Kayden’s Law is unbalanced. There is also Eryk.
Kayden’s Law is a national law seeking to protect children from abusive parents following divorce. It links concerns for child abuse and concerns surrounding prior allegations of “domestic violence”.
Kayden’s Law is written with the influence of one litigant’s side in the court-involved custody conflict, the allied parent. As a result, it is unbalanced and does not address or consider the concerns of the other litigant in the child custody conflict, the targeted parent.
There are two litigants in court-involved child custody conflict, and each litigant is making allegations of child abuse toward the other.
1.) The allied parent is alleging that the targeted parent is abusing the child in some way, resulting in the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent.
A 2-person attribution of causality.
2.) The targeted parent is alleging that the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child and creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology for secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody.
A 3-person triangle attribution of causality.
Each litigant’s concerns need a fair and balanced examination by the court. Kayden’s Law is unbalanced because it only addresses the concern of the allied parent litigant, and does not address the concerns of Eryk – of the targeted-protective parent. Eryk represents the concerns of the targeted parent.
Both sides in court-involved custody conflict are alleging that the other parent is abusively maltreating the child. The arguments and positions of both sides need fair and balanced consideration by the court.
The clinical concern is that the targeted parent is being emotionally and psychologically abused by a narcissistic-dark personality parent using the child as the weapon (DSM-5 V995.82 Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological). The concern of the targeted parent is that the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) pathology in the child for the secondary gain of manipulating the court regarding its child custody decisions.
These are the concerns of Eryk.
The concerns raised for Kayden are valid. So are the concerns raised for Eryk. There are two sides in the litigation – both sides have their legitimate concerns. Only one side is addressed by Kayden’s Law. It needs to be adjusted to also include concerns for Eryk.
There are cats. There are dogs. The existence of cats does not nullify the existence of dogs. Both dogs and cats have fur, four legs, and a tail, but there are ways to tell them apart when we know what to look for. Both exist.
In all cases of court-involved child custody conflict involving attachment pathology displayed by the child, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.
Differential Diagnosis:
-
-
- Targeted Parent Abusive: Is the targeted parent abusing the child in some way, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?
-
-
-
- Allied Parent Abusive: Or is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for secondary gain to the pathological narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the pathological parent’s own emotional and psychological needs?
-
When possible child abuse is a considered diagnosis, our diagnosis must be accurate 100% of the time. The consequences of misdiagnosing child abuse are too devastating for the child, too devastating for Kayden and Eryk.
The assessment for a delusional thought disorder is a Mental Status Exam of thought and percption – and the severity of delusional thought disorders can be rated on a 1-to-7 scale using Item 11 Unusual Thought Content of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale – “one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms” (Wikipedia; BPRS)
-
-
- Mental Status Exam (Martin, 1990) – National Institute of Health
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546682/
-
-
- Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
-
There are dogs. There are cats. There is Kayden’s story. There is Eryk’s story. When child abuse is a considered diagnosis, our diagnosis must be accurate 100% of the time. The consequences of our misdiagnosing child abuse are too severe – and the price of our failure to return an accurate diagnosis in either direction is paid by the child.
In all cases of child abuse concerns expressed by either parent in court-involved custody litigation, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.
Differential Diagnosis
In court-involved child custody conflict involving severe attachment pathology displayed by the child, the differential diagnosis requiring a proper risk assessment is:
1. Targeted Parent Abusive: Is the targeted parent abusing the child, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?
2. Allied Parent Abusive: Is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for secondary gain to the pathological narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the pathological parent’s own emotional and psychological needs?
The diagnoses of concern relative to the allied parent are:
1.) Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied parent (i.e., a shared persecutory delusion and factitious attachment pathology created for secondary gain),
2.) Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological (DSM-5 V995.82) of the targeted parent by the allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent using the child as the weapon of spousal emotional and spousal abuse.
In legislation providing guidance to court decisions on child custody, the legitimate concerns of both litigants need a fair and balanced examination. Kayden’s Law is unbalanced and the legislation requires greater balancing influence from Eryk’s concerns.
There are three sections to Kayden’s Law:
1) Restrictions on Treatment Interventions – with no designation of the diagnosis being treated.
2) Restrictions on Expert Qualifications – that are unbalanced and inadequate.
3) Judicial Education Curriculum – that is unbalanced in one litigant’s favor.
SB-331 was written with the influence of one litigant’s concerns in court-involved custody conflict. SB-311 requires the balancing influence of the other litigant’s position, the position of the targeted parent. Is there a shared persecutory delusion created by a pathologically narcissistic–borderline-dark personality parent?
From Walters & Friedlander: “In some RRD families [resist-refuse dynamic], a parent’s underlying encapsulated delusion about the other parent is at the root of the intractability (cf. Johnston & Campbell, 1988, p. 53ff; Childress, 2013). An encapsulated delusion is a fixed, circumscribed belief that persists over time and is not altered by evidence of the inaccuracy of the belief.”
