide consultation to the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute on the compiled CRM data profiles. I believe this judgment to be in error. I believe the Oregon licensing board is twisting their interpretation of the Oregon law to specifically target Dr. Childress for sanctions – when I did nothing wrong.
My professional consultation to Dorcy Pruter and the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute on the complied data profiles generated by the Custody Resolution Method is entirely allowed under Oregon statutes that exempt consultation with “organizations or institutions” from licensing requirements
I believe the sanctions represent a selective and targeted retaliation against me by the forensic psychologists in Oregon because my consultation report for the Custody Resolution Method of CCPI resulted in a licensing board complaint by the client-parent of CCPI against the involved forensic psychologists.
No investigation was opened by the Oregon licensing board regarding the professional actions of the involved forensic psychologists. Instead, the Oregon licensing board sanctioned me for practicing in Oregon without a license because I provided consultation to CPPI and the Custody Resolution Method regarding the data profile generated by the Custody Resolution Method.
It is of note that the client of CCPI did not file the complaint. Who would file a licensing board complaint against Dr. Childress if not the person who received the CRM report, i.e., the contact-point for the services? A: The opposing party in the litigation who was negatively affected by the report of Dr. Childress in their custody conflict and the forensic psychologists who were exposed to potential legal liability by the CRM report of Dr. Childress.
In my view, the Oregon licensing board complaint originates in an attempt at evidence tampering to systematically bias court decisions in custody litigation in favor of one of the litigants, and the sanctions from the Oregon licensing board are in furtherance of that goal.
I will have more to say on this matter going forward once I have greater clarity on the parameters of what I can and cannot discuss. This is a matter of public record, it affects cases in Oregon and nationally, I will need to address these sanctions in all future cross-examinations. I will need to address the Oregon licensing board sanctions publicly.
I will begin with sharing my instructions to my attorney to file the appeal. I have already spent $25,000 to defend myself against $7,500 sanctions, and I am just staring the appeals process. This is targeted harassment from forensic psychologists to drive clinical psychologists – the treating psychologists – away – and to specifically prevent introduction of the Custody Resolution Method data profile into evidence in the courts.
Instructions to my attorney:
Please appeal the decision. It is the right thing to do. I was not practicing in Oregon, I was consulting with an organization, the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, on their work product of compiled frequency counts from the raw data in child custody litigation.
I believe this is a targeted effort at retaliation specifically directed at me because my report embarrasses the forensic psychologists involved in the case, resulting in a licensing board complaint against the involved forensic psychologist. I believe I have been singled out for retaliation by the forensic psychologists on the Board, requiring them to disregard the law in order to achieve their retaliation goal.
I also believe this is a targeted effort directed at Ms. Pruter and the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute to deny her the ability to obtain the professional interpretation for her data profiles that she and her client-litigants need, thus denying one of the litigants in child custody cases access to the information needed for their court case. I believe the Oregon licensing board allegations essentially originate in an effort at evidence tampering in the courts by outside parties between court cases. The motivation of these outside parties is to damage and ‘rough up’ the credibility of the expert witness testimony from Dr. Childress through various harassment efforts including seeking to generate sanctions from a licensing board against me, and to also specifically prevent litigants in court cases from accessing the information compiled through the Custody Resolution Method (CRM) of the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute.
I believe one of the involved participants in this conspiracy to damage the credibility of my testimony as an expert witness in the courts and prevent the introduction of the CRM evidence to the court is Dr. Jean Mercer, who I believe contacts litigants between cases and prompts them in ways to retaliate against me professionally and against Ms. Pruter’s ability to provide her services to her clients. I believe this blog by Dr. Mercer describes her approach to targeting professionals for harassment, of selectively targeting myself and Ms. Pruter for her campaign of harassment, and for recruiting others into her campaign of harassment specifically targeting myself and Ms. Pruter, the CEO of the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute.
I note that the original Oregon board complaint contained two allegations, but only one was pursued by the licensing board and the other was dropped without mention. The original complaint was a ‘shot-gun’ of complaints surrounding possible practice in Oregon without a license, the goal is not a specific infraction, the goal is to generate sanctions by any allegation. I did not enter an online presence until a year after the case of the other allegation and the two are entirely unrelated. The licensing board complaint was generated to seek sanctions, not by infractions. Only one allegation was pursued by the Oregon board, they made no decision and no reference to the other allegation. Given the arbitrary nature of the Board’s rulings, I am still vulnerable to that other allegation about my online availability through the Internet that received no decision and no mention. Am I allowed to speak with Oregon residents directly even once?
