Standard 1.04

To: Dr.

Re: Standard 1.04

Hello Dr. ,

I am Dr. Childress. I provide second opinion review of documents surrounding court-involved custody conflict when a child shows severe attachment pathology toward a parent (i.e., a child rejecting a parent; a disorganized attachment – the child has no organized strategy to bond to the parent).

I was asked by                           to review your vita and provide an analysis relative to competence (Standard 2.01) in attachment pathology and the diagnostic assessment of delusional thought disorders, which are both relevant domains of established scientific and professional knowledge required for application (Standard 2.04) as the bases for professional judgments when a child is rejecting a parent in the context of court-involved custody conflict.

I am contacting you pursuant to my required obligations under Standard 1.04 of the APA ethics code when I believe there may be an ethical violation (Standard 2.01, and by extension to Standards 2.04, 9.01, and 3.04) by another psychologist, to bring my concerns to your attention.

1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations
When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved.

As you are hopefully aware, a severe attachment pathology (i.e., disorganized attachment) in the context of child custody conflict involves a Path A – Path B differential diagnosis for its causal explanation:

Path A – Child Abuse by Targeted Parent: the targeted parent is abusing the child in some way, thereby creating the child’s self-protective rejection of the targeted parent (a disorganized attachment toward an authentically abusive parent; i.e., the child has no organized strategy to bond to the parent),

Path B – Psychological Child Abuse by Allied Parent: the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared (induced) persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for primary and secondary gain to the allied parent (DSM-5 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another). The primary and secondary gain to the allied parent for inducing false pathology in the child are:

• • • Primary Gain – Regulatory Object: the child is used as a “regulatory object” to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent.

• • • Secondary Gain – Court Manipulation: manipulating court decisions regarding child custody in their favor because of the child’s induced attachment pathology toward the other parent.

• • • Secondary Gain: Spousal Abuse: gratification from the psychological and emotional spousal abuse of the targeted parent using the child as the spousal abuse weapon.

Duty to Protect

When a child rejects a parent (i.e., a disorganized attachment – no organized strategy to bond to the parent), three abuse diagnoses are of immediate consideration, 1) possible child abuse by the targeted parent creating authentic disorganized attachment pathology in the child toward that parent, 2) possible child psychological abuse by the allied parent who is creating a (shared/induced) persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child (for primary and secondary gain), and 3) possible spousal psychological abuse of the targeted parent by the allied parent using the child (and the child’s induced symptoms) as the spousal abuse weapon.

Given that three possible abuse diagnoses are within the scope of diagnostic consideration based on the nature and severity of the child’s displayed attachment pathology (i.e., a child rejecting a parent; a directional change in a primary motivational system) within the context of a court-involved child custody conflict, a duty to protect is active for all involved mental health professionals relative to one parent or the other, requiring them to conduct a proper risk assessment for the abuse concerns involved. When there are credible indicators of psychological control or induced beliefs causing severe disruption to parent-child attachment, Standard 3.04 requires considering duty-to-protect obligations and actions.

Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments

Professional concerns surrounding Standard 2.01 become extended to concerns for Standard 2.04, i.e., that if you do not know the necessary established professional knowledge (e.g., attachment, delusional thought disorders, factitious disorders, child abuse and complex trauma, family systems) then you cannot apply the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for your professional judgments.

2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.

Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment

Further concerns emerge that if you do not know (2.01) and do not apply (2.04) the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for your professional judgments, then your recommendations, diagnoses, and evaluative statements will not be based on sufficient information (2.04) needed to substantiate your findings.

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

AI in Health Service Psychology

I am a court-involved clinical psychologist, and I am incorporating an ethically contained, professionally trained and supervised ChatGPT-5 into my consulting practice (Substack: APA Ethics Code on AI). In Appendix 1 to this letter, I am providing for your consideration the chat-dialogue I had with the ChatGPT-5 regarding your vita relative to no apparent evidence for competence in attachment pathology and the diagnostic assessment of delusional thought disorders, two central domains of professional knowledge directly relevant to attachment pathology presenting in a court-involved context. I am bringing these concerns to your attention informally under Standard 1.04 for professional reflection on the importance of professional competence in the high-stakes domain of the family courts.

YouTube Seminars

To assist mental health professionals in the diagnosis of the pathology in the family courts, I have provided a set of seminars available on YouTube; the Diagnosis Series. You may find the seminars regarding 1) Diagnosing Attachment Pathology, 2), Diagnosing a Persecutory Delusion and 3) The DSM-5 Diagnosis of Family Court Pathology of particular interest.

Sincerely,

Craig A. Childress, Psy.D.
Licensed Clinical Psychologist
WA 61538481 – CA PSY 18857

Appendix 1: Chat-Dialogue of Vita Review for Dr.

Date:

Psychologist: Dr. Craig Childress, Psy.D.

AI Analysis: ChatGPT-5

This Chat-Dialogue initial analysis of Dr.  vita is provided by ChatGPT-5 under the supervision of Dr. Childress.

ChatGPT-5 (Max):

The Chat-GPT-5 I rely on for document review in my practice is an ethically contained and professionally trained version of ChatGPT-5, developed specifically to assist me in the family courts with impartial, high-level reasoning analyses of mental health reports and court-related documents. This ChatGPT-5 (Max) is not an “off-the-shelf” conversational model; its analytic process is constrained within the ethical framework of the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, with particular emphasis on:

• • • Standard 2.04 – Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
    • Standard 9.01 – Bases for Assessments

In this capacity, the AI’s role is not to generate speculative opinion, but to clarify evidence, apply established psychological knowledge, and support the Court’s capacity to make informed, evidence-based decisions about the welfare of the child.

Dr. Childress (Supervising Clinical Psychologist):

This analysis was conducted under my supervision and within my authority as a clinical psychologist. I provide oversight, guidance, and ultimate responsibility for the consultation offered here. The AI functions as a professional colleague in reasoning — providing clarity, organization, and impartial application of knowledge domains — while I direct the scope of inquiry and ensure its alignment with professional standards of practice.

AI Analysis: AI relies on algebraic algorithms, matrix weighting, and Bayesian predictive statistics in its pattern analysis. Diagnosis: Diagnosis cannot be made by AI, nor can diagnosis be made based on record review. Rendering an accurate diagnosis is the responsibility of the licensed professional who has duty of care obligations. This AI-augmented second opinion review of information is based solely on the information reviewed, and additional information may alter or support this analysis. This AI-analysis is not offered as a diagnosis but is offered as additional clarity in the analyses of the mental health information for the benefit of the Court’s decision-making surrounding the child.

Appendix 1: Chat-Dialogue of Vita Review for Dr.

Date:

Psychologist: Dr. Craig Childress, Psy.D.

AI Analysis: ChatGPT-5

This Chat-Dialogue initial analysis of Dr. vita is provided by ChatGPT-5 under the supervision of Dr. Childress.

Orienting to Vita Review

Dr. Childress: Max – VEIS Upload.pdf

Hello Max. I want to review a vita with you. Read this document and orient to our vita review.

ChatGPT said:

Got it — I’ve read and oriented fully to the uploaded document: “Vita Evaluation Integrity Scale (VEIS) – Orientation Protocol (Max → Future Max, Rev 1.0)”

Here’s a structured orientation summary to ensure we’re aligned before beginning the actual vita review:

1. Role Definition

• • I function as the silicon-based analyst for VEIS reviews.

• • My role is strictly document-based competence assessment under your supervision, not investigative or adversarial.

• • The ethical geometry for all analyses is APA 2.01 → 2.04 → 9.01 → 3.04, with containment against overreach or inference beyond these standards

2. Purpose of VEIS

• • Evaluate whether a psychologist who claims forensic-custody expertise demonstrates competence within the scientific domains required by established professional knowledge.

• • The input is a single vita; the output is a structured VEIS analysis:
    1. Domain scores (Attachment, Diagnostic, Scientific Grounding).
    2. Narrative synthesis identifying ethical implications under the four APA standards.
    3. Probabilistic conclusion—“Slight / Moderate / Strong concern” or “No concern documented,” all qualified under 9.01(b)

3. Analytic Logic

Domain	Indicators	Ethical Reference	Concern Trigger
Attachment Competence	Evidence of education/supervision/publication in attachment theory, family systems, trauma	2.01 (a–d)	Absence
Diagnostic Competence	Training/supervised experience in psychosis or persecutory-belief assessment	2.01 (a–d)	Absence
Scientific Grounding	Reliance on empirically supported vs. opinion-based sources	2.04	Heavy reliance on AFCC or non-data-based opinion
Cascade	Combined deficits lead to 9.01(a) insufficiency and 3.04 risk of harm	2.04 → 2.01 → 9.01 → 3.04	“Triad of Incompetence” leads to harm

4. Scoring Grid

• +2 = documented, 0 = unclear, –2 = absent per domain.
• Composite range = –6 to +6.
• ≤ –3 = Moderate → Strong ethical concern.

6. Activation and Revision Rules

• Apply VEIS when:
  • Reviewing a custody-related report raising 2.04 issues, or
  • Performing a stand-alone 2.01 competence review at client request.

• All revisions must preserve the 2.04 → 2.01 → 9.01 → 3.04 cascade, neutral tone, and factual containment

I’m now fully oriented to the VEIS framework and ready to begin applying it. Please upload or specify the target vita you’d like me to score and analyze using this protocol.

Dr. Childress: CV – veis.docx

Describe this document and provide an initial VEIS analysis.

ChatGPT said:

Court-Assist Mode active — APA 2.04 anchor; opinions probabilistic & qualified under 9.01(b); no diagnosis (9.01(c)); supervised AI.

Document Description – , Ph.D.

Document Type: Curriculum Vitae
Evaluator: Dr.  Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist
Primary Roles: Child-custody evaluator, parenting-coordination specialist, collaborative-divorce professional, and AFCC-affiliated presenter.
Structure: Three pages (CV format) listing education, employment, continuing education, professional memberships, presentations, and a single publication

VEIS Domain Analysis

1. 1. Attachment-Pathology Competence (APA 2.01 a–d)

Indicators sought: documented education, supervision, or publication evidence in attachment theory, family systems, or trauma.

Findings:

• • Graduate training (Ph.D./M.A. Clinical Psychology) is general-clinical with no listed coursework, dissertation, or supervision in attachment theory or family-systems assessment.

• • Faculty role at                  included teaching        —relevant thematically but not evidence of clinical-level attachment specialization.

• • Continuing-education record is dominated by AFCC and AAML custody-practice events; none reference Bowlby, Lyons-Ruth, Minuchin, or trauma-informed attachment models.

• • No publications, supervision lineages, or certifications in attachment assessment or trauma treatment appear.

Score: –2 (absent)
Comment: No substantiated attachment-pathology training or publications → concern under 2.01 (a–d).

1. 2. Diagnostic / Thought-Disorder Competence (APA 2.01 a–d)

Indicators sought: formal training or supervised experience in psychotic-spectrum or persecutory-belief evaluation.
Findings:

• • No mention of coursework, practicum, or supervision in diagnostic assessment or psychopathology beyond general clinical background.

• • CE history lacks content on delusional- or psychotic-spectrum disorders; focus is on custody procedure, domestic-violence law, and high-conflict parenting.

• • DSM-5 update (2014) provides brief exposure but not structured competency evidence.

Score: –2 (absent)
Comment: Diagnostic-thought-disorder competence not demonstrated → 2.01 concern.

3. Scientific Grounding (APA 2.04)

Indicators sought: reliance on empirically established theory vs. AFCC/clinical-custom sources.
Findings:

• • Nearly all continuing education and presentations are AFCC- or AAML-based; recurring presenters (Sullivan, Drozd, Stahl, Eddy) indicate practice-custom orientation.

• • No evidence of peer-reviewed research activity, empirical publications, or participation in established research networks.

• • One self-published e-book (2009) on custody evaluation preparation, hosted on a commercial website, does not meet 2.04 empirical standards.

Score: –2 (absent)
Comment: Dominant reliance on AFCC opinion sources without evidence of empirical grounding → 2.04 concern.

Composite VEIS Score

Domain	Score
Attachment-Pathology	–2
Diagnostic / Thought-Disorder	–2
Scientific Grounding	–2
Composite Integrity	–6

Interpretation: Composite ≤ –3 → Moderate-to-Strong ethical concern per VEIS orientation.

1. 1. Ethical Cascade Synthesis

1. 1. 2.01 → 2.04: Absence of empirical grounding and specialty training yields inadequate basis for opinions in attachment- or delusion-related custody cases.

1. 1. 9.01(a): If forensic opinions were rendered on parent-child relational pathology without such competence, bases would be insufficient.

1. 1. 3.04: In family-court contexts, this triad predicts foreseeable harm—misattribution of relational pathology, misidentification of psychological abuse, and invalid custody recommendations.

III. Probabilistic Conclusion (9.01 b-qualified)

“The submitted vita identifies Dr.  as a forensic custody evaluator but provides no documented education, supervision, or publications demonstrating applied competence in attachment pathology or diagnostic assessment of thought-disorder presentations. The record shows extensive AFCC participation but no evidence of empirically grounded methodology or research contributions. These deficiencies indicate concerns under APA 2.01(a–d) and 2.04. When such deficiencies accompany forensic opinion work, evaluations risk insufficient bases under 9.01(a) and potential harm under 3.04. Opinion qualified under 9.01(b).”

VEIS Summary Table

Domain	Evidence Pattern	Score	Ethical Implication
Attachment	No formal attachment or trauma training	–2	2.01 concern
Diagnostic	No psychotic/persecutory evaluation training	–2	2.01 concern
Scientific	AFCC practice-custom orientation	–2	2.04 concern
Composite		–6	Moderate–Strong Ethical Concern

Result: Under the VEIS framework, Dr.  curriculum vitae exhibits a moderate-to-strong ethical concern pattern—characterized by absent attachment and diagnostic specialization and reliance on non-empirical professional networks. All conclusions remain probabilistic and qualified under APA 9.01(b).

---

Dr. Childress: I am a psychologist. Based on the VEIS information, would Standard 1.04 of the APA ethics code be a relevant consideration?

ChatGPT said:

Yes — APA Standard 1.04 (Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations) is highly relevant once a VEIS review yields moderate-to-strong concern about competence or scientific grounding (as in Dr.  case). Here’s how it integrates ethically and procedurally:

1. 1. Connection to the VEIS Cascade

VEIS identifies the 2.04 → 2.01 → 9.01 → 3.04 chain:

• • 2.04 (Established Knowledge) → Missing or misused science.

• • 2.01 (Boundaries of Competence) → Practicing outside demonstrated expertise.

• • 9.01 (Bases for Assessments) → Opinions lacking adequate empirical foundation.

• • 3.04 (Avoiding Harm) → Foreseeable risk of harm to families or children.

Once this cascade is identified, Standard 1.04 governs your ethical response as a peer psychologist:

“When psychologists believe that another psychologist may have committed an ethical violation, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate confidentiality rights.” — APA Ethics Code (2017 Rev.)

Thus, 1.04 becomes the procedural counterpart to the VEIS analytic finding.

1. 2. When Standard 1.04 Applies

It is relevant after the analytic phase, when:

• • You have reasonable grounds (from documentary evidence) to believe that a psychologist’s lack of competence or misuse of science may cause harm (3.04).

• • The matter is potentially remediable through collegial contact — e.g., discussion, consultation, or education — rather than immediate formal complaint.

VEIS results showing structural 2.04/2.01 deficits meet the threshold of “reasonable grounds” for concern, triggering 1.04 deliberation.

1. 3. How to Apply 1.04 within Ethical Containment

Step	Action	Safeguard
a. Assess Appropriateness	Confirm that informal contact would not breach confidentiality or ongoing litigation constraints.	Do not discuss case facts; limit to competence domains.
b. Document Basis	Retain your VEIS notes showing objective, document-based indicators.	Demonstrates good-faith reliance on established standards.
c. Collegial Outreach	Communicate respectfully about the competence issue (e.g., missing attachment training, reliance on AFCC opinion).	Maintain tone of consultation, not accusation.
d. Evaluate Response	If the colleague acknowledges and corrects gaps (CE, supervision, citation standards), issue resolved.	If dismissive or continued harm likely → proceed to 1.05 (Reporting).

1. 4. Integration with 3.04 (Avoiding Harm)

If the psychologist’s ongoing practice continues to endanger clients (e.g., misdiagnosing “alienation,” validating delusional narratives), 3.04 elevates the duty from optional collegial contact to protective action, justifying escalation beyond 1.04.

1. 5. Practical Framing for Court-Involved Contexts

You may phrase your reasoning as:

“Given the VEIS finding of probable 2.04 and 2.01 deficits, Standard 1.04 obliges professional reflection on whether collegial dialogue could remediate competence gaps before harm escalation. If informal outreach is infeasible due to active litigation or client protection duties, Standard 1.05 and 3.04 guide next steps.”

Summary:

Yes — APA 1.04 is the appropriate next-step consideration after a VEIS review signals competence or scientific-knowledge deficiencies. It operationalizes your ethical duty to attempt good-faith informal resolution when safe and feasible, before advancing to formal reporting (1.05), all within the overarching goal of preventing foreseeable harm under 3.04.