I’m documenting information into the record because that’s what I do. People have yet to comprehend that I’m a whistleblower on my own people, the psychologists. I’m the betrayer. I’m of the same profession, I should be closing ranks to protect the profession.
Instead, I’m throwing forensic psychologists entirely under the bus. I’m telling you the secrets they’re trying to hide from you, and I’m empowering you with the knowledge you need to go after their license.
BUT… the licensing boards won’t do anything. You know that and I know that. That’s not the point. This isn’t about you. You need to start working for each other. Don’t leave them for the next parent and child. Move on from incompetence, but clean up the mess as you encounter it. Don’t leave it for the next parent and child.
I believe they should lose their license for being participants in child abuse because of their negligence, incompetence, and unethical malpractice.
It’s bloodsport at this point. Forensic psychologists will go after my license any chance they get. They control all the licensing boards. This is a holy cow dangerous time for me… because I’m trying to help you.
This will happen to everyone who tries to help you until you deal the the problem.
They are going after my license. I am going after their license any chance I get. It’s the way of things. Make the licensing boards cover-up over-and-over again on the same three counts – violations to Standards 2.04, 2.01, and 9.01.
I’m on the battlefield for you and your children, and I’m taking fire. Return fire. You have an advantage, you’re a rabble. You have swarm available if you have the target.
I’m creating the record. This is a skill set you parents can learn – WrightsLaw Letter to a Sranger. How do you create the paper record of nebulous things?
I am informing The Trust Malpractice insurance carrier of the Oregon appeals court decision. They’ve been wanting notification as soon as a decision is rendered. My insurance rates may rise. We’ll see what happens.
Everything that has happened to me in the past 10 years spent in the family courts is going into an article for a Clinical Psychology journal – the Adventures of a Clinical Psychologist in the Wonderland of Family Court Custody Conflict. Oh my goodness, I have so much to share with the outside world of clinical psychology about what it’s like in the family courts.
Maybe that will be one of my APA convention proposals for Seattle 2024: A Clinical Psychologist in Wonderland, I fell down the rabbit hole to here. Oh my goodness. what an interesting place.
Want to hear about my adventures? I am documenting my reporting of reality into the record in my notification of The Trust. They’ll get to read the decision. They can decide for themselves.
Everyone can. So let’s see what the attorneys and mental health professionals who review the record decide. I’m documenting information into the record. Here’s my notification to the Trust:
July 13, 2023
To: Trust Malpractice Insurance
Re: Policy #xxxxxx – Oregon Appeal
You requested an update on my appeal of the Oregon licensing board sanctions. The appellate court has just returned its decision in favor of the Oregon licensing board, and I have been sanctioned $7,500 for practice in Oregon without a license.
I am licensed in California. I provided consultation to a business organization in Southern California, the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute (Dorcy Pruter, CEO). They do a content analysis of the data generated around families in custody conflict and compile frequency counts of symptoms. The categories they code for are categories I identify in my book Foundations (Childress, 2015). CCPI sought my consultation on their data profiles because I identified in my book what symptoms to look for, and those are the symptom features they code (“tag”) for in their content analysis of the data.
I did not treat anyone in Oregon. I did not diagnose anyone in Oregon. I did not assess anyone in Oregon. I did not speak with anyone in Oregon. What exactly I did in Oregon that constitutes practice in Oregon remains unclear. I provided consultation to CCPI, a business organization in Southern California, on the data profile they generate through content analysis of the data. Ms. Pruter’s client lived in Oregon. Somehow the clients of CCPI become my clients if I provide consultation to CCPI on the data profiles they generate using content analysis and coding of the data. Ms. Pruter and CCPI will now need to locate 50 consulting psychologists, one for each state for her clients, and none of the consulting psychologists will have knowledge about the categories she is coding for in her content analysis of the data because those categories are based on my work (Childress, 2015).
The only use made of my consultation report by the client of CCPI was to use my consultation report to CCPI regarding their generated data profile to support a licensing board complaint with the Oregon licensing board against the involved forensic psychologist. That was the only use of my consultation report to CCPI that was based on the data profiles they generated by their content analysis. The father did not file the board complaint against me in Oregon, he commissioned the services of CCPI. The only other person affected by my consultation report to CCPI regarding their content analysis and data profile is the forensic psychologist who the father filed the licensing board complaint against. In my opinion, these sanctions are retaliation against me by the forensic psychologists in Oregon for my report having been used in support of the licensing board complaint made by the father against the involved forensic psychologist. There was no affected party in Oregon other than the forensic psychologist who had the board complaint filed against him by the father. That was the only use the father made of my consultation report to CCPI on the data profile generated by their data coding and content analysis of the data.
I have attached the court’s decision. Now that the Oregon matter has been resolved I plan to become licensed in Washington state where I live and in Oregon to make that issue moot relative to my future testimony in the courts. My credentials are already certified with the National Register of Healthcare Psychologists, so I’m anticipating this will facilitate my licensure in Washington state and Oregon. Washington state is a member of PSYPACT which I’ll join which will extend my jurisdictional scope. I am a testifying expert in the family courts. I currently have consulting cases to attorneys across the U.S., in South Africa, Germany, and the UK.
For risk management purposes, I will be restricting my future consultation to only attorneys from now on. I have already discontinued all consultation to CCPI when the licensing board issues first emerged. Going forward, I will provide no future consultation to the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute regarding the data profiles they generate in their content analysis and coding of data for my personal risk management. I will only provide consultation to attorneys and not on data profiles from CCPI which are based on my work.
The severing of my consultation to the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute is unfortunate since the data collected by the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute in Southern California, the state where I am licensed, is beginning to generate valuable research about the pathology in the family courts. CCPI and other researchers will need to continue their research regarding the pathology in the family courts without my consultation even though their content analysis of the data is based on my work.
Greenham, Childress, & Pruter (ResearchGate). Dark Personalities and Delusions III: Identifying Pathogenic Parenting in the Family Courts.
Let me know if you need any additional information.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857
Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based "Parental Alienation" (AB-PA) 