From Walters & Friedlander: “When alienation is the predominant factor in the RRD [resist-refuse dynamic}, the theme of the favored parent’s fixed delusion often is that the rejected parent is sexually, physically, and/or emotionally abusing the child. The child may come to share the parent’s encapsulated delusion and to regard the beliefs as his/her own (cf. Childress, 2013).” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)
Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.
Professional concerns for balance will be discussed for each section.
Section 1: Restrictions on Interventions
From SB-331: “This bill, Piqui’s Law, the Safe Child Act, would prohibit court-ordered family reunification services as part of a child custody or visitation rights proceeding, including reunification or reconnection therapy, treatments, programs, workshops, classes, or camps that are predicated on cutting off a child from a parent with whom the child is bonded or to whom the child is attached.”
Legislation should not be mandating or restricting treatment. The treatment decisions made by doctors are based on diagnosis. If the diagnosis is Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent, then a protective separation of the child from the abusive parent is warranted and a necessary child protection response is required.
It is unwise for legislation to limit the discretion of the court in making child protection decisions based on the situation and arguments made to the court.
Diagnosis guides treatment. The treatment for cancer is different than the treatment for diabetes. What is the diagnosis not being treated by the treatment restrictions of SB-331?
Is it V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse by the allied parent? Is SB-331 mandating no treatment be provided to the child who is being abused by a narcissistic-borderline-dark personality allied parent?
Greenham, M.B. and Childress, C.A. (2023). Dark personalities and induced delusional disorders, Part 1: Solving the Gordian knot of conflict in the family and domestic violence courts. ResearchGate doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28643.22568
Legislation restricting treatment should be cautiously undertaken and based on diagnostic clarity. The restrictions on treatment-related interventions proposed by SB-331 represent the concerns of one party in the litigation but are not balanced by the concerns of the other litigant.
Attachment Bonding
Of substantial concern is the imprecise definition of diagnostic criteria contained within SB-331 regarding the construct of “with whom the child is bonded or to whom the child is attached.” Does this refer to a Secure attachment bond to the allied parent, or would an Insecure attachment bond also be considered “bonded” and “attached”?
If BOTH a Secure and Insecure attachment to the allied parent are considered as meeting the criteria of SB-331, then all types of pathological parenting are protected from intervention and, under SB-331, the court will never be able to order a protective separation of the child from a pathological parent or order appropriate treatment.
If, on the other hand, only a Secure attachment to the allied parent meets the criteria of SB-331, then in all cases of child custody litigation involving attachment pathology displayed toward the targeted parent, the attachment category (Secure or Insecure) with the allied parent will need to be identified before treatment for the attachment pathology with the targeted parent can be initiated.
That is inappropriately burdensome. The issue with the child’s displayed attachment pathology toward the targeted parent should not require identification of the child’s Insecure attachment bond to the allied parent – the issue is child abuse.
Establishing a criteria for court decision-making of first identifying the attachment category of the allied parent is a misdirected focus of diagnosis asking proof of pathogenic parenting where none is needed. The attachment pathology displayed by the child is NOT directed toward the allied parent, it is directed toward the targeted parent, and the diagnostic focus needs to remain on that parent-child attachment bond.
1.) Is the targeted-rejected parent authentically abusing the child, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?
2.) Or is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) pathology in the child for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody?
Family Systems Pathology
The family systems description for the pathology of concern is the child’s “triangulation” into the spousal conflict by the allied parent who has created a “cross-generational coalition” with the child against the targeted parent, resulting in an “emotional cutoff” in the child’s attachment bond to the targeted parent.
This family systems dynamic of concern is depicted in a structural family diagram from Salvador Minuchin:
Healthcare decisions about treatment should be based on diagnosis. Restricting treatment options available to the healthcare professionals and court based on the concerns of only one litigant is inappropriate. Balancing information needs to be incorporated into SB-331.
Corrective Focus
My recommendation for improving the goal of section 1 would be to first specify the scope of allowed parenting.
-
-
- In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values.
-
-
-
- In the absence of child abuse, each parent should have as much time and involvement with the child as possible.
-
-
-
- In the absence of child abuse, to restrict either parent’s time and involvement with their child would damage the child’s attachment bond to that parent, thereby harming the child and harming that parent.
-
The concern in court-involved custody conflict are the allegations of child abuse made by each parent toward the other. Legislation to protect children from child abuse should specify that in all cases of court-involved child custody conflict involving severe attachment pathology displayed by a child, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.
Section 2: Restrictions on Experts
From SB-331: “The bill would provide that a person is qualified to testify as an expert in a child custody proceeding in which a parent has been alleged to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, as specified, if the person shows by any otherwise admissible evidence that the person has sufficient special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education relating to the subject of the person’s testimony.”
Professional competence in forensic psychology is extremely low, and professional standards of practice need to be established. I recommend application of Standards 2.01 Boundaries of Competence and 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments of the APA ethics code as the bases for establishing professional competence (“expertise”) in court-involved professional psychology.
