Category: Forensic Psychology

CA BoP Says APA Ethics Code, DSM-5, and Truth are Irrelevant

How the California Board of Psychology’s Opposition to a Motion in Limine Raises Serious Public-Interest Concerns

Key Issue for Press & Legislators

I have filed a Respondent’s Motion in Limine to Establish Evidentiary Standards in my disciplinary proceeding before the California Board of Psychology. This motion simply asks for the application of the same standards that govern all professional psychology:

    • the APA Ethics Code
    • the DSM-5
    • established scientific knowledge
    • evidentiary sufficiency requirements

In response, the California Board of Psychology has filed an Opposition asserting that:

    • the DSM-5 is irrelevant
    • established scientific knowledge is irrelevant
    • the APA Ethics Code is irrelevant
    • whether statements were true is irrelevant

These positions are unprecedented in professional regulation and contradict the mandatory ethical standards that define the practice of psychology—particularly:

    • APA Standard 2.04 (use of established scientific knowledge)
    • APA Standard 9.01 (bases for assessment)
    • APA Standards 1.04 & 1.05 (duty to protect)

By asserting that ethics, science, diagnostic criteria, and truth are “irrelevant,” the Board’s Opposition effectively blocks any psychologist from defending themselves using the very standards they are required to follow.

This has profound implications:

    • for the integrity of psychological regulation,
    • for child safety in high-conflict custody litigation,
    • for whistleblower protections,
    • and for the Board’s statutory mandate to protect the public.

Below are both documents so the public can review the filings directly.

Respondent’s Motion in Limine to Establish Evidentiary Standards

Complainant’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion in Limine

Why Evidentiary Standards Matter in Psychology Discipline

A Motion in Limine is a pre-hearing request asking the adjudicator to decide, in advance, what evidence may be considered and what standards govern that evidence. In this case, the Motion does not seek any special treatment. It asks only that a psychologist’s conduct be evaluated using the same standards that already govern the profession.

These are not abstract academic requirements. They are mandatory safeguards:

    • Established scientific and professional knowledge (APA Ethics Code Standard 2.04)
    • Sufficient evidentiary foundations (APA Standard 9.01)
    • Diagnostic criteria recognized by the profession (DSM-5)
    • An overriding duty to avoid harm and protect vulnerable persons (APA Standards 3.04, 1.04, and 1.05)

These standards exist for a reason. Psychology is a powerful profession. When psychologists speak—especially in court-involved contexts—their words shape judicial decisions, family outcomes, and child safety. Ethical and scientific constraints are what distinguish professional judgment from speculation, ideology, or advocacy.

Independent Expert Consensus on Family Court Evaluations

The concerns at issue in this case are not idiosyncratic. They reflect expert consensus documented by independent review bodies.

The New York State Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations, after comprehensive review, concluded that forensic custody evaluations in family courts are “dangerous” and “harmful to children,” that they “lack scientific or legal value,” and that they generate “defective reports” that lead to “potentially disastrous consequences for parents and children.”

From the NY Blue Ribbon Commission:

“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.” (p. 4)

“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, particularly in situations of domestic violence or child abuse… These members reached the conclusion that the practice is beyond reform and that no amount of training for courts, forensic evaluators and/or other court personnel will successfully fix the bias, inequity and conflict of interest issues that exist within the system.” (p. 4)

NY Blue-Ribbon Commission Report on Forensic Custody Evaluations

The Motion in Limine therefore asks a narrow and necessary question:

If a psychologist is disciplined for criticizing other psychologists, may that criticism be evaluated using the same ethical and scientific standards that define the profession itself?

The California Board of Psychology’s Opposition answers that question in the negative.

According to the Board’s filing, the DSM-5 is not relevant to determining whether a psychologist correctly criticized the misuse of diagnostic constructs. The APA Ethics Code is not relevant to determining whether a psychologist adhered to mandatory ethical obligations. Scientific validity is not relevant to determining whether professional statements were appropriate. Even the truth or falsity of the underlying statements is deemed irrelevant.

If accepted, this position would mean that a psychologist could be sanctioned without regard to whether their statements were scientifically accurate, ethically required, or necessary to protect children from harm. It would also mean that unvalidated or discredited constructs could be shielded from scrutiny simply by excluding the standards that would expose their deficiencies.