The answer is yes, according to all statutes and standards of practice, I am allowed to speak with people at least once to find out what they want to speak with me about. However, given the arbitrary nature of the Board’s current ruling that I cannot have even indirect contact with a resident of Oregon through a business organization and no direct contact with the Oregon resident, the Oregon Board’s opinion on whether I am allowed even a single direct contact with an Oregon resident becomes unclear.
When the application of the law becomes unclear then everything becomes an arbitrary case-by-case basis, and I will now need further clarity on this second allegation as well – am I allowed to speak directly with Oregon residents? How many times? I’m limiting myself to two contacts based on consultation with the Trust malpractice insurance carrier. Is that acceptable to the Oregon licensing board, that I can speak with an Oregon resident once or twice to find out what they want to speak to me about?
If I am allowed to speak to Oregon residents once or twice… but I’m not allowed to speak with the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute regarding their client who is an Oregon resident and with whom I have no contact, the Oregon board is essentially saying that I can speak with the person, the Oregon resident, without needing to be licensed, but I just can’t speak with Ms. Pruter and the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute about an Oregon resident, because in that case I need to be licensed in Oregon.
My question then becomes, in my one ‘allowed contact’ with an Oregon resident to find out what they want to talk with me about, can the Oregon resident provide me with the CRM data profile and can I then provide an interpretive report on the CRM data profile directly to the Oregon resident, but just not through Ms. Pruter? Or do I have to say no, I cannot provide an interpretive report to an Oregon resident for the CRM data profile without being licensed in Oregon? How then, should the Oregon resident get an interpretive report on the CRM data profile from me? By what method of introduction to me of the CRM data profile am I allowed to provide an interpretive report on the CRM data profile to a resident of Oregon? Or am I just not allowed to provide an interpretive report on the CRM data profile for any Oregon resident no matter the means it’s provided to me? What if an attorney provides it to me? By what means, but what route, or by no route maybe? I am immensely unclear.
I am willing and able to provide an interpretive report from clinical psychology on the mental health issues raised by the compiled CRM data profile. The Oregon resident, a litigant in a court case, wants my interpretive report on the CRM data profile. Am I allowed to provide the Oregon resident with an interpretive report on the CRM data profile? How, by what means of introduction to me of the CRM data profile will I be allowed to provide an interpretive report on the profile? Or do I need to be licensed in Oregon for any interpretive report I provide for a CRM data profile for an Oregon resident no matter the means of introduction to me?
I need instructional clarity from the Oregon licensing board now. They have said I’m not allowed to provide this interpretive report directly to the organization or institution that generated the data profile because I have to be licensed in Oregon for that. Can I provide it directly to the litigant resident of Oregon if they ask me, or do I need to be licensed in Oregon for that? What if an attorney asks me? Only attorneys then? What about pro se litigants representing themselves? Or are they the Oregon residents I’m not allowed to provide an interpretive report of the CRM data profile to? How much of an opinion am I allowed to provide to the attorney about the psychology of the matter in Oregon before I must be licensed in Oregon? I provide more involved and extensive data-review, analysis, and opinions for attorneys than I did for the Custody Resolution Method.
My CRM report is nothing more than what I write in my book, “if these symptoms are present, this is the pathology.” The CRM data profile presents me with three symptoms being present, I say, “If these three symptoms are confirmed by direct assessment, this would be the diagnosis and treatment, it should be assessed by the local area mental health providers to confirm or disconfirm the presence of these three symptoms.” That’s simply my book, if these symptoms are present, this is the pathology, and this specific type of pathology warrants a direct assessment. If I must be licensed in Oregon to make that statement, I’m unclear about the more extensive and individualized opinions and statements I make with attorneys in my consultation reports to them. With attorneys, I’m actually providing analysis on the raw-data directly that’s much more extensive and individual to the situation. Do I need to be licensed in Oregon for those more extensive opinions based on more individualized data for the Oregon resident?
I thought I knew the rules of professional consultation to third-parties. I am now immensely unclear as to how to respond to the request from Oregon residents for an interpretive report on the CRM data profile. Am I allowed to provide one, and if so, how, by what means of introduction to me of the CRM data profile?
I am not reaching out seeking contact with Oregon residents, they are seeking contact with me wanting an interpretive report from me regarding the CRM data profile generated from the raw data surrounding their case. Am I allowed to provide an interpretive report on the CRM data for Oregon residents? How? By what method? If I am not allowed to provide the consultation report to the business organization that generated the data profile, am I allowed to provide the interpretive report directly to the litigant if they provide it to me, what about an attorney, what about a litigant representing pro se? When the Oregon board does not follow the law, everything now becomes immensely unclear.
