Gardner PAS “experts” Are No Longer Relevant

The Garnerian PAS “experts” are no longer relevant to professional discussion.

 

As a licensed clinical psychologist, I have active duty to warn and duty to protect obligations relative to the Gardnerian PAS “experts”. In two separate matters in which I am personally involved, I have an identifiable victim in imminent danger directly as a result of the reckless, unethical, and irresponsible actions of Dr. Bernet, Dr. Lorandos, Ms. Gottlieb, and Dr. Harman.

 

Criteria are met for my duty to protect obligations and for my duty to warn obligations – on two separate matters – one involving Drs. Bernet and Lorandos, and a separate matter involving Ms. Gottlieb and Dr. Harman.

I anticipate that all four of those individuals will likely find themselves at the center of professional controversy. I anticipate Ms. Gottlieb will surrender her license and that Dr. Harman may lose her academic appointment.

To be clear – the Gardnerian PAS “experts” represent a fringe group of ‘professionals’ who are substantially outside the mainstream of professional psychology. They believe they are smarter and know more than the American Psychiatric Association about diagnosis, and they disregard their ethical obligations as professionals.

Ms. Gottieb developed a 4-day “intensive” therapy completely of her own devising, unlike any other form of therapy in professional psychology. No 4-day treatments exist for any other pathology – not depression – not anxiety – not ADHD – not Oppositional-Defiant Disorder, not eating disorders, not substance abuse, not trauma… in no other pathology in any field of psychology is there a 4-day “intensive” treatment.

Ms. Gottlieb took it upon herself to create a 4-day intensive “therapy” of her own devising, something no one else has ever done before… this is her educational background to accomplish this task:

 

She graduated city college in 1968, 50 years ago, and she became a social worker forty years ago in 1980.

That is the entirety of Ms. Gottlieb’s educational background that prepares her to develop a new “intensive” 4-day therapy unlike anything that exists anywhere in any domain of professional psychology.

Ms. Gottlieb believes she’s a special “expert” in a new form of pathology that she’s an “expert” in – the reason she’s an “expert” in this new form of pathology is because she tells us she is.

This is the list of ethical concerns surrounding Ms. Gottlieb’s Turning Points program:

APA Ethics Code

• Standard 2.04 Bases of Scientific and Professional Judgments

• Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence

• Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment

• Standard 10.01 Informed Consent for Therapy

• Standard 5.01 Avoidance of False and Deceptive Statements

• Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm

• Standard 2.03 Maintaining Competence

NASW Ethics Code

• Standard 1.04 Boundaries of Competence

• Standard 4.04 Dishonesty Fraud and Deception

• Standard 1.02 Self-determination

• Standard 1.03 Informed Consent

• Standard 2.05 Consultation

• Standard 4.07 Solicitations

• Standard 5.01 Integrity of Profession

To say that Linda Gottlieb is ethically challenged is clearly evident in her reckless behavior.

By all indications, the Turning Points program is a ‘bait-and-switch’ on the courts. She seemingly makes promises to the court and parents of a 4-day treatment that requires a 90-day no-contact order from the court toward the other parent.

By all indications, no change occurs in the child’s rejecting attitudes, beliefs, or opinions in the 4-day “treatment” of Ms. Gottlieb’s devising. By indications, she collects no outcome measures and her “treatment” is entirely unsuccessful in changing anything.

At the end of the 90-day no-contact period, when no attitude or belief change has occurred from Ms. Gottlieb’s failed “treatment”, she then asks the court for an extension of the 90-day no-contact because there has been no change in the child.

When there continues to be no change in the attitudes and beliefs  at the end of this 90-day no contact period, Ms. Gottlieb then requests another extension of the 90-day no-contact period – that is her “treatment” – the continued extension of the no-contact period with the other parent – because she has no treatment other than that.

Her “4-day” treatment appears to be a bait-and-switch on the courts and parents to get her foot-in-the-door. Once she’s obtains the court order for no-contact and obtains control of the situation, – she dominates and controls everyone to her will with the threat of extending the no-contact order unless the child submits to Ms. Gottlieb’s will and beliefs.

By all indications, her grueling 4-hour marathon “therapy” sessions each day with the child would meet criteria for an “invalidating environment” of borderline personality processes (Linehan).

Ms. Gottlieb is old, misguided, and reckless. Her judgement should not be relied on and her professional practices are unsound. The Turning Points “therapy” of Ms. Gottlieb’s sole devising warrants and will certainly receive additional administrative review.

Dr. Harman conducted a highly questionable “research” study in support of Turning Points and Ms. Gottlieb that looks very much like a pre-determined biased marketing use of Dr. Harman’s role-and-credibility with her university standing for an intentional marketing purpose. I anticipate the academic institution of Dr. Harman will be reviewing her methodology.

 

Ms. Gottlieb and the rest of this fringe group of professionals present clear and imminent risk to children and to the general public. I have two identifiable victims in two separate matters who are at risk of harm directly because of the reckless, irresponsible, and unethical activity of Dr. Bernet, Dr. Lorandos. Ms. Gottlieb, and Dr. Harman.

My duty to protect and duty to warn obligations as a clinical psychologist are active. I have mandated – required – obligations under Standard 1.05 of the APA ethics code.

If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations , or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities.

Of note is that I have been in consultation with my own personal consultant for the past two years – a PhD psychologist who is also an attorney, his practice specialty is consulting with mental health professionals on ethical issues. I engaged him when the Oregon board matter first arose.

He is in agreement with my perceptions and that my ethical obligations are active under Standards 1.04 and 1.05 of the APA ethics code relative to both the forensic custody evaluators and the Gardnerian PAS “experts”.

Criterion 1: An apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person – met.

Criterion 2: It is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations , or is not resolved properly in that fashion – met.

Obligation: Psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.

What “further action” am I required to take that is appropriate to this situation?

I have two separate matters, one where Lorandos & Bernet (2020) is being used by the incompetent forensic custody evaluator as the reason to argue that there is NO “parental alienation” in the family so the child should be left with the abusive allied parent.

In the other matter, Linda Gottlieb so far overstepped professional standards of practice that she will likely surrender her license, and Dr. Harman’s “research” will likely receive addition review from her academic institution.

 

What is the “further action appropriate to the situation” I am required to take under Standard 1.05 of the APA ethics code? – mandatory, not optional, ethical Standards of practice are mandatory.

 

Dr. Bernet, Dr. Lorandos, Ms. Gottlieb. Dr. Harman, and Ms. Woodall, are all in serious trouble and will likely become increasingly focused toward their own personal concerns surrounding their continued distorted beliefs and practice in the courts.

To the extent that Dr. Childress can be called to rebut the testimony of this fringe group of professionals will likely prove problematic for their continued role in the courts as “experts” in anything. If they testify in court, they will likely face repercussions on their licensed status as professionals.

I recommend they all leave court-involved practice. They are not needed for any solution, they are a barrier to the solution, they are unethical, reckless, and unprofessional in their actions. They need to go away.

 

They need to work with ADHD or autism, with eating disorders, or substance abuse, with depression or anxiety – anywhere they want except here in the family courts.

Their careers here in the family courts are over.

It’s coming. As sure as the sun rises – it’s coming. Their time in the family courts is over.

 

Not from me. I’m just a point on a line. They moved into their own self-destruction from their arrogance, ignorance, reckless, and unethical professional behavior.

Dr. Childress has active duty to protect and duty to warn obligations with identifiable victims in imminent danger from the reckless and unprofessional behavior of Dr. Bernet, Dr. Lorandos, Ms. Gottlieb, and Dr. Harman. Dr. Childress has active mandatory ethical obligations under Standard 1.05 of the APA ethics code. My consultant agrees with both.

Ethical practice is not optional. It is mandatory – required.

Dr. Bernet believes he knows more about diagnosis than the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Bernet believes he is right and the American Psychiatric Association is wrong.

Bill Bernet is wrong, the APA is right.

Dr. Childress agrees with the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Bernet does not.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” are a fringe group in professional psychology who reject the diagnostic guidance of the American Psychiatric Association and the ethical guidance of the American Psychological Association.

They are reckless in their judgment and irresponsible in their actions, and I have active duty to protect and duty to warn obligations.

It is a cesspool here. These “professionals” degrade professional standards of practice, they don’t improve them.

Parents will want Dialectic Behavior Therapy (DBT; Linehan) adapted to the family courts, informed by Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT; Johnson).

 

Dialectic Behavior Therapy in a Nutshell

 

The Garnerian PAS “experts” are no longer relevant to professional discussion.

 

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857