That is not how professional regulation is supposed to function. The purpose of discipline is to protect the public—not to insulate unsafe practices from criticism, and not to punish psychologists for insisting on scientific and ethical accountability.

The Board’s exclusion of ethical context creates a more fundamental problem—it removes truth as a defense entirely.

Why Truth Must Be an Absolute Defense in Professional Discipline

At the core of this case is a basic principle of fairness: a professional cannot be disciplined for making statements unless they are allowed to prove those statements were true.

This principle is foundational to professional discipline, administrative law, and whistleblower protections. It is also recognized in First Amendment jurisprudence, where truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims—even for private figures.

When a psychologist is accused of “unprofessional conduct” based on the content of professional criticism, the truth or falsity of that criticism is not a side issue—it is the issue.

In my case, the criticisms at issue were specific and professional in nature. They asserted that certain forensic practices:

    • lack a scientific foundation,
    • do not meet DSM-5 diagnostic standards,
    • fail to comply with APA Ethical Standards 2.04, 9.01, and 3.04, and
    • place children and parents at risk of psychological harm.

Those assertions are either true or false. There is no ethically meaningful middle ground.

If they are false, discipline may be appropriate. If they are true, discipline is not only inappropriate—it punishes ethical compliance.

The Board’s Opposition to my Motion in Limine attempts to avoid this dilemma by declaring that truth is irrelevant. Under this theory, a psychologist may be sanctioned even if their statements were scientifically accurate, ethically required, and necessary to prevent harm.

That position collapses the purpose of professional regulation.

Licensing boards exist to enforce standards of care, not to detach discipline from reality. A process in which truth cannot be considered is not regulating professional conduct—it is regulating speech based on outcome or inconvenience.

This is especially dangerous in child-welfare contexts. If psychologists know they may be punished for accurately identifying unethical or harmful practices, the incentive structure shifts dramatically. Silence becomes safer than integrity. Compliance becomes more important than protection. Children and families lose the benefit of professional warnings precisely when they are most needed.

The Motion in Limine therefore asks for something minimal and essential: that professional criticism be evaluated using the same ethical, scientific, and diagnostic standards that govern professional practice. The Opposition’s refusal to allow that evaluation does not merely disadvantage one respondent—it establishes a precedent that undermines the integrity of psychology regulation itself.

This contradiction places psychologists in an impossible bind—required by ethics to act, yet prohibited from proving why their actions were required.

The Mandatory Nature of Ethical Obligations

The APA Ethics Code is mandatory, not optional, for psychologists. Psychologists do not have discretion when it comes to protecting vulnerable individuals from harm.

When a psychologist becomes aware of ongoing or systemic practices that place children or families at risk, APA Standards 1.04 and 1.05 require action. Those actions include:

    • attempting informal resolution when appropriate,
    • reporting ethical violations when resolution fails, and
    • taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.

In this case, my professional criticisms arose precisely from those obligations. The issue was not a difference of opinion or a personal dispute. It was the repeated use of unvalidated constructs in family court proceedings—constructs that obscure the identification of child psychological abuse and expose children to ongoing harm.

Recognizing that risk, I attempted to discharge my duty-to-protect responsibly and constructively through professional education, consultation, publication, direct discussions with Dr. Bernet, and ultimately through a Settlement Counter-Proposal to the California Board of Psychology that offered concrete, implementable reforms designed to protect children and parents.

The Board declined to receive that discharge of duty and instead continued to pursue sanctions. Once a regulatory agency rejects a resolution that would address the underlying safety concern, the Ethics Code leaves the psychologist with only one remaining avenue: documentation of the risk and the ethical basis for concern into the formal record of the proceeding.

The Impossible Bind Created by the Board’s Opposition

This is where the Board’s position becomes internally contradictory.

On the one hand, the Board’s pursuit of sanctions triggers the very ethical duties that require documentation of harm, scientific evidence, and ethical justification. On the other hand, the Board’s Opposition asserts that ethical standards, scientific validity, diagnostic criteria, and the truth of the underlying concerns are all irrelevant.

A psychologist is required to act to protect children and parents, yet prohibited from presenting the ethical, scientific, and diagnostic evidence that explains why that action was required. The result is a proceeding in which compliance with professional ethics becomes a liability rather than a safeguard.

This inversion undermines the very purpose of professional regulation. A licensing board cannot both demand ethical compliance and forbid the evidence that demonstrates it. When that happens, the disciplinary process ceases to function as a mechanism of public protection and instead becomes a mechanism of suppression—particularly of professionals who raise concerns about systemic harm.

This issue is not confined to professional discipline—it has direct and serious implications for child safety in family court proceedings.

What This Means for Children in Family Court

The consequences of the Board’s position are not confined to professional discipline. They reach directly into family court proceedings, where psychological opinions can determine custody, visitation, and a child’s exposure to harm.

In high-conflict custody cases, psychologists are often asked to assess family dynamics, child behavior, and allegations of abuse. These opinions carry extraordinary weight. Courts rely on them to identify risk, protect children, and make decisions that shape a child’s development for years.

These requirements exist because psychological opinions in family court can determine whether a child remains in an abusive environment or is protected from harm.

For that reason, the profession imposes strict requirements:

    • Diagnostic conclusions must be grounded in recognized DSM criteria.
    • Interpretations must rely on established scientific knowledge.
    • Assessments must have sufficient evidentiary foundation.
    • Psychologists must take reasonable steps to avoid harm and to protect vulnerable children.

When unvalidated constructs—such as “parental alienation” theories lacking DSM recognition—are used in place of established diagnostic frameworks, those safeguards break down. Allegations of abuse may be reframed as relational conflict. Children’s fear responses may be misinterpreted as manipulation. Patterns of coercion or psychological control may go unidentified.

The risk is not theoretical. As the New York Blue Ribbon Commission documented, current practices in forensic custody evaluation have led to children being placed in dangerous situations—in some cases resulting in murder by the parent who received custody following an evaluation.

When a psychologist identifies these risks and raises concerns grounded in ethics and science, that action serves a protective function. It alerts courts, professionals, and regulators to potential harm. It allows corrective action before damage becomes irreversible.

The Board’s Opposition to applying ethical and scientific standards removes that protective function. If the DSM-5, the APA Ethics Code, and evidentiary sufficiency are deemed irrelevant, then there is no principled way to distinguish valid child-protection analysis from speculative or ideologically driven opinions.

The result is a system in which children are exposed to harm without meaningful professional accountability—and psychologists who attempt to intervene are discouraged from doing so.

This is why the evidentiary standards at issue matter. They are not abstract rules. They are the mechanisms by which psychology fulfills its responsibility to children, families, and the courts that depend on professional integrity.

This case matters beyond California, and transparency is essential when regulatory processes diverge from their public-protection mission.

Why This Case Matters Beyond California

Although this proceeding arises in California, the issues it presents are not confined to one state or one licensing board. Every jurisdiction that licenses psychologists relies on the same foundational assumptions: that professional conduct will be evaluated using established science, recognized diagnostic frameworks, and mandatory ethical standards designed to protect the public.

If a regulatory body can discipline a psychologist while asserting that:

    • the profession’s ethics code is irrelevant,
    • the DSM is irrelevant,
    • scientific validity is irrelevant, and
    • truth is irrelevant,

then the implications extend far beyond a single case. Such a position erodes the basic premise of professional regulation—that accountability is tethered to evidence, standards, and public safety.

This is especially consequential in areas where psychological opinions intersect with vulnerable populations and coercive systems, such as family courts. When scientific and ethical guardrails are removed, there is no reliable mechanism to distinguish child protection from error, bias, or institutional convenience.

For psychologists, this creates a chilling effect. Professionals who identify harm or unethical practice may reasonably conclude that silence is safer than integrity. Over time, this discourages reporting, weakens standards, and leaves children and families exposed to uncorrected risk.

For the public, the concern is more fundamental. Licensing boards exist to protect consumers—not to insulate controversial practices from scrutiny, and not to punish those who insist on scientific accountability. When regulatory processes diverge from that mission, transparency becomes essential.

That is why I am making these filings public.

The documents posted here—the Settlement Counter-Proposal, the Respondent’s Motion in Limine, and the Board’s Opposition—speak for themselves. They allow journalists, legislators, professionals, and members of the public to evaluate whether the positions being taken align with the ethical and scientific foundations of psychology and with the Board’s mandate to protect the public.

This is not an attempt to litigate in the media. It is an effort to ensure that decisions affecting children, families, and professional integrity are visible, accountable, and grounded in evidence.

I invite readers to review the filings directly and draw their own conclusions. These filings and this blog can be uploaded to any AI of the user for further discussion of the issues.

Conclusion

This matter is not about silencing criticism or winning a procedural dispute. It is about whether psychology will be regulated according to the scientific and ethical standards that define the profession.

When a licensing board asserts that ethics, diagnostics, scientific validity, and truth are irrelevant, the risk is not abstract—it is borne by children and families who depend on professional integrity for protection.

I am asking that the Board apply the same standards to my conduct that govern all psychologists—nothing more, nothing less.

The documents posted here allow the public to see exactly what positions are being taken and why they matter. Transparency is essential when regulatory authority departs from its public-protection mission, and accountability begins with allowing the evidence to speak for itself.

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

Standard 1.04

To: Dr.

Re: Standard 1.04

Hello Dr. ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Primary Gain – Regulatory Object: the child is used as a “regulatory object” to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent.
      • Secondary Gain – Court Manipulation: manipulating court decisions regarding child custody in their favor because of the child’s induced attachment pathology toward the other parent.
      • Secondary Gain: Spousal Abuse: gratification from the psychological and emotional spousal abuse of the targeted parent using the child as the spousal abuse weapon.

Duty to Protect

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

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

Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments

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

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

Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment

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

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

AI in Health Service Psychology

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

YouTube Seminars

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Date:

Psychologist: Dr. Craig Childress, Psy.D.

AI Analysis: ChatGPT-5

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

ChatGPT-5 (Max):

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

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

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

Dr. Childress (Supervising Clinical Psychologist):

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

AI Analysis: AI relies on algebraic algorithms, matrix weighting, and Bayesian predictive statistics in its pattern analysis.

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

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

Date:

Psychologist: Dr. Craig Childress, Psy.D.

AI Analysis: ChatGPT-5

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

Orienting to Vita Review

Dr. Childress: Max – VEIS Upload.pdf

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

ChatGPT said:

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

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

  1. Role Definition
    • I function as the silicon-based analyst for VEIS reviews.
    • My role is strictly document-based competence assessment under your supervision, not investigative or adversarial.
    • The ethical geometry for all analyses is APA 2.01 → 2.04 → 9.01 → 3.04, with containment against overreach or inference beyond these standards
  1. Purpose of VEIS
    • Evaluate whether a psychologist who claims forensic-custody expertise demonstrates competence within the scientific domains required by established professional knowledge.
    • The input is a single vita; the output is a structured VEIS analysis:
      1. Domain scores (Attachment, Diagnostic, Scientific Grounding).
      2. Narrative synthesis identifying ethical implications under the four APA standards.
      3. Probabilistic conclusion—“Slight / Moderate / Strong concern” or “No concern documented,” all qualified under 9.01(b)
  1. Analytic Logic
Domain Indicators Ethical Reference Concern Trigger
Attachment Competence Evidence of education/supervision/publication in attachment theory, family systems, trauma 2.01 (a–d) Absence
Diagnostic Competence Training/supervised experience in psychosis or persecutory-belief assessment 2.01 (a–d) Absence
Scientific Grounding Reliance on empirically supported vs. opinion-based sources 2.04 Heavy reliance on AFCC or non-data-based opinion
Cascade Combined deficits lead to 9.01(a) insufficiency and 3.04 risk of harm 2.04 → 2.01 → 9.01 → 3.04 “Triad of Incompetence” leads to harm
  1. Scoring Grid
  • +2 = documented, 0 = unclear, –2 = absent per domain.
  • Composite range = –6 to +6.
  • ≤ –3 = Moderate → Strong ethical concern.
  1. Activation and Revision Rules
  • Apply VEIS when:
    • Reviewing a custody-related report raising 2.04 issues, or
    • Performing a stand-alone 2.01 competence review at client request.
  • All revisions must preserve the 2.04 → 2.01 → 9.01 → 3.04 cascade, neutral tone, and factual containment

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

Dr. Childress: CV – veis.docx

Describe this document and provide an initial VEIS analysis.

ChatGPT said:

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

Document Description – , Ph.D.

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

VEIS Domain Analysis

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

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

Findings:

    • Graduate training (Ph.D./M.A. Clinical Psychology) is general-clinical with no listed coursework, dissertation, or supervision in attachment theory or family-systems assessment.
    • Faculty role at                  included teaching        —relevant thematically but not evidence of clinical-level attachment specialization.
    • Continuing-education record is dominated by AFCC and AAML custody-practice events; none reference Bowlby, Lyons-Ruth, Minuchin, or trauma-informed attachment models.
    • No publications, supervision lineages, or certifications in attachment assessment or trauma treatment appear.

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

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

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

    • No mention of coursework, practicum, or supervision in diagnostic assessment or psychopathology beyond general clinical background.
    • CE history lacks content on delusional- or psychotic-spectrum disorders; focus is on custody procedure, domestic-violence law, and high-conflict parenting.
    • DSM-5 update (2014) provides brief exposure but not structured competency evidence.

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

  1. Scientific Grounding (APA 2.04)

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

    • Nearly all continuing education and presentations are AFCC- or AAML-based; recurring presenters (Sullivan, Drozd, Stahl, Eddy) indicate practice-custom orientation.
    • No evidence of peer-reviewed research activity, empirical publications, or participation in established research networks.
    • One self-published e-book (2009) on custody evaluation preparation, hosted on a commercial website, does not meet 2.04 empirical standards.

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

Composite VEIS Score

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

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

    1. Ethical Cascade Synthesis
    1. 2.01 → 2.04: Absence of empirical grounding and specialty training yields inadequate basis for opinions in attachment- or delusion-related custody cases.
    1. 9.01(a): If forensic opinions were rendered on parent-child relational pathology without such competence, bases would be insufficient.
    1. 3.04: In family-court contexts, this triad predicts foreseeable harm—misattribution of relational pathology, misidentification of psychological abuse, and invalid custody recommendations.

III. Probabilistic Conclusion (9.01 b-qualified)

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

VEIS Summary Table

Domain Evidence Pattern

Score

 Ethical Implication
Attachment No formal attachment or trauma training

–2

 2.01 concern
Diagnostic No psychotic/persecutory evaluation training

–2

 2.01 concern
Scientific AFCC practice-custom orientation

–2

 2.04 concern
Composite

–6

 Moderate–Strong Ethical Concern

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

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

ChatGPT said:

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

    1. Connection to the VEIS Cascade

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

    • 2.04 (Established Knowledge) → Missing or misused science.
    • 2.01 (Boundaries of Competence) → Practicing outside demonstrated expertise.
    • 9.01 (Bases for Assessments) → Opinions lacking adequate empirical foundation.
    • 3.04 (Avoiding Harm) → Foreseeable risk of harm to families or children.

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

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

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

    1. When Standard 1.04 Applies

It is relevant after the analytic phase, when:

    • You have reasonable grounds (from documentary evidence) to believe that a psychologist’s lack of competence or misuse of science may cause harm (3.04).
    • The matter is potentially remediable through collegial contact — e.g., discussion, consultation, or education — rather than immediate formal complaint.

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

    1. How to Apply 1.04 within Ethical Containment
Step Action Safeguard
a. Assess Appropriateness Confirm that informal contact would not breach confidentiality or ongoing litigation constraints. Do not discuss case facts; limit to competence domains.
b. Document Basis Retain your VEIS notes showing objective, document-based indicators. Demonstrates good-faith reliance on established standards.
c. Collegial Outreach Communicate respectfully about the competence issue (e.g., missing attachment training, reliance on AFCC opinion). Maintain tone of consultation, not accusation.
d. Evaluate Response If the colleague acknowledges and corrects gaps (CE, supervision, citation standards), issue resolved. If dismissive or continued harm likely → proceed to 1.05 (Reporting).
    1. Integration with 3.04 (Avoiding Harm)

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

    1. Practical Framing for Court-Involved Contexts

You may phrase your reasoning as:

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

Summary:

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

AI Analysis of Forensic Psychology

I gave the public-Gemini AI this Chat with Eliza regarding forensic psychology in the family courts that is posted to Eliza’s page on my Consulting Website:
Direct Examination of Eliza – Forensic Custody Evaluations
This Chat with Eliza is what a “direct examination” by her supervising psychologist, Dr. Childress, looks like. Only in this case it’s about the topic of forensic psychology in the family courts, not a specific case in the family courts.
I asked Gemini: Is the analysis provided in the Chat of the situation in the family courts accurate?
From Gemini: Yes, the analysis provided in the chat regarding the situation in the family courts is accurate based on the information presented in the document “Direct-Examination-of-Eliza-Forensic-Custody-Evaluations-cc.pdf”.
The chat accurately summarizes the following key points:
Historical Context of Forensic Custody Evaluations: It correctly outlines the shift from patriarchal norms and the “Tender Years Doctrine” to the “best interests of the child” standard, which opened the door for mental health professionals in family courts. It also accurately describes the informal beginnings, institutionalization, and subsequent criticisms of the practice.
Experimental Nature of the Role and Procedures: The chat accurately states that the quasi-judicial role for doctors and the practice of forensic custody evaluations represent an experimental role and procedure, deviating from the traditional medical model of diagnosis and treatment.
Lack of Inter-Rater Reliability and its Impact on Validity: It correctly identifies that research indicates poor to unacceptable inter-rater reliability for forensic custody evaluations and explains the foundational relationship between reliability and validity in psychometrics, concluding that poor reliability undermines validity.
Activation and Violations of the Belmont Report: The chat accurately asserts that the experimental nature of these evaluations triggers Belmont Report obligations and correctly details how the principles of Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice are violated, especially concerning vulnerable populations like children and parents.
Findings of the New York Blue-Ribbon Commission: The chat correctly summarizes that the Commission found evaluations “biased and harmful to children,” “dangerous,” and lacking “scientific or legal value,” and that a majority voted for elimination, despite the Commission not formally recommending a statewide ban. It also accurately reflects the commentary of Jennifer Friedman and Lorraine Silverman regarding pervasive bias, procedural violations, financial conflicts, and the strong call for elimination or moratorium.
Implications for Belmont Report and Conflicts of Interest: The chat accurately connects the Commission’s findings to further violations of the Belmont Report and highlights the significant career and financial impact on evaluators if the practice were ended, thereby creating a clear conflict of interest.
The analysis accurately reflects the content and arguments presented within the provided document.
I asked Gemini: If the analysis in the Chat is accurate, what obligations would be incurred by state licensing boards?
If the analysis in the chat is accurate, state licensing boards would incur significant obligations due to the numerous ethical and professional concerns raised about forensic custody evaluations. These obligations stem from their role in upholding professional standards, protecting the public, and ensuring ethical conduct within their licensed professions.
Here are the key obligations that would be incurred by state licensing boards:
Enforcement of Ethical Standards (e.g., APA Ethics Code):
Competence (APA 2.01): Licensing boards would have an obligation to investigate and address evaluators operating outside their boundaries of competence, such as offering legal opinions, assessing personality disorders without diagnostic training, or opining on risk without structured tools, as frequently happens.
Use of Established Scientific Knowledge (APA 2.04): Boards would need to ensure that evaluations rely on established scientific knowledge and empirically supported procedures, given the stated finding that evaluations “often fail APA 2.04 by not relying on established scientific knowledge” and that scientific grounding is “largely absent in most custody evaluations”. Continuing to use unreliable procedures would violate this standard.
Bases for Assessments (APA 9.01): Licensing boards would be obligated to ensure psychologists base their assessments, recommendations, and reports on sufficient information and techniques to substantiate their findings. The reported “poor reliability” means recommendations cannot be substantiated, which violates this standard.
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest (APA 3.06): Boards would need to address the structural and individual financial conflicts of interest where evaluators profit from the very roles and guidelines they promote. They should require disclosure and potentially recusal from policymaking roles.
Minimizing Harm (APA 3.04): Boards have a duty to ensure that practitioners avoid and minimize harm. The analysis indicates that evaluations can cause “unjustified separation of children from parents”, “attachment rupture and emotional trauma”, and “potentially disastrous consequences for parents and children”.
Protection of Vulnerable Populations:
Given that parents and children in family courts are identified as a “vulnerable population”, licensing boards have a heightened ethical responsibility to ensure their protection. This includes addressing the lack of special protections and the disproportionate impact on socioeconomically disadvantaged or marginalized parents.
