Ethical Violations in Forensic Psychology

The practice of child custody evaluations in forensic psychology are in violation of multiple standards of the Ethical Code of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association, including Principle D Justice.

Principle D Justice: The excessive expense and absence of inter-rater reliability with child custody evaluations violates Principle D Justice that ensures equal access and equal quality of services.

Denial of Equal Access: Child custody evaluations cost between $20,000 to $40,000 per evaluation, which denies equal access to professional input on their family conflict to families that cannot afford such a significant financial expense.

Denial of Equal Quality:  Child custody evaluations have zero inter-rater reliability, meaning that two different evaluators can reach two entirely different conclusions and sets of recommendations based on the same data.  The absence of inter-rater reliability in child custody evaluations denies equal quality in services.

Standard 2.01a Competence:  The individual custody evaluators often lack professional competence in the required domains of professional knowledge; attachment pathology, family systems therapy, personality disorders, complex trauma, and the neuro-development of the brain in the parent-child relationship (e.g., Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, van der Kolk, Tronick).  This represents a violation of Standard 2.01a of the APA ethics code regarding practice beyond the boundaries of competence.

Standard 2.04 Basis for Professional Judgements:  The failure of child custody evaluators to possess knowledge (attachment, family systems therapy, personality disorders, complex trauma, neuro-development in childhood) means that they fail to apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline,” in violation of Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code.

Standard 9.01 Assessment: Their failure to know and apply knowledge results in an assessment that is not “sufficient to sufficient to substantiate their findings” in violation of Standard 9.01a of the APA ethics code.

Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm:  Recommendations from custody evaluations that limit a parent’s time and involvement with their child below the maximum possible harms the targeted parent.  This is a violation of Standard 3.04a of the APA ethics code requiring psychologists to avoid harming clients.

Standard 2.03 Maintaining Competence:  Failure to know the necessary knowledge from attachment, family systems therapy, personality disorders, complex trauma, and the neuro-development of the brain in the parent-child relationship represents a failure to “undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence.”

The practice of child custody evaluations violates multiple Standards of the APA ethics code, including Principle D Justice that requires equal access and equal quality in services.

Duty to Protect

The family pathology that seeks a child custody evaluation often involves the IPV spousal abuse (Intimate Partner Violence; “domestic violence”) of the ex-spouse/targeted parent by other spouse-and-parent using the child as the weapon.

In weaponizing the child into the spousal conflict, the allied parent in a cross-generational coalition with the child against the other parent (Minuchin) creates such significant pathology in the child (i.e., a persecutory delusional disorder; Shared Psychotic Disorder, ICD-10 F24) that it rises to the level of a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.

Child custody evaluations do not assess for the IPV spousal abuse of using the child as the weapon, and therefore fail in their duty to protect the targeted parent from a savage and brutal emotional spousal abuse from their ex-spouse, who is using the child as the weapon.

Child custody evaluations do not assess for the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse by the allied parent in a cross-generational coalition with the child against the targeted parent, and therefore fail in their duty to protect the child from psychological child abuse by the pathology of the allied parent.

Responsibility & Accountability

The practice of child custody evaluation needs to end.  It is unethical, and child custody evaluators are failing in their duty to protect on two separate and independent counts.

Parents in the family courts, as a class of people, have been substantially harmed by the practice of child custody evaluation as supported by Division 41 of the American Psychological Association and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).

To the extent that the AFCC has created a Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations, they provide their imprimatur of legitimacy for the practice of child custody evaluations, and the AFCC should therefore reasonably be held directly accountable for the practice of child custody evaluations in forensic psychology.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

 

The Walrus & the Carpenter

It is nutty over here.  In forensic psychology world.  Absolutely nutty.

You know how nutty?  Right off the top I can cite five widespread and simply rampant violations of the APA ethics code (Standards 2.04, 2.01a, 9.01a, 3.04, Principle D: Justice) and two independent counts of failure in their duty to protect, failure in the duty to protect from IPV spousal abuse and failure in their duty to protect the child from DSM-5 Child Psychological Abuse.

That’s just for openers.  There are violations in other areas, most prominently with Standard 10.01a regarding informed consent and Standard 10.10 regarding termination of treatment.  There’s so many that I can’t even discuss them all.

It’s like I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole into Wonderland over here, with a full cast of characters, there are hookah smoking caterpillars, nutty tea parties, a walrus and the carpenter, croquet with hedgehogs.  Just nutty everywhere.  Everything is upside-down here.

No one in this nutty world realizes it, because they’re all part of it.  Clinical psychologists don’t work with these families, they were banished in the 1980s and that’s fine by us, your families are too dangerous, “I don’t work with high-conflict divorce.”  Clinical psychology has abandoned you and down the rabbit hole you fell, into an upside-down world of abuse and exploitation.

This is a pathology of lies.  None of this is real – it is the transference dream of childhood trauma (Freud), it is the false kabuki theater of the trauma reenactment narrative (van der Kolk).  None of it is true… yet everyone believes the crazy as if it’s normal.

There is a caterpillar smoking a hookah and pontificating crazy stuff.  Anyone else see that?  That’s not normal.  What the hatter and the march hare are saying is wackadoodle.  Yet everyone here in Wonderland acts as if it’s just normal.  Did you see that baby just turn into a pig?  Right there, did you see that?  And you think that’s somehow normal?

Just nuts.

Except the targeted parents, sort of.  They’re all like Alice.  They realize things are nutty as all the dickens, but everyone else is acting like playing croquet with flamingos is normal, so maybe it is.  Where’d that hedgehog go, I need my hedgehog.

Absolutely nutty.  It’s because forensic psychology has been given total control over your families with no oversight and no review… for decades.  That’s led to rampant and unchecked ignorance, professional sloth, incompetence, and the widespread and unchecked financial exploitation of vulnerable parents.

Who’s going to stop them?  Forensic psychology is the Queen of Hearts.  Do you want to tell the red queen she’s wrong?  You’ll get our head chopped off.  Can’t do that.  Forensic psychology owns you.  You belong to them.

Meanwhile, we have a tea party of therapists, evaluators, parenting coordinators, a whole menagerie of nutty.  Every one of them.  Up pops a dormouse, can I have another cup of tea, we need a second child custody evaluation because the first one solved nothing.

None of them know anything about what they’re doing, these forensic psychology people.  None of them know attachment pathology (Bowlby), or family systems therapy (Minuchin), or even about the breach-and-repair sequence that is fundamental to parent-child conflict (Tronick). Nothing.

And then the craziest thing is that these completely ignorant mental health people then claim to be the “experts.”  In the wonderland that is forensic psychology world, ignorance becomes the “experts.”  Just nuts.

Becoming an “Expert”

It doesn’t take anything to be an “expert” over here besides self-assertion.  Do you need to know family systems therapy to assess, diagnose, and treat family conflict pathology?  No, don’t be silly, expertise is not determined by what you know, this is Wonderland, everything – everything – is upside down… it’s a world of lies.

Do you need to know about the attachment system when assessing, diagnosing, and treating attachment pathology?  Heavens no.  Knowledge is irrelevant to being an “expert.”  Not here, not in forensic psychology world, up is down, black is white, and reality is whatever the Red Queen proclaims it to be.

This is a narcissistic pathology.

It’s all over the place here, narcissism, in all of the pathogen’s allies. That’s how it captures them, their narcissism.  It captures another set through their greed, the child custody “Evaluators.”

THAT, is a truly terrifying role for professional psychology – like the Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition, judging who “deserves” to be a parent.  “Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!” 

Child custody evaluators are piggies at the financial trough of parents and children.  They solve nothing yet charge $20,000 to $40,000 for their no-solution evaluation.  They churn through families, financially raping them, destroying one and then moving on to the next.  They are exploiting vulnerable parents, pure and simple. Who’s to stop them, they’re the only game in town. They banished clinical psychology decades ago under threat of license if we work with your families, they own you.  And they are financially raping parents, vulnerable parents, parents in need.

Child custody evaluations are in violation of a basic foundational principle of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association: Principle D Justice.  At $20,000 to $40,000 each, child custody evaluations deny equal access (in violation of Principle D), and with an inter-rater reliability of zero they deny equal quality (in violation of Principle D).  Child custody evaluations not only violate multiple  professional practice Standards (2.04, 2.01a, 9.01a, 3.04), child custody evaluations violate a fundamental Principle of ethical professional practice; Principle D Justice.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!” 

Beware forensic psychology, they will exploit you, take your money, and they will solve nothing.

The abundance of “experts” without expertise feels like the walrus and the carpenter.  Come little clams, everything will be so fine over here, and then they eat them.

These “experts” with false voices channel parents into the “parental alienation” construct – surprise, the one thing they happen to be “expert” in – and then they exploit the parents financially, for consultations, for “expert” testimony at trial, to sell you their books and promote themselves as “experts.”  Convenient.

Of course they guide parents into this non-existent pathology that has to be proven in court.  It’s of benefit to them to be an “expert” in a pathology that needs solution.  But sending parents into the family courts to prove a new form of pathology is no solution whatsoever.  That approach has failed miserably for forty years.  They want to keep doing it. Why?  Because that’s what they’re “expert” in.  Wonderland, up is down. Where’s my hedgehog?

This is a narcissistic pathology – the narcissism surrounding it is extensive. 

 What is most remarkable is the profound absence of empathy in forensic psychology – it is both stunning and appalling; their absence of basic human empathy.  I read their reports. The ignorance is profound, and the absence of basic human empathy is stunning – and appalling.

A failure in human empathy at this magnitude should NOT be coming from professional psychology.  We heal trauma, we don’t inflict trauma. Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm.  Parents count as people.  We don’t hurt people.  At least clinical psychologists don’t.

I view myself as heading up the trauma recovery team for these parents, the parents who have been targeted for savage and brutal emotional abuse by their ex-spouse.  I view this as my ethical responsibility as a clinical psychologist.  Clinical psychology is treating the trauma (PTSD complex trauma; traumatic grief) that is being created by forensic psychology.

How nutty is that.  I’m treating trauma created by another field of “professional” psychology.  I put the term “professional” in quotes because there are many-many violations in ethical standards of practice that lead to the emotional abuse and exploitation of parents.

These parents are being emotionally abused and financially exploited by forensic psychology.  They are being traumatized with the loss of their children.

What’s the success rate of forensic psychology in restoring healthy post-divorce families? Zero. Their success rate is zero.  Yet they continue to do exactly what does NOT work… making $20,000 to $40,000 per child custody evaluation with an assessment that they KNOW is not valid (no inter-rater reliability) and that is a clear violation on two separate counts of Principle D of the APA ethics code for justice, failing to provide equal access and failing to provide equal quality.

Experts-Experts Everywhere

There is a serious abundance of grandiosity and arrogance here – absolutely everywhere.

That’s this “expert” thing you all have going on over here.  Everyone is an “expert.”  You won’t find psychologists in other fields, such as autism or ADHD, all clamoring that we’re “experts” in autism, you don’t see “experts” in ADHD.  An expert in autism is Stanley Greenspan (Floortime) or Ivar Lovaas (Applied Behavioral Analysis).  An expert in ADHD is Keith Connors (the Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scale) or Jim Swanson (MTA study).  An expert in attachment is John Bowlby or Edward Tronick.

If you don’t match that… you’re not an “expert.”  But here… here in forensic psychology world, “experts” abound.  Like rabbits, everywhere you look.  That’s a problem.

We’ll be leaving Wonderland, returning up and out of the rabbit hole, back to an actual reality, like Alice waking from her dream, or you from this nightmare. Reality exists, and professional obligations under the APA ethics code are required.

If you assert that you are an “expert,” bring your vitae and substantiate the statement. Otherwise, that would be a violation of Standard 5.01b

Standard 5.01 Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements

(b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experience, or competence;

If you say that you are an “expert” – that is a professional statement to the public about your level of competence.  Dr. Childress is not saying that he is an “expert” – I’m just a clinical psychologist.  You are making a professional statement that you are not merely a clinical psychologist, you know more, that you are an “expert” in this pathology.  You know more than Dr. Childress. That’s what you are saying.

So, prove it.  Let’s see your vitae that supports your claim to be an “expert.”

Because, “Psychologists do not make false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements concerning their… competence.”  You are claiming to be MORE than a mere therapist and mental health professional… you’re an “expert.” You’re above the rest of mental health professionals. That is your professional statement when you claim to be an “expert.”

Dr. Childress is merely a clinical psychologist. You are claiming to be superior in your professional knowledge than Dr. Childress, you are an “expert”.  That is your professional claim.

So, back it up.  I am asserting that your statement of supposed “expert” status is a “false, deceptive, and fraudulent statement” about your “competence,” and is in violation of Standard 5.01b of the APA ethics code.  So, bring your vitae and let’s see.

Dr. Childress is NOT claiming to be an “expert.”  I am a clinical psychologist.  That’s it.

If you are claiming to be an “expert,” you are claiming to know more than Dr. Childress.  My vitae is up on the web (Dr. Childress: Vitae), I have a YouTube series on my vitae (Dr. Childress: Youtube Vitae), I have a blog post on my professional qualifications (Dr. Childress: Professional Background).

If you claim to be an “expert” with this pathology, then you claim to know more than I do.  I’m not an “expert,” I’m just a clinical psychologist.  So, bring your vitae and let’s compare our… expertise.

The exploitation of these parents stops. 