I am stopping all consultation with all residents of Oregon, I will not speak with any resident of Oregon per the Board’s instructions, not even once because that would be even more direct contact than I had with CRM, which was zero, and yet I was sanctioned for needing a license for zero contact – I’ve already been sanctioned for zero contact with an Oregon resident, I am not going to risk direct-contact, not even once, until I have clarity on what I can and cannot do with Oregon residents. I have already declined contact appointments with Oregon residents not even knowing what they wanted to talk with me about, because I am unclear on the scope of the Oregon board’s ruling about who I can and cannot consult with, and my need to be licensed in Oregon relative to that consultation.
Nor will I provide consultation with any Oregon attorney or pro se representation until I am provided with greater clarity on who I can and cannot provide consultation to and the scope. The CRM report is nothing more than what I say in my book. I provide much more extensive and individualized opinions for attorneys based on the raw data directly. If I need to be licensed in Oregon for my CRM report, then what is the scope of my allowable opinions and involvement? I am now unclear. I thought I knew the rules, but the rules apparently don’t apply to me. Before I have any contact or involvement with any Oregon attorney or resident or become involved in any legal case in Oregon as a consultant or expert witness, I will need greater clarity on who I am allowed to consult with and who I am not, how, by what method? I will need clear direction now because laws are apparently arbitrarily applied and I am uncertain as to what I am allowed and not allowed to do.
I believe this Oregon licensing board ruling is part of a larger conspiracy of harassing actions that are directed toward myself and Ms. Pruter, and organized by an individual, Dr. Jean Mercer, that includes,
1) AFCC Harassment: An orchestrated campaign of complaints made to the AFCC and APA in 2017 seeking to have Continuing Education units provided for our 2017 presentation to the national convention of the AFCC revoked on technical grounds (as described in her blog: ) to use the withdrawal of CE units to then allow attorneys in court litigation to imply that the AFCC and APA had rejected the content of our presentation, seeking to damage the credibility of my expert testimony to the court by implication.
2) APA Harassment: An orchestrated campaign of complaints made to the APA prior to the presentation of Dr. Childress and Dorcy Pruter to the national convention of the American Psychological Association in 2019, seeking to have the APA rescind its acceptance of our presentation. This targeted campaign of harassment resulted in the APA imposing on us specific peer-review requirements for our paper, and we were singled out alone from all the other papers and required to submit our paper for review and direct approval from the head of Division 24 prior to our presentation, which no other presenter had to do relative to their presentation. Our paper was accepted for presentation and the review had entirely positive comments.
3) California Board Complaint: A licensing board complaint filed in California by Dr. Mercer alleging I referred to her rudely in a blog by saying she’s not a “real psychologist” because her degree is in Experimental psychology and she has never been licensed as a Clinical psychologist who actually treats pathology, and so has never assessed, diagnosed, or treated any pathology. The goal of Dr. Mercer’s California licensing board complaint, as is her general goal of targeted and persistent professional harassment of me, was to generate sanctions from the California licensing board in order to ‘rough up’ the expert testimony of Dr. Childress in-between custody cases. This particular matter involved a case in California in which I was personally directly involved as the court-ordered assessing and diagnosing psychologist in California, where I am licensed as a psychologist, and Dr. Mercer who was an out-of-state “expert” witness brought in by the opposing party specifically to rebut the diagnostic report of Dr. Childress. Dr. Mercer had no knowledge of the matter and no experience or professional background in assessment, diagnosis, or treatment of pathology, yet she opined on these issues anyway from her ignorance. The California board complaint was dismissed without sanctions.
I believe the Oregon licensing board complaint is within this organized conspiracy of professional harassment seeking to damage the credibility of my expert testimony to the court in-between court cases. I believe the disregard of the law by the Oregon licensing board is in furtherance of this goal of interference in child custody litigation cases by preventing or seeking to damage the evidence presented to the courts.
I believe there is a pattern of harassment and efforts targeting me specifically in retaliation for my work in the courts with litigants in child custody cases. I believe the Oregon licensing board complaint is part of that pattern and conspiracy to damage the credibility of my testimony to the court and to prevent the admission of evidence to the court by one of the litigants in order to systematically bias court decisions in favor of one of the litigants in the case.
I had no client in Oregon. My client was the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, Dorcy Pruter, CEO. The Oregon Board’s decision was in error and appears to have mis-applied the law in an effort to target me specifically for retaliation and prevent the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute and the client-litigants served from obtaining the necessary professional consultation and interpretations from clinical psychology regarding their compiled data profiles, thereby preventing the evidence from the compiled data profiles being presented to the court because Ms. Pruter cannot obtain an interpretive report from clinical psychology for the data profiles generated by the Custody Resolution Method.
Please file an appeal of the Board’s decision.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857