Author: Dr Craig Childress

I’m documenting information into the record because that’s what I do. People have yet to comprehend that I’m a whistleblower on my own people, the psychologists. I’m the betrayer. I’m of the same profession, I should be closing ranks to protect the profession.

Instead, I’m throwing forensic psychologists entirely under the bus. I’m telling you the secrets they’re trying to hide from you, and I’m empowering you with the knowledge you need to go after their license.

BUT… the licensing boards won’t do anything. You know that and I know that. That’s not the point. This isn’t about you. You need to start working for each other. Don’t leave them for the next parent and child. Move on from incompetence, but clean up the mess as you encounter it. Don’t leave it for the next parent and child.

I believe they should lose their license for being participants in child abuse because of their negligence, incompetence, and unethical malpractice.

It’s bloodsport at this point. Forensic psychologists will go after my license any chance they get. They control all the licensing boards.  This is a holy cow dangerous time for me… because I’m trying to help you.

This will happen to everyone who tries to help you until you deal the the problem.

They are going after my license. I am going after their license any chance I get. It’s the way of things.  Make the licensing boards cover-up over-and-over again on the same three counts – violations to Standards 2.04, 2.01, and 9.01.

I’m on the battlefield for you and your children, and I’m taking fire. Return fire. You have an advantage, you’re a rabble. You have swarm available if you have the target.

I’m creating the record. This is a skill set you parents can learn – WrightsLaw Letter to a Sranger. How do you create the paper record of nebulous things?

I am informing The Trust Malpractice insurance carrier of the Oregon appeals court decision. They’ve been wanting notification as soon as a decision is rendered. My insurance rates may rise. We’ll see what happens.

Everything that has happened to me in the past 10 years spent in the family courts is going into an article for a Clinical Psychology journal – the Adventures of a Clinical Psychologist in the Wonderland of Family Court Custody Conflict. Oh my goodness, I have so much to share with the outside world of clinical psychology about what it’s like in the family courts.

Maybe that will be one of my APA convention proposals for Seattle 2024: A Clinical Psychologist in Wonderland, I fell down the rabbit hole to here. Oh my goodness. what an interesting place.

Want to hear about my adventures? I am documenting my reporting of reality into the record in my notification of The Trust. They’ll get to read the decision. They can decide for themselves.

Everyone can. So let’s see what the attorneys and mental health professionals who review the record decide. I’m documenting information into the record. Here’s my notification to the Trust:

---

July 13, 2023

To: Trust Malpractice Insurance

Re: Policy #xxxxxx – Oregon Appeal

You requested an update on my appeal of the Oregon licensing board sanctions. The appellate court has just returned its decision in favor of the Oregon licensing board, and I have been sanctioned $7,500 for practice in Oregon without a license.

I am licensed in California. I provided consultation to a business organization in Southern California, the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute (Dorcy Pruter, CEO). They do a content analysis of the data generated around families in custody conflict and compile frequency counts of symptoms. The categories they code for are categories I identify in my book Foundations (Childress, 2015). CCPI sought my consultation on their data profiles because I identified in my book what symptoms to look for, and those are the symptom features they code (“tag”) for in their content analysis of the data.

I did not treat anyone in Oregon. I did not diagnose anyone in Oregon. I did not assess anyone in Oregon. I did not speak with anyone in Oregon. What exactly I did in Oregon that constitutes practice in Oregon remains unclear. I provided consultation to CCPI, a business organization in Southern California, on the data profile they generate through content analysis of the data. Ms. Pruter’s client lived in Oregon. Somehow the clients of CCPI become my clients if I provide consultation to CCPI on the data profiles they generate using content analysis and coding of the data. Ms. Pruter and CCPI will now need to locate 50 consulting psychologists, one for each state for her clients, and none of the consulting psychologists will have knowledge about the categories she is coding for in her content analysis of the data because those categories are based on my work (Childress, 2015).

The only use made of my consultation report by the client of CCPI was to use my consultation report to CCPI regarding their generated data profile to support a licensing board complaint with the Oregon licensing board against the involved forensic psychologist. That was the only use of my consultation report to CCPI that was based on the data profiles they generated by their content analysis. The father did not file the board complaint against me in Oregon, he commissioned the services of CCPI. The only other person affected by my consultation report to CCPI regarding their content analysis and data profile is the forensic psychologist who the father filed the licensing board complaint against. In my opinion, these sanctions are retaliation against me by the forensic psychologists in Oregon for my report having been used in support of the licensing board complaint made by the father against the involved forensic psychologist. There was no affected party in Oregon other than the forensic psychologist who had the board complaint filed against him by the father. That was the only use the father made of my consultation report to CCPI on the data profile generated by their data coding and content analysis of the data.

I have attached the court’s decision. Now that the Oregon matter has been resolved I plan to become licensed in Washington state where I live and in Oregon to make that issue moot relative to my future testimony in the courts. My credentials are already certified with the National Register of Healthcare Psychologists, so I’m anticipating this will facilitate my licensure in Washington state and Oregon. Washington state is a member of PSYPACT which I’ll join which will extend my jurisdictional scope. I am a testifying expert in the family courts. I currently have consulting cases to attorneys across the U.S., in South Africa, Germany, and the UK.

For risk management purposes, I will be restricting my future consultation to only attorneys from now on. I have already discontinued all consultation to CCPI when the licensing board issues first emerged. Going forward, I will provide no future consultation to the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute regarding the data profiles they generate in their content analysis and coding of data for my personal risk management. I will only provide consultation to attorneys and not on data profiles from CCPI which are based on my work.

The severing of my consultation to the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute is unfortunate since the data collected by the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute in Southern California, the state where I am licensed, is beginning to generate valuable research about the pathology in the family courts. CCPI and other researchers will need to continue their research regarding the pathology in the family courts without my consultation even though their content analysis of the data is based on my work.

Greenham, Childress, & Pruter (ResearchGate). Dark Personalities and Delusions III: Identifying Pathogenic Parenting in the Family Courts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368330924_Dark_Personalities_and_Induced_Delusional_Disorder_Part_III_Identifying_the_Pathogenic_Parenting_Underlying_a_Crisis_in_the_Family_and_Domestic_Violence_Courts

Let me know if you need any additional information.

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

 

The Oregon appellate court returned its decision in support of the Oregon licensing board and I have been sanctioned $7,500 for a report I wrote to my client, Dorcy Pruter and the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute, a business organization located in Southern California.

I conducted no treatment with anyone in Oregon. I gave no diagnosis to anyone in Oregon. I assessed no one in Oregon. I spoke with no one in Oregon. What service I provided in Oregon remains unclear.

It begins.

I am a whistleblower on the unethical malpractice of forensic psychologists in the family courts. This is retaliation against me from the forensic psychologists. The licensing boards are corrupt from the influence of the forensic psychologists.

No clinical psychologist is safe in the family courts.

My CRM report was bait. It’s fine. Just wait til you see it. The forensic psychologists took the bait. I appealed to the courts to expose the court’s participation or not.

Now it’s all done. I have all the documentation. Some call it data. Some call it evidence. I think of it as documentation.

Now a new phase begins. I will be providing information in layers.

Today I am beginning by providing my attorney’s email to me notifying me of the court’s decision.

Tomorrow I’ll post to my blog my response to my attorney.

Saturday, I’ll post my de-identified CRM report to my website.

Sunday I’ll provide my first formal response on Facebook Live at 8:00 Pacific, these are saved to my YouTube channel, and I’ll also post the court’s decision to my website on Saturday.

That will lay the foundation. Later within the flow of information, I will post the transcript of the testimony of the Oregon board’s forensic psychologist with my line-by-line analysis.

This will give you a sample of what my line-by-line notes look like.

Today, I start with my attorney’s email to me informing me of the court’s decision:

---

Craig,

I’m sorry to report that the court of appeals affirmed the Board’s decision in the attached opinion. I was hoping the length of time this was under advisement meant something positive. This supports my continued cynicism about the appellate review of agency decisions, as it appears they took the time seeking ways to affirm.

They reached quite far to hold the agency’s interpretation of its rules and statutes was correct, turning to things that neither of the parties had argued or addressed. As they note, Oregon courts usually reject  legislative intent/ history arguments based on advocates before the legislature, as opposed to statements from legislators themselves, but this panel did accept it apparently when it serves the desired end result. What they don’t say is how a person reading the rules about consulting would have the requisite “notice” of the rules the court now embraces.

The opinion does also hold, as the AG argued, that the definition of “evaluation” is broad enough to support the Board’s finding. That was one of the issues we were worried about, particularly after argument.

We did not expect to win on the issue of the father being an Oregon resident. That was added as a backup argument, and since the Board can look not only at the facts, but also inferences from those facts, it was a stretch.

Also, on the penalty argument, the court relies on agency’s broad discretion to affirm the agency- saying the amount assessed was within the Board’s discretion. Seems like a cop-out based on the single violation, and the lack of clarity of the rules. While they note the State’s preservation argument, they still addressed this issue as they should have, as whether we objected based on  the terms “exorbitant”, “excessive” or “disproportionate” is effectively the same, but again deferred to agency discretion.

We have 5 weeks to file a petition for review with the Oregon Supreme Court. As much as I disagree with this decision, I don’t recommend taking that step, as this is a relatively fact- specific matter, and relies on the agency’s ability to interpret and apply its rules as it sees fit,  and its exercise of discretion, and I don’t think we have much chance the court would accept review. The fact that the court chose to make this a “precedential” opinion, would support review, but in the end, our Supreme Court has been affirming agency decisions right and left in the cases they take, and I hate to incur the cost of briefing only to have the Supreme Court affirm this decision.

Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

Janet Schroer

 

I provided consultation to a client-parent and client-attorney regarding the cross-examination of mental health testimony. I thought you might find this information helpful so I’m posting it to my blog.

The Context:

I’m am providing consultation to an attorney-client and their parent-client regarding  two “expert” forensic custody evaluations by two different psychologists, one better and one worse. The client-attorney and their client-parent want to support and expand on the report and recommendations of the better doctor, Dr. Better-doctor, and discredit the report and recommendations of the bad doctor, Dr. Bad-doctor.

I read all the reports and we met in my online office where I provided feedback on the two reports. We talked about areas of opportunity and vulnerability. Afterwards, I was asked a question in email,

Q: Is a cross-generational coalition considered child psychological abuse?

I provided an email answer to the question. I thought my answer to my client-attorney might also be helpful to you – so here’s my consultation answer to a client-attorney and their client-parent to the question they asked within the context of two mental health reports, one better one worse, both from forensic psychologists.

Dr Childress Answer:

No, a cross-generational coalition is not automatically child abuse – although – the criteria for psychological child abuse are sufficiently vague that a licensed mental health professional can give the diagnosis based on their judgment – so yes, maybe. If the licensed MH person says it’s child abuse, it’s child abuse.

If they don’t give the diagnosis of child psychological abuse for a cross-generational coalition, however, we can’t overrule them, it’s a judgment call… unless it’s a persecutory delusion or Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another, both of those diagnosis would clearly also be child psychological abuse.

Abuse Diagnoses

The diagnosis that’s relevant for the child’s ongoing protection is Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51). The Child Psychological Abuse diagnosis is based on either of two diagnoses, 1) a shared (induced) persecutory delusion in the child, or 2) a false (factitious; artificially created) attachment pathology imposed on the child by the father, a Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another.

These diagnoses of a shared (induced) persecutory delusion and FDIA are technical diagnoses that will need to be made by a mental health professional. The judge will likely be reluctant to identify the problem (diagnose the pathology) as a shared (induced) persecutory delusion with the child and as a false (factitious) attachment pathology being imposed on the child by the father’s distorted parenting.