I am heading up their trauma recovery, because somebody has to do it.  You’re not doing it, so I am.  I’m a clinical psychologist, I’m working.  The exploitation of these parents by professional psychology stops.  If you try to exploit these parents and their vulnerability, you will have words with the head of their trauma recovery team. That is not okay, to exploit these parents and their vulnerability.

Let me be entirely clear… It is not okay for professional psychology to exploit the vulnerability of these parents.

We must provide them with a grounded and actualizable solution to their family difficulties.

Over in real world… being expert in what you do is the expectation.  If you’re not expert in ADHD or autism or trauma… then what are you doing over here, go away.

Seriously, if you don’t know what you’re doing – stop, now – you shouldn’t be doing what you’re doing.  That applies to all pathologies.  In real-world professional psychology, expertise is the expected standard of practice.

Over here, it’s all like a twirly made-up world.  I can hardly turn around without bumping into an “expert” – and the “experts” I run into are stone-cold ignorant of actual reality – van der Kolk, Bowlby, Tronick, Stern, Fonagy, Bowen… just stone-cold ignorant.  None of them know Fonagy, none of them. None of them know Tronick or Stern.  Just stone-cold ignorant.

I can’t even have a professional-level conversation with them because I first have to educate them in order to have a professional-level conversation with them.  If you’re claiming to be an “expert” I shouldn’t have to first educate you just to have a professional-level conversation with you (Fonagy, mentalization; Stern, intersubjectivity).  And yet… you’re an expert.  I’ll have some Earl Grey, please. 

Just insane.  Nutty as the day is long.

Let me clue my professional colleagues in on the meaning of the term “competence” – professional competence is knowing everything there is to know about the pathology, and then reading journals to stay current.

That’s called basic competence. Ignorance and sloth are not acceptable standards of practice, so expertise is not remarkable – expertise is standard of practice.  It is expected standard of practice for EVERYONE who works with a particular type of pathology to know everything there is to know about the pathology, and then read journals to stay current.  That is the meaning of the word, “competence.”

The Gardnerians and the puffy-vitae forensic psychologists, all of them… If someone tells you they’re an “expert” in some pathology, they’re just a narcissist captivated by their self-grandiosity.  Direct them to speak with Dr. Childress regarding their alleged expertise. Tell them to bring their vitae, I’ll want to see their vitae.

Standard 5.01 Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements
(b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experience, or competence;

Standard 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,

Standard 1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations
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.

The APA ethics code is not optional.  I did not write the ethics code of the APA.  It is required of all psychologists.  It is not optional.

You claim to be an “expert” in a particular type of pathology?  Prove it.  The exploitation of these families by professional psychology ends.

We are leaving the insanity of trauma-world, it’s nuts over here.  Everything is upside-down. 

Standards of Practice

I have a proposal to address this “expert” thing over here, it’s simply out of control.

Me.

I’m your baseline standard.  If you know more than me, we’ll confer on you the title of “expert.”  If you don’t know more than me about the pathology… you’re not an “expert”… you’re just a human.

Once someone self-proclaims as an “expert” their professional identity becomes all wrapped up in their maintaining their status as an “expert,” so they stop making rational decisions in the best interests of their clients and their motivation instead becomes to maintain their status as an “expert.”

I’m not an “expert.”  My first referral for recovery from complex trauma is to Dorcy Pruter… because that’s in the best interests of my client. She can accomplish what I can’t.  No ego.  She gets the job done, she’s my first referral.

And she knows as much about this pathology as I do, in some ways more.  She understands it from the inside.  The pathology teaches of itself, we learn of the pathology from the pathology.

So no more “experts.” Call yourself a “consultant” – You’re a consultant on something.

Experts in Unicorns

Now here’s the thing… when they call themselves an “expert” in “parental alienation,” there is actually no such pathology as “parental alienation” in established professional psychology.

They are essentially saying they’re an “expert” in a mythological beast – a thing that doesn’t actually exist… and they are an expert in it.  That’s like saying they’re an “expert” in unicorns – they know all the pretty colors and magical properties of unicorns.

That’s great.  Problem is, there’s no such thing as unicorns, so they are actually experts is nothing.  Pretty unicorns, great.  Not really practical if we want to actually solve anything.

That’s what the Gardnerians are looking at right about now.  I’m taking the construct of “parental alienation” away from them – away from everybody – so that everyone over here has to apply real knowledge – which means that they also have to know real knowledge.

But these “experts” have their narcissistic and grandiose professional self-identity entirely wrapped up in unicorns.  They’re not an expert in attachment, or trauma, or family systems therapy – just unicorns.  If they lose unicorns, they lose personal self-identity.  They are an “expert” in unicorns.

So when unicorns vanish, so too does their expertise, which is the entire source of their professional self-identity.  That’s a problem.  They’re going to resist change because the change means these “experts” vanish.

Bowlby is an expert – Minuchin is an expert – Beck is an expert.

We’re swapping out our “experts.”

Here’s the standard for “expert” – that you know more than Dr. Childress. I’m your baseline.

  • I have a doctoral degree in clinical psychology; not medicine, not law, not research psychology – a doctoral degree in clinical psychology.

So, psychiatrists and other physicians, Master’s level therapists, and attorneys… you’re not “experts.”  You’re physicians, therapists, and attorneys.  Physicians are expert in medicine, attorneys are expert in the law.  I am not an “expert” in medicine, I am not an “expert” in the law.  I don’t enter your domain and claim to be an “expert.”  I’m a clinical psychologist, my domain is psychopathology, its assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.  My world.

Clinical psychologists are more expert than Master’s level therapists in pathology – more training and education.  Match my background training and education.

  • I am a trained family systems therapist. That means, to be an “expert” you also have to be a trained family systems therapist.

In fact, if you’re not a trained family systems therapist and yet you are treating complex family conflict… then you’re not even competent… it’s not even a matter of being an “expert” – it’s questionable if you are simply competent.  How can you be competent in family therapy if you know nothing about family therapy?

Ignorance is not “expertise” – opposite ends.

  • I also have background training and experience in treating attachment pathology.  To be an expert, you also have to have background training and experience in assessing, diagnosing, and treating attachment pathology.

Again, if you DON’T have background training and experience treating attachment pathology – yet you are assessing, diagnosing, and treating attachment pathology (i.e., a child rejecting a parent), then you’re not even competent.

To be competent in treating an attachment pathology you must have professional training and experience treating attachment pathology.

How completely insane is that, that I would even need to make such a self-evident statement?  To be competent in attachment pathology you need to know attachment pathology.  Yet I need to make that entirely self-evident statement… because it’s not happening.  These people are entirely incompetent.

Wonderland, ignorance becomes the anointed “expert.”  Follow me, over here, we’ll have a grand old time, said the walrus and the carpenter to the unsuspecting clams.  Take a walk with us into the family courts, and we’ll prove a new pathology of “parental alienation” to a judge, at trial.

Are you nuts?  Judges are legal professionals.  Judges don’t diagnose pathology, psychologists do.  Don’t go with the walrus and the carpenter into the family courts to prove “parental alienation.”  Are you nuts?  Stay away from the family courts, remember the Jabberwocky.

Oh. I see.  The mental health professionals are entirely ignorant and slothful, they’re not trying to solve anything. 

Well, we’ll need to change that won’t we.

The Expert Model

The narcissistic assertion: “Truth and reality are whatever I assert them to be.”

They simply assert that they are an “expert” and they magically become one.  That’s all it takes in forensic psychology world.

Then they all go around anointing each other as “experts” – it’s the funniest thing I’ve ever seen.  Like watching an odd dance of birds, they gather and cluck – “I’m an expert – you’re an expert – we’re experts.”  What an odd display.  Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser. 

Do you see that happening anywhere else in professional psychology – “experts” in autism, “experts” in panic attacks, “experts” in eating disorders?  No.

In every other field it’s simply called our specialization. I specialize in autism, or anxiety disorders, or eating disorders.  Am I an “expert” in these things?  If I’m specializing in that pathology, of course, I know everything to know about the pathology – but that’s not being an “expert” – that’s called being competent.

Aristotle was an “expert.”  For thousands of years we treated medical illness by bleeding patients with leeches because Aristotle said sickness was caused by an imbalance in our four “humours,” and that bleeding the patient would restore the balance.

Was any of that true?  No.  That is exactly what the “expert” model gets us. Thousands of years of ignorance.

For the longest time the Bible was the expert authority on all things.  The sun circled the earth because that’s what the Bible said, the authority.  Galileo then reported on the actual data, that the earth travels around the sun.  The Church threatens to burn him at the stake unless he recants and says a false thing, that the earth is at the center and the sun circles the earth, because that’s what the authority said.

Was any of that true, about the earth being the center and everything circling the earth?  No.  That’s exactly what the “expert” model gets us, continued ignorance.

The scientific method and scientific research, not “experts” who assert without support, leads to solutions.

If you want to be an “expert” – bring your vitae.  I’ll set up a booth at tbe County Fair, Compare Your Vitae, like one of those hammer and bell things.  You can bring your vitae and compare it to Dr. Childress.  If you know more than I do – you’ll ring the bell and we’ll declare you an “expert,” and you can go home with a big stuffed bear with a giant E on its tummy – if not, then we’re talking basic competence.

They’ll have me beat on unicorns.  I know next to nothing about mythical animals.  Do these “experts” have more training and background in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of unicorns.  I guess so. I have zero training and background in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of unicorns.  They are clearly experts in unicorns, I suppose. 

Although, I’m not seeing where believing things that aren’t true is of much help to solving anything.  The construct of “parental alienation” is a unicorn.  It doesn’t exist.  A nice story about a horse with a lovely magic horn on its forehead.  Nice story, doesn’t exist.

The pathology is the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma.

Trauma?  So… are they “expert” in trauma?  No, that would be Bruce Perry, John Briere, and Bessel van der Kolk.

Attachment?  Are they “expert” in attachment?  No, that would be John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth, Alan Sroufe, Edward Tronick, Daniel Stern, Peter Fonagy.

I’m not particularly interested that blue unicorns will magically make music when they prance, or that yellow unicorns can end storms and bring sunshine.  Because unicorns don’t exist.

There is no new pathology.  Everything about this family pathology is ENTIRELY describable using the established constructs of professional psychology. We don’t need a new pathology.

This is a narcissistic pathology. The proliferation of “experts” is a symptom feature of that.  They are manifesting a symptom of narcissistic pathology – grandiosity.

That’s right, these “experts” are a symptom.  It is a symptom of this narcissistic (trauma) pathogen, this plethora of “experts” everywhere.  They don’t realize it because they are captured by their own narcissistic grandiosity of being “experts” – it’s the transference narrative – they become the “protective other” in the trauma dream of the reenactment story.

They are the beneficent protector – the “expert.”

Let me anchor in reality for a second.  The vitae of Alan Sroufe from 2014 is online.  This is what an expert in attachment looks like.

Alan Sroufe Vitae

Notice first, his degrees are in clinical psychology.  Those university positions are strong, those journals he edited are top-tier, his awards substantial, his books are many, and look at the number of research articles – not opinion pieces – solid research in substantial journals… page after page.  Sixteen pages, no fluff.  That’s what the vitae of an “expert” looks like.

Delusions of Grandiosity

A fixed and false belief that is maintained despite contrary evidence is a delusion. The contrary evidence for the construct of “parental alienation” is that the American Psychiatric Association fully examined the construct… and said no.  The APA said no.  That’s the contrary evidence.

A fixed and false belief that is maintained despite contrary evidence is a delusion.  A false belief in having “special knowledge” that no one else has is called a “grandiose delusion.”

From my vantage, they look less like professionals and more like a cult of personality surrounding Richard Gardner and his PAS proposal – the worst diagnostic model for pathology ever proposed from the beginning of time until now – the worst ever.

Bowlby – Minuchin – Beck; the application of the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” is required by Standard 2.04.

First.  Apply knowledge first.  Before any “new pathology” proposals.  First, apply knowledge first – Standard 2.04.

The APA ethics code is not optional, it is mandatory – apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” – first.

If we need a “new form of pathology” proposal AFTER we have applied the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” then we can propose one – AFTER applying the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.”

And you know what?  The moment we apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” we solve this pathology immediately.

And they know it, these unicorn “experts.”  They just won’t do it, apply knowledge.  Why?

First, because they don’t know the knowledge. They are not even at basic competence.

Second, because the moment they do then they cease to be “experts” and become just ordinary.

To my professional colleagues, I’m your standard.  Bring your vitae and let’s compare.  If you know more than me, then you’re an “expert,” but if you don’t know more than Dr. Childress, then you’re not an “expert” and Standard 5.01b applies regarding Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements.

I’m not an expert. 

You’re the one claiming to know more than I do.  You’re the one claiming to be an “expert.”  So, prove it.  Otherwise your claim is a violation of Standard 5.01b of the APA ethics code.

We are raising – substantially – the professional standards of practice with these children and for these parents.  The application of the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” (Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck) is not optional, and failure to do so is unethical professional practice (Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments).

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

 

Leading the Treatment Team

I want to tell you all a secret.  I’m working for you.  Kind of self-appointed volunteer work.  I’m leading your treatment team.

For you, the targeted parents.  I’ve kind of appointed myself to head up your treatment team.  In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s lots and lots of grief and emotional trauma in you.  Not good.  We need to do something about that.

