Oregon has filed their answering brief to my appeal of their sanctions for practice in Oregon without a license for a Custody Resolution Method (CRM) consultation report I wrote for CCPI.
Oregon statues specifically exempt consultation to “organizations or institutions” from Oregon jurisdictional authority. But the Oregon licensing board disregarded Oregon law and sanctioned me for practice in Oregon without a license.
I provided the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute (CCPI) with a consultation report on the CRM data profile they generated from a qualitative research method called Content Analysis and coding of the documented data surrounding the family conflict, such as emails, texts, reports, and court documents.
CRM compiles this mountain of raw data into categories of interest using Content Analysis and coding (“tagging”) the data. CCPI codes for the three Diagnostic Indicators for an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” that I describe in my book, Foundations (Childress, 2015).
My CRM report provides education surrounding the pathology of concern in high-intensity custody conflicts, i.e., a shared persecutory delusion and cross-generational coalition, I review the frequency counts for the various categories of concern, and I render an opinion based on the frequency counts of data coded by CRM.
When significant symptom elevations are indicated by the data, my opinion is that there may be child psychological abuse (i.e., a shared persecutory delusion) and that this possibility should be assessed.
That is all I say. I conducted no assessment. I make no diagnosis. I state that repeatedly in my CRM consultation report – I conducted no assessment and I make no diagnosis – the concerns indicated by the CRM data profile need to be assessed. That is all I say.
There was no injured party in the Oregon matter. The child turned 18 and ‘aged-out’ of the court’s jurisdiction for custody before my CRM report could be submitted. My CRM report had no impact on the case because it was never submitted into evidence.
The mother in this matter was not affected. The father in this matter wanted my consultation report from the CRM data profile. There was no injured party. So who filed the licensing board complaint for practice in Oregon without a license?
As a result of my CRM report, the father filed a licensing board complaint against the involved forensic psychologists. The ‘injured’ party was the incompetent and unethical forensic psychologist. The Oregon licensing board opened no investigation of the Oregon forensic psychologist, and instead sanctioned Dr. Childress because my report generated a licensing board complaint against the incompetent and unethical forensic psychologist.
Licensing boards do not protect the consumer from unethical professional practice by forensic psychologists, they protect the unethical forensic psychologists from accountability for their negligent malpractice.
The Oregon licensing board is seeking to cover-up the unethical malpractice of Oregon forensic psychologists.
I am appealing the Oregon board sanctions into the Oregon courts. The licensing boards are controlled by the forensic psychologists, they are covering up for themselves, they are covering up their negligent and unethical malpractice. I am turning to the Oregon courts for a fair and just review of the merits of my position.
So far, my appeal of the Oregon sanctions has cost me $20,000 of my own money in legal fees to fight a $7,500 sanction… for the benefit of parents and your children. We need to expose the corruption of the licensing boards who are covering up the unethical malpractice by forensic psychologists.
Do the right thing. Don’t worry about outcomes. Outcomes will take care of themselves, do the right thing. The right thing to do is to stand and fight. I was not practicing in Oregon, I never met with the parent, I provided consultation to an “organization or institution”, the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, on a data profile they generated through a qualitative research methodology called Content Analysis and coding (“tagging”).
I will be sharing more information about this matter in upcoming blogs. If, as you learn about this matter, you wish to support me in my battle with the forensic psychologists on the Oregon licensing board – write to the Oregon licensing board expressing your disapproval of sanctions on Dr. Childress rather than a focus on the ignorant, incompetent, and unethical malpractice of Oregon forensic psychologists.
Tell the Oregon board your story of unethical malpractice by forensic psychologists. The first defense of the pathogen is to hide. Not anymore.
I have already spent $20,000 of my own money and the appeals process is just beginning. I don’t know how long I can maintain the financial expense – I will last as long as I can.
You’re costing me money – you and your children. Now is the time. Rise. Stand. Let them hear your voice. Speak your truth to the licensing boards – Standards 2.04, 9.01, 2.01 and failure in their duty to protect. They have obligations, but only if you demand your rights.
Oregon has just filed their answering brief, we will now answer theirs ($$$). My attorney has their response. Here are my observations to my attorney to the Oregon appeal answering brief:
1. There was no injured party in Oregon. My report resulted in a licensing Board complaint made by the father against the Oregon forensic psychologist. The only injured party was the forensic psychologist who had a Board complaint filed against them. The forensic psychologists on the Oregon board are retaliating.
2. There is no such thing as a “preliminary diagnosis.” In healthcare, there is a diagnosis and there is no diagnosis. If you tell me a person has hallucinations, delusions, and conceptual disorganization and ask for my opinion, I’ll say “That sounds like it could be schizophrenia, you should have that assessed.” That is not a “preliminary diagnosis”, that is an opinion based on the information presented. In healthcare, there is no such thing as a “preliminary diagnosis”. I conducted no assessment and I made no diagnosis. I said that repeatedly in my report. How much more clear do I need to be – I conducted no assessment and made no diagnosis.
3. Am I allowed to provide a consultation report on a CRM data profile if that CRM data profile is submitted to me by an attorney? Is it only a procedural error on my part in who submitted the CRM report to me? If an attorney had submitted it to me would I have been able to provide a report? Or am I prohibited from providing an opinion on a CRM data profile for an Oregon matter no matter how the CRM data profile is submitted to me?
I have consulted with the Trust malpractice carrier on my future liability because of the Oregon sanctions. As a result of their consultation. I am now declining to provide consultation to any Oregon attorney or parent on any matter, and I will not speak to an Oregon resident even once to even find out what they want to talk to me about, by recommendation of the Trust insurance carrier from my consultation for my risk-management.
I am involved as an expert witness in other cases across the country. Am I allowed to provide an opinion on a CRM data profile in those cases, or is the Oregon Board prohibiting me from providing an opinion on a CRM data profile under any circumstances? If some circumstances are allowed, under what circumstances? Am I allowed to provide an opinion on a CRM data profile if it is submitted to me by an attorney, but just not if it is submitted to me by CCPI? If I am allowed to provide a consultation report to an attorney, what about to a parent who is representing pro se? Am I allowed to provide a consultation report on a CRM data profile to an attorney and Oregon parent representing pro se, but just not to CCPI who generated the data profile? Or am I only allowed to provide a consultation report on a CRM data profile submitted to me by an attorney, not by a parent representing pro se, and not from CCPI who generated the data profile? Or am I prohibited from providing a consultation report on a CRM data profile no matter who submits it to me?
I will need greater clarity on the allowed paths and disallowed paths for submitting a CRM data profile to me, or is the prohibition against my providing a consultation report on a CRM profile absolute no matter how it is submitted to me?
This absence of clarity is affecting custody cases nationally. Note the domain of concern – child psychological abuse. The diagnosis of concern in these cases is a potential DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51). Information about possible child abuse by a parent is being withheld from the court’s consideration in multiple cases nationally because I am prohibited from providing an opinion on a CRM data profile that child psychological abuse is a concern based on the symptoms in the surrounding data and should be assessed.
Until I have an answer, I have stopped providing consultation to CCPI (which is affecting custody cases nationally) and I have stopped providing any consultation to any Oregon attorney or resident pending further clarification on the allowed and prohibited consultation to CCPI regarding their CRM data profile.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857