The Problem

The problem is that you’ve had two mental health evaluations, one by Dr. Better-doctor and one by Dr. Bad-doctor, and neither of them addressed the issues of abuse. There are two abuse diagnoses relevant for consideration, Spousal Psychological Abuse (V995.82) using the child as the weapon, and Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51) that involves creating a shared (induced) persecutory delusion and factitious (artificially created) attachment pathology in the child by the father to manipulate the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the father’s own emotional and psychological needs… and neither of them even assessed for the possibility.

The ONLY reason I am involved is because both Dr. Better-doctor and Dr. Bad-doctor are ignorant, incompetent, negligent and unethical, and they both failed to in their duty to protect obligations on two separate counts, 1) failure to protect the child from child abuse, and 2) failure to protect the mother from spousal abuse by the father using the child as the weapon.

Ignorant

Google ignorant: lack of knowledge or information

• • They lack knowledge about delusional disorders, factitious disorders, cross-generational coalitions, and enmeshment, they applied no “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” as the bases for their professional judgments – just a rejected and “controversial” construct of “parental alienation” about which even Better-doctor and Bad-doctor can’t agree.

• • Based on a review of their reports, Drs. Better-doctor and Bad-doctor are ignorant by definition of the English language, and they don’t care.

Incompetent

Google incompetence: inability to do something successfully

• • Even AFTER their assessments taking months and months of time to complete, they STILL failed to conduct a proper risk assessment for any of the potential abuse diagnoses – we still don’t have an answer to the central question they were asked – what is the pathology? – what is the problem? – using the application of professional-level knowledge.

• • They were unable to successfully conduct an evaluation that accurately identified (diagnosed) the problem (pathology), and as a result of their incompetence (inability to do something successfully) you are now stuck in the trial situation trying to convince the judge there are abuse diagnoses and that a child protection response is warranted.

Negligent

Google negligence: failure to take proper care in doing something

• • Did Drs. Better-doctor and Bad-doctor fail to conduct a proper assessment for a possible delusional thought disorder – a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception?

• • Did Drs. Better-doctor and Bad-doctor fail to conduct a proper risk assessment for possible Child Psychological Abuse? Did they even consider the diagnosis? Did they consider any abuse diagnosis – or did they just miss the diagnosis  – misdiagnosis – did they misdiagnose child abuse because they were negligent in their evaluation?

• • Get Dr. Bad-doctor to admit at some point that he recommends an additional “risk assessment” for “possible” child psychological abuse and a “possible” persecutory delusion… then ask him where in his report he discussed these possibilities? If we STILL need ANOTHER assessment for possible child abuse even AFTER his assessment, then he was negligent in conducting his assessment – he failed to take proper care.

• • He should have known there was a possible persecutory delusion – that’s the Walters & Friedlander quotes in the flagship journal of the AFCC, Family Court Review – 2016, seven years ago – this isn’t new information. Why didn’t Dr. Bad-doctor consider a possible encapsulated persecutory delusion? He’s a prominent court-involved forensic psychologist – Family Court Review is their journal.

From Walters & Friedlander: “In some RRD families [resist-refuse dynamic], a parent’s underlying encapsulated delusion about the other parent is at the root of the intractability (cf. Johnston & Campbell, 1988, p. 53ff; Childress, 2013). An encapsulated delusion is a fixed, circumscribed belief that persists over time and is not altered by evidence of the inaccuracy of the belief.”

From Walters & Friedlander: “When alienation is the predominant factor in the RRD [resist-refuse dynamic}, the theme of the favored parent’s fixed delusion often is that the rejected parent is sexually, physically, and/or emotionally abusing the child. The child may come to share the parent’s encapsulated delusion and to regard the beliefs as his/her own (cf. Childress, 2013).” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)

Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.

Unethical

They are unethical – APA ethics code. They have ethical obligations to know what they’re doing (Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence), they are not allowed to be ignorant and incompetent. They have ethical obligations to apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” as the bases for their professional judgments (Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgements).

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

Ask them to explain why that’s important.

Q: Is the APA ethics code optional or mandatory? A: mandatory.

Q: Please read this ethical Standard. Do you agree with that Standard? Do you comply with that ethical Standard? Why is that Standard important, what bad things happen if that Standard is violated?

Standard 2.04:

Q: Why is it an ethical obligation to apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” as the bases for your professional judgments?

Q: What bad things can happen if you don’t apply the established knowledge as the bases for your professional judgments?

Standard 9.01

Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment is the Standard we will land on to discredit Dr. Bad-doctor’s report and recommendations. Notice that Standard 9.01 cites specifically back to Standard 2.04 – ask them to explain why?

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

Q: Is family systems therapy (Munchin, Bowen, Haley, Madanes, Satir) among the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline?

Q: Why would the constructs of family systems be important to apply in understanding family conflict?

Q: What is triangulation? If I say the child is being ‘triangulated’ into the spousal conflict, what does that mean?

Q: What is a cross-generational coalition? What is an emotional cutoff? What is enmeshment?

Q: Show me in your report where you applied the constructs of family systems as the bases for your professional judgments about this family conflict.

Q: Is the DSM-5 among the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline?

Q: What’s a persecutory delusion?

Q: Here’s the definition of a persecutory delusion from the American Psychiatric Association. Do you agree with that definition of a persecutory delusion?

From the APA: “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person, or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)

Q: Do you agree with that definition of a persecutory delusion from the American Psychiatric Association?

Q: Based on your assessment, do the father and child share a false belief that the child is “being malevolently treated in some way” by the mother?

Q: Read this quote from Walter’s and Friedlander from the journal Family Court Review, do you agree with their statement about child resistance of contact in family court litigation?

From Walters & Friedlander: “In some RRD families [resist-refuse dynamic], a parent’s underlying encapsulated delusion about the other parent is at the root of the intractability (cf. Johnston & Campbell, 1988, p. 53ff; Childress, 2013). An encapsulated delusion is a fixed, circumscribed belief that persists over time and is not altered by evidence of the inaccuracy of the belief.”

From Walters & Friedlander: “When alienation is the predominant factor in the RRD [resist-refuse dynamic}, the theme of the favored parent’s fixed delusion often is that the rejected parent is sexually, physically, and/or emotionally abusing the child. The child may come to share the parent’s encapsulated delusion and to regard the beliefs as his/her own (cf. Childress, 2013).” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)

Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.

Q: Do you agree with those statements from Walters & Friedlander in the journal Family Court Review?

Q: Show me in your report where you discuss the possibility of a shared persecutory delusion of the father and child toward the mother?

Q: Did you even assess for a possible shared persecutory delusion – show me where?

Q: What is the assessment for a persecutory delusion? Is it a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception? Did you conduct a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception?

Q: The child and father have a false belief that the child is being malevolently treated in some way by the mother, could there possibly be a persecutory delusion with the father that’s being imposed on and induced in the child? Is that possible?

Q: Show us in your report where you assess for and discuss this possibility?

Q: Should we get an additional assessment for that possibility? Would you recommend we get an additional assessment to rule-out a possible persecutory delusion in the family?

If they say yes – then their opinions as contained in their recommendations, report, diagnostic or evaluative statements, including their forensic testimony, are NOT based on information (Standard 2.04) and techniques (MSE of thought and perception) sufficient to substantiate their findings – Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment.

Because they don’t know the established knowledge (Standard 2.01) and didn’t apply the established knowledge (Standard 2.04), their opinions as contained in their recommendations, reports, diagnostic or evaluative statements, including their forensic testimony, are NOT based on information (Standard 2.04 violation) and techniques (Mental Status Exam of thought and perception) sufficient to substantiate their findings – a violation to Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment – this is the Standard to land on with Dr. Bad-doctor to discredit his findings and recommendations.

You can rattle Dr. Better-doctor’s cage with the issue of 2.04, but then guide her back to the accurate information and allow her to embrace as much as she is comfortable with – “Hypothetically doctor….” – “Would what you describe there be consistent with…?” – “Based on what you said there, would you be worried about a possible…?”

Notice Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment cites specifically back to Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments – ask Dr. Bad-doctor why this is important,

Q: Why does Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment specifically cite back to Standard 2.04? Why is it an ethical obligation to apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” in the interpretation of your assessment findings – Standard 9.01?

Q: What bad things could happen if a psychologist does NOT apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” in the interpretations of your assessment findings?”

Make him cut his own throat before he even starts.

To be clear, the problem is that Dr. Better-doctor and Dr. Bad-doctor are ignorant, incompetent, negligent, and unethical, and as a result they misdiagnosed child abuse and spousal abuse and failed in their duty to protect obligations as doctors.

Cornell Law School Definition of Negligence: “Negligence is a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances.  The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one’s previous conduct).”

If Dr. Better-doctor and Dr. Bad-doctor had performed their duties with proper care, you wouldn’t be in this situation, and I wouldn’t be needed.

But you are in this situation. So the attorney has some dancing to do. The attorney will need to discredit both reports because neither is accurate, but then restore Better-doctor while bashing Bad-doctor (using what can be used of value from his report).

Because the diagnostic criteria for Child Psychological Abuse is vague, Dr. Better-doctor can give the diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse if she wants to – but then she’ll have to defend her diagnosis against challenges from the both parents – dad will say Dr. Better-doctor is incompetent and mom will say Dr. Better-doctor misdiagnosed child abuse earlier – so Dr. Better-doctor is in danger because of her ignorant, incompetent, negligent, and unethical malpractice – but we want to restore her and use her more accurate recommendations as much as she will make more accurate recommendations.

Rattle the cage of Dr Better-doctor, then provide support in guiding her back into established knowledge as far as she’ll go, allow the judge to make any last leap that Dr. Better-doctor doesn’t. There are child protection concerns. A protective separation is desired. But if the judge won’t protect the child (yet), get treatment sole-consent rights for mom, then get the accurate diagnosis of a Child Psychological Abuse diagnosis, then take the accurate diagnosis of child abuse back as a changed circumstance requiring a protective separation – a child protection response.

Once there is a formal child abuse diagnosis made by a licensed mental health professional, mom can use this for the remainder of the children’s development to stabilize the family whenever the dad tries to make the children pathological.

Attorney Role in Cross-Examination

The attorney can’t get lost in details. The attorney needs to present clear evidence, clear issues, and clear decisions for the judge. But the attorney can be vague as to the exact nature of the Child Psychological Abuse here – because there’s several options to choose from:

1) Factious pathology (FDIA) – There is worry that the father is creating a false attachment pathology in the child toward the mother. Use a cross-generational coalition and emotional cutoff for this argument, but use the term “false attachment pathology” to refer to it as well because this links to Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (when you use the word “factitious” for false, you’ll tip the MH professional where the diagnosis is; FDIA) – but FDIA is too technical for the judge. Dr. Better-doctor may give a diagnosis of child psychological abuse for this feature – the father is allowing – encouraging – the child’s acting out with the mother to meet the father’s own emotional and psychological needs.

Q: Is Child Psychological Abuse a DSM-5 diagnosis, doctor?

Q: What is Child Psychological Abuse?

Q: Hypothetically doctor, if one parent is responsible for generating a child’s attachment pathology and conflict with the other parent to meet the pathological parent’s own emotional and psychological needs, would that be consistent with a possible DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse?

Q: Are you concerned about possible Child Psychological Abuse in this family?” (is the doctor “concerned”? Yes. Is she diagnosing? No. But the judge is led right to the precipice and can make the leap if the judge thinks there’s child psychological abuse).

3) Shared (induced) persecutory delusion – The father has a persecutory delusion regarding the mother that he is inducing in the child – a shared (induced) encapsulated persecutory delusion, (Walters & Friedlander 2016). The definition of a persecutory delusion is provided by the American Psychiatric Association.

From the APA: “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)

Dr. Better-doctor likely won’t make a diagnosis of a persecutory delusion on the witness stand, but she can come close. Whenever the attorney characterizes the child’s and father’s beliefs he should emphasize the phrase “malevolently treated in some way by the mother’s parenting”. Drive the phrase “malevolently treated in some way” into the judge’s awareness – because that’s what the persecutory delusion diagnosis turns on – a fixed and false belief that the child is being “malevolently treated in some way” by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent.