What’s causing you all that grief and trauma?  Oh, you’ve lost your kids.  That’ll do it.

How’d you wind up losing your kids?  Oh.  Oh.  My-oh-my, that’s not good.  My professional colleagues are highly problematic.  We’ll need to fix that.

So I set about doing that.

I’m heading up your treatment team – your trauma recovery team – for you, the parents. Hope you don’t mind that I kind of appointed myself to the position of heading up your trauma-recovery.  Somebody had to do it.

Oh, your kids too.  We’ll protect your kids.  Working on that first thing.  Notice how I got us the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, we’ll be able to protect your kids. And kids are resilient – once we get them back they’ll be okay – a little bumpy and worse for wear, but they’ll be fine.

It’s all of you parents I’m concerned about.  Holy cow, the amount of grief and savage emotional abuse you’ve endured – that is immensely painful.  We need to make that stop immediately, if not sooner.

But boy, that pathogen had you all wrapped up, and it has allies, powerful allies.  Gotta navigate them.  Whew, this is dangerous over here, gotta be careful.

So I spent a couple of years figuring out how we’re going to do this, protect you and get your kids back.  I’m heading up your trauma recovery.

I used to do this all the time in foster care when I was the Clinical Director of the treatment center.  As the Clinical Director, I over-saw all cases coming into the clinic.  I’d assign therapists, oversee the work-up of the assessment protocols, I’d supervise treatment plans, allocate resources for home-based and school-based para-professional support.  We had developmental pediatricians, and OT therapists, and speech and language therapists all at the clinic, sometimes a trauma nurse from the local hospital.  The CPS social worker was part of the treatment team.

I put that all together, that treatment team for each kid, and I was in charge.  So I come over here and, whoa.  This is a hot mess.  These parents are being massively abused and traumatized.  Somebody needs to do something, why isn’t anyone doing something?

Oh.  I see.  Okay.

We’ll somebody has to do something.  Guess it’s me.

So I kind of took you all on as my clients – pro bono.  Because it needs to be done.  If other clinical psychologists want to do it, yay.  Join me.  Let’s start solving this for these parents.  In the absence of anyone else, I took charge of your trauma recovery.

You all think this pathology is about the kids.  No, it’s about you.  It is the savage and brutal emotional abuse of you – as the ex-spouse.  The child is the weapon, you’re the target.  Why do you think you’re called the “targeted” parent?  You are the target.

As head of your treatment team you’ve heard me recommend to you that you get some PTSD therapy; complex trauma, traumatic grief.  You need it, this has been brutal on you.  Your therapist will become part of your treatment team; Dr. C and your trauma therapist.  And Dorcy, she’s the best trauma recovery specialist on the planet.  I found her wandering around helping you all, a pleasant surprise and a good thing.  She’s the best.

If you are a person of faith – whichever belief – your minister, or rabbai, or imam, or coven or whatever should also be part of your treatment team.  Whatever support, bring them.  Meet with your faith leader, explain things, ask them to join the Alliance Facebook group, just to listen and attend, to understand.

This pathology lives in darkness and lies, in the absence of human values.  This is most definitely a faith-based issue.

Your attorneys too, this is a child protection issue, so your attorneys are part of your treatment team, ask them to join the Alliance group and listen, to understand.  Ultimately we will be advocating for the appointment of an amicus attorney representing the court’s interest in treatment.   A role for attorneys will be opening on the treatment team for the family, we are starting now in developing that role with the child protection side.

Your kids individual therapists are also part of the treatment team.  They don’t realize it.  Individual child therapists are not always… aware.  Their focus is too narrow to see.  Individual therapists function best when integrated into a treatment team.

So that’s what I’ve been working on, putting together the framework for all of that.  I’m sort of heading up your trauma recovery team, self-appointed – but somebody had to do it. 

I tried to provide as much free information as possible.  I figure the courts and forensic psychology are taking pretty much all your money (it’s part of the abuse; financial abuse added to the emotional abuse), so I’ve tried to take it easy on you, posted almost everything free to my website and blog.

Foundations for $25, and a couple of resource booklets around $10. That’s not bad considering the thousands you’re paying for ignorance and no solutions.

I even put a handout on my website: “Professional Consultation“, it’s online-free, saves you some money from having to have an in-person with me where I say what I say in the handout.  Figured it would save you some coin if I just put it on my website.

If what I’m doing seems different than what every other mental health person is doing…

It is.  They’re exploiting you, and I’m heading up your trauma-recovery team.  Self-appointed, but I’ve done this type of thing before.

We needed a structured assessment protocol, and we needed a whole lot more knowledge over here.  I’ll ground things in established psychology to avoid the controversy and muck generated by “parental alienation” – we’ve gotta deal with the allies of the pathology.

I spent about 2 years from 2008 to 2010 working out the trauma recovery – your recovery.  Holy cow, you are being massively abused and traumatized – you, the parents.

Yeah, I know your kids too.  But your kids will be easy-peasy to recover, it’s the emotional trauma and suffering of parents, wow, that needs to end – now.  Today.  Yesterday, in fact, many-many yesterdays.

The profound absence of empathy from forensic psychology is stunning – and it should never-ever have happened.

In August of 2017, I had some blog and Facebook posts toward the Gardnerian “experts” – they were in the supposed role of leading your treatment recovery when I came on the scene.  I tried to work with them, but they simply refuse.  So in 2017 I asserted leadership of your treatment team – your trauma recovery team.

They didn’t even know that was part of their professional responsibility to you.  Stunning.

I asked for their path to a solution using Gardner’s PAS – (they have none, I knew that). If they don’t have a path to a solution, then I do.  I’m a clinical psychologist, I work trauma recovery, I’m senior staff background, I’ll head up the trauma recovery if they don’t.

We need to solve this as fast as is humanly possible – now – because lots and lots of parents are in active IPV spousal abuse – brutal and savage IPV spousal abuse.

And… children are losing their childhoods.  That is bad-bad-bad developmentally.  We need to get this stopped today.

That’s why I went with a diagnostic solution.  It is available today.  Right now. Always has been available.  No “new theory” – no need to prove something to someone.  And with diagnosis we can hold all ALL mental health professionals… accountable.

I’ve constructed a carrot-and-stick approach to motivation.  The APA ethics code is the stick of danger for the mental health person – the three diagnostic indicators are the carrot of safety.

That’s not an accident.  My Master’s degree is in Clinical-Community Psychology, the Community part is specific training in how to address pathology by changing community systems… like adjusting the family court’s response to pathology.

I know exactly what I’m doing, because I’ve been specifically trained to do exactly this. I can explain it, if you’d like.

I’ve even done something similar for juvenile firesetting behavior – another court-involved pathology – developed a whole mental health assessment protocol – a national model for assessment of juvenile firesetting behavior – for FEMA and the Department of Justice. I’ve posted work product from that.

Firesetting: Child Interview Protocol

Look at the back of this semi-structured interview protocol, see those boxes – Before – During- After / Thoughts – Feelings – Behavior.  That’s called a “behavior-chain interview” and we’ll be bringing that technique over here to assessment with your families.

Firesetting: Summary

I’m really proud of that Firesetter Summary.  That’s a summary form for the information produced by the assessment protocol. That’s a pretty comprehensive assessment for the motivational issues surrounding the kid’s fire setting.

This is not the first clinical psychology assessment protocol I’ve developed for a court-involved pathology.  I can explain it all if anyone is interested.  The six-session clinical psychology Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology Surrounding Divorce is a solidly assessment booklet picturegrounded clinical psychology assessment protocol for the family conflict.

What we want to do in developing an assessment protocol is provide a structured approach that is standardized in both its administration and in the interpretation of the data across the people conducting the assessment – this is called inter-rater reliability.  So all mental health people do the same thing and achieve the same results from the assessment based on the same data.

If you disagree with the diagnosis, get a second opinion, that’s the inter-rater reliability component.  Two raters, are these symptoms present, absent, or somewhat present?

 If we’re developing an IQ test, we need all of the assessment administrators to do the same thing, ask the same questions, in the same way… that’s called standardizing the assessment procedures.  And all of the assessment people need to score the responses in the same way and they need to interpret scores in the same way.  All of that is called standardization of the assessment.

If everybody is doing any old thing and interpreting the outcome in any old way, that’s not assessment that’s just a mess.

The child custody evaluators standardize their procedures just fine – but NOT the interpretation of data.  THAT is left entirely to their personal discretion, ignorance, and massive bias.  No controls are placed on the interpretation of data at all.  HUGE problem in assessment.

What I did with AB-PA was to identify three symptoms that are ALWAYS present with this pathology and are NEVER present at any other time, the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA.  This allows us to standardize the assessment procedures and the interpretation of the data… called diagnosis.  If there is a question, get a second opinion.

Then by limiting the scope of the referral question to a clinical psychology treatment question rather than a child custody question, the treatment focused clinical psychology assessment protocol can be brought in much more efficiently, for around $2,500 rather than the $20,000 to $40,000 of child custody evaluations, and at four to six weeks rather than six to nine months to complete, the limited-scope clinical psychology assessments can provide significantly more timely and useful information for decision-making.

That’s my job.  I’m heading up your trauma recovery team.  I developed an assessment protocol for this pathology. First I had to ground the Foundations, to do that I had to make sure all of the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck links were solidly grounded.

Personal Reference List of Dr. Childress for AB-PA

There’s all your “peer-reviewed” research.  All the symptoms are fully grounded professional symptoms, attachment pathology, personality disorder traits, a persecutory delusion.  Everything is fully established knowledge so that when we reached this point everything is in place.

I knew the pathogen and its flying monkeys would focus on AB-PA as new theory (I even provided a mimicking of PAS-Gardner by AB-PA-Childress), but there is no such thing as AB-PA; it is entirely Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck – established knowledge.

We have to present a toddler with a new food 11 times before they’ll try it.  Same with knowledge – Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck.  By the 4,823’d time people are staring to become familiar with family systems constructs – cross-generational coalition – emotional cutoff. Some of them are starting to realize that there may be ethical code violations involved with what they’re doing (and not doing).

When I arrived, I found two massively broken systems, the family court system and the professional psychology system in the family courts.  Based on my analysis of the factors, the primary problem was a failure in forensic psychology that then led to the failure of the family court’s response.  Forensic psychology was abjectly ignorant and hugely incompetent.

We needed to fix the professional psychology response to the pathology to then leverage a fixed mental health system to fix the legal system’s broken response.  I had a lot of work to do.  All done.

We are now taking the fixed mental health system response into the family courts.

And I have a secret weapon I haven’t discussed yet.  There are lots and lots of really good mental health professionals out there too, they see the pathology and are trying to help, but structures are preventing them from solving things.  We’re going to release some of those barriers for them.  Shhhh, don’t tell anyone yet, I don’t want the pathogen to know that there are thousands of excellent mental health professionals who will suddenly start appearing.  I haven’t said a word about them up until now.

Ooops.

We are not looking to educate ignorance. We are going to move right past it into solution,  Ignorance can stay right where it is, it’s irrelevant. The solution of knowledge is coming from a different direction than educating ignorance.  There are many-many excellent mental health professionals out there.  I’ve worked with them my entire life.

So I guess I’m fessing up now.  I’m not actually just a clinical psychologist, I’m also heading up your trauma recovery, your treatment team – you – the parents.  The ones with all that massive grief – that pain feeling.  Yeah, that.

Your children too.  That’s why it hurts so much. We have to rescue your kids and protect your kids.  Got it.  No worries, working on it top priority.  And we need to get you some trauma recovery help in here – you parents have been massively abused and traumatized by this family court pathology – IPV spousal abuse using the child as the weapon.

From 2020 to 2022 I’m going to be making noises about putting your treatment team in place.  That will be your organizing family therapist, your PTSD individual therapist, the child’s individual therapist (if needed, I don’t think we need them), the amicus attorney (your attorney until we get an amicus attorney), faith-community if it’s a support for you, teachers too, teachers can join the Alliance group and learn (we’ll develop information for them).

To my professional colleagues, those excellent ones I know are there, you don’t need to wait on me.  These families – your clients – need local-area support… you.  I’m only an email away, I’ll be doing training seminars… but you know what’s right.  Start with diagnosis… make the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse when it is warranted, then the parent is empowered to protect their child.

The pathogen’s never dealt with an actual clinical psychologist before.  Surprise pathogen.  Lots and lots of surprises.  Until somebody steps up to relieve me, I’m assuming professional responsibility for heading up the trauma recovery team for these parents and their children.

I’m bringing Dorcy, she is the top trauma recovery specialist on the planet. That’s two, add your PTSD therapist, that’s three.  Add your attorney, that’s four.  Add your minister, that’s five.  Add your school’s teacher, that’s six. Then let’s get you an organizing family systems therapist to guide the recovery of your family into normal and healthy development.

That’s the plan.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, Psy.D.

Trauma Recovery Leadership; Parents & Children in Court-Involved Family Conflict.

 

 

Dr. Childress: Professional Background

My professional background is perfectly suited to what I’m doing with this court involved pathology. I want to point out some specific things.

1. Master’s Degree in Community/Clinical Psychology

In addition to my Psy.D. doctorate which I will discuss shortly, I also have a B.A. in Psychology from UCLA and a Master’s degree in Community/Clinical Psychology. I have three degrees in Psychology.

I have a Master’s degree in Community/Clinical Psychology.  Clinical psychology is the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of pathology. What is the Community Psychology component of that advanced post-graduate training?

