Category: Uncategorized

I don’t go to read Karen Woodall’s blogs.  Occasionally, people send me a Woodall blog to get my reaction.

The solution is on its way, and it’s time to address the Gardnerian faction. Karen Woodall is the most direct and active representation of the Gardnerian PAS approach.

I’ve read all the Gardnerian literature.  I don’t cite it because it’s not really relevant or valuable.  The Gardnerian approach is a proposal for a new form of pathology that requires an equally new and unique set of symptom identifiers.

According to the Gardnerians, this pathology is so unique in all of mental health, that its diagnosis requires its own set of new and unique symptom identifiers – that are unlike any other symptom pathology in all of mental health; symptom identifiers are made up by one guy to be unique for this pathology alone in all of mental health.

Historically, their label for this supposedly new form of pathology started as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) as they proposed the specialness of this pathology as a new “syndrome” – a unique new constellation of symptoms into a cohesive pathology.

Through controversial assertions made by Gardner and issues surrounding false allegations of sexual abuse by mothers, and Gardner’s troubling statements about child sexuality (Gardner Quotes on Child Sexuality), established mental health professionals grew uncomfortable with PAS.  Opponents of Gardner then correctly identified that his proposed model for a new form of pathology – a new syndrome – lacked professional grounding and scientifically established validity.

This was a valid criticism of a proposal for a new form of pathology.  I studied with Dr. David Foy at Pepperdine.  He was one of the principle figures in getting the diagnosis of PTSD accepted by the DSM system following the Vietnam war.  Lots and lots of vets with post-traumatic stress symptoms but no disorder – no diagnosis.

The group that formed the PTSD diagnosis in the years following the Vietnam war set about defining and describing the pathology from within standard and established constructs and principles of trauma and the traumatized brain.  They also collected lots-and-lots of prevalence data.  They never left the path of professional psychology.  No new “magical” symptoms.

While I wasn’t part of that process for the PTSD pathology, I know what they did and how they did it because I had Dr. Foy as an instructor in cognitive-behavioral theory and he told us what they did and how they did it.

As an aside since I’m talking about Dr. Foy and cognitive-behavioral psychology…

CBT has very good stuff – I’d recommend that Karen Woodall, Bill Bernet, and all of Gardnerians stop for a moment and try to explain the pathology of “parental alienation” and its treatment from entirely within CBT constructs.

It’s possible, and I can do it for you if you’d like.  But I think you’ll get more out of it if you try it for yourself – try explaining the pathology of “parental alienation” using ONLY the constructs and principles of CBT.

Gardnerian PAS was quickly discredited and locked in controversy.  This left the professional field adrift.  There is actually a pathology but the model for the pathology was fully rejected.

in the next phase the Gardnerian PAS people dropped the word “syndrome” from the construct – making the pathology just “parental alienation” (no PAS; small p, small a “parental alienation).  But although they changed the name from Parental Alienation Syndrome to “parental alienation” – no syndrome – everything else remained exactly the same.  Exactly the same 8 symptoms.  Exactly the same mild-moderate-severe (dimensional) diagnostic structure.  Exactly the same “new form of pathology” proposal.

In a 2009 article in the Journal of Child Custody, the PAS critic Joan Meier, a Georgetown University Law Professor, critiqued the transition from Parental Alienation Syndrome to “parental alienation” and the “alienated child.”  While I would take exception to her framing of issues, there are many of her lines of argument that are spot-on accurate.

Let me offer you Joan Meier’s description of Gardnerian “parental alienation”

From Meier: “The many critiques of Gardner have resulted in a shift—at least among leading researchers and scholars of custody evaluation—from support for PAS to support for a ‘‘reformulation of PAS’’ typically called instead ‘‘parental alienation’’ or ‘‘the alienated child’’ (Johnston, 2005; Steinberger, 2006).  Johnston and Kelly (2004a), along with Drozd and Olesen (discussed in Meier, in press), are among the leading credible researchers spearheading this trend.” (Meir, 2009, p. 246)