Dr. Better-doctor will back away because she’s not comfortable with delusional diagnoses, Walk her close using the Walters & Friedlander quote and the definition from the APA – these are safe for her to agree with – then allow her to back-off just a tad on the diagnosis by giving her qualifiers in the question:

Q: Hypothetically doctor, if an allied parent is creating, inducing, a shared persecutory delusion in the child toward the other parent, would that possibly meet criteria for possible Child Psychological Abuse?

Q: Would what you’re describing in this sentence of your report be consistent with a diagnosis of possible Child Psychological Abuse by the father?

If possible, what the attorney will want to do with Dr. Better-doctor is to get all the issues presented clearly and get her as close as possible to a Child Psychological Abuse diagnosis as she’ll go by giving her qualifiers that allow her to escape formal diagnosis… then wrap it all up by placing the issues all together.

Q: So Dr. Better-doctor, is it fair to say that there are professional concerns about possible Child Psychological abuse because of the father’s pathogenic parenting, the father’s apparent cross-generational coalition with the child against the mother that’s destroying the child’s attachment bond to her mother, and because of a possible shared (induced) persecutory delusion from the father’s distorted parenting, is that an accurate characterization of your professional concerns for the father’s parenting?

Are there professional “concerns”? Yes. Dr. Better-doctor can support “concerns”. Is Dr. Better-doctor being asked to make the diagnosis? No, not exactly, not formally. She’ll remain safe from the father. She just has concerns – that’s reasonable.

The attorney will need to lay the groundwork across the previous question lines. When Dr. Bad-doctor testifies, he’ll be the target for all the professional fire. Brush back Dr. Better-doctor on her use of “parental alienation” and on Standard 2.04, but then switch to supported questions for her about family systems to rehabilitate her, let her agree with the ideas of “triangulation” and a “cross-generational coalition” and “emotional cutoff” – ask questions that make it seem like she knows, she can figure out the obvious definitions for each one.

Q; What’s family systems therapy, doctor? Is family systems therapy among the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline?

Q: What’s a “triangle” in the family, doctor? If I say the child is being “triangulated” into the spousal conflict what does that mean? (She’ll be on the spot, she’ll figure out the answer – a three person conflict with the child in the middle).

Q: What’s a “cross-generational coalition”, doctor? If I were to say the child has a “cross-generational coalition” with the father against the mother, what would that mean?

Q: What’s an “emotional cutoff”? If a child is emotionally cutoff from a parent, what does that mean?

Q: Here is a Structural family diagram from Salvador Minuchin, who is Salvador Minuchin? (a prominent family systems theorist). Does this diagram display the features we’ve been talking about, the child’s “triangulation” into the spousal conflict from a “cross-generational coalition” of the child with the father against the mother, resulting in an “emotional cutoff” in the child’s attachment bond to his mother, does this diagram display that? Where? Can you point those features out to me? (she’ll figure it out).

For Bad-doctor’s testimony, also switch off “parental alienation” (to take him entirely out of his comfort zone so he’s doing a personal risk assessment for each answer he makes – “will my answer get me in trouble?” – stress him as much as possible – move all lines forward together, switching back and forth in a reasonably coherent way, but one where he must constantly re-update the topic-context to evaluate the danger of his response in that context.

He’ll feel the lines moving in a direction, but he won’t be able to discern the direction. He’ll know it’s a dangerous direction though, because it started by asking him about ethical Standards – the question line puts his license at risk if he makes a wrong answer… but he’s not quite sure what the wrong answer is.

Lead him to making the wrong answer by making it look like it’s the safe answer. Use the word “possible” to draw him into thinking it’s a safe answer, anything is possible, but then use his admitted uncertainty to close the danger – that we need more information, i.e., that his opinions as contained in his recommendations and report are NOT based on information sufficient to substantiate his findings… he doesn’t know if there’s child abuse or not. Maybe yes, maybe no.

He thought the “possibility” in the question indicates it was a safe answer, anything is possible. However, it’s not a safe answer for exposure on Standard 9.01, not when he’s already conducted an assessment and the “possibility” is child abuse. He failed to take proper care in conducting his assessment.

Once you raise an ethical Standard – they’ll be worried. Back away from Dr. Better-doctor and guide her (the threat will now make her more compliant and cooperative with being gently led to safety) – go full bore on Bad-doctor when he testifies.

At the end, ask him these questions just to see what he’ll answer:

Q: Dr. Bad-doctor, given that you applied no established knowledge from family systems despite assessing a family conflict, from attachment despite assessing an attachment pathology, and from delusional thought disorders when assessing a possible persecutory delusion in the family, do you believe you met your ethical obligations under Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code to apply the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for your professional judgments?

Did you meet your ethical obligations under Standard 2.04, doctor?

Q: Dr. Bad-doctor, given that you applied no established knowledge from family systems despite assessing a family conflict, from attachment despite assessing an attachment pathology, and from delusional thought disorders when assessing a possible persecutory delusion in the family, do you believe you met your ethical obligations under Standard 9.01 of the APA ethics code in that your opinions contained in your recommendations and report are based on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate your findings?

Did you meet your ethical obligations under Standard 9.01, doctor?

Family Systems

Family systems constructs are a way to explain the pathology to the judge, they are more accessible than “persecutory delusions” and “factitious disorders”, and there is Minuchin’s diagram as a visual aid.

Is a cross-generational coalition child psychological abuse? No. Yes. Maybe. It’s complex.

First, the diagnostic definition for Child Psychological Abuse in the DSM-5 is vague. If a licensed MH professional wants to make the diagnosis for any reason, they can. If I decide as a doctor that the cross-generational coalition is child abuse – it’s child abuse, that’s how diagnosis works and what licensed means. We are authorized by the state to diagnose pathology. If I say you have schizophrenia, you have schizophrenia whether you like it or not. You can qualify for disability money and we can hospitalize you against your will based on my diagnosis.

That’s the power of diagnosis. If Dr. Better-doctor or Dr. Bad-doctor, or any license, says it’s Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51) that’s what it is. It’s like a judge making a determination of fact.

Then… they will have to defend their diagnosis against the challenge of it being a misdiagnosis – which is what we’re doing from the other direction. We’re saying they missed the diagnosis of child abuse rather than that they made the wrong diagnosis of child abuse (they made no diagnosis at all, are they making recommendations for cancer or recommendations for diabetes?).

They are both highly vulnerable on no-diagnosis (not even a “Rule-Out” as a possibility).

No Diagnosis

Q: If there was child abuse, doctor, would you diagnose that and tell the Court, or would you withhold a child abuse diagnosis from the Court?

Q: In your report, you didn’t make a diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, did you doctor?

Q: What is Child Psychological Abuse, doctor? Hypothetically, would creating a shared persecutory delusion in the child toward the other parent that then destroys the child’s attachment bond toward that parent, could that potentially be child psychological abuse?

Q: Since you did NOT give a Child Psychological Abuse diagnosis, doctor, are you saying that there is NO possibility that there is Child Psychological Abuse in this family?

A: No, it’s possible.

Q: It’s possible there’s Child Psychological Abuse occurring in the family, is that possible?

A: It’s possible.

Q: Show me in your report where you discuss that possibility?

Q: What is a Rule-Out diagnosis, if you put Rule-Out (R/O) next to a diagnosis, what does that mean?

A: That the diagnosis is a possibility.

Q: You didn’t even put Child Psychological Abuse as a Rule-Out in your report, did you? But now you’re saying it’s a possibility. But you didn’t disclose this possibility to the Court, did you? Show me where in your report you informed the Court of this possibility and discussed the possibility of Child Psychological Abuse.

Q:  If child abuse remains a possibility, would you recommend we get an additional risk assessment or that possibility?

A: Yes.

Q: Where in your report do you make that recommendation? Show me where you recommend an additional assessment for possible Child Psychological Abuse is needed?

Q: If child abuse and spousal abuse are possible in the family, why didn’t you disclose that to the Court and discuss those possibilities, Dr. Bad-doctor?

Q: Do mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations? What is the duty to protect obligation for a doctor, what does that mean?

Q: Your assessment took seven months and you met with everyone in the family conducting a comprehensive assessment of all the factors, and yet we STILL need ANOTHER assessment for possible child psychological abuse. Did you fail in your duty to protect the child, doctor?

A: No. I fulfilled my duty to protect obligations.

Q: If it’s possible there’s child abuse and we STILL need ANOTHER assessment even after your assessment, and you didn’t disclose the possibility of Child Psychological Abuse to the judge or discuss this possibility in your report, what exactly did you DO to protect the child from the possible Child Psychological Abuse?

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

 

Here are various resources for parents and involved professional

Booklets:

The Narcissistic Parent
https://www.amazon.com/Narcissistic-Parent-Guidebook-Professionals-High-Conflict/dp/0996114548

Assessment of Attachment Pathology
https://www.amazon.com/Assessment-Attachment-Related-Pathology-Surrounding-Divorce/dp/0996114572

Contingent Visitation Schedule
https://www.amazon.com/Strategic-Family-Systems-Intervention-AB-PA/dp/0996114556

Consulting Website:

drcachildress-consulting.com

Handouts: Attorney Resources

Description of Pathology Handout
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/1-Pathology-Description-Handout-10-22-1.pdf

Risk Assessment Handout
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1-Handout-Risk-Assessment-3-22.pdf

Specialized Expertise Handout
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/domains-of-specialized-expertise-1-1-23-2.pdf

Handouts: Mental Health Consultation

Diagnostic Checklist
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Diagnostic-Checklist-1-20.pdf

Parenting Practices Rating Scale
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Parenting-Practices-Rating-Scale-ver-3-2-14-17.pdf

Parent-Child Relationship Rating Scale
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PC-RRS.pdf

Telehealth Consultation Handout
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Handout-Telehealth-Consultation-Information-12-1-21.pdf

Handouts: Parent Resources

Psychological Control Handout
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Handout-Psychological-Control.pdf

Book: Foundations

https://www.amazon.com/Attachment-Based-Model-Parental-Alienation-Foundations/dp/0996114505

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

This is important to understand. I’ll try to explain it as simply as I can.

You do not need to prove anything to anyone. You need the mental health people to do their job.

You need professional competence from the mental health people, my people, the doctors. The doctors around you are immensely stupid and lazy, and they don’t care, and no one else seems to care that they’re incompetent either for some reason.

So you’ll need to make them care. You need competent doctors who know what they’re doing. How do we get that?

A: By holding them accountable for their ignorance and knowledge.

That’s where the whole thing turns. Accountability. Let’s unpack that for a moment. There’s another thought to come, but let’s unpack Accountability for a second.

It’s not your fault, what’s happening to you is not your fault, you did nothing wrong.  You’re fine. You’ve got a crazy ex-, the professional technical term for “crazy” is delusional.

That’s the next thought that we’ll come to in a chain of thoughts, but not yet. Let’s stick with the need for competence from the doctors and holding them accountabile for their ignorance and knowledge.

How do we hold the mental health people accountable for the application of knowledge? They are not accurately identifying what the problem is. They made a mistake in identifying the problem. How do we hold them accountable for that?

Begin with language – learn to translate from common-language to technical-language back-and-forth. Make common sense points using the common-language. Make technical points using the technical-language.

We must first diagnose what the pathology is before we know how to treat it.

We must first identify what the problem is before we know how to fix it.

Diagnosis = identify
Pathology = problem
Treatment = fix it

We need to hold them accountable for not accurately identifying the problem – for not accurately diagnosing the pathology. What pathology? What problem?

The crazy ex-spouse – the delusional one, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

We need to hold the ignorant and incompetent mental health people accountable so they will do their job and accurately identify the problem. You don’t need to prove the pathology to them – you need them to do their job.