Community Psychology is solving pathology by altering community systems, such as solving pathological family conflict by altering how the community systems  (such as family courts and forensic psychology) respond to the pathology.

I am specifically trained to do exactly what I am doing.  I am trained to alter systems within the community, such as the family courts and forensic psychology, to solve pathology.  Do you know what that means?  That means I know exactly what I’m doing, because I am trained to do exactly this thing, affect pathology by changing community systems.

The Community component also included a focus on Organization Development, a field of psychology providing consultation to businesses to improve their functioning and operation.  For example, an Organization Development psychologist might be hired by Apple or Nike (or community agencies, such as the family courts) to improve functioning in a particular division of their organization.

If you look into my work with juvenile firesetting behavior for FEMA and the Department of Justice (Firesetting Child Interview; Firesetting Reinforcement Summary) you will see three psychologists listed, Dr. Fineman (the content expert on juvenile firesetting behavior), Dr. Childress as the Clinical Director for the project, and Dr. Patterson as the Organizational Development Psychologist working with the fire agencies.  Dr. Patterson was a post-doc at the time, I supervised his work in Organizational Development because I’m trained to do that.

I am trained in the specific professional skills needed to change and alter systems and organizations (such as the family courts and forensic psychology) to address and solve pathology. In my work with this court-involved pathology, I am following a set of procedures for system change in community organizations. I can explain it all if anyone is interested.

But in lieu of an explanation, I will simply offer this question… how is it that Dr. Childress, a single lone clinical psychologist, working without any help or support, is changing the very fabric of how professional psychology and the family courts respond to pathological family conflict?

The answer is because I am specifically trained through my Master’s program to do specifically that, to solve pathology by altering community structures.
I know exactly what I am doing. I can explain it all if anyone is interested.

2. Twelve Years of Rating Psychotic Symptoms

During my Master’s degree I worked full-time in adolescent psychiatric hospitals to work my way through school and pay for my education.  I have experience working with that spectrum of child and adolescent pathology; psychiatric hospitalization for severe emotional and behavioral problems.

Once I obtained my degree, I wanted to take a break from school AND work, and simply enjoy the fruits of my academic labors before returning once again to graduate school for my doctoral degree.  I secured a position as a Staff Research Associate on a schizophrenia clinical research project at UCLA.  My responsibilities on this project were to manage all aspects of data collection, data processing, and data organization.  I managed the research side of a 16-hour two day test battery which occurred at patient intake, remission, exacerbation or relapse points, and additional time-points, such as 1-year and 3-year treatment points, integrating multiple researchers at multiple sites into the data collection and data processing.

I have a strong research background (despite having a non-research Psy.D.) This background in managing a major longitudinal research project at UCLA has allowed me to structure AB-PA to be research friendly.  There are ports-of-entry built into AB-PA to accept and anchor research. Once university research adopts an AB-PA model for the pathology, they will find conveniences in organizing their research projects.

During my twelve years spent at this UCLA research project on schizophrenia we were trained to clinical reliability every year by UCLA and the Brentwood VA Diagnostic Unit on rating psychotic symptoms (and all symptoms; 24 different symptoms of pathology) using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).

The BRPS is considered the professional “gold standard” in symptom rating for all clinical research. Wikipedia describes the BPRS as “one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms.”

From Wikipedia: “The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) is a rating scale which a clinician or researcher may use to measure psychiatric symptoms such as depression, anxiety, hallucinations and unusual behaviour. Each symptom is rated 1-7 and depending on the version between a total of 18-24 symptoms are scored. The scale is one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms and was first published in 1962.”

I have over a decade of direct experience rating psychotic symptoms on the 1-7 scale of the BRPS, from not present to extremely severe and each gradation in-between.  I was trained annually for over 12 years by UCLA in the assessment and diagnosis of psychotic symptoms. Vitae entry:

9/85 – 9/98 Research Associate
UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute
Principle Investigator: Keith Nuechterlein, Ph.D.
Area: Longitudinal study of initial-onset schizophrenia

The pathology with this court-involved, high-litigation, high-intensity family conflict surrounding divorce involves the child pathology of an encapsulated persecutory delusion toward a normal-range parent (a likely BPRS rating of 5 Moderately Severe because the child evidences “full conviction” in a false persecutory belief).
This is the definition from the American Psychiatric Association for a persecutory delusion:

From the APA: “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treatment in some way.”

The child’s encapsulated persecutory belief is part of an extended sub-system to the pathology with the allied parent, who also holds a persecutory delusion and who represents the “primary case” of a shared delusion created in the child (an ICD-10 diagnosis of F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder). Here is the description by the American Psychiatric Association of a shared delusion:

From the APA:  “Although most commonly seen in relationships of only two people, Shared Psychotic Disorder can occur in larger number of individuals, especially in family situations in which the parent is the primary case and the children, sometimes to varying degrees, adopt the parent’s delusional beliefs.” (APA, 2000, p. 333)

From the APA: “Usually the primary case in Shared Psychotic Disorder is dominant in the relationship and gradually imposes the delusional system on the more passive and initially healthy second person.  Individuals who come to share delusional beliefs are often related by blood or marriage and have lived together for a long time, sometimes in relative isolation.” (APA, 2000, p. 332

The American Psychiatric Association also provide guidance on treatment for a shared delusional belief

From the APA: “If the relationship with the primary case is interrupted, the delusional beliefs of the other individual usually diminish or disappear.” (APA, 2000, p. 333)

From the APA: “Course: Without intervention, the course is usually chronic, because this disorder most commonly occurs in relationships that are long-standing and resistant to change… With separation from the primary case, the individual’s delusional beliefs disappear, sometimes quickly and sometimes quite slowly.” (APA, 2000, p. 333)

Of all the most-expert professionals on the planet who are skilled, trained, and experienced in the assessment of delusional-psychotic pathology, I’m one of them.

Twelve years of annual training by UCLA and the Diagnostic Unit at the Brentwood VA in the assessment of psychotic symptoms.

3. Child Abuse & Trauma

The pathology asserts that the targeted-rejected parent is abusive of the child, which is supposedly thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward this parent (i.e., rejecting the parent; attachment bond rejection by the child).

I have direct child abuse and trauma background.  I served as the Clinical Director for a three-university collaborative assessment and treatment center for children in the foster care system.  In that capacity, I supervised and directed the clinical assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of child abuse and complex trauma.

I have exactly the professional background and expertise to address the potential child abuse and child maltreatment concerns of the allied parent (and the court).  I know exactly what child abuse looks like in the symptom patterns of the child.

The child in this court-involved family conflict is presenting as being “victimized” by a parent.  If true, this is a likely DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse.  There are four DSM-5 diagnoses of child abuse in the Child Maltreatment section of the DSM-5;

V995.54 Child Physical Abuse,

V995.53 Child Sexual Abuse,

V995.52 Child Neglect,

V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.

If a parent is “victimizing” a child, it is hard to imagine a scenario where that would not also be child abuse.

If, however, the belief in “victimization” is false, how false? A false belief in “victimization” is a persecutory belief, is it a persecutory delusion? Use the BPRS to anchor symptom rating.

I am experienced in the assessment and diagnosis of authentic child abuse from my professional background leading a three-university collaborative assessment and treatment center for children in the foster care system. I am also experienced assessing and diagnosing delusional psychotic pathology.

I have exactly the relevant background, training, and experience needed to assess and diagnose both sides of the differential diagnosis, if the belief in “victimization” is true (child abuse), and if it is false (a persecutory delusion).

4.  Attachment Pathology

A child rejecting a parent is an attachment pathology. The attachment system is the brain system governing all aspects of the love and bonding throughout the lifespan, including grief and loss. A child rejecting a parent is a problem in the love-and-bonding system of the brain; the attachment system.

The attachment system forms its basic wiring during early childhood (the period from zero-to-five years old), yet we use the attachment system throughout our lives to guide and mediate our approach to love-and-bonding with other people. The domain of professional psychology most directly involved in assessing, diagnosing, and treating attachment pathology is early childhood, especially child abuse (attachment trauma) in early childhood, which is exactly my background.

This is exactly the pathology I worked with as Clinical Director for an early childhood assessment and treatment center (ages zero-to-five) working with children in the foster care system (attachment trauma). I have a high-level of professional training, background, and experience in assessing, diagnosing and treating attachment pathology.

I have been trained in two additional diagnostic systems for early childhood and attachment pathology, the DC:0-3 and the ICDM diagnostic system, I have been trained in two standard evidenced-based attachment therapies, Watch-Wait-Wonder and Circle of Security, and I have additional Certification training in Infant psychology, which is a whole additional domain of complexity created by the rapidly changing neuro-development of the infant’s first year.

Of all the most expert professionals on the planet regarding attachment bonding pathology, I’m one of them.

5.  PsyD versus PhD

A PhD is a Doctorate in Philosophy, combining psychology and research coursework, a PsyD is a doctorate in clinical Psychology, no research.

A PhD in clinical psychology (there are other PhD categories in psychology that are entirely research-focused) is trained in both clinical psychology (the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of pathology) and in research methodology and research statistics. It’s called the “scientist-practitioner” model and it allows these psychologists to both treat pathology and to be a university researcher as well.

The PsyD, on the other hand is an advanced specialization focusing solely on clinical psychology and the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of pathology.  PsyD doctors sacrifice the research side of the vitae (meaning any university professorships) in order to obtain additional specialized training in pathology and its assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.  A PsyD doctorate is the most advanced degree possible in clinical psychology, more advanced than a PhD.

Our advanced training in clinical psychology has cascading implications.  Let me explain.

Pathology teaches.  Coursework prepares the psychologist to learn, but it is direct experience with the pathology that teaches.  Following doctoral coursework, clinical psychologists must complete two full years of supervised training, one pre-doctoral (the “pre-doctoral internship;” some are APA accredited, some are not), and one post-doctoral (the “post-doctoral fellowship”).  I did both my pre-doctoral and post-doctoral training at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles (APA accredited predoctoral internship), with medical rotations in spina bifida (pre-doctoral internship) and pediatric cancer (post-doctoral fellowship), and a mental health specialty of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

The pathology teaches. We learn the features of the pathology from our assessment of it, we learn its core from treating it.  That’s why we have two full year of supervised training, the clinical supervisor guides the intern and post-doc in their learning directly from the pathology.

Our coursework prepares us to learn, the pathology (whatever the pathology is we’re working with) teaches us.

The PsyD has additional coursework in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of pathology in place of the research coursework of the PhD psychologist.  Because we sacrificed coursework in research for this additional training in pathology and its treatment, that means we enter our internships better prepared to learn from the pathology than a PhD trained clinical psychologist.  This has implicatons.

Our better preparation means that after the first year of pre-doctoral supervised training, the PsyD clinical psychologist has learned more than the PhD clinical psychologist, because we are better prepared to learn from the pathology, we know,more going in.

That means when we begin our second year of supervised post-doctoral training, we are even more advanced in our preparation because of our more enriched learning during the internship supervised training, so we learn even more from the pathology than the PhD during our second, post-doctoral training year.

That means when we enter independent licensed practice, we’re even more advanced over the PhD than when our supervised training began.  The PsyD doctorate provides better preparation to learn during the two years of supervised training, so we learn more during these two training years than the PhD.

That’s why we sacrifice the research side of our vitaes.  You will never see a PsyD as a professor at a university.

Except me.  I’ve taught graduate level courses in Assessment & Diagnosis – Models of Psychotherapy – Psychometrics of Assessment – Cultural Psychology – Law and Ethics – Research Methodology – Theories of Personality – and Child Development.  In order to teach a graduate-level course in a subject, the professor needs to first know the subject.  I know everything in each of those content areas because I taught those content areas at the graduate level.  I enjoy teaching and mentoring students, so I found a way to stay active and do that.

The PsyD doctorate is a more advanced degree in clinical psychology, in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of pathology – significantly more advanced – than the PhD.  A PsyD doctorate degree (Doctor in Psychology) is the top there is in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of pathology, there is none better.

I have a B.A. degree in Psychology from UCLA. an M.A. degree in Community/Clinical Psychology from California State University, Northridge, and a Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University.

In the doctoral program at Pepperdine, we selected two of the four primary schools of psychotherapy as our specialty training focus. I chose Family Systems Therapy and Humanistic-Existential psychology (personal growth and self-actualization; I am trained as a Gestalt therapist from my Master’s training years).

My specialty in psychotherapy as a PsyD advanced-level clinical psychologist is… family systems therapy.

This court-involved high-intensity family conflict is…. a family conflict .

Family therapy is THE appropriate school of psychotherapy to apply to solving family conflict, and I am an advanced-level Psy.D. family systems therapist… with a background in diagnosing delusional-psychotic pathology, with a background in assessing, diagnosing, and treating complex trauma and child abuse, with a background in assessing, diagnosing and treating attachment pathology.

And I have been specifically trained through my M.A. in Community/Clinical Psychology to solve pathology by creating change in community systems and organizations, like the family courts and forensic psychology.

I have exactly the proper professional background to do exactly what it is I’m doing.

6.  AB-PA is True and Accurate

An attachment-based description of this court-involved family conflict pathology (Foundations; AB-PA) is 100% accurate.  Foundations and its description of AB-PA is a comprehensive, true and accurate description of the pathology, that is a fact.