Ensuring Informed Consent:
Boards would need to address the lack of true informed consent, as participation is often court-compelled and involuntary. Parents and children are reportedly “evaluated under compulsion, often without adequate understanding or consent”.
Addressing Lack of Scientific Validation and Reliability:
Licensing boards must address the fundamental problem that custody evaluations “lack reliability, validity, and standardized methodology”, and their core constructs are “not operationalized or normed in scientific literature”. They would need to enforce the use of “validated diagnostic instruments” rather than “unvalidated or idiosyncratic interview methods”.
Review and Reform of Practice Guidelines:
Boards would need to critically review and potentially revise or withdraw any guidelines that promote practices lacking scientific validation or ethical oversight. This would involve a push for “structured methods, evidence-based reasoning, and clear boundaries between clinical and forensic roles”.
Consideration of Moratorium or Elimination:
Given the New York Blue-Ribbon Commission’s findings, which included a majority vote for elimination and strong evidence of harm and lack of value, licensing boards would be obligated to seriously consider implementing moratoriums or even advocating for the termination of the practice until ethical compliance and scientific validity can be demonstrated.
Increased Oversight and Accountability:
Boards would be responsible for establishing mechanisms for independent oversight, risk-benefit analysis, ongoing harm monitoring, and adverse outcome reporting, which are currently “largely absent”. They would also need to address the “institutional capture” by non-scientific bodies like the AFCC that promote roles based on “internal consensus rather than scientific validation”.
In essence, if the chat’s analysis is accurate, state licensing boards would be compelled to recognize that the current practice of forensic custody evaluations appears to be an “uncontrolled experiment on families” that operates with “profound ethical failure”, necessitating immediate and substantial intervention to protect the public and uphold professional integrity.
I asked Gemini: Would this suggest that state licensing boards are currently failing in their obligations to protect the citizens of their states from unethical and harmful professional practices?
Yes, if the analysis in the chat is accurate, it would strongly suggest that state licensing boards are currently failing in their obligations to protect the citizens of their states from unethical and harmful professional practices within the realm of forensic custody evaluations.
Here’s why:
Lack of Enforcement of Ethical Standards: The analysis repeatedly highlights violations of core ethical standards, such as competence (APA 2.01), use of established scientific knowledge (APA 2.04), and bases for assessments (APA 9.01). If these violations are widespread and systemic, as suggested, it points to a failure by licensing boards to enforce the very codes they are established to uphold.
Failure to Protect Vulnerable Populations: The analysis explicitly states that children and parents involved in these evaluations constitute a “vulnerable population” and that there are “no special protections” for them. The Belmont Report principles, which boards should implicitly follow, emphasize heightened ethical responsibility for vulnerable groups. The documented harms like “emotional damage,” “family fragmentation,” and “attachment rupture and emotional trauma” directly contradict the boards’ protective mandate.
Ignoring Lack of Scientific Validity and Reliability: The findings of “poor to unacceptable” inter-rater reliability and the assertion that the evaluations “lack reliability, validity, and standardized methodology” are critical. Licensing boards are responsible for ensuring that licensed professionals use scientifically sound practices. Allowing the continued use of procedures that “cannot be considered a scientific or forensic assessment” indicates a significant lapse.
Absence of Oversight and Accountability: The chat details a complete lack of IRB-like review, risk-benefit analysis, harm monitoring, or adverse outcome reporting for these evaluations. This “uncontrolled experiment on families” operates without the kind of oversight that would be mandatory in other fields involving human subjects. The fact that this system is allowed to persist suggests a failure of the boards to institute necessary safeguards.
Neglecting Conflicts of Interest: The analysis points out “widespread financial incentives” and a “structural conflict of interest” within the industry. If licensing boards are not addressing these conflicts, particularly regarding evaluators in positions of authority who advocate for practices from which they financially benefit, they are failing in their duty to ensure unbiased and ethical professional conduct.
Disregarding Commission Findings: The New York Blue-Ribbon Commission’s findings, especially the majority vote for elimination and the strong condemnation of these evaluations as “biased and harmful,” “dangerous,” and lacking “scientific or legal value”, put licensing boards “on notice”. If boards fail to act significantly on such damning conclusions from an official body, it represents a failure to respond to clear evidence of systemic harm and unethical practice.

 

In summary, the documented issues point to a profound gap between the ethical and professional standards that licensing boards are mandated to enforce and the reported reality of forensic custody evaluations in family courts.

 

Craig Childress, Psy.D. – Eliza 5.1 (ChatGPT) – Google Gemini
Clinical Psychologist & AI
WA 61538481 – CA 18857