It is the job of the doctor to accurately identify (diagnose) the problem (pathology). That is their job. You need them to just do their job competently, correctly, accurately. You don’t need to “prove” something, you need them to do their job. Patients should NEVER have to explain a pathology to the doctor – that simply shows you how completely bad things are in the family courts.

Duty to Protect

This is child abuse. This is spousal abuse using the child as the weapon. They have duty to protect obligations.

We just need them to do their job – protect the child.

All mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations. There are three dangerous pathologies, suicide, homicide, abuse (child, spousal, elder). When a mental health professional encounters any dangerous pathology, that triggers their duty to protect obligations to conduct a proper risk assessment for the danger involved (suicide, homicide, abuse), or to ensure that a proper risk assessment is conducted.

They have obligations. How do we hold them accountable to their obligations to accurately identify which parent is the source of the problem? How do we hold them accountable to their obligations to accurately diagnose which parent is the source of the pathology?

A: The APA ethics code. Standard 2.04.

APA Ethics Code

Doctors are not allowed to be ignorant and incompetent.There are two ethical Standards that require them to be competent – Standard 2.01 requires them to know knowledge, Standard 2.04 requires them to apply knowledge.

We need to activate those ethical Standards for competence so we can hold them accountable for their incompetence. Ethical practice is not optional for a psychologist, it’s required. How do we activate Standards 2.01 and 2.04 for competence?

Start with Standard 2.04 Bases or Scientific and Professional Judgments – their application of knowledge. Did they apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” as the bases for their professional judgments?

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

The moment the pathology is defined within the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” we have identified the domains of knowledge required – required – to be applied for competent professional practice.

Listen closely, we’re going to twirl an idea in your mind. Once it stops twirling you’ll be properly aligned.

The construct of “parental alienation” does not qualify as the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline”. It will never activate Standard 2.04. We cannot hold them accountable for the construct of “parental alienation”.

Here’s the twirl… we can hold them accountable to real knowledge. If we use real knowledge to define the pathology then… ding… we activate Standard 2.04.

We need to stop arguing about “parental alienation” – simply stop using it and switch to using the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline instead” – ding – Standard 2.04 activates immediately.

When we define the pathology (problem) with your child, your ex-spouse, and your family using the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline”  – THEN – we immediately activate Standard 2.04 and we can hold ALL the mental health people immediately accountable.

So I did that. I defined the pathology entirely from the application of the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” in Foundations (Childress, 2015).

The moment I did that, Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments became active for them all..

The relevant domains of “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” required for their application are:

•  Attachment – Bowlby and others
•  Family systems therapy – Bowen and others
•  Personality disorders – Millon and others
•  Complex trauma – van der Kolk and others
•  Child development – Tronick and others
•  Self psychology – Kohut and others
•  DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association

That’s a lot for them to know. Oh well, that’s the necessary knowledge required for application as the bases for their professional judgments – Standard 2.04

But don’t stop there. There’s three stepping-stone ethical Standards – 2.04 to 2.01 – then both lead to Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessments – it’s an ethical trifecta of violations.

Did they apply the knowledge – Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments? Do they even know the necessary knowledge – Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence? If they do not know the necessary knowledge, and did not apply the necessary knowledge, did they conduct a proper assessment of the pathology (problem) – Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment?

I’ve made you dangerous to professional ignorance and incompetence. The professional technical term for making you dangerous to their ignorance is “motivation” – I’ve given you the power to motivate them to care… ding.

One problem solved. Their lack of motivation.

For the closer on the ethical line is Standard 2.03 Maintaining Competence. It’s not my job to teach them, it’s their job to already know.

2.03 Maintaining Competence
Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence.

Now let’s move to thought two.

Diagnosis Guides Treatment

Identifying what the problem is (diagnosis) guides what we do to the fix the problem (treatment).

Delusional Thought Disorder

The problem is that your ex-spouse is pathological (problematic). They’re crazy (delusional). They see dangers where there are none and they make false allegations (persecutory delusion). They create false beliefs in the child that you are abusively maltreating the child when you’re not.That’s a shared (induced) persecutory delusion.

Greenham & Childress (ResearchGate). Dark Personalities & Delusions 1: Solving the Gordian Knot of Conflict

Attachment Pathology

A child rejecting a parent is a severe attachment pathology. There is no worse attachment pathology than a complete severing of the parent-child attachment bond. That’s as bad as attachment pathology gets.

The attachment system is a primary motivational system of the brain governing all aspects of love-and-bonding throughout the lifespan, including grief and loss. The attachment system is developing its patterns for love-and-bonding during childhood that will be used to guide love and bonding throughout the rest of the lifespan.

Childhood is NOT the time when we want the child to have the worst possible attachment pathology. We need to fix it.

We need a treatment plan. For that we need an accurate diagnosis. The treatment for cancer is different than the treatment for diabetes.

The differential diagnosis for severe attachment pathology is child abuse by one parent or the other. The only cause of severe attachment pathology is child abuse. The only diagnostic question is to identify which parent is abusing the child?

Targeted Parenting Abusive: Is the targeted parent abusing the child, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?

Allied Parent Abusive: Or is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factious; artificially created) attachment pathology for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the parent’s own emotional and psychological needs?

In all cases of severe attachment pathology surrounding child custody conflict, a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.

We need an accurate diagnosis – NOT a misdiagnosis from the doctors because of their ignorance and incompetence. Returning an accurate diagnosis is their job. They need to do their job. They have duty to protect obligations. They have obligations to inform the court of an accurate diagnosis, not a misdiagnosis because they are ignorant, incompetent, and unethical.

The courts should expect professional competence from the doctors. The courts should receive professional competence from the doctors.

When possible child abuse is a considered diagnosis, our diagnosis need to be accurate 100% of the time. The consequences for the child of misdiagnosing child abuse are too severe.

Accountable

They have obligations. We need to hold them accountable. When we define the pathology from within the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” we define the domains of knowledge they need to know to comply with Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.

They are not allowed to be ignorant and incompetent.

Next turn to their vitae to examine where in their background education, training, and experience they developed the competence in 1) delusional thought disorders, 2) attachment pathology, 3) family systems therapy – Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence.

If they do not know the necessary knowledge (Standard 2.01) and do not apply the necessary knowledge (Standard 2.04), then their opinions as contained in their recommendations, reports, diagnostic or evaluative statements, including their forensic testimony, are not based on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings – in violation of Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment.

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

Note how Standard 9.01 cites back to Standard 2.04. It’s a trifecta of ethical violations – 2.04 to 2.01, and both to 9.01 – capped by 2.03 if they try to escape by externalizing blame for their ignorance.

If they misdiagnose (misidentify) which parent is abusing the child, they are failing in their duty to protect obligations because of their misdiagnosis. Was their misdiagnosis because of professional negligence?

Google negligence: failure to take proper care in doing something

Cornell Law School negligence definition: Negligence is a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances.  The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one’s previous conduct).

Did the mental health professional conduct a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent?

All mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations. You don’t need to prove anything to anyone, you just need the doctors to do their job and accurately identify (diagnose) which parent is causing the problem (pathology) in the child and family.

You did nothing wrong. It’s not your fault. Your ex-spouse is crazy. The professional technical term for crazy is “delusional”. The type of delusion is a persecutory delusion, a fixed and false that they are being “malevolently treated in some way.”

From the APA: “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)

In all cases of severe attachment pathology surrounding child custody conflict, a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.

Targeted Parenting Abusive: Is the targeted parent abusing the child, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?

Yes or no?

Allied Parent Abusive: Or is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factious; artificially created) attachment pathology for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the parent’s own emotional and psychological needs?

Yes or no?

Diagnosis guides treatment. You want a treatment plan to fix the attachment pathology displayed by the child. For that you will need an – accurate – diagnosis for which parenting is abusing the child.

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

I spoke with legislative aides to a New York state Senator about the family court issues.

How did I arrange to meet with them? I didn’t. One of their constituents arranged their meeting and invited me to provide information after they did.

I followed-up with this resources email sent to the legislative aides. Information enters the mind-stream. I’m an organizing core, but I’m not the information.

Information travels from mind to mind – there’s a problem – there’s a solution – Judicial Education Curriculum and a Pilot Program for the Family Courts with University Involvement for evaluation research.

A parent set up the meeting and emailed me – “Can you attend?” I said yes. The parent spoke. I spoke. Thirty minutes with this follow-up. Movement by one is movement by all

_____________________________

Attached is an Amicus Letter I wrote regarding CA SB-331, a Kayden’s Law bill, along with a Handout regarding recommendations for a CA Judicial Curriculum & Pilot Program from a section of a Powerpoint presentation I recently gave.

Amicus Letter CA SB-331
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SB-331-Childress-amicus-letter-4-17-23.pdf

Powerpoint Handout: Judicial Curriculum & Pilot Program
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CA-Judicial-Curriculum-Pilot-Program-1.pdf

I am also providing a link and an attachment to the Checklist of Applied Knowledge that I use in my analysis of forensic custody evaluations to document violations to Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments, This violation begins the chain to violations in Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence and 9.01 Bases for Assessment.

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 is:

Attachment – Bowlby & others
Personality disorders – Beck & others
Family systems therapy – Minuchin & others
Complex trauma and child abuse – van der Kolk & others
Child development – Tronick & others
DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association

Checklist of Applied Knowledge
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Checklist-of-Applied-Knowledge-Extended-4-20-1.pd

I use these documented ethical violations to overturn the incompetent forensic evaluation’s recommendations. That is my current consulting practice in the family courts. My professional practice is built on the unethical practices of forensic psychology.

My Consulting Website describes my current practice in the family courts divided into three sections, one for Attorneys with handouts, one for Mental Health Professionals with resources for them, and one for Parents with information that might be helpful to them.

Dr. Childress Consulting Website
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/

Relevant handouts from the Attorney section include:

Risk Assessment Handout
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1-Handout-Risk-Assessment-3-22.pdf

Dr. Childress Domains of Expertise Handout
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/domains-of-specialized-expertise-1-1-23-2.pdf

Pathology Description Handout
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/1-Pathology-Description-Handout-10-22-1.pdf

The findings of the New York Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations are absolutely correct:

From Blue Ribbon Commission: “In the New York State courts, judges order and rely on forensic evaluations for some cases involving child custody and parenting time. Statewide, there is no consistent approach regarding if and/or when evaluations are ordered, who may act as a forensic custody evaluator, how evaluators should conduct these evaluations, or how incompetent or unethical evaluations may be subject to review.”

My current court-involved consulting practice IS the review of incompetent and unethical forensic evaluations. I AM the review.

Why am I enforcing ethical standards for competence? Where are the licensing boards? Nowhere to be seen. Why is that? Why aren’t licensing boards protecting consumers from incompetent and unethical practice? Pull the string and it all will begin to unravel. The practice of forensic custody evaluations needs to end. Now. Clinical psychology (treatment not custody) needs to return to court-involved practice.

But clinical psychology will refuse to work in the family courts because it is too professionally dangerous to our licenses. The mental health system in the family courts is a complete mess, and children are being routinely abused as a result – with the participation of the court system.

From Blue Ribbon Commission: “As a result, family courts have extraordinarily high case dockets, long delays in cases being adjudicated, and a dearth of available court-appointed counsel for those financially unable to afford private attorneys.”

We can speed up the court docket considerably. We know what the pathology is, narcissistic-borderline-dark personality pathology. We need to plan for it.

The differential diagnosis for severe attachment pathology is child abuse by one parent or the other. Court processes should be streamlined to automatically seek a proper clinical diagnostic risk assessment for child abuse surrounding all cases of severe attachment pathology displayed by the child (i.e., a child rejecting a parent).

There is only one cause of a child rejecting a parent, child abuse by one parent or the other. The only question is, which parent? The court needs an accurate answer to that central question – which parent is abusing the child? So in all cases of court-involved custody conflict involving severe attachment pathology displayed by the child, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.

One parent or the other is abusing the child. The court needs to know – with accuracy – which parent.

The diagnostic assessment protocol needs to be standardized and of the highest quality. This is possible. I recommend that the task of developing structured and standardized diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols for the family courts be given to top universities through a pilot program for the family courts (duration of two years; six-months set-up, one year program, six-months data analysis and reporting).

From Blue Ribbon Commission: “Ultimately, the Commission members agree that some New York judges order forensic evaluations too frequently and often place undue reliance upon them. Judges order forensic evaluations to provide relevant information regarding the “best interest of the child(ren),” and some go far beyond an assessment of whether either party has a mental health condition that has affected their parental behavior. In their analysis, evaluators may rely on principles and methodologies of dubious validity. In some custody cases, because of lack of evidence or the inability of parties to pay for expensive challenges of an evaluation, defective reports can thus escape meaningful scrutiny and are often accepted by the court, with potentially disastrous consequences for the parents and children.”

My court-involved consulting practice IS the challenge of an evaluation, I am the scrutiny for defective reports – Dr. Childress Consulting Website. My services are essentially a surcharge on the forensic custody evaluation to correct the deficiencies of the forensic custody evaluator.

From Blue Ribbon Commission: “As it currently exists, the process is fraught with bias, inequity, and a statewide lack of standards, and allows for discrimination and violations of due process.”

This is correct. The process also allows and often participates in the psychological abuse of the child by a narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent, and the spousal emotional and psychological abuse of the ex-spouse and parent using the child as the weapon. The family courts are active child abuse and active spousal abuse, and no one is stopping either.

From Blue Ribbon Commission: “By an 11-9 margin, a majority of Commission members favor elimination of forensic custody evaluations entirely, arguing that these reports are biased and harmful to children and lack scientific or legal value. At worst, evaluations can be dangerous…”

I fully concur with the majority opinion of the New York Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations. Forensic custody evaluations need to end, and clinical psychology (treatment not custody) needs to return to court-involved practice.

I have a webpage in the Attorney section in which I compile my blog posts regarding the serious problems with forensic custody reports – immensely serious problems. They violate multiple ethical standards and they are not valid. The forensic psychologists know, they just don’t care.

Dr. Childress on Forensic Custody Evaluations
https://drcachildress-consulting.com/custom-page/6-child-custody-evaluations

NY Senate Bill 5385 ending the practice of forensic custody evaluations has my full support and is immensely needed. At the same time, clinical psychology (treatment not custody) needs to return to the family courts or else these families and children will have no mental health involvement and the pathology is child abuse and spousal abuse by a narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent.

Greenham & Chidress (in submission): Dark Personalities & Delusions Part I: Solving the Gordian Knot of Conflict
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369741224_Dark_Personalities_and_Induced_Delusional_Disorder_Part_I_Solving_the_Gordian_Knot_of_Conflict_in_the_Family_and_Domestic_Violence_Courts

Greenham & Chidress (in submission) Dark Personalities & Delusions Part II: Research Gap in the Family Courts
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363197057_Dark_Personalities_and_Induced_Delusional_Disorder_Part_II_The_Research_Gap_Underlying_a_Crisis_in_the_Family_and_Domestic_Violence_Courts

Greenham, Childress, & Pruter (in submission): Dark Personalities & Delusions Part III: Identifying Pathogenic Parenting
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368330924_Dark_Personalities_and_Induced_Delusional_Disorder_Part_III_Identifying_the_Pathogenic_Parenting_Underlying_a_Crisis_in_the_Family_and_Domestic_Violence_Courts

These families have no competent mental health care for an extremely serious pathology. Who can they turn to? Me. I ‘m the only one. I am a clinical psychologist. I’ve returned to the family courts because these children need competent mental health services – this is child abuse pathology. I am a trauma psychologist out of foster care, this is my pathology.

I could use some help. Where are the licensing boards enforcing ethical standards of practice?

We need standardized and top-quality diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols, these can be developed through top-tier university involvement on a pilot program for the family courts to do just that – develop the diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols for the pathology in the family courts.

Crag Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857

Kayden’s Law is unbalanced. There is also Eryk.

Kayden’s Law is a national law seeking to protect children from abusive parents following divorce. It links concerns for child abuse and concerns surrounding prior allegations of “domestic violence”.

Kayden’s Law is written with the influence of one litigant’s side in the court-involved custody conflict, the allied parent. As a result, it is unbalanced and does not address or consider the concerns of the other litigant in the child custody conflict, the targeted parent.

There are two litigants in court-involved child custody conflict, and each litigant is making allegations of child abuse toward the other.

1.)  The allied parent is alleging that the targeted parent is abusing the child in some way, resulting in the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent.

A 2-person attribution of causality.

2.)  The targeted parent is alleging that the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child and creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology for secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody.

A 3-person triangle attribution of causality.

Each litigant’s concerns need a fair and balanced examination by the court. Kayden’s Law is unbalanced because it only addresses the concern of the allied parent litigant, and does not address the concerns of Eryk – of the targeted-protective parent. Eryk represents the concerns of the targeted parent.

Both sides in court-involved custody conflict are alleging that the other parent is abusively maltreating the child. The arguments and positions of both sides need fair and balanced consideration by the court.

The clinical concern is that the targeted parent is being emotionally and psychologically abused by a narcissistic-dark personality parent using the child as the weapon (DSM-5 V995.82 Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological). The concern of the targeted parent is that the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) pathology in the child for the secondary gain of manipulating the court regarding its child custody decisions.

These are the concerns of Eryk.

The concerns raised for Kayden are valid. So are the concerns raised for Eryk. There are two sides in the litigation – both sides have their legitimate concerns. Only one side is addressed by Kayden’s Law. It needs to be adjusted to also include concerns for Eryk.

There are cats.  There are dogs. The existence of cats does not nullify the existence of dogs. Both dogs and cats have fur, four legs, and a tail, but there are ways to tell them apart when we know what to look for. Both exist.

In all cases of court-involved child custody conflict involving attachment pathology displayed by the child, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.

Differential Diagnosis:

• • • Targeted Parent Abusive: Is the targeted parent abusing the child in some way, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?

• • • Allied Parent Abusive: Or is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for secondary gain to the pathological narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the pathological parent’s own emotional and psychological needs?

When possible child abuse is a considered diagnosis, our diagnosis must be accurate 100% of the time. The consequences of misdiagnosing child abuse are too devastating for the child, too devastating for Kayden and Eryk.

The assessment for a delusional thought disorder is a Mental Status Exam of thought and percption – and the severity of delusional thought disorders can be rated on a 1-to-7 scale using Item 11 Unusual Thought Content of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale – “one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms” (Wikipedia; BPRS)

• • • Mental Status Exam (Martin, 1990) – National Institute of Health

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546682/

• • • Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284654397_Brief_Psychiatric_Rating_Scale_Expanded_version_40_Scales_anchor_points_and_administration_manual

There are dogs. There are cats. There is Kayden’s story. There is Eryk’s story. When child abuse is a considered diagnosis, our diagnosis must be accurate 100% of the time. The consequences of our misdiagnosing child abuse are too severe – and the price of our failure to return an accurate diagnosis in either direction is paid by the child.

In all cases of child abuse concerns expressed by either parent in court-involved custody litigation, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.

Differential Diagnosis

In court-involved child custody conflict involving severe attachment pathology displayed by the child, the differential diagnosis requiring a proper risk assessment is:

1. Targeted Parent Abusive: Is the targeted parent abusing the child, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?

2. Allied Parent Abusive: Is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for secondary gain to the pathological narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the pathological parent’s own emotional and psychological needs?

The diagnoses of concern relative to the allied parent are:

1.) Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied parent (i.e., a shared persecutory delusion and factitious attachment pathology created for secondary gain),

2.) Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological (DSM-5 V995.82) of the targeted parent by the allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent using the child as the weapon of spousal emotional and spousal abuse.

In legislation providing guidance to court decisions on child custody, the legitimate concerns of both litigants need a fair and balanced examination. Kayden’s Law is unbalanced and the legislation requires greater balancing influence from Eryk’s concerns.

There are three sections to Kayden’s Law:

1) Restrictions on Treatment Interventions – with no designation of the diagnosis being treated.

2) Restrictions on Expert Qualifications – that are unbalanced and inadequate.

3) Judicial Education Curriculum – that is unbalanced in one litigant’s favor.

SB-331 was written with the influence of one litigant’s concerns in court-involved custody conflict. SB-311 requires the balancing influence of the other litigant’s position, the position of the targeted parent. Is there a shared persecutory delusion created by a pathologically narcissistic–borderline-dark personality parent?

From Walters & Friedlander: “In some RRD families [resist-refuse dynamic], a parent’s underlying encapsulated delusion about the other parent is at the root of the intractability (cf. Johnston & Campbell, 1988, p. 53ff; Childress, 2013). An encapsulated delusion is a fixed, circumscribed belief that persists over time and is not altered by evidence of the inaccuracy of the belief.”

From Walters & Friedlander: “When alienation is the predominant factor in the RRD [resist-refuse dynamic}, the theme of the favored parent’s fixed delusion often is that the rejected parent is sexually, physically, and/or emotionally abusing the child. The child may come to share the parent’s encapsulated delusion and to regard the beliefs as his/her own (cf. Childress, 2013).” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)

Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.

Professional concerns for balance will be discussed for each section.

Section 1: Restrictions on Interventions

From SB-331: “This bill, Piqui’s Law, the Safe Child Act, would prohibit court-ordered family reunification services as part of a child custody or visitation rights proceeding, including reunification or reconnection therapy, treatments, programs, workshops, classes, or camps that are predicated on cutting off a child from a parent with whom the child is bonded or to whom the child is attached.”

Legislation should not be mandating or restricting treatment. The treatment decisions made by doctors are based on diagnosis. If the diagnosis is Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent, then a protective separation of the child from the abusive parent is warranted and a necessary child protection response is required.

It is unwise for legislation to limit the discretion of the court in making child protection decisions based on the situation and arguments made to the court.

Diagnosis guides treatment. The treatment for cancer is different than the treatment for diabetes. What is the diagnosis not being treated by the treatment restrictions of SB-331?

Is it V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse by the allied parent? Is SB-331 mandating no treatment be provided to the child who is being abused by a narcissistic-borderline-dark personality allied parent?

Greenham, M.B. and Childress, C.A. (2023). Dark personalities and induced delusional disorders, Part 1: Solving the Gordian knot of conflict in the family and domestic violence courts. ResearchGate doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28643.22568

Legislation restricting treatment should be cautiously undertaken and based on diagnostic clarity. The restrictions on treatment-related interventions proposed by SB-331 represent the concerns of one party in the litigation but are not balanced by the concerns of the other litigant.

Attachment Bonding

Of substantial concern is the imprecise definition of diagnostic criteria contained within SB-331 regarding the construct of “with whom the child is bonded or to whom the child is attached.” Does this refer to a Secure attachment bond to the allied parent, or would an Insecure attachment bond also be considered “bonded” and “attached”?

If BOTH a Secure and Insecure attachment to the allied parent are considered as meeting the criteria of SB-331, then all types of pathological parenting are protected from intervention and, under SB-331, the court will never be able to order a protective separation of the child from a pathological parent or order appropriate treatment.

If, on the other hand, only a Secure attachment to the allied parent meets the criteria of SB-331, then in all cases of child custody litigation involving attachment pathology displayed toward the targeted parent, the attachment category (Secure or Insecure) with the allied parent will need to be identified before treatment for the attachment pathology with the targeted parent can be initiated.

That is inappropriately burdensome. The issue with the child’s displayed attachment pathology toward the targeted parent should not require identification of the child’s Insecure attachment bond to the allied parent – the issue is child abuse.

Establishing a criteria for court decision-making of first identifying the attachment category of the allied parent is a misdirected focus of diagnosis asking proof of pathogenic parenting where none is needed. The attachment pathology displayed by the child is NOT directed toward the allied parent, it is directed toward the targeted parent, and the diagnostic focus needs to remain on that parent-child attachment bond.

1.) Is the targeted-rejected parent authentically abusing the child, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?

2.) Or is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) pathology in the child for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody?

Family Systems Pathology

The family systems description for the pathology of concern is the child’s “triangulation” into the spousal conflict by the allied parent who has created a “cross-generational coalition” with the child against the targeted parent, resulting in an “emotional cutoff” in the child’s attachment bond to the targeted parent.

This family systems dynamic of concern is depicted in a structural family diagram from Salvador Minuchin:

Healthcare decisions about treatment should be based on diagnosis. Restricting treatment options available to the healthcare professionals and court based on the concerns of only one litigant is inappropriate. Balancing information needs to be incorporated into SB-331.

Corrective Focus

My recommendation for improving the goal of section 1 would be to first specify the scope of allowed parenting.

• • • In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values.

• • • In the absence of child abuse, each parent should have as much time and involvement with the child as possible.

• • • In the absence of child abuse, to restrict either parent’s time and involvement with their child would damage the child’s attachment bond to that parent, thereby harming the child and harming that parent.

The concern in court-involved custody conflict are the allegations of child abuse made by each parent toward the other. Legislation to protect children from child abuse should specify that in all cases of court-involved child custody conflict involving severe attachment pathology displayed by a child, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.

Section 2: Restrictions on Experts

From SB-331: “The bill would provide that a person is qualified to testify as an expert in a child custody proceeding in which a parent has been alleged to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, as specified, if the person shows by any otherwise admissible evidence that the person has sufficient special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education relating to the subject of the person’s testimony.”

Professional competence in forensic psychology is extremely low, and professional standards of practice need to be established. I recommend application of Standards 2.01 Boundaries of Competence and 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments of the APA ethics code as the bases for establishing professional competence (“expertise”) in court-involved professional psychology.

The relevant domains of established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline required for application are:

• • • Attachment – Bowlby and others
    • Family systems therapy – Bowen and others
    • Personality disorders – Millon and others
    • Complex trauma – van der Kolk and others
    • Child development – Tronick and others
    • Self psychology – Kohut and others
    • DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association

If the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association were applied in the family courts, issues of professional “expertise” would vanish into professional competence. All doctors should apply exactly the same information (the best) to reach exactly the same conclusions (accurate), and exactly the same recommendations to the court (effective at resolving the child’s attachment pathology).

The restrictions on expert status are unnecessary if basic ethical Standards are enforced by state licensing boards.

“Parental Alienation” Construct

There is no such thing as “parental alienation” in clinical psychology and the use of that construct in a professional capacity is substantially beneath professional standards of practice, and is in violation of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments of the APA ethics code.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” represent a fringe group of professionals who reject the diagnostic guidance of the American Psychiatric Association and the ethical guidance of the American Psychological Association.

The construct of “parental alienation” needs to be discontinued in professional use – and ONLY the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” should be applied as the bases for professional judgments.

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

The relevant domains of established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline required for application are:

• • • Attachment – Bowlby and others
    • Family systems therapy – Bowen and others
    • Personality disorders – Millon and others
    • Complex trauma – van der Kolk and others
    • Child development – Tronick and others
    • Self psychology – Kohut and others
    • DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association

Absence of Licensing Board Oversight

Concerns for “expert” status in the family courts could be (already should be) addressed by enforcing compliance with ethical standards of practice (Standards 2.01 and 2.04 of the APA ethics code). The question for consideration by state legislators is why the state licensing board is not enforcing ethical standards of practice in court-involved professional psychology?

Section 3: Judicial Education Curriculum

From SB-311: “This bill would require a judge assigned to family law matters involving child custody proceedings and individual courts to submit the number of hours of continuing instruction in domestic violence completed to the Judicial Council.”

From SB-311: “Existing law requires the Judicial Council to establish judicial training programs for individuals who perform duties in domestic violence matters. Existing law requires the training programs to include a domestic violence session in any orientation session for newly appointed or elected judges and an annual training session in domestic violence. Existing law requires the training programs to include instruction in all aspects of domestic violence, including, but not limited to, the detriment to children of residing with a person who perpetrates domestic violence.”

From SB-311: “This bill would repeal those provisions and instead require the Judicial Council to establish mandatory judicial training programs for individuals, including judges and judges pro tem, who perform duties in family law matters, including, among other topics, child sexual abuse and coercive control, as specified.”

This is the section of SB-331 that is of highest concern. The proposed Judicial Education Curriculum is both inadequate and highly unbalanced in favor of one litigant’s position (the allied parent) and ignores the other litigant’s concerns (the targeted parent).

Whoever decides on the Judicial Education Curriculum will have the power to systematically influence judicial decisions in child custody conflicts in favor of one parent’s position. It is imperative that the Judicial Education Curriculum be balanced for the concerns of BOTH litigants in the custody conflict.

Recommendations for adjusting the Judicial Education Curriculum are posted to my website:

Click to access CA-Judicial-Curriculum-Pilot-Program.pdf

In addition to minor balancing wording adjustments to the proposed Judicial Education Curriculum, three additional domains of judicial curriculum are needed:

1.) Educational curriculum in narcissistic, borderline, and dark personality pathology.

2.) Educational curriculum on family systems constructs.

3) Educational curriculum on attachment pathology and its treatment

Pilot Program for the Family Courts

The fighting surrounding the child needs to end. We need to develop standardized diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols that all mental health professionals agree with and apply.

This goal can be effectively accomplished through a pilot program for the family courts with university involvement to develop the necessary diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols.

There is a problem in the family courts. The solution is to turn the problem over to our universities and task them with developing the standardized diagnostic assessment and treatment protocols needed for the family courts – and the supporting legal arguments for a treatment-oriented approach at resolution.

California has world-class universities. For California, I recommend that the Principle Investigator for the pilot program be located in Stanford Forensic Psychiatry, with a second satellite site in Southern California of a UCLA, Pepperdine, and Alliant university collaboration.

I recommend that Stanford-UCLA be tasked with developing the diagnostic assessment protocol, and that the Southern California location of UCLA-Pepperdine-Alliant be tasked with developing the treatment protocol.

I recommend that treatment protocol development includes teams from Dialectic Behavior Therapy (Linehan; Univeristy of Washington), Emotionally Focused Therapy (Johnson – Tronick; International Center for Excellence in EFT), and Internal Family Systems Therapy (Schwartz; IFS Institute).

I recommend that teams from the law schools of Stanford, UCLA, and Pepperdine develop the supporting legal arguments for a treatment-oriented resolution of the custody conflict in the courts.

I have posted an Amicus Letter regarding SB-331 to my website:

Click to access SB-331-Childress-amicus-letter-4-17-23.pdf

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

 

This is my sixth post of my line-by-line notes for the AFCC & NCJFCJ Joint Statement on Parent-Child Contact Problems.

Notes 6 is in response to the content of the first recommendation from the AFCC and JCJFCJ for a “Child Centered Approach”.

---

Line-by-Line Notes 6

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ:

1.  Adopt a child-centered approach

Children’s behavior should be considered in the context of what is normal for a child’s age, developmental stage, and the family socio-cultural-religious norms. This behavior may also be an expectable, adaptive reaction to stress, change, or an adverse childhood experience. The paramount focus of practitioners working with parent-child contact problems should be to promote the safety, interests, rights, and wellbeing of children and their parents/caregivers at all socioeconomic levels. Children should have the opportunity to express their views in family justice matters that concern them. The stated views of children are not necessarily determinative of their best interests.There are multiple factors that may contribute to children expressing views that do not reflect their best interests. Family justice practitioners should understand the basis for the contact child’s expressed wishes and acknowledge their rights.

Dr Childress Notes 6:

Sentence 1:

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “Children’s behavior should be considered in the context of what is normal for a child’s age, developmental stage, and the family socio-cultural-religious norms.”

Child Development Knowledge:

That is a broad set of child development knowledge set forth as required in application. I agree. There is no excuse for professional ignorance. I have that knowledge from a lifetime in child and family therapy, including early childhood and the neuro-development of the brain. Based on my 10 years of experience in the family courts, I seriously doubt that any forensic psychologist has the required competence based on their education, training, and experience in child development across childhood.

The required domains for professional competence required for application in the family courts are:

• • • Attachment – Bowlby and others
    • Family systems – Minuchin and others
    • Personality pathology – Beck and others
    • Complex trauma – van der Kolk and others
    • Child development – Tronick and others
    • Self psychology – Kohut and others
    • DSM-5 delusional thought disorders and FDIA.

While I have this knowledge, I am fairly confident that no forensic psychologist possesses this knowledge because none of this knowledge is seen in application.

Start with Tronick in the domain of child development, and the “breach-and-repair” sequence. The worst thing we can possibly do is leave a breached attachment bond un-repaired. Child development knowledge requires an understanding for the attachment system in childhood, the importance and impact of the breach-and-repair sequence, and the role of intersubjectivity in the child’s emotional and psychological development. This child development knowledge should also include Kohut and parental self-object functions (Mirroring, Idealization, Twinship), and the role of optimal frustration for transmuting internalizations of self-object functions served by the parent into the child’s own self-structure.

I doubt the authors of this Joint Statement mean to suggest that child development knowledge (Tronick, Bowlby, Kohut) is actually a requirement since the domain of knowledge necessary is so extensive, and I suspect they meant something more superficial – but knowledge of child development needs to be required for application. There is no excuse for ignorance, the issues are too important for the child.

When possible child abuse is a considered diagnosis, our diagnosis must be accurate 100% of the time. The differential diagnosis for court-involved attachment pathology displayed by the child is possible child abuse, either 1) by the targeted-rejected parent creating the child’s attachment pathology toward this parent (a two-person attribution of causality), or 2) psychological child abuse by the allied parent creating a shared persecutory delusion in the child (a three-person triangle attribution of causality) – i.e., a false attachment pathology imposed on the child by a narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody (DSM-5 FDIA 300.19).

If a wrong decision is made surrounding child abuse, the court could potentially become a participant in the child abuse. To the extent that the court relies on the guidance of professional of psychology regarding the possible child abuse involved in the family, the court needs to receive accurate information.

When child abuse is a considered diagnosis, as is it in court-involved child custody conflict, the diagnosis returned from professional psychology that will guide the court’s decisions must be accurate 100% of the time.

There is no excuse for professional ignorance with such importance to the outcome of the diagnoses. Child development knowledge for all phases of childhood (Tronick, Bowlby, Kohut) is essential professional knowledge.

Cultural Considerations

Cultural considerations are prominent in all families. There are always two cultures involved, one from each parent, even in one-ethnicity families (like two White parents), there are still family cultural factors from each parent’s family of origin history. Each parent provides a family heritage, a family lineage, and a family culture to the child that is the birthright of the child. The child unites two cultures, two family lineages, two family heritages into their very self-identity. For a child to reject either parent is for the child to reject half of themselves. We need to fix the attachment pathology in the family.

We need to repair breached attachment bonds in childhood. We never leave a breached attachment bond un-repaired. That is the worst possible thing we can  do.

If there is child abuse by the targeted-rejected parent, diagnose it and protect the child. Then place it on a treatment plan and fix it. Then repair the child’s normal-range and healthy attachment bond to this parent. We always repair a breached attachment bond. The worst thing we could possibly do is leave a beached attachment bond un-repaired (Tronick: “the ugly”).

In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values. The only relevant issue is whether there is child abuse.

In all cases of court-involved custody conflict surrounding child attachment pathology, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the differential diagnosis of:

• • • Possible child abuse by the targeted parent creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent (a two-person attribution of causality),

• • • Possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent creating a shared persecutory delusion in the child (a three-person triangle attribution of causality).

The recommendation contained in this first sentence requires a substantial knowledge of child development. In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values.

Sentence 2:

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “This behavior may also be an expectable, adaptive reaction to stress, change, or an adverse childhood experience.”

Kohut, optimal frustration.

In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values. In the absence of child abuse, to restrict either parent’s time and involvement with their child would damage the child’s attachment bond to that parent, thereby harming the child and harming that parent.

Sentence 3:

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “The paramount focus of practitioners working with parent-child contact problems should be to promote the safety, interests, rights, and wellbeing of children and their parents/caregivers at all socioeconomic levels.”

Safety

Safety is the lead issue in the list of paramount importance. Safety of children surrounding nearly all divorced families is seldom an issue. The “safety” of children is a child abuse risk, i.e, an abusive parent. All child abuse concerns should receive a proper risk assessment.

When possible child abuse is a considered diagnosis (i.e., “safety”), a proper risk assessment should always be conducted.

The differential diagnoses with court-involved custody conflict are:

1. 1. 1. Targeted Parent: possible child abuse by the targeted parent resulting in the child’s attachment pathology to that parent (a two-person attribution of causality).

If the targeted parent is abusive of the child, diagnose the child abuse and protect the child. Place the abusive parenting on a treatment plan and fix it, then restore the child’s healthy attachment bond to their parent.

1. 1. 2. Allied Parent: possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied parent who has created a shared persecutory delusion and false attachment pathology in the child for the secondary gain of nullifying the court’s orders for child custody and manipulating the court’s custody decisions (a three-person triangle attribution of causality).

If the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child, diagnose the child abuse and protect the child. Recover the child’s healthy and normal-range development. Once the child’s recovery is stabilized, restore contact with the abusive parent with enough safeguards in place to ensure that the abuse does not resume when contact with the abusive parent is restored.

All mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations. When possible child abuse (“safety”) is a considered diagnosis, as it is surrounding court-involved child custody conflict, a proper risk assessment should be always conducted. Failure to conduct a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse when possible child abuse is a considered diagnosis would represent a negligent failure in the mental health professional’s duty to protect obligations.

Cornell Law School Negligence Definition: “A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances.  The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one’s previous conduct).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence

When child “safety” concerns are a consideration (as is indicated by the “paramount focus” recommendation from the AFCC and NCJFCJ), a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted.

The potential diagnostic concern is 1) possible child abuse by the targeted parent, or 2) possible psychological child abuse by the allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent who is creating a Factitious Disorder Imposed in Another (DSM-5 300.19), i.e., a false attachment pathology and shared persecutory delusion in the child, for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions on child custody through the induced child pathology.

Socioeconomic Levels

From AFCC & NCJFCJ: “…socioeconomic levels”

Equal access and equal quality of mental health services is guaranteed by Principle D Justice of the American Psychological Association.

Principle D: Justice
Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists. Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of their competence, and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices.

Forensic custody evaluations typically cost between $20,000 to $40,000 and take between six to nine months to complete. This denies access to mental health involvement to parents and children from lower socioeconomic levels who cannot afford the high cost of a forensic custody evaluation.

Clinical psychology can return a clinical diagnostic risk assessment of possible child abuse with second-opinion consultation for around $5,000 in four to six weeks.

Attorneys and litigation are immensely expensive, damaging the child’s future by draining parental financial resources into litigation, money that should be focused on raising the child and family. Court involvement needs to be structured to anticipate the likely presence of narcissistic, borderline, and dark personalities in the family courts, and the legal system should have a structured approach to responding to predictable pathology, i.e., for obtaining a proper diagnostic risk assessment for possible child abuse.

A structured legal approach to responding to child custody conflict in the family courts would reduce financial costs, making reasonable court-involvement available all socioeconomic levels and to pro se parents.

Research indicates that approximately 90% of all divorcing families resolve the child’s custody schedule without court involvement, and that only 10% become “high-conflict” custody cases in the courts.

From Saini & Birnbaum (2007): “Hetherington, Stanley-Hagan and Anderson (1989) note that 90 percent of custody matters are settled before the parents even reach the courts.” (p. 19)

Saini & Birnbaum (2007): “The term ‘high conflict’ has been used as an umbrella term to describe parents who experience high rates of litigation and relitigation, high degrees of anger and distrust, verbal, physical and emotional abuse, and ongoing difficulty in communicating and cooperating about the needs of their children (Johnston 1994). In fact, most estimates of high conflict families are based on ongoing litigation rates post separation/divorce. Mnookin and Kornhauser (1979) note that less than 10 per cent of parents remain in high conflict as evidenced by on-going litigation.

Research indicates that approximately 6% of the population has Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and that about 6% of the population have Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).  Both are known to be high-conflict personalities.

From Stinson, et al: “Prevalence of lifetime NPD was 6.2%”

Stinson, et al., (2008). Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 1033-1045.

From Grant, el al: “Prevalence of lifetime BPD was 5.9%”

Grant, et al., (2008). Prevalence, correlates, disability and comorbidity of DSM-IV borderline personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 533—545

The legal system should anticipate that approximately 10% of divorces will be high-conflict surrounding child custody, and that approximately 10% of cases will involved a narcissistic, borderline, or dark personality parent (a high-conflict parent).

Greenham & Childress (in submission):

The courts should anticipate and prepare for parental narcissistic, borderline, and dark personality pathology that will seek to manipulate the court’s decisions on child custody by making false allegations and inducing false pathology in the child.

A proper clinical diagnostic risk assessment for possible child abuse should be conducted in all cases of court-involved child custody conflict. At an estimated cost of around $5,000, a clinical diagnostic risk assessment is affordable to all socio-economic levels. The clinical diagnostic risk assessment should be to the differential diagnosis of:

1. 1. 1. Targeted Parent: possible child abuse by the targeted parent resulting in the child’s attachment pathology to that parent (a two-person attribution of causality).

If the targeted parent is abusive of the child, diagnose the child abuse and protect the child. Place the abusive parenting on a treatment plan and fix it, then restore the child’s healthy attachment bond to their parent.

1. 1. 2. Allied Parent: possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied parent who has created a shared persecutory delusion and false attachment pathology in the child for the secondary gain of nullifying the court’s orders for child custody and manipulating the court’s custody decisions (a three-person triangle attribution of causality).

If the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child, diagnose the child abuse and protect the child. Recover the child’s healthy and normal-range development. Once the child’s recovery is stabilized, restore contact with the abusive parent with enough safeguards in place to ensure that the abuse does not resume when contact with the abusive parent is restored.

Sentence 4:

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “Children should have the opportunity to express their views in family justice matters that concern them.”

The child’s views and symptoms should be assessed within the context of a proper clinical diagnostic risk assessment for possible child abuse.

If there is no child abuse, then parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values. In the absence of child abuse, to restrict either parent’s time and involvement with their child would damage the child’s attachment bond to that parent, thereby harming the child and harming that parent.

Seeking the child’s views on custody (i.e., a spousal conflict), will directly “triangulate” the child into the middle of the spousal conflict by asking the child to side with one parent’s side against the other parent’s side in the conflict. Triangulating the child into the spousal conflict is pathology and is exactly the WRONG thing to do.

When there is a “cross-generational coalition” of the child with an allied parent against the targeted parent, seeking the child’s views on any issue of spousal contention will be triggering the child’s coalition with one parent against the other – this is pathology.

The treatment for a “cross-generational coalition” is to de-triangulate the child by dis-empowering the child from issues of spousal conflict. To seek the child’s input on issues of spousal conflict will turn the child into a “custody prize” to be won by whichever parent better convinces the child to join that parent’s side in the spousal conflict issue. This is exactly the WRONG think to do, it is pathology to place the child in the middle of the spousal conflict.

The child’s views and symptoms should be assessed within the context of a proper clinical diagnostic risk assessment for possible child abuse.

If there is no child abuse, then parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values, and psychologists and the courts should not be deciding which parent is the ‘better’ parent who ‘deserves’ to have the child based on arbitrary and ill-conceived criteria.

Children should NEVER testify against a parent. Children should never be made to betray either parent in testimony to a judge. The child’s views and symptoms should be collected during a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse, and the diagnostic and treatment information for the child and family should be presented to the court by the assessing clinical psychologist.

Sentence 5:

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “The stated views of children are not necessarily determinative of their best interests.”

The “stated views of children” are often symptoms of severe attachment pathology, possible child abuse, possible persecutory delusions shared with the allied parent, and a possible Factious Disorder Imposed on Another, i.e., a false attachment pathology imposed on the child by a narcissistic, borderline, or dark personality parent for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decisions on child custody by producing pathology in the child.

In all cases of court-involved child custody conflict, a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted to both sides of the differential diagnosis:

1. 1. • Targeted Parent: possible child abuse by the targeted parent resulting in the child’s attachment pathology to that parent (a two-person attribution of causality).

1. 1. • Allied Parent: possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied parent who has created a shared persecutory delusion and false attachment pathology in the child for the secondary gain of nullifying the court’s orders for child custody and manipulating the court’s custody decisions (a three-person triangle attribution of causality).

Sentence 6:

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “There are multiple factors that may contribute to children expressing views that do not reflect their best interests.”

The “multiple factors” are called a “differential diagnoses” for the possible causes of the child’s symptoms.

From Wikipedia: “In healthcare, a differential diagnosis (abbreviated DDx) is a method of analysis of a patient’s history and physical examination to arrive at the correct diagnosis. It involves distinguishing a particular disease or condition from others that present with similar clinical features.”

The differential diagnoses (“multiple factors”) for court-involved child custody conflict are:

1. 1. • Targeted Parent: possible child abuse by the targeted parent resulting in the child’s attachment pathology to that parent (a two-person attribution of causality).

• • • Allied Parent: possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied parent who has created a shared persecutory delusion and false attachment pathology in the child for the secondary gain of nullifying the court’s orders for child custody and manipulating the court’s custody decisions (a three-person triangle attribution of causality).

In all cases of court-involved child custody conflict, a proper clinical diagnostic risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted.

Sentence 7:

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “Family justice practitioners should understand the basis for the contact child’s expressed wishes and acknowledge their rights.”

What child “rights” should be acknowledged by the judges and psychologists? Is this a legitimate recommendation for “rights”? Or is this an “inverted hierarchy” of empowering the child to an elevated position above the authority of the “family justice practitioners”? What child rights need to be acknowledged? Identify them.

In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values. If there is a concern for possible child abuse (i.e., “safety”), then a proper clinical diagnostic risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted.

There are four DSM-5 diagnoses of child abuse, Child Physical Abuse (V995.54), Child Sexual Abuse (V995.53), Child Neglect (V995.52), Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51). In all cases of court-involved child custody conflict, a proper clinical diagnostic risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the differential diagnosis of:

• • • Targeted Parent: possible child abuse by the targeted parent resulting in the child’s attachment pathology to that parent (a two-person attribution of causality.

• • • Allied Parent: possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied parent who has created a shared persecutory delusion and false attachment pathology in the child for the secondary gain of nullifying the court’s orders for child custody and manipulating the court’s custody decisions (a three-person triangle attribution of causality).

Dr. Childress Notes 6.

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

This is my fifth post of my line-by-line notes for the AFCC & NCJFCJ Joint Statement on Parent-Child Contact Problems.

Notes 5 is in response to the fourth sentence of the Problem Statement, and the first title in their recommended “considerations”.

---

Line-by-Line Notes 5

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ:

“AFCC and NCJFCJ support transparent, informed, and deliberate dialogue and response to parent-child contact problems following separation and divorce, or when the parents have never resided together, by adhering to the following considerations:

1.  Adopt a child-centered approach”

Dr Childress Notes 5:

There is no such diagnostic pathology as “parent-child contact problems” that is supported by the research literature. It is a made-up new pathology proposal. Professional organizations should use professional-level constructs when discussing pathology (problems).

• • • The correct professional construct is attachment pathology.
    • The correct professional construct is child abuse.

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “transparent, informed, and deliberate dialogue and response…”

This statement is vague to the point of uselessness. Diagnosis guides the treatment “response”. Are they intervening with cancer or diabetes? First, identify what the problem is, i.e., first diagnose what the pathology is.

• • • We must first diagnose what the pathology is before we know how to treat it. We must first identify what the problem is before we know how to fix it.

Diagnose = identify
Pathology = problem
Treatment = fix it

Diagnosis is made based on a pattern-match of symptoms to diagnostic criteria.

• • • For “transparency” – clearly collect and document the relevant symptoms for the various differential diagnostic possibilities.

• • • For “informed” – apply the diagnostic criteria and the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline of psychology to the symptom evidence.

• • • For “deliberate dialogue” in professional psychology, seek a second-opinion on diagnoses based on the pattern-match of symptoms to diagnostic criteria.

From Improving Diagnosis: “Referral and Consultation. Clinicians may refer to or consult with other clinicians (formally or informally) to seek additional expertise about a patient’s health problem. The consult may help to confirm or reject the working diagnosis or may provide information on potential treatment options. If a patient’s health problem is outside a clinician’s area of expertise, he or she can refer the patient to a clinician who holds more suitable expertise. Clinicians can also recommend that the patient seek a second opinion from another clinician to verify their impressions of an uncertain diagnosis or if they believe that this would be helpful to the patient.”

Improving Diagnosis in Healthcare, a report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26803862/

In clinical psychology (and all of healthcare), diagnosis guides treatment. The appellate system for a disputed diagnosis in healthcare is a second opinion.

From the AFCC & NCJFCJ: “1.  Adopt a child-centered approach”

This is manipulative because it contains a false straw man implication that anyone opposing their position takes an approach that is harmful for the child. It assumes by implication that one side has a “child-centered approach” while the other side has the opposite, i.e., a self-centered approach. This is a false assertion by implication.

The framing by itself discounts opposing viewpoints as being “selfish and self-centered”. This is incorrect. It is a false implication.

Everyone wants what’s best for the child, they simply disagree as to what that is. To attribute a “child-centered approach” to your side and attribute by implication that the motivation of those who look at a broader context is a ‘self-centered approach’ is fundamentally wrong and manipulatively misguided.

Everyone wants what is best for the child. That is the truth. One side is not “child-centered” while the other side is “self-centered” by implication – that is a false framing.

The center should not be on the child or on the parent. The center should be on the truth. What is the accurate diagnosis of the problem in the family? Identify the pathology. Then develop a written treatment plan to fix it. That is a center based on the truth. What is the diagnosis?

Identify what the problem is. Diagnose what the pathology is.

The center for treatment should be on the family that surrounds the child, because a healthy or unhealthy family is the context in which the child develops. A “Child Centered Approach” within an unhealthy family with unhealthy parents is a misguided approach. A family-centered approach that provides the child with a healthy family context for development is the proper treatment-oriented approach to conflict resolution within the family.

The focus should be on the family, and on the restoration of healthy attachment bonds in the parent-child relationships within the family context. If there is parental pathology distorting the family relationships, then a focus on the parental pathology and its impact becomes the focus.

A “Child-Centered Approach” misunderstands how families function, and how children become caught up and “triangulated” into the spousal conflict.

From the Bowen Center: “A triangle is a three-person relationship system. It is considered the building block or “molecule” of larger emotional systems because a triangle is the smallest stable relationship system. A two-person system is unstable because it tolerates little tension before involving a third person. A triangle can contain much more tension without involving another person because the tension can shift around three relationships. If the tension is too high for one triangle to contain, it spreads to a series of “interlocking” triangles. Spreading the tension can stabilize a system, but nothing is resolved.”

The Bowen Center Triangles: https://www.thebowencenter.org/triangles

Is the cause of the child’s attachment pathology a two-person parent-child problem caused by the targeted parent? Or is the cause of the child’s attachment pathology a three-person parent-child-parent triangle (a cross-generational coalition of the child with one parent against the other parent).

If the child is being abused by a parent, then diagnose the child abuse and protect the child.

In the absence of child abuse, parents have leadership responsibilities within the family.

From Minuchin: “Children and parents, and sometimes therapists, frequently describe the ideal family as a democracy. But they mistakenly assume that a democratic society is leaderless, or that a family is a society of peers. Effective functioning requires that parent and children accept the fact that the differentiated use of authority is a necessary ingredient for the parental subsystem. This becomes a social training lab for the children, who need to know how to negotiate in situations of unequal power.” (p. 58)

In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values. In the absence of child abuse, each parent should have as much time and involvement with the child as possible.

Is there child abuse? That is the relevant question for psychologists and the courts.

Psychologists and the courts should NOT be deciding on who ‘deserves’ to be a parent based on arbitrary and unsupported criteria. In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to be parents in accord with their cultural values, personal values, and religious values. The relevant consideration for psychologists and the courts is whether there is child abuse.

The concern for professional psychology and the courts is possible child abuse whenever there is severe attachment pathology being displayed by the child. In ALL cases of severe attachment pathology surrounding divorce, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the differential diagnosis of:

• • • Possible child abuse by the targeted parent creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent, i.e., a two-person attribution of causality,

• • • Possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by the allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent who is creating a shared persecutory delusion in the child that then destroys the child’s attachment bond to the other parent, for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decision surrounding child custody – i.e., creating a false attachment pathology imposed on the child – a Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (DSM-5 300.19), i.e., a three-person triangle attribution of causality.

The potential family pathological concern is that the child is being “triangulated” into the spousal conflict by the formation of a “cross-generational coalition” of the child with the allied parent against the targeted parent, resulting in an “emotional cutoff” in the child’s attachment pathology toward the parent, as represented in this Structural family diagram from Minuchin,

A characteristic symptom created by a “cross-generational coalition” of the child with the allied parent is called an “inverted hierarchy” in which the child becomes over-empowered by the alliance with one parent to an elevated position in the family hierarchy above the targeted parent, from which the child judges the adequacy of the targeted parent as if the parent was the child and the child was the parent.

This “inverted hierarchy” created by a cross-generational coalition of the child with one parent against the other needs to be properly assessed, and a strictly “child-centered” rather than a broader “family-centered” focus runs the risk of misunderstanding the child’s symptoms within the  broader family context.

Based on the application of constructs and principles from family systems therapy, a “child-centered” approach will potentially mask and hide the family pathology behind the cloak of a limited-scope focus on the child’s induced symptoms. A family-centered approach that recognizes the importance of healthy parent-child attachment bonds and the potential triangulation of the child into the family conflict is recommended.

From Stone, Buehler, & Barber: “The concept of triangles “describes the way any three people relate to each other and involve others in emotional issues between them” (Bowen, 1989, p. 306).  In the anxiety-filled environment of conflict, a third person is triangulated, either temporarily or permanently, to ease the anxious feelings of the conflicting partners. By default, that third person is exposed to an anxiety-provoking and disturbing atmosphere. For example, a child might become the scapegoat or focus of attention, thereby transferring the tension from the marital dyad to the parent-child dyad. Unresolved tension in the marital relationship might spill over to the parent-child relationship through parents’ use of psychological control as a way of securing and maintaining a strong emotional alliance and level of support from the child. As a consequence, the triangulated youth might feel pressured or obliged to listen to or agree with one parents’ complaints against the other. The resulting enmeshment and cross-generational coalition would exemplify parents’ use of psychological control to coerce and maintain a parent-youth emotional alliance against the other parent (Haley, 1976; Minuchin, 1974).” (Stone, Buehler, & Barber, 2002, p. 86-87)

The construct of “child-centered” also fails to adequately consider parental psychological control of the child, in which the child is coerced and manipulated into sharing the beliefs of the allied parent (as noted by Stone, Buehler, & Barber above).

Psychological Control

The manipulative psychological control of the child by a parent is a scientifically established family relationship pattern in dysfunctional family systems. In his book regarding parental psychological control of children, Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents, published by the American Psychological Association, Brian Barber and his colleague, Elizabeth Harmon, identify over 30 empirically validated scientific studies that have established the construct of parental psychological control of children.

Barber, B. K. (Ed.) (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

In Chapter 2 of Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents, Brian Barber and Elizabeth Harmon provide the following definition for the construct of parental psychological control of the child:

From Barber & Harmon: “Psychological control refers to parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of children’s thoughts, feelings, and attachment to parents. These behaviors appear to be associated with disturbances in the psychoemotional boundaries between the child and parent, and hence with the development of an independent sense of self and identity.” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 15)

Barber, B. K. and Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parenting psychological control of children and adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting (pp. 15-52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

According to Stone, Bueler, and Barber:

Stone, Bueler, & Barber: “The central elements of psychological control are intrusion into the child’s psychological world and self-definition and parental attempts to manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings through invoking guilt, shame, and anxiety.  Psychological control is distinguished from behavioral control in that the parent attempts to control, through the use of criticism, dominance, and anxiety or guilt induction, the youth’s thoughts and feelings rather than the youth’s behavior.” (Stone, Buehler, & Barber, 2002, p. 57)

Stone, G., Buehler, C., & Barber, B. K.. (2002) Interparental conflict, parental psychological control, and youth problem behaviors. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Soenens and Vansteenkiste (2010) describe the various methods used to achieve parental psychological control of the child:

From Soenens and Vansteenkiste: “Psychological control can be expressed through a variety of parental tactics, including (a) guilt-induction, which refers to the use of guilt inducing strategies to pressure children to comply with a parental request; (b) contingent love or love withdrawal, where parents make their attention, interest, care, and love contingent upon the children’s attainment of parental standards; (c) instilling anxiety, which refers to the induction of anxiety to make children comply with parental requests; and (d) invalidation of the child’s perspective, which pertains to parental constraining of the child’s spontaneous expression of thoughts and feelings.” (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010, p. 75)[4]

Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30, 74–99.

A proposal for a “child-centered” approach will need to include the assessment of a potentially compromised “independent sense of self and identity” with the child due to the manipulative psychological control of the child by the allied parent.

From Kerig: “Rather than telling the child directly what to do or think, as does the behaviorally controlling parent, the psychologically controlling parent uses indirect hints and responds with guilt induction or withdrawal of love if the child refuses to comply. In short, an intrusive parent strives to manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings in such a way that the child’s psyche will conform to the parent’s wishes.” (p. 12)

Kerig, P.K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 5-42.

It is always “child-centered” to protect the child from child abuse. A “child-centered” approach would also entail conducting a proper risk assessment for all cases of severe attachment pathology displayed by a child toward a parent to the differential diagnosis of:

• • • Possible child abuse by the targeted parent creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent, i.e., a two-person attribution of causality),

• • • Possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) by an allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent who is creating a shared persecutory delusion in the child that then destroys the child’s attachment bond to the other parent, for the secondary gain of manipulating the court’s decision surrounding child custody – a false attachment pathology imposed on the child – a Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (DSM-5 300.19), i.e., a three-person triangular attribution of causality.

Protecting children from child abuse is always “child-centered”.

Finally, a “child-centered” approach disregards the potential IPV spousal emotional and psychological abuse of the targeted parent by the allied parent using the child as the weapon, a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.82. Protecting all persons from all forms of abuse is required by professional duty to protect obligations.

In all cases of severe attachment pathology surrounding court-involved family conflict, a proper risk assessment for possible spousal emotional and psychological abuse of one spouse-and-parent by the other spouse-and-parent using the child as the weapon needs to be conducted.

All mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations for all persons for all forms of abuse.

A family-centered approach is recommended, and for a variety of reasons, a child-centered approach is contra-indicated – except to the extent that protecting children from child abuse is always child-centered.

When child abuse is a considered diagnosis, a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted.

In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values.

The relevant issues for the psychologists and the court is whether there is child abuse or spousal abuse using the child as the weapon. A proper risk assessment for both of these possible abuse diagnoses needs to occur.

Dr. Childress Notes 5.

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