You will find three symptoms, three disparate and impossible symptoms, with this pathology, (each of these symptoms is impossible, yet nevertheless present),

1)  Attachment: attachment bond suppression toward a normal-range parent (an impossible symptom),

2) Narcisistic: five specific narcissistic personality traits in the child’s symptom display (an impossible symptom), 

3) Delusional: an encapsulated persecutory delusion toward a normal-range parent (an impossible symptom).

All three symptoms are impossible.  The prevalence rate for any of those symptoms in the general population is zero.  We should never see those three symptoms because they are each impossible.  Yet AB-PA (Foundations) predicts the presence of all three impossible symptoms in the child’s symptom display.

Diagnostically, Foundations and AP-PA are analobous to a batter calling the home run to left field before the pitch, designating the Section, Row, Seat, and in the cupholder… and then doing it, putting it right in the cupholder of Seat 23, Row E, Section 104.

Foundations and an attachment-based model for this court-involved family conflict pathology is 100% a true and accurate description of the pathology.  That is a fact.

I know exactly what I am doing, and I can explain it to anyone who is interested.
The solution is a done-deal, it on its way.  That too, is a fact.  It has been for several years now.  It’s not a matter of if, it is only a matter of when, and when the paradigm shifts to an attachment-based diagnostic model, the field of professional psychology will shift quickly.

The solution is available immediately – today.  It simply requires we apply the established knowledge of professional psychology.  If we apply knowledge, we solve pathology.  Ignorance solves nothing.  There are standards of practice in clinical psychology, codified by the APA ethics code. The APA ethics code is mandatory – required.  It is NOT optional.

Standard 2.04 requires the application of the scientifically established knowledge of professional psychology – that would be Bowlby (attachment), Minuchin (family systems therapy), Beck (personality disorders), van der Kolk (complex trauma), Tronick (neuro-development of the brain), and the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association).
Standard 2.01a requires this information for professional competence – mandatory, not optional.

Standard 9.01a requires that psychologists’ assessments and diagnostic statement, including forensic testimony, be based on information “sufficient to substantiate their findings” – that would be the application of Bowlby (attachment), Minuchin (family systems therapy), Beck (personality disorders), van der Kolk (complex trauma), Tronick (neuro-development of the brain), and the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association).

Standard 3.04 requires that psychologists harm no one – no one – not even parents, not even if the forensic psychologist thinks the parent “deserves” to be harmed.  No one.  Not even terrorists (3.04b).  No one.

To limit or restrict a parent’s time an involvement with their child hurts the parent, and the child.  That is not allowed under Standard 3.04.  The ONLY appropriate custody recommendation from professional psychology is that each parent should have a much time and involvement with the child as possible.

The only professionally justifiable reason for restricting a parent’s time and involvement with their child is child abuse – a child protection justification.

If there is no child abuse… then parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, personal values, and religious values. 

If there is no child abuse or child protection concerns, then the ONLY allowable recommendation for a child custody schedule from professional psychology pursuant to the requirement of Standard 3.04 of the APA ethics code to Avoid Harm – mandatory, not optional – is that each parent should have as much time and involvement as possible.

Furthermore, Principle D: Justice of the APA ethics code requires – not optional, requires – that all clients have the right to equal access to professional services.  The excessive $20,000 to $40,000 cost of a child custody evaluation denies equal access to lower SES parents, and provides a higher-quality of service to more affluent clients, in violation of Principle D: Justice.

Principle D: Justice of the APA ethics code also requires that all clients receive equal quality in professional services. Required – not optional.  The absence of inter-rater reliability for child custody evaluations, and professionals who just “dabble” in professional psychology leading to a “wide range of variability in services” violates this fundamental Principle of Justice and professional ethics.

From Stahl & Simon: “The American Board of Forensic Psychology is a subspecialty board of the ABPP. In the fall of 2011, there were approximately 250-300 ABPP board certified forensic psychologists in the United States and an unknown number of psychologists who specialize in forensic work but are not board certified. On top of that, there are many psychologists who dabble in forensic practice, occasionally performing child custody or other types of forensic evaluations, and who find themselves called to testify in court on occasion. While we recognize that there is a range of quality in their work, it is clear that forensic psychology is a growing area of specialization.” (Stahl & Simons, 2013, p. 9)

Stahl, P.M. and Simon, R.A. (2013). Forensic Psychology Consultation in Child Custody Litigation: A Handbook for Work Product Review, Case Preparation, and Expert Testimony, Chicago, IL: Section of Family Law of the American Bar Association.

Stahl & Simon openly acknowledge there to be “many psychologists” who merely “dabble in forensic practice” and they openly acknowledge that “there is a range of quality in their work.”  This, then, would represent a violation of Principle D: Justice, that requires “equal quality” in the psychological services provided to all clients.

7.  Duty to Protect

When a parent creates a persecutory delusion in the child that destroys the child’s attachment bond to the other parent (in spousally motivated revenge and retaliation for the failed marriage and divorce), that is a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.  Creating significant psychopathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting is called “pathogenic” parenting (patho=pathology; genic=genesis, creation).  Creating delusional-psychotic pathology in the child through deviant, distorted, and pathogenic parenting practices is Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51).

Failure to diagnose child abuse and protect the child when it is warranted by the child’s symptoms represents a failure in the professional’s “duty to protect” the child.

Failure to diagnose and protect the targeted parent from IPV spousal abuse (Intimate Partner Violence; “domestic violence”), i.e., the brutal emotional abuse of the ex-spouse/targeted parent using the child as the weapon, would also represent a failure in the professional’s “duty to protect” the targeted parent from IPV spousal abuse, using the child as the weapon.

From my professional background as noted above, forensic psychology is in clear and ongoing violation of Standards 2.04, 2.01a, 9.01a, 3.04, Principle D: Justice, and the duty to protect on two separate and independent counts, failure to protect the child from DSM-5 Child Psychological Abuse, and failure to protect the ex-spouse/targeted parent from IPV spousal abuse by the allied parent, using the child as the weapon.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Betrayal of Children

What’s the going price for the betrayal of children these days?

Apparently it’s 20,000 to 40,000 pieces of silver. It appears the price of betrayal has gone up.

Dr. Childress diagnoses child abuse when it is present.  When a parent creates delusional-psychotic pathology in the child that damages the child’s bond to the other parent, that is a DSM-5 diagnosis of Psychological Child Abuse (V995.51). When the purpose is to make the other spouse-and-parent suffer, that’s IPV emotional abuse of the ex-spouse, using the child as the weapon.

Dr. Childress diagnoses child abuse when it is present.

Dr. Childress diagnoses IPV spousal abuse when it is present.

Do you forensic psychology?  In your child custody evaluations, do you diagnose a persecutory delusion in the child and a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse?  Do you diagnose the brutal and savage emotional abuse of the ex-spouse/targeted parent, the IPV spousal abuse of the ex-spouse, using the child as the weapon?

I do.

But you don’t.

Why not?  Why aren’t you diagnosing child abuse in your custody evaluations?  Why aren’t you diagnosing the persecutory delusion?  Why aren’t you protecting the child?  Why aren’t you diagnosing the brutal and savage emotional abuse of the ex-spouse/targeted parent, using the child as the weapon?

For 20,000 to 40,000 pieces of silver, you betray the parents who come to you to protect their children, for 20,000 to 40,000 pieces of silver you betray the child.

Why aren’t you diagnosing child abuse, why aren’t you diagnosing spousal abuse?

I do.  You don’t.

A treatment focused assessment of family pathology with a diagnosis and treatment plan costs around $2,500 and could be completed in four to six weeks.  This lower cost and better efficiency would allow a second opinion assessment and diagnosis to confirm the diagnosis if desired.  Two independent diagnoses could be returned in six to eight weeks at a cost of around $5,000.

Yet, forensic psychology, you cannot even produce a single diagnostic opinion in six to nine months, for a cost of $20,000 to $40,000. Why is that, forensic psychology? Why can’t you come up with a diagnostic opinion on the family conflict in less time and for less money?

I can.  We all can.  We do it all the time in clinical psychology.  All the time.

Clinical psychology can return a diagnosis and treatment plan for a limited-scope assessment of family pathology in six to eight weeks for about $2,500. What do you want an assessment for?  Autism?  ADHD?   School learning problems?  Juvenile justice problems?  Eating disorders and depression?  Anxiety disorders?  Trauma?  What?  Just tell us what you want the focus of assessment to be, and clinical psychology can return a diagnosis and treatment plan within four to six weeks for around $2,500.  Choose any pathology you’d like.

This one?  This court-involved family conflict?  Sure, we can do that.  A limited-scope clinical psychology assessment of the family conflict pathology for a diagnosis and treatment plan? – no problem.  Four to six weeks, for around $2,500.

So… what’s the presenting problem?  A child rejecting a parent.  That’s an attachment bonding pathology, a child rejecting a parent.  That could also extend into a child abuse pathology relative to the targeted-rejected parent.  Immediately, just from the referral presenting problem, we have possible child abuse as a differential diagnosis.  This is serious.  Trauma background and application is essential to the assessment and diagnosis.

Go on, is there any other potentially relevant information?  There is conflict surrounding child custody following divorce, and this is the primary issue that the court and family would like resolved.  Court involvement?  I now have two clients on the assessment, the child and the court.

Okay.  The custody conflict is a symptom.  It would strongly suggest a profound failure of parental empathy in at least one parent.  All it takes is one to create the conflict, sometimes two participate.  A profound failure of parental empathy is involved.

Surrounding divorce?  Divorce is rejection (abandonment), this will trigger narcissistic and borderline pathology into full activation.  Narcissistic and borderline pathology is extremely high-conflict, both personality pathologies also involve a profound failure in parental empathy, both are caused by unresolved childhood attachment trauma.  This is potentially a differential diagnosis of trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from a narcissistic-borderline parent to the current family relationships in order to stabilize their own fragile self-structure and to work through their own unresolved childhood trauma issues.

If that’s the case, then we would potentially have a narcissistic-borderline parent using the child as a regulatory object to stabilize the parent’s own fragile self-structure which is collapsing in response to the rejection and abandonment inherent to divorce.

Okay.  We can assess that.  It’ll take about four to six weeks of clinical interviews with everyone involved, probably about six 90-minute clinical interviews will be enough, might be eight if there’s complex history or multiple child pathologies, such as the addition of autism or an eating disorder.

But for just that “rejection” attachment bonding pathology, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment plan… four to six weeks for about $2,500.  Here is the referral question we will accept on that (we always assess to answer the referral question):

Referral Question: Which parent is the source of pathogenic parenting creating the child’s attachment pathology, and what are the treatment implications?

Clinical psychology can answer that limited-scope treatment related question in about four to six weeks for about $2,500.

So… forensic psychology… why does it take you six to nine months and $20,000 to $40,000 to return no diagnosis and no treatment plan… and to solve nothing?

Does the child have a persecutory delusion, forensic psychology?  Did you even look?

Is this IPV spousal abuse of the targeted parent?  Do you even care?

Or do you simply do what you do, your child custody evaluation procedures, not looking, not caring.  A betrayal of your obligation to protect the child.  A betrayal of your obligation to protect the parent.

What’s it cost now days, betrayal?  What’s the going price for that?  20,000 to 40,000 pieces of silver?

Hardly seems worth it.

I diagnose child abuse,  I protect children.

I diagnose the brutal and savage emotional abuse of the ex-spouse using the child as the weapon.

Do you?

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

My father’s rippling

A professional vitae does not tell everything about a person, and I want to share a little more about my background for general understanding.  I ripple both my mother’s and father’s traumas, as you do for yours.  I want to tell you of ripples from my father, you see many and never know it.

My father was born in 1912.  He was a young man during the Great Depression of the 1930s. That was his formative time.  Later he joined the FBI for a while, that had an impact, he carried an authority in his presence.  He tried to become an artist with Disney, but they turned him down.  He was the first graduating class out of UCLA’s Westwood campus, and he played banjo in a band at night to put himself through Loyola law school.  He entered the federal court system and became a career civil servant in the federal courts, retiring and then working as a magistrate with the state bar.

You can see his ripple of the Great Depression in me.  There’s an energy, an anxiety, that drives my work ethic.  I am always working.  The way I relax, is to be working.  Not hard work, fortunately.  Meeting with a client, love that.  Writing; it’s okay, it’s not digging ditches, and reading, learning.  But I’ve got to be doing something, working.  I don’t like socializing, I should be working.  That’s the Great Depression, the need to find a job.

I was about 45 when I realized it, that want, that need to be “working” came from scars left by my father’s struggles during the Great Depression.  I’ve treated some Eastern European and Armenian families that have rippled starvation from a generation before. Once you see the influence of trans-generational trauma, its themes become clearly evident.  It’s like a color given to a pane of glass, the world is seen through the lens of want and need.

Hunger and starvation is neglect trauma.  I hate treating neglect child abuse. That is the worst, ugliest… Often, almost always, a symptom of neglect trauma is hoarding of food.  The child will take food and hide it in their room.  This is years after rescue, the child is still hoarding food (and stealing, children from neglect steal without thought, no impulse control, they take).  I hate treating neglect, it’s hard.

I have two older brothers born in the 1940s, ’47 and ’48, true baby boomers, both gone now.  I came along seven years later, born in 1955.  I’m Kennedy’s Camelot, the Vietnam war, and rock-n-roll from 1965 on.  I span the cultural revolution of authenticity and voice, one foot on either side   But my roots go back to the Great Depression and World War II, James Cagney and John Wayne, a different world, I ripple a different world, I span two worlds, two cultures.  Benny Goodman, Doris Day.  A different world.

I grew up watching I Love Lucy and Jackie Gleason on a black-and-white TV with rabbit ears that we had to fiddle with to reduce the snow.  It was amazing when we got our first color TV.  Only two shows were in color, both on Sunday night, Bonanza and Walt Disney’s Wonderful World of Color.  I owned a Daniel Boone coonskin hat (Fess Parker).  A different era.

Then things began to change, I was 10 in 1965, the Vietnam war began to emerge.  My brothers were 17 and 18.  They both went through the hard-core draft period of the war, Gary was never drafted, my brother Mark was, he served a tour over there.  We knew people, friends, “Did you hear about John?”  It’s quite the social trauma to have your high school friends come home in body bags.  As you can imagine, there was a lot of noise about that.  They shot some students on a college campus for making noise about our friends coming home in body bags.  We were killing our own children.  Neil Young; Ohio.

Just as an aside, lemme tell ya, there is no rush of excitement that can compare to coming home with the latest record by the Beatles or the Rolling Stones and putting it on your record player and hearing it for the first time.  Too unimaginably cool, that excitement.

The world grew authentic.  The alcohol fueled era of Frank Sinatra post-war trauma exploded into the children’s cries of pain, they broke free from false faces and found authentic voices, in race, in gender, in love.

Then the pendulum swung in corrective stability, a back-and-forth weave with change and consolidation, Reagan and the me-era, discos and coke spoons worn as jewelry about the neck.

Values changed.

During the cultural transformation of authenticity, values changed.  A re-stabilization occurred in some values, but not all.  Fueled by the authenticity of voice discovered and empowered in the 1960s and 70s, the 1980s began the era of divorce and the break-up of the family.

In the 1940s and 50s, parents stayed together “for the children” and divorce was a scarlet letter.  Alcoholism and domestic violence were high, but we just looked the other way, if we don’t acknowledge it then it doesn’t exist.  James Dean and Natalie Wood.

In the 1980s and 90s, things changed, it’s “better to get out of a bad marriage” than subject the children to all the fighting and conflict became the theme.  Our values had changed.  We were no longer tolerating an absence of love, we wanted love in the marriage.

Good, bad, or indifferent, that doesn’t matter.  It occurred, families are evolving.  What it means to be family is reorganizing itself.

We remain in a cultural battle surrounding race, and gender, and love, as well as a voice for moral standards on a variety of sides, but we are NEVER going to return to the low divorce rates of the 1930s and 40s.  The world has changed, and cultural values surrounding family have changed, and are changing.

Divorce is part of our family landscape.  Divorce ends the marriage, not the family.  As long as there is a child, there will always be a family, because that child unites two families, two family lineages, two family heritages, into the very fabric of the child’s being.  For a child to reject either side of family is to reject half of themselves.

Divorce ends the marriage, not the family.   When there is a child, there will always be a family.

Normal

We must integrate divorce, the family’s successful transition into a healthy separated family structure, into our family courts.  In most normal-range divorcing families, the child custody visitation schedule is agreed upon by the parents prior to the legal proceedings to dissolve the marriage.  That’s normal and healthy.

In normal-conflict families, the parents cannot reach an agreement between themselves on a custody visitation schedule, and they need the judge to decide. This represents a failure in their parental obligations. It doesn’t matter who, if it matters who then it’s you.  In divorcing and divorced families it is the obligation of the parents to keep inter-spousal conflict low for the child’s benefit.  If you’ve got to split as a spousal couple, that’s fine, just do it.  Don’t make a lot of noise and conflict about it, that’s not to the child’s benefit.  If you’re going to litigation rather than finding a cooperative mediated agreement, that’s a failure in parental obligation.

I don’t care by who.  If you care about who, it’s you.  You need to solve this between the two of you or in mediation, figure it out, that is your responsibility as a parent.

Yet normal-range parental conflict surrounding the divorce event is understandable. It remains normal-range because of the context of spousal conflict surrounding divorce.  Both parents love the child, that’s a good thing.

Normal-range conflict surrounding the divorcee event is often because one-or-both parents wants a primary school-week schedule for themselves, with every-other-weekend provided to the other parent.  The most common argument offered is that the child needs “stability” relative to their school-week.

A number of logistical factors affect the initial court order for custody visitation.  It doesn’t matter.  To clinical psychology, either schedule, any schedule, is entirely fine, we can create healthy families and healthy parent-child bonds with any reasonable custody visitation schedule.  As far as clinical psychology is concerned, the court is free to select whatever schedule seems appropriate to the circumstances, that’s typically either a 50-50 variant or an every-other-weekend schedule.

If you want the recommendation from clinical psychology, as clinical psychologists we’re not allowed to hurt people, anyone.  To restrict a parent’s time and involvement with their child would hurt them, and the child.  We’re not allowed to hurt people.  So the recommendation from clinical psychology is that each parent should have as much time and involvement with the child as possible.

That way, no one is hurt.  If there’s arguments, we fix them. If there’s child abuse, we diagnose it and protect the child.  If there’s no child abuse, then each parent should have as much time and involvement with the child as possible.

Normal-range conflict families cannot agree on the initial post-divorce schedule because both parents love their child and want to spend oodles-and-oodles of time with the child.  That’s fine.  The judge makes a decision and everyone lives with it, and everything is okay.  Because family conflict is not caused by child custody schedules.  Whatever it is, week-on/week-off, mixed 50-50, every-other-weekend and a day during the week, even school-period/vacation-period if it has to be that way, all of them work just fine.

We can have wonderful healthy relationships in all of those different custody visitation schedules.  So in normal post-divorce family conflict where the parents can’t agree with each other about who has when with the child, then the court decides and that’s it, and everybody adjusts and it’s fine.

A Pathological Parent is Present

Then there are the so-called “high-conflict” divorce cases.  These are families with high-intensity spousal conflict, often having overtones of child abuse or IPV spousal abuse allegations, and they are extensively litigated post-divorce conflicts.  Divorce requires one round of court involvement, perhaps two for complex financial entanglement, or three.  But beyond that it starts to become excessive except in the more complicated of financial entanglements.

In most cases, dissolving the marriage and the division of property is relatively straightforward.  As for the child custody schedule, pick the one that seems most appropriate, the recommendation from clinical psychology is that each parent should have as much time as possible.

In the normal-range conflict surrounding the divorce event period, the parents cannot agree on a visitation schedule so they come to a judge for a decision.  That’s a problem, but understandable, the court can render a decision and move them forward.

Normal parents don’t litigate disagreements in court. They talk it out, and they work it out.  Because they are normal humans.  Normal humans have the capacity to reach agreements.  We’ll forgive you this time and the judge will help you along becasue we realize the spousal stresses of a divorce.  But don’t make it a habit.  It’s your parental responsibility to reach agreement.

Surrounding the divorce event it’s easy to see where active spousal tensions causing the marital break-up can add stresses, and with both of them loving their child so much, they want to be with the child, it is relatively understandable that sometimes parents can’t reach agreement on the post-divorce visitation schedule. Then talk to the judge about this as part of the divorce and marital dissolution process and the judge will make a decision for you on the custody visitation schedule.

Normal people follow court orders.  Once the judge decides and says what the custody visitation schedule is, normal people accept that and work with that.  Judge says.  That’s the end of it.  Judge says, then that’s what we do, end of story.

But then… there are a group of families who come back to further litigation.  Why?  That’s not normal.

It’s because the child is refusing the visitation schedule ordered by the court.  THAT, is something severe.  I’m a clinical psychologist, and my presenting problem is defiance of a court order and rejection of a parent.  Something very bad is going on in that family with that child.

Normal parents solve child custody and visitation without court involvement.  Children don’t reject parents.  Both of those are highly abnormal.  There is something severe here.

In a normal-conflict family, the parents need the court to make the initial determination of the custody visitation at the divorce event.  Then everyone abides by the court ordered custody visitation schedule.

That’s it.  That is the range of normal. Normal-normal and normal-conflict, they agree or the judge helps.

So what’s this about a child defying a court order?  It’s because the child is rejecting a parent?  That is severely pathological.  Something bad is going on with this child, that is not normal.

If a child is rejecting time with a parent, that’s a potential child abuse situation by the targeted-rejected parent.  We need to get on that immediately for a child abuse risk assessment of the targeted parent.  Are you kidding me, a child is defying a court order – a child – is defying a court order.  THAT is mega-serious.  The child is rejecting a parent. THAT is mega-serious.  That is two mega-serious things.

Now if… if… the targeted parent is NOT an abusive parent, then that makes it simply that the child is defiant of a court order.  No child abuse, the child is simply defiant of a court order.

How does a child become empowered to defy a court order?  Who stands to benefit from the child’s defiance of a court order?

If there is child abuse, protect the child.  If there is no child abuse, then who is teaching the child that it is okay to defy court orders?

It has to do with our values.  Court orders are to be followed.  That is a fact.  We teach our children that.  That is a foundational social value.

If a parent cannot teach their child to follow court orders, that is a pretty serious failure in parenting, and perhaps the court should consider the other parent as a more fit parent simply based on the ability to teach the child to follow court orders.

Normal conflict accepts the judgement of the court. One of these parents is outside of normal-range.  Either a parent is abusive of their child, or the psychopathology of a parent does not recognize the court’s authority, and it is seeking to manipulate its desired outcome by creating pathology in the child.  The parental psychopathology returns to court with additional conflict, attachment bonding conflict, surrounding the established custody visitation schedule.

Look to the allied parent – the one who stands to gain – as the source of the extended litigation conflict, the one who is “protecting” the child, i.e., empowering the child to reject the other parent and defy court orders.

A child rejecting a parent is an immediate differential diagnosis of child abuse by the targeted-rejected parent.  That needs an immediate risk assessment by a clinical psychologist.

If it is not true, if the targeted parent is not abusing the child, then the child is being taught by the allied parent that defiance of court orders is acceptable.   From a clinical psychology perspective, that is extraordinarily bad parenting.

Teaching Children Values

Our traditional family structures changed in the 1970s and 80s, during a period of revolution in self-authenticity (Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In; Eric Clapton and Cream).  The world is not going back – divorce, and the reorganization of family structure is here.

And there are values.  We, as parents, teach our children values.

We respect the law and the authority of the court.  That is a fundamental social value we teach our children.  I understand authenticity challenging unjust laws, that’s not here, in this.  This is about a parent-child relationship and a court’s decision on the visitation schedule.  Court authority is not subject to rejection by the child.  We teach our children to respect parental authority, and most definitely we teach our children to respect court authority.

My father worked for 30 years in the federal courts, and then for the state bar.  I ripple his values of respect for our legal system.  There are three co-equal branches in this government of the people, we respect the courts.  I understand there was Dred Scott. We change.  I respect our courts.

I span the cultural epoch from I Love Lucy to marriage equality.  We have stumbled through many cultural transformations.  We need to take a breath, look, and begin to make reasoned decisions on our path forward with families.

If a family returns to court after the initial divorce event is settled by court judgement, there’s very likely to be pathology.  Normal is solving everything without court involvement.  Normal-conflict is having a judge decide.  The judge decided.  Now what’s the problem?  That’s not normal.  Attachment pathology in the child?  Look to the allied parent, they have the most to gain from creating pathology in the child.  Have an immediate risk assessment of the targeted parent’s parenting practices.

If the targeted parent is not abusive, then the allied parent is attempting to nullify the court’s authority and court’s decision by creating pathology in the child.

Work Ethic; An Invisible Courage

My father commuted from the suburbs of L.A. to downtown for thirty years, couple hours each way in Los Angeles.  Gas was 23 cents a gallon.  He was exhausted from the commute and stress at work, working for and with federal judges can be intense for 30 years with a drive.  I remember him lying bearlike on the living room floor, propped on an elbow eating a large bowl of cereal and reading his Scientific American to relax.

My dad was a quiet hero, working hard, providing for his family, the values of the 1930s and 40s; the steel worker in Ohio, the autoworker in Detroit, the farmer in Kansas, a 1930s and 1940s mentality of work ethic – a lifetime given to one company, raising a family, and getting your pension.

He died in the 1980s, my mom died in 2010.  His federal pension took care of her for thirty years.  I’m impressed by that, he took care of her for thirty years after he died, because that’s the mentality of the 1930s and 40s.  Work hard, do the right thing.

There were also many-many things wrong with the mentality of that time, from racism to fascism, mustard gas and child abuse.  And there are the founding principles of our social compact, our laws and our system of justice, there are values that if not always enacted still remain as our guide for what we do, now.

Divorce ends a marriage, not the family.  When there is a child, there will always be a family.  We must help families transition through the end of the spousal bond and into a healthy separated family structure following divorce – a normal-range divorce.

Key to accomplishing a normal and healthy family is teaching the child appropriate values of right and wrong.  The court’s authority is to be respected, and the court’s orders are to be obeyed.  That is a fundamental value we teach our children.

Who has influence on the child, the targeted parent or the allied parent?  Who has influence and is teaching the child values, the targeted parent or the allied parent?  From whom has the child learned that it is acceptable to defy court orders, the targeted parent or the allied parent?

If a parent is not sufficiently competent as a parent to be able to teach their child fundamental values of social requirement, then perhaps the court should consider this an indication of unfit parenting and reconsider decisions regarding the degree of parental influence on the child.

I don’t know about you, but my father taught me to respect the authority of the court.  If the court has ordered a custody visitation schedule, a child’s empowerment into defying the court’s authority is deeply troubling.  The first concern with a child rejecting a parent is child abuse by the targeted-rejected parent.  Get that assessed immediately, is there active child abuse?

If, however, there is no child abuse.  Then a child’s empowerment to defy court authority is a deeply troubling indictment of the allied parent’s parenting capacity.

Revisiting Divorce – Revisiting Families

It’s time for professional psychology and the legal profession to revisit their collaboration in solving family pathology.  The judge is not the family therapist, the judge decides, and the court’s orders are to be followed.  Each parent should have as much time and involvement with the child as possible.

Altering child visitation schedules is only warranted for child protection considerations, such as parental failure in an area of primary parental responsibility, such as getting the child to school, to medical appointments, and in following requirements set by the court, and in cases of child abuse, which requires an immediate child protection response and should be accompanied by a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse.

If there’s conflict, we fix it.  Normal people have the capacity to fix things.

We start with teaching the child basic values.  There’s right and wrong.  We teach our children to respect the authority of the court and to follow court orders. If a parent can’t do that, can’t teach the child that fundamental social value of respecting the authority of the court, then that is an extremely problematic failure in a fundamental parental responsibility.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Dublin 2020: Dr. Childress and the Gardnerian Debate

There’s going to be a Gardnerian Conference in Dublin in April.

I think I’ll go over and do a seminar on the Saturday before their conference thing, that way interested people can hear Dr. Childress and then hear the Gardnerian PAS “experts” and do a direct side-by-side comparison of us both, and what we are saying.

I figured I’d start now on this examination of differences, compare and contrast, by taking a look at the roster for their conference.  Looks impressive, doesn’t it.

I’m not impressed with the psychology side, seems pretty non-existent.  A couple people there, we’ll see who they are.  Medicine is heavily represented by Bill Bernet, M.D. and Steve Miller, M.D.  There’s multiple legal representation, but not much psychology.

But I’ll cover all of that, running down each of the presenters.  I’ll provide my comments over a series of blogs, going down that list.  Taking a look at the pathogen’s “loyal opposition.”

Gardnerian PAS Dublin Conference

Top Tier

Across the top row of their poster are three apparent heavyweights, William Bernet, M.D.  A psychiatrist.  Judge Phillip Marcus (Israel, retired).  A legal professional.  Steve Miller, M.D. A physician.

Slide1

Of intriguing note is that Bill Bernet, an M.D. psychiatrist (medical doctor) is being presented as a “Professor” rather than a psychiatrist, and Steve Miller, and M.D. internal medicine physician is being preseted as an expert in “Psychology” – the first word under his name, “Psychology” – he’s not a psychologist.

I have tremendous respect for the court and I do not know Judge Marcus.  I would be interested in learning from his perspective.  I will address the involvement of the legal professionals at the Gardnerian PAS Conference separately.

Of note is that two medical physicians, M.D. doctors, are headlining the conference, but you’d never know that just by reading their flyer.  One’s listed as “Professor” with no degree listing, and one’s listed as Dr. with no degree listing, and he’s presented as an expert in “Psychology.”

I assert that the failure to identify their professional degree is a misrepresentation of their professional background, and in Dr. Miller’s case may be an intentional misrepresentation in order to present as a more credible expert in “Psychology” when, in truth, he is an M.D. internal medicine and emergency room physician.  He may be a very skilled internal medicine physician and ER doctor, apparently even teaching medicine at Harvard Medical School, and I’m assuming it would be internal medicine and emergency room medicine.

None of that professional background, however, is relevant to clinical psychology, family conflict, and family therapy.

I did a google search on Steve Miller, M.D.  Here is his bio from another “parental alienation” conference.

Steven Miller, M.D. bio

STEVEN MILLER, M. D.
Dr. Miller has degrees in both Psychology and Medicine from Brown University and did residency training at Brown University and Harvard Medical School. For more than 30 years he was on the teaching faculty at Harvard Medical School. He is board certified in both Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine; in addition, he has many years of experience practicing Behavioral Medicine — a specialty that focuses on the interface between medicine and psychology. That background is particularly relevant to child maltreatment, child protection, child alignment, parental alienation, pathological enmeshment, and related issues since those clinical conditions are very much related to behavior, including dysfunctional, pathological, and abusive behavior. Likewise, he has several decades of experience practicing Forensic Medicine. A popular speaker, he has directed several hundred continuing education courses for physicians and other clinicians and presented over one thousand lectures on clinical reasoning, clinical problem-solving, and clinical decision-making. An internationally-known expert on alienation and estrangement – and how to distinguish one from the other – he is also an experienced expert witness, litigation consultant, and trial strategist.

So, let’s walk through this.  He has “degrees in both Psychology and Medicine” but I only see the M.D. listed.  That’s his medical degree.  What is his “Psychology” degree?  Is it a bachelor’s degree from Brown University before going on for his medical degree?  I’d like to find out more about that, what is his “Psychology” degree?

Because if it’s just a bachelor’s degree in Psychology, he’s no more qualitifed than my daughter is in Psychology. She has a BA in Psychology too.  If he has a Master’s degree in Psychology, then why isn’t he listing it? 

Oh well, let’s see what he actually does for a living.

“For more than 30 years he was on the teaching faculty at Harvard Medical School.”

Very impressive.  That’s a physician.  So whatever his “Psychology” degree is, it’s not what he actually does.  He’s a physician.  What type of physician?

“He is board certified in both Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine;”

That has nothing to do with psychology.  If he is teaching at Harvard Medical School, it’s about “Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine” not psychology.

I am concerned that Steven Miller, M.D. may be overstating his professional background and qualifications in professional psychology, altering or obscuring the truth in order to gain personal credibility that is not justified by professional training and background.

He is a physician, “board certified in Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine.”  I’m not seeing where his professional background is relevant to his opinions about matters of clinical psychology, family conflict, and family therapy.

“…in addition, he has many years of experience practicing Behavioral Medicine — a specialty that focuses on the interface between medicine and psychology.”

So if he is a physician, board certified in “Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine,” then he is coming from the “Medicine” side of that “interface between medicine and psychology,” and I would be on the “Psychology” side of that interface.

I am a clinical psychologist.  I come from Children’s Hospitals.  I know what Behavioral Medicine is.  The operative word in Behavioral Medicine is “Medicine.”  It is medically involved applied behavioral principles.  The school of psychotherapy for Behavioral Medicine is behavioral psychology, Behavioral Medicine is the “behavioral psychology” part of medicine.

I am a trained behavior therapist.  In fact, I’m an exceptionally well-trained behavioral psychologist. 

Good idea, Dr. Miller, let’s use the principles of behavioral medicine.  Let’s start by identifying the cue structure for the pathology, you know, the “stimulus control” for the behavior.  We can do that with a behavior-chain interview.  Or would you prefer to do a Functional Behavioral Analysis (FBA) instead?

Behavioral medicine?  You want to apply that, Dr. Miller?  Fine by me.  Start with identifying the cue structure and reinforcers for the behavior, that would be Applied Behavioral Analysis, or you can look at the function served by the behavior, that would be a Functional Behavioral Analysis.  I’m the psychology side of that interface,

Prior to my doctoral degree and practice as a clinical psychologist, I received prior training for a Master’s degree in Clinical-Community Psychology.  I then received an additional four years of doctoral training in Psychology at Pepperdine University; the doctoral program is a Psy.D., which is the most advanced degree possible in clinical psychology pathology and its treatment… Not an M.D., not a medical degree, a Psy.D. a Psychology Doctorate.

A PsyD sacrifices coursework in research and statistics for additional training in pathology and its treatment.  When it comes to pathology and treatment, a PsyD degree is the top tier clinical psychologist.  I have a Psy.D. in clinical psychology from Pepperdine University, where I was trained on the family systems therapy track.  I am a trained family systems therapist, with doctoral coursework in family systems therapy supported by placements in practicums, clinical internships, and post-doctoral training.

It’s nice that Steve Miller, M.D. who appears to be an excellent internal medicine and emergency room physician, also has some background experience in the field of behavioral medicine.  That’s nice.  That hardly qualifies him as an “expert” in Psychology.

What is your degree in Psychology, Dr. Miller?  Is it a bachelor’s degree?  You indicate in your bio that you have “degrees in both Psychology and Medicine from Brown University” – a single university.  Is your degree in Psychology your bachelor’s degree?

My daughter has a bachelor’s degree in psychology.   You should invite her to your Conference.

Seriously, Dr. Miller.  Tell me you are not claiming to be an “expert” in Psychology because you have a bachelor’s degree in psychology?  No, please, tell me that’s not true.

If you are claiming to be an “expert” in Psychology because you have a bachelor’s degree in Psychology, I am going to assert that you are misrepresenting your professional qualifications.

My doctorate degree in Clinical Psychology included a year of pre-doctoral internship training at the APA accredited internship program at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles (CHLA) in clinical child and family psychology.  I then received an additional year of post-doctoral training at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, switching from spina bifida to pediatric cancer as my medical rotation, and focusing on ADHD as my primary mental health pathology.

And do you know what, Dr. Miller?  My training at CHLA included training (and experience) with the diagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (DSM-5: Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another).  That’s right, I am a top tier expert in Munchusen by proxy.

Where do you think Munchausen by proxy shows up?  Children’s Hospitals, right.  The early medical people can’t figure out what’s going on medically, so they keep passing it up for diagnostic analysis, trying to figure out what’s going on.  Ultimately it arrives at the top, the Children’s Hospital.  At that point, we have a thick-thick medical chart with no clear diagnosis, lots of tests, nothing showing up.

Call for a psych consult, it may be Munchausen by proxy.  So the treating physician calls down to the Psychology Department at the Children’s Hospital requesting a “psych consult” for possible Munchausen by proxy.  Who is that?  Who is that “psych consult” person the physician calls for?

Me.  That would be, me.

Pediatric psychologists at Children’s Hospitals are THE most expert people on the planet regarding the diagnosis of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (DSM-5: Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another).

So with all due respect to your medical degree, Dr. Miller, and your specialty in internal medicine and emergency room medicine, I’m going to assert as a clinical child and family psychologist, that my background as a pediatric clinical psychologist at two separate Children’s Hospitals is more relevant professional experience than being board certified in internal medicine and emergency medicine.

Also, I have direct trauma experience, working directly with child abuse trauma in the foster care system.  I was the Clinical Director for a three-university collaborative assessment and treatment center for children in the foster care system.  That’s child abuse pathology in the foster care system, Dr. Miller. The children in the foster care system are there because of child abuse.

I’m the guy who led the treatment teams for that, all the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment for the child and family, that would be me.  Clinical Director, three-university assessment and treatment center for children in the foster care system.

So when DCS removed children and placed them in foster care because of child abuse, Dr. Miller, they sent the children, parents, and foster parents to me, at our clinic, for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of complex trauma and attachment pathology surrounding child abuse.

“That background is particularly relevant to child maltreatment, child protection, child alignment, parental alienation, pathological enmeshment, and related issues since those clinical conditions are very much related to behavior, including dysfunctional, pathological, and abusive behavior.”

Is it?  I’m going to dispute you on that Dr. Miller. 

From my professional background as a clinical psychologist with both Children’s Hospitals and “Behavioral Medicine,” and serving as the Clinical Director for an assessment and treatment center for children in the foster care system – actual child abuse trauma… they’re not the same.

Not anywhere close to the same.

To work with child abuse trauma, you need actual real-world training in complex trauma and child abuse.  Not “behavioral medicine.” Nope.  Not enough.  Not anywhere near enough.

It’d be analogous to asking a physician’s assistant in the local general practitioner’s office to do open heart surgery.  No…, a cardiac surgeon should do open heart surgery, not a physician’s assistant at the GP’s office.

It’s nice that you have some background in behavioral medicine, that’s sweet.  That is not professional-level expertise in trauma and child abuse.  If you want top-tier expertise in trauma and child abuse, go to someone who has assessed, diagnosed, and treated childhood complex trauma, attachment pathology, and child abuse… like me.

I’ve done that.  My professional background as a clinical psychologist includes directing the treatment team assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of complex child abuse trauma in the foster care system. That would be me.

I am also a family systems therapist, trained in all three sub-domains of family systems therapy, Structural (Minuchin), Strategic (Haley, Madanes), and Bowen’s foundational models for family systems therapy (Bowen) – as well as Satir, Framo, Boszormenyi-Nagy, and others.

Dr. Miller, did you know that Boszormenyi-Nagy has literally written the book on loyalty invisible loyalties coverconflicts in the family? He also developed an approach to family therapy called “Contextual Family Therapy.” 

So what do you think, Dr. Miller?  Do you think it would be important to know about how family loyalties operate if you’re going to be an “expert” in psychology and family conflict?

Do you think it would be valuable to know Boszormenyi-Nagy and Contextual Family Therapy?

It is.

What a surprise.  Who would have thought knowing about family loyalties and loyalty conflicts would be useful in treating loyalty conflicts in the family.  You are an expert in Boszormenyi-Nagy aren’t you, Dr. Miller?  Because you wouldn’t be an “internationally-known expert” in family conflict pathology and not know about family loyalty conflicts, would you, Dr. Miller.  

And Dr. Miller is what passes for an “expert” in forensic psychology world, an internal medicine and ER physician is the “expert” in psychology because he has a bachelor’s degree in Psychology.

Okay.

“Likewise, he has several decades of experience practicing Forensic Medicine.”

Forensic medicine.  Not forensic psychology – forensic medicine.  That means court-involved medicine.  He’s an internal medicine and ER physician (“He is board certified in both Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine”).

So he’s doing forensic medicine? Of what relevance is forensic medicine to attachment trauma pathology and family systems therapy? Does he conduct child custody evaluations? Probably not, otherwise he’d say he does forensic psychology, and besides, he’s a physician not a mental health professional.

It sounds like he’s trying to obscure and confuse about his actual background to make it appear he is more credible than he is.  If that is the case, that is truly an unfortunate professional standard of practice, to mislead the public about one’s true qualifications and the limits to those qualifications.

I don’t practice medicine, and Dr. Miller should probably not practice psychology unless he has the background education and training to do so.

“A popular speaker, he has directed several hundred continuing education courses for physicians and other clinicians and presented over one thousand lectures on clinical reasoning, clinical problem-solving, and clinical decision-making.”

A popular speaker is not relevant to his professional qualifications.  I see no professional qualifications in professional psychology whatsoever, yet he is claiming to be an “expert” in “Psychology” – right there, under his name, without specifying that his “Dr.” is as a medical physician – an internal medicine and ER doctor.

A “popular” speaker can be selling snake-oil from the back of their wagon, drawing crowds at every stop.  A “popular speaker” is not a professional qualification, and so far I see no professional qualifications in professional psychology.

He has presented over a thousand lectures on “clinical reasoning, clinical problem solving, and clinical decision-making.”  That’s nice.  How many lectures has he presented on the DSM-5 diagnosis of pathology?  My guess is zero, he is an internal medicine and emergency room physician.

Over a thousand lectures on reasoning and problem solving.  He must like this topic a lot.  I’ve listened to him on this some, very erudite, and way too complex for practical application.  We cannot ask all these mental health people to learn complex reasoning analyses.  That is simply not practical. 

Thanks for the suggestion, Dr. Miller, but this is a pathology requiring diagnosis, not a philosophical discussion for Socrates.

I suppose if you care about logical reasoning fallacies in decision-making, Dr. Miller is your guy.  Doesn’t particularly interest me.  I understand what he’s saying, it just doesn’t lead to anything practical… just kind of his own special thing, I guess.

When we have our Christmas party, I suspect Dr. Miller will be over by the punch bowl muttering about the logical fallacies of Santa coming down the chimney, “The chubbiness quotient is inconsistent with the chimney portal dimensions, the chimney portal will not support the mass to energy ratio needed for transportation of said Santa.” 

Okay, great Steve.  How’s the wife?

High Quality Specialist

I’ve watched some of Dr. Miller’s YouTube stuff as well.  He calls for the creation of a high-quality professional for this pathology.

That would be me.

Seriously, I am EXACTLY the person he’s calling for.

I am a clinical psychologist, Psy.D., one of the best.  I have extensive clinical training in all forms of pathology, including complex trauma and child abuse. I have background training in the assessment and diagnosis of delusional pathology.  I am extensively well-trained in family systems therapy; all approaches… and… I’ve been working with this specific court-involved family conflict for over ten years now.

That’s one of his qualifications he proposes, extensive experience with the pathology.  That’s me too, over ten years experience.  I entered court-involved clinical psychology back in late-2008,

It’s a mess over here, this forensic psychology world.   Everyone chased this white rabbit of “parental alienation” and fell down the rabbit hole into an awful trauma world of parallel process.

I’ve been working with this court-involved family conflict for over ten years, advocating consistently for a return to established knowledge.  You can see handouts up on my website from 2013 that are saying exactly the same things I’m saying now, Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck.

That was one of Dr. Miller’s criteria for top-tier expertise, that the clinical psychologist have extensive experience working specifically with this type of family pathology – that would be me too – Dr. Childress has over ten years experience working with specifically this type of court-involved family conflict pathology.

I meet Dr. Miller’s exact criteria.  Consider…

I have background as a PsyD clinical psychologist trained at a top graduate school.  I am specialized in child and family pathology and treatment.  Trained at Children’s Hospitals in Munchausen by proxy (DSM-5: Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another).

I have over 12 years of experience in rating delusional pathology, trained annually by UCLA and the Diagnostic Unit at the Brentwood VA in using the Brief Psychiatric Scale (BPRS) in rating psychotic and delusional pathology.

Vitae Entry:  9/85 -9/98 Research Associate
UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute
Principle Investigator: Keith Nuechterlein, Ph.D.
Area: Longitudinal study of initial-onset schizophrenia

I also have trauma and child abuse diagnosis and treatment background:

Vitae Entry 10/06 -6/08: Clinical Director
START Pediatric Neurodevelopmental Assessment and Treatment Center
California State University, San Bernardino Institute of Child Development and Family Relations

Clinical director for an early childhood assessment and treatment center providing comprehensive developmental assessment and psychotherapy services to children ages 0-5 years old. Directed the clinical operations, clinical staff, and the provision of comprehensive psychological assessment and treatment services across clinic-based, home-based, and school-based services. A three-university collaboration with speech and language services through the University of Redlands, occupational therapy through Loma Linda University, and psychology through Calif. State University, San Bernardino.

I am exactly – exactly – the specialized advanced-knowledge professional Dr. Miller is calling for.   “That’ me.”

He surely doesn’t mean that internal medicine physicians and ER doctors represent this top tier of professional expertise in complex family conflict surrounding divorce.

Clearly, the expertise would be from clinical psychologists, with a PsyD degree representing the most advanced.  We’d want extensive experience with child and family therapy, extensively grounded knowledge of attachment pathology, with delusioonal pathology experience, a complex trauma background, and child abuse, and solidly grounded knowledge for all of the principle schools of family systems therapy.

That would be a top-tier professional.

That’s me.  That is exactly my background.

I am exactly the top-tier professional expertise that Dr. Miller is calling for.

Top Tier Professional

So… Dr. Miller, listen carefully to what this sought-for high-level professional expertise is saying to you…

Stop using the construct of “parental alienation” in a professional capacity.

Doing that, using that construct, is harmful to the patients.

You are an internal medicine and ER physician.  A wonderfully good one, I’m certain.  Your ideas about logical fallacies are fascinating.

The expertise in professional psychology that you are seeking is telling you, as an internal medicine physician and ER doctor, to stop using the construct of “parental alienation” in a professional capacity.

Dr. Miller, with all due respect to your medical degree and “board certifications in Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine,” please use the standard and established constructs of clinical psychology when discussing clinical psychopathology.  It becomes less confusing to the general public and to the courts when we ground ourselves in the scientifically established knowledge of the discipline (as required by Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code).

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

That would be Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, van der Kolk, and Tronick; attachment, family systems therapy, personality disorder pathology, complex trauma, and the neuro-development of the brain in the parent-child relationship.

Dr. Miller, I’m not seeing reference to your professional background in any of those areas.  I’m not sure you’re competent at a basic level, needless to say an “expert” in “Psychology.”

Right below your picture there, Dr. Miller… it says “Psychology” – that’s not true, is it, Dr. Miller.  You’re actually a physician with board certifications in Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine, aren’t you?  And your “degree” in Psychology is just a bachelor’s degree, isn’t it?  And you just have some opinions about logical fallacies, don’t you, so you’re kind of attaching those to a pathology you don’t actually understand very well.

And you’re a headlining “expert” at the Dublin Conference.

Dr. Miller, this is by instruction from that top-tier professional expertise you’re seeking (you know, the person who is a combination of top-level clinical psychology background, background expertise in Munchausen by proxy, background expertise in family systems therapy (all forms), extensive background in delusional pathology, and background expertise in complex trauma, child abuse, and attachment pathology)… the correct terms to use from family systems therapy are that the child is being “triangulated” into the spousal conflict through the formation of a “cross-generational coalition” of the child with the allied parent, resulting in an “emotional cutoff” in the child’s relationship to the targeted parent.

There is zero need to resort to the term “parental alienation” in your descriptions of the pathology.

Alternatively, Dr. Miller, if you choose to apply the information sets from attachment and complex trauma, then the professional-level description of the pathology becomes the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the allied narcissistic-borderline parent to the current family relationships, mediated by the personality disorder pathology of the allied parent that is itself a product of this parent’s childhood attachment trauma.

Again, there is zero need to resort to using the term “parental alienation.” The pathology is fully describable using the established constructs of professional psychology without resorting to creating a “new form of pathology” with entirely new and unique symptom identifiers.  And I would suggest to you that you are a little beyond the scope of your training and competence to be suggesting we adopt new forms of psychological psychopathology.

Dr. Miller, I shouldn’t even have to say this to you, but it is beneath professional standards of practice to NOT apply the established knowledge of professional psychology, and to mislead the public into believing “new forms of pathology” that are not sufficiently grounded in the scientific literature for professional acceptance.

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

The “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” is not Richard Gardner, Dr. Miller.  It’s Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, van der Kolk, Tronick… Million, Linehan, Stern, Siegel, Fonagy, Kernberg, Bowen, Madanes…

Not Richard Gardner and PAS, Dr. Miller.  You will have all the same logical fallacy arguments when you base your descriptions of the pathology in established constructs and principles of professional psychology as you do proposing that everyone accept a “new form of psychopathology” developed unilaterally by a psychiatrist (M.D. doctor) in 1985 and which has been rejected by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Miller, I am in full agreement with the American Psychiatric Association when they rejected “parental alienation” as a valid diagnostic construct.

Do you, – an internal medicine physician and ER doctor -, dispute the carefully considred decision of the DSM-5 diagnostic committees of the American Psychiatric Association regarding what is and is not an established pathology?

Because if you accept the decision of the American Psychiatric Association… then there is no such pathology as “parental alienation” – so stop using the construct in a professional capacity.  Also, please start clearly identifying yourself as an internal medicine physician and ER physician, not as an “expert” in “Psychology.”

Dr. Miller, I have professional obligations under Standard 1.04 of the APA ethics code.  I understand that you are not a psychologist and that the ethical standards of professional psychology do not apply to you.  I also consider my ethical obligations under Standard 1.04 to be discharged.

I realize that professional psychology is not your field, Dr. Miller, and that you are an internal medicine physician who is opining on matters of clinical psychology and family therapy, beyond the scope of your training and background, so your confusion about professional constructs might be understandable for a limited time.  But professionals are required to apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline,” and I am asking you to do so.

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

I know that the ethics code for professional psychology doesn’t apply to you, Dr. Miller, because you are a physician with a specialty in internal medicine and emergency room medicine, not psychology.  But if you are going to enter the realm of clinical psychology, Dr. Miller, at least practice at the level of a professional over here, at least abide by the APA ethics code for the “Bases of Scientific and Professional Judgement

The “established scientific and professional knowledge” is not Richard Gardner, Dr. Miller, it’s Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck…

I am exactly – exactly – the high-level professional experience you’re asking for.

No more Richard Gardner, please.  That is beneath professional standards of practice.

“An internationally-known expert on alienation and estrangement – and how to distinguish one from the other – he is also an experienced expert witness, litigation consultant, and trial strategist.”

An “expert on alienation” and “estrangement” – yet neither of those supposed pathologies exist, citations requested for these supposed new pathologies, Dr. Miller.

There is no such thing as “estrangement” – you should become familiar with Dr. Tronick’s work at Harvard on the breach-and-repair sequence.  There are only repaired breaches and un-repaired breaches – un-repaired breaches are the “ugly” that Dr. Tronick describes, not some “estrangement” pathology you are creating.

There are parent-child conflicts over in juvenile justice pathology, over in school-based psychology, over in trauma psychology, over in autism and developmental psychology, and in family systems therapy with normal-range families.  These breaches to the parent-child bond are either repaired or non-repaired.

There is no pathology of “parental alienation” – there is no pathology of “estrangement” – please stop making up new forms of pathology.

This is a direct instruction from exactly the high-level professional expertise you are asking for.

I am a clinical psychologist (PsyD)

My specialty is child and family therapy.

I am a trained and experienced family systems therapist in multiple schools of family systems therapy (Structural, Strategic, Bowen).

I am extensively trained and experienced in the rating of delusional pathology (12 years on a schizophrenia research project at UCLA)

I am trained and experienced in Munchausen by proxy, DSM-5 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (pediatric psychologist at Children’s Hospitals).

I am extensively trained and experienced in complex trauma, child abuse, and attachment trauma pathology.

And I have over ten years of experience treating exactly this court-involved family conflict pathology.

That knowledge and expertise, Dr. Miller, is instructing you from that knowledge and expertise, please stop using the construct of “parental alienation” in a professional capacity.

Please properly identify your professional qualifications.  You are not an “expert” in psychology.  You are an internal medicine and ER physician with wonderful ideas about logical fallacies.  You are not an expert in “Psychology” as the flyer for the upcoming Dublin conference suggests, you are misleading the public as to your professional qualifications.

What is your Psychology degree, Dr. Miller? (“Dr. Miller has degrees in both Psychology and Medicine from Brown University”).  Are you claiming to be an “expert” in Psychology because you have a bachelor’s degree in psychology?  Is that your standard for what it takes to be an “expert” in Psychology?

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857