The relevant domains of established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline required for application are:
-
-
- Attachment – Bowlby and others
- Family systems therapy – Bowen and others
- Personality disorders – Millon and others
- Complex trauma – van der Kolk and others
- Child development – Tronick and others
- Self psychology – Kohut and others
- DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association
-
If the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association were applied in the family courts, issues of professional “expertise” would vanish into professional competence. All doctors should apply exactly the same information (the best) to reach exactly the same conclusions (accurate), and exactly the same recommendations to the court (effective at resolving the child’s attachment pathology).
The restrictions on expert status are unnecessary if basic ethical Standards are enforced by state licensing boards.
“Parental Alienation” Construct
There is no such thing as “parental alienation” in clinical psychology and the use of that construct in a professional capacity is substantially beneath professional standards of practice, and is in violation of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments of the APA ethics code.
The Gardnerian PAS “experts” represent a fringe group of professionals who reject the diagnostic guidance of the American Psychiatric Association and the ethical guidance of the American Psychological Association.
The construct of “parental alienation” needs to be discontinued in professional use – and ONLY the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” should be applied as the bases for professional judgments.
2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.
The relevant domains of established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline required for application are:
-
-
- Attachment – Bowlby and others
- Family systems therapy – Bowen and others
- Personality disorders – Millon and others
- Complex trauma – van der Kolk and others
- Child development – Tronick and others
- Self psychology – Kohut and others
- DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association
-
Absence of Licensing Board Oversight
Concerns for “expert” status in the family courts could be (already should be) addressed by enforcing compliance with ethical standards of practice (Standards 2.01 and 2.04 of the APA ethics code). The question for consideration by state legislators is why the state licensing board is not enforcing ethical standards of practice in court-involved professional psychology?
Section 3: Judicial Education Curriculum
From SB-311: “This bill would require a judge assigned to family law matters involving child custody proceedings and individual courts to submit the number of hours of continuing instruction in domestic violence completed to the Judicial Council.”
From SB-311: “Existing law requires the Judicial Council to establish judicial training programs for individuals who perform duties in domestic violence matters. Existing law requires the training programs to include a domestic violence session in any orientation session for newly appointed or elected judges and an annual training session in domestic violence. Existing law requires the training programs to include instruction in all aspects of domestic violence, including, but not limited to, the detriment to children of residing with a person who perpetrates domestic violence.”
From SB-311: “This bill would repeal those provisions and instead require the Judicial Council to establish mandatory judicial training programs for individuals, including judges and judges pro tem, who perform duties in family law matters, including, among other topics, child sexual abuse and coercive control, as specified.”
This is the section of SB-331 that is of highest concern. The proposed Judicial Education Curriculum is both inadequate and highly unbalanced in favor of one litigant’s position (the allied parent) and ignores the other litigant’s concerns (the targeted parent).
Whoever decides on the Judicial Education Curriculum will have the power to systematically influence judicial decisions in child custody conflicts in favor of one parent’s position. It is imperative that the Judicial Education Curriculum be balanced for the concerns of BOTH litigants in the custody conflict.
Recommendations for adjusting the Judicial Education Curriculum are posted to my website:
Click to access CA-Judicial-Curriculum-Pilot-Program.pdf
In addition to minor balancing wording adjustments to the proposed Judicial Education Curriculum, three additional domains of judicial curriculum are needed:
1.) Educational curriculum in narcissistic, borderline, and dark personality pathology.
2.) Educational curriculum on family systems constructs.
3) Educational curriculum on attachment pathology and its treatment
Pilot Program for the Family Courts
The fighting surrounding the child needs to end. We need to develop standardized diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols that all mental health professionals agree with and apply.
This goal can be effectively accomplished through a pilot program for the family courts with university involvement to develop the necessary diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols.
There is a problem in the family courts. The solution is to turn the problem over to our universities and task them with developing the standardized diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols needed for the family courts – and the supporting legal arguments for a treatment-oriented approach at resolution.
California has world-class universities. For California, I recommend that the Principle Investigator for the pilot program be located in Stanford Forensic Psychiatry, with a second satellite site in Southern California of a UCLA, Pepperdine, and Alliant university collaboration.
I recommend that Stanford-UCLA be tasked with developing the diagnostic assessment protocol, and that the Southern California location of UCLA-Pepperdine-Alliant be tasked with developing the treatment protocol.
I recommend that treatment protocol development includes teams from Dialectic Behavior Therapy (Linehan; Univeristy of Washington), Emotionally Focused Therapy (Johnson – Tronick; International Center for Excellence in EFT), and Internal Family Systems Therapy (Schwartz; IFS Institute).
I recommend that teams from the law schools of Stanford, UCLA, and Pepperdine develop the supporting legal arguments for a treatment-oriented resolution of the custody conflict in the courts.
I have posted an Amicus Letter regarding SB-331 to my website:
Click to access SB-331-Childress-amicus-letter-4-17-23.pdf
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857
Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based "Parental Alienation" (AB-PA) 