From Meier: “Johnston and Kelly have clearly stated that PAS does not exist, that Gardner’s version of it is ‘‘overly simplistic’’ and tautological, and that the data do not support labeling alienation a ‘‘syndrome.’’ Instead, they speak of ‘‘parental alienation’’ or ‘‘child alienation,’’ as a valid concept that describes a real phenomenon experienced by some children in the context of custody disputes.” (Meir, 2009, p. 246)

From Meier: “What is the difference between PAS and PA?  The primary shift in focus appears to be away from Gardner’s obsession with the purportedly alienating parent and toward a more realistic assessment of the multiple sources of the child’s hostility or fear of his or her parent, including behavior by both parents and the child’s own vulnerabilities (Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Johnston & Kelly, 2004b; Johnston, 2005).” (Meir, 2009, p. 246)

From Meier: “Johnston (2005) defines an alienated child as one ‘‘who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection and/or fear) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent.  Entrenched alienated children are marked by unambivalent, strident rejection of the parent with no apparent guilt or conflict’’ (p. 762).” (Meier, 2009, p. 246-247)

From Meier: “Another notable difference between PAS and Johnston’s reformulated PA is the renunciation of Gardner’s draconian and brutal ‘‘remedies,’’ including custody-switching to the ‘‘hated’’ parent.  Johnston calls instead for individualized assessments of both the children and the parents’ parenting, maintaining focus on the children’s needs rather than the parents’ ‘‘rights.’’  Reconciliation with the hated parent is not necessarily the only desirable goal; a more realistic and healthy attitude toward both parents is (Johnston, 2005).” (Meier, 2009, p. 246-247)

I’ll be interested to hear a law professor’s analysis of AB-PA and Foundations.  So far, we haven’t heard a thing from Meier about AB-PA.  I wonder what a law professor’s analysis of AB-PA would be?  I wonder if a law professor’s analysis of AB-PA and Foundations is even relevant to the clinical discussion of pathology?

Notice all the people that Meier cites: Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Johnston and Kelly, 2004a, Johnston & Kelly, 2004b; Johnson, 2005; Steinberger, 2006.

Basically the same people Karen Woodall cites.

Notice in my 40-page list of references I cite none of these.  Why?  Because they’re not relevant.

If Meier is citing all these sources, and I am citing none of them because they are irrelevant to AB-PA, then I guess that makes Meier’s 2009 analysis of “parental alienation” irrelevant to AB-PA too.  Poof.  All gone.

The references that are relevant to AB-PA are Bowlby, and Beck, and Minuchin, and Kernberg, and Kohut, and Stern, and van der Kolk, and Millon, and Haley, and Bowen, and Linehan, and Ainsworth, and Lyons-Ruth, and Fonagy.  These are among the leading figures in professional psychology.

Foundations is built upon the work of the leading figures in professional psychology.  I can cite chapter and verse for each component of AB-PA.

Look at the titles of the references in my 40-page personal reference list… you don’t think I can cite chapter and verse support for each piece of AB-PA? – I can absolutely cite chapter and verse.

Not one of the citations by Meier is on my reference list.  None.  Who is Meier going to cite in her discussion of AB-PA?  Bowlby?  Beck?  Minuchin?   I don’t know.  It will be interesting to find out.

As for Meier’s analysis of the “parental alienation” construct itself…

From Meier:  “More Similar than Different. The new approach to alienation blunts some of the more extreme elements of Gardner’s theory and places the problem of alienation in a more moderate and reasonable light (by recognizing the many reasons children can become alienated from a parent). Nonetheless, because the differences between ‘‘alienation’’ and PAS are not firmly established, many discussions of parental alienation still necessarily draw on PAS theory and scholarship, and, at least in practice, invocations of PA appear often to be simply ‘‘old wine in new bottles.’’ (Meier, 2009, p. 246-247)

“Old wine in new bottles.” – Meier, 2009.

Where have I heard that comparison before?

Old Wine in Old Skins – Bernet & Reay, 2015

Oh yeah.  That’s the title of Bernet and Reay’s critique of Foundations, a critique recently cited by Woodall.

Wow.  Isn’t that a curious coincidence.  Exactly – to the word – exactly the same critique made by Meier against “parental alienation” is being used by Bernet and Reay – and now Woodall – in their critique of Foundations and AB-PA.

Anybody else find that curious?  That exactly the same critique – word-for-word – that is used by an ally of the pathogen to discredit Gardnerian “parental alienation” is now being used by the Gardnerian PAS “experts” in their efforts to discredit and marginalize AB-PA?

Anybody else find that curious?

And you know what’s curiouser still?  I’m actually more Gardnerian than the Gardernians.  Listen to this, in summarizing her conclusions about the difference between Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and “parental alienation”:

From Meier: “In short, the reality is that whatever some researchers may say about the differences between PAS and PA, in practice, PA is rarely understood to be different.  Indeed, some proponents of alienation theory simply cite to both PAS and PA without distinction.”

From Meier: “Gardner himself noted that some evaluators used the term ‘‘parental alienation’’ instead of PAS in order to avoid the attacks that reference to a ‘‘syndrome’’ invites.  Gardner opposed this practice, arguing that PAS is a far more severe and entrenched problem than mere ‘‘parental alienation’’ (Gardner, 2002).” (Meier, 2009, p. 247)

Gardner believed that PAS was “far more severe… than mere “parental alienation.”  Wow.  I’d agree with that relative to AB-PA.

AB-PA is far more severe than mere “parental alienation.” Yep, Gardner and I are in agreement.

The cross-generational coalition is very common in families, and while pathological, the less severe forms of cross-generational coalition are far less intense and extreme in their symptom display.

But when we add the splitting pathology of parental narcissistic/(borderline) personality pathology to the already pathological cross-generational coalition, this transmutes the already pathological cross-generational coalition into a particularly severe and malignant form.  When we add the splitting pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent to the cross-generational coalition process, in the mind of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent the ex-spouse MUST also become an ex-parent.

The ex-wife MUST become an ex-mother; the ex-husband must become an ex-father.  This is a neurologically imposed imperative of the splitting pathology of the brain.

This psychological requirement for the narcissistic/(borderline) parent that the ex-spouse also become an ex-parent is so strong that it becomes an obsessive fixation – a neurologically imposed imperative – driving the behavior of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

The ex-husband must become an ex-father; the ex-wife must become an ex-mother as well.  This is a neurologically imposed imperative of the splitting pathology.

There is a qualitative and clinical difference in the severe form of this pathology (AB-PA).  Gardner and I are in agreement on this.  Woo, hoo. Chock up one for Dr. C; Gardner agrees with Dr. C.

“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).”

Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

So, Karen, while you focus your attention on those multitude of “hybrid cases” – “mere parental alienation” as Gardner might call it – I think we should go solve the pathology that Gardner was talking about… you know, that severe one – the real bad stuff.  How about we go solve that?

Gardner says that the severe form of the pathology is different from garden-varieties of “alienation” – and I am saying that AB-PA is a distinctly different, more severe manifestation of the cross-generational coalition (Minuchin; Haley) because of the addition of parental narcissistic and borderline splitting pathology to the cross-generational coalition.

The Solution:  So How Soon?

It was interesting when I reviewed my response to Bernet and Reay’s analysis of Foundations (Old Wine in Old Skins, I know they got the saying wrong), I noticed this statement from the conclusion of my response to them:

From Dr. Childress (2015):  “My challenge to Drs. Bernet and Reay is, I wonder how much faster we can achieve the solution to “parental alienation” offered by an attachment-based model (as described on my blog) with your active support in making establishment mental health aware of the new paradigm offered by an attachment-based reformulation for the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation.”

From Dr. Childress (2015):  “With your active support could we achieve the seven-step solution to “parental alienation” which I describe on my blog by Christmas of 2015?  By this Christmas?  That’s only three months away, but with your active support it might be possible.  There is nothing that stands in the way of a solution to “parental alienation” other than the ignorance of establishment metal health that an attachment-based reformulation of the pathology from entirely within established and accepted psychological principles and constructs exists.”  (Childress, 2015, p. 3)

Well, needless to say, Dr. Bernet, Dr. Reay, and Karen Woodall – the “parental alienation experts” – did not provide their “active support in making mental health aware of the new paradigm offered by an attachment-based reformulation for the pathology.”

Two years later, we are still working to make professional psychology aware of AB-PA – and we are still without the help of Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall.  And more and more children continue to be sacrificed to the pathology.

How many children could we have saved from the pathology in 2016 and 2017 if Dr. Bernet, and Dr. Reay, and Karen Woodall had helped us in 2015 “in making establishment mental health aware of the new paradigm offered by an attachment-based reformulation for the pathology”?  How many children could we have saved – and how many did we lose?

I don’t care if you call it the “pure form of alienation” – I don’t care if you call it Bob – let’s just solve it, okay?

Just as in 2015 – two years ago – I said that:

“There is nothing that stands in the way of a solution to “parental alienation” other than the ignorance of establishment metal health that an attachment-based reformulation of the pathology from entirely within established and accepted psychological principles and constructs exists.” (Childress, 2015, p. 3)

The same is true in 2017.  There remains only one barrier: ignorance.

We are making significant inroads.  Professional psychology is becoming increasingly aware of AB-PA, and AB-PA is beginning to be used in professional psychology.  I know this to be true.  I’ve consulted with the mental health professionals – I’m seeing the changes occur around us.  Mental health professionals are beginning to wake up from their conceptual slumber.

But how many children and families did we lose over the last two years, from 2015 to 2017.

If we had gotten the “active support” of Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall, could we have saved them?  I am of the opinion that we could have.  If we had gotten the active support of Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall in 2015, there are likely thousands and thousands of children and families we could have saved over the last two years.

You know why I’m being harsh with Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall?  That’s why.  For all of the children we lost in the last two years that we could have saved if Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall had given their active support to the solution.

In 2015, I made the call to end “parental alienation” (AB-PA) in three months, by Christmas of 2015.

In 2017, I make the call to end “parental alienation” (AB-PA) in three months, by Christmas of 2017.

Is that do-able?  With the active support of Dr. Bernet and Karen Woodall, I think it is.  It’s an audacious goal.  But I think it’s do-able; and shouldn’t we at least try to end this nightmare as fast as is humanly possible?  I wanted Christmas 2015 – so for me Christmas 2017 is far too long.

What do you say, Dr. Bernet?  Karen?  The only thing that stands in the way of the solution is ignorance that AB-PA exists.  Can we solve this pathology, please.  Then you can play with your “hybrid cases” to your heart’s content, discussing this and that feature of the pathology – but can we please solve the severe form of the pathology that Gardner was talking about, please.

So many children and families are suffering.  They need the solution today – they needed the solution yesterday.

What do you say, Dr. Bernet?  Karen Woodall?  Will you actively bring your voices to educating professional psychology about AB-PA.

Do you want to know how?

On October 20th in Houston, Texas, I will be presenting a talk about the AB-PA Key Solution Pilot Program for the Family Courts.  Tell people you know about this October 20th seminar in Houston.  See if people you know would like to attend.  They can contact Dwilene Lindsey at Children4Tomorrow to register (although in Houston, registration may require a boat).

There is a booklet available through Amazon.com that describes the Key Solution Pilot Program.  Send this booklet out to various people you know.

There is a booklet available on Amazon.com regarding the Contingent Visitation Schedule.  Send this booklet out to various people you know.

On November 18^th – 20^th I’ll be presenting a set of AB-PA Certification seminars in Pasadena.  Alert people you know about these seminars and recommend they attend.  Make a public statement that you recommend that mental health professionals should attend the November 18^th – 20^th AB-PA Certification Seminars if they can.

That’s a full month before Christmas, 2017.  Do you think if you did that we could actually begin seeing the widespread solution to “parental alienation” by Christmas of 2017?

I do.

But if you choose to withhold your active support for the solution, then my question becomes how many more children will be sacrificed before we eventually achieve the solution?

Let’s solve “parental alienation” (AB-PA) by Christmas of 2017.  Bill?  Karen?  What do you say.  Can we please solve this pathology?

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

On November 18th and 19th at the Westin Hotel in Pasadena, I will begin training and Certification in Attachment-Based “Parental Alienation” (AB-PA).

My goal is to establish a baseline standard for the required professional knowledge needed to appropriately assess, accurately diagnose, and effectively treat attachment-related pathology surrounding high-conflict divorce.

I will be offering two levels of Certification in AB-PA:

Two-Day Basic Certification Seminar:  The Basic Certification seminar provides all of the information needed to appropriately assess, accurately diagnose, and effectively treat attachment-related pathology surrounding high-conflict divorce.

After providing the content of these two seminar days, I will feel completely comfortable certifying that this mental health professional has been provided with all of the information necessary to appropriately assess, accurately diagnose, and effectively treat attachment-related pathology surrounding high-conflict divorce.

One-Day Advanced Certification Seminar:  Participation in the Advanced Certification seminar requires prior completion of the Basic Certification seminar.  The Advanced Certification seminar more fully elaborates on the deep features of the pathology.

I am putting a limit of 20 participants for the Basic Certification seminar and 10 for the Advanced seminar.  This will allow for responsive discussion during the seminars.

The content organization for the seminars is:

AB-PA Basic Certification Seminar: Day 1 Agenda

Day 1 is the substantive ground.

Morning:  The Attachment-Based Model of “Parental Alienation”

Much of this information is available through Foundations, and I will assume that participants have a basic familiarity with the structure of an attachment-based model.

In the morning segments of the seminar I will cover the basic structure of AB-PA with a special focus on emphasizing the integration of the three levels of pathology and providing the origin-context for the emergence of the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA and the 12 Associated Clinical Signs.

Afternoon:  The Diagnostic Indicators of AB-PA

The afternoon session of Day 1 begins with describing the origins for each of the 3 diagnostic indicators of AB-PA, with elaboration of the surrounding pathology context for each symptom’s emergence.   This is followed by a description of the 12 Associated Clinical Signs of the pathology, the origin of each within the pathology, and an elaboration of the surrounding pathology context for each symptom’s emergence.

By the end of Day 1, participants will know exactly what the pathology is and exactly how to 100% identify it when it is present (and to equally determine when it is not present).

The first seminar day ends at 4:00.  From 4:30 to 6:00 on November 18th, Dr. Childress will be available for an appetizer cocktail hour discussion with seminar participants.

AB-PA Basic Certification Seminar: Day 2 Agenda

Day 2 is packed full with practical information.

Morning:  Assessment of AB-PA

The morning section of Day 2 will train participants in conducting the structured Treatment-Focused Assessment protocol, including the purpose and information generated from each of the six assessment sessions.

The morning section of Day 2 will also describe the integrated use of the protocol documentation instruments (the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting, the Parenting Practices Rating Scale, and the Parent-Child Conflict Coding System to document the pathology for written treatment plan report writing.  Practical guidance on writing the treatment plan report for the Court will be provided.

The training in the Treatment-Focused Assessment protocol will include descriptions of the behavior-chain interview technique and assessing for stimulus control features that can reliably and definitively identify authentic versus inauthentic parent-child conflict.

Afternoon:  The Treatment of AB-PA

The afternoon section of Day 2 will describe the Strategic family systems foundations to the Contingent Visitation Schedule, how to construct it, modify it, and implement it as a Response-to-Intervention trial and to provide long-term stabilization for the family.

The afternoon section of Day 2 will describe psychotherapy approaches to restoring the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations through processing sadness (grief), and methods for acquiring and stabilizing the child’s self-authenticity.

The afternoon section of Day 2 will also describe the High Road protocol’s role and approach to restoring normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system in a matter of a days.  In High-Road augmented recovery, the role of the treating mental health professional changes from healing the damage to stabilizing the recovery.  The afternoon’s material of Day 2 will describe the integration of mental health treatment with the child’s High-Road mediated recovery.

Post-Seminar Consultation:  Certification is more than receiving content, it includes ensuring accurate direct application of the material to complex family situations.  Basic Certification in AB-PA through The Childress Institute includes an additional four hours of optional post-seminar individual Skype consultation for each seminar participant in the 12 months following the seminar, regarding the application of AB-PA to specific cases encountered by the mental health professional.

Certification in AB-PA has meaning.

The mental health professional who is Certified in AB-PA by The Childress Institute knows exactly how to assess, diagnose, treat and resolve attachment-related family pathology surrounding high-conflict divorce.

The AB-PA Certified mental health professional will be able to effectively and efficiently integrate mental health treatment with the requirements of the Court for documentation and evidenced-based decision-making.

The AB-PA Certified mental health professional will have a level of professional knowledge and expertise that can be relied on.

AB-PA Advanced Certification Seminar: Agenda

The Advanced seminar has four content sections:

Morning (9:00 – 10:30):  The Pathogen, Trauma, and Damaged Information Structures.

Morning (10:45 – 12:00): The Intersubjective System (psychological connection)

Afternoon (1:00 – 2:30): Dark Variations: Malignant Narcissism, Sadistic Impulse, the Dark Triad

Afternoon (2:45 – 4:00): Advanced Treatment Techniques

The Advanced seminar contains the truly remarkable material.

Post-Seminar Consultation: Advanced Certification in AB-PA through The Childress Institute includes an additional two hours of optional post-seminar individual Skype consultation for each seminar participant in the 12 months following the seminar, regarding the application of AB-PA to specific cases encountered by the mental health professional.

Registration for the November seminars is through The Childress Institute website:

Registration: The Childress Institute

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

When I refer to the pathogen, I am talking about a characteristic set of damaged information structures in the brain networks of the attachment system; the love-and-bonding system of the brain.

When the pathogenic agent (a particular set of damaged information structures) is contained within an attachment system, it acts in characteristic ways.

The Group Mind

A highly characteristic feature of this pathogen (this particular set of damaged information structures in the attachment system), is the social motivation to form the group-mind of the collective experience.  In the early literature on “parental alienation,” this group-mind feature of the pathogen led to associations to brain-washing and to the pathology of cult formation.

The pathogen surrounding narcissistic pathology creates a group-mind phenomenon that has cult-like characteristics, and this group-mind quality has actually generated a cultural label; Flying Monkeys.

From Wikipedia.  “Flying monkeys is a phrase used in popular psychology mainly in the context of narcissistic abuse. They are people who act on behalf of a narcissist to a third party, usually for an abusive purpose.  The phrase has also been used to refer to people who act on behalf of a psychopath for a similar purpose.  Abuse by proxy (or proxy abuse) is a closely related concept.  Flying monkeys are distinct from enablers.  Enablers just allow or cover for the narcissist’s (abuser’s) own bad behavior.”

The professional-scientific construct for the formation of a shared psychological state is called “intersubjectivity,” and the psychology of the shared-mind process is mediated by a set of brain cells called “mirror neurons” that are designed to register the intent of other people (PBS Nova: Mirror Neurons).

If you want to learn more about the intersubjective (shared-mind) brain system, Daniel Stern (1985/2004) provides the structural-neurological core for intersubjectivity (drawing on the collateral work of Tronick, Trevarthan, Beebe, and Shore).  Stern describes the central role of empathy (attunement) and empathic failures (misattunement) within the intersubjective system of a shared psychological state.  The scientific literature in this area has also been described in an accessible way by Daniel Siegel (1999), and Louis Cozolino’s (2006) book in the area of the social brain is also worth the read in this “shared-mind” domain.  Fonagy’s work in this area is truly remarkable.

Stern, D.N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books.

Stern, D. (2004). The Present Moment in Psychotherapy and Everyday Life. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Siegel, D.J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of interpersonal experience. NewYork: Guilford.

Cozolino, L. (2006): The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain. WW Norton & Company, New York.

Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., and Strathearn, L. (2011). Borderline personality disorder, mentalization, and the neurobiology of attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32, 47-69.

Fonagy P. & Target M. (2005). Bridging the transmission gap: An end to an important mystery in attachment research? Attachment and Human Development, 7, 333-343.

In my work with clients, I call this brain system of the shared-mind the “psychological connection” system.  This intersubjective brain system is the brain system that allows us to feel what the actors feel in the movies just as if we were having the experience ourselves.

The intersubjectivity brain system – the brain system governing “psychological connection” – has received extensive scientific study because it is incredibly important in early childhood mental health for a variety of reasons, including its role in language acquisition, it’s role in autism-spectrum pathology, and its foundational role in identity development and self-structure formation.

From Stern: “Our nervous systems are constructed to be captured by the nervous systems of others.  Our intentions are modified or born in a shifting dialogue with the felt intentions of others.  Our feelings are shaped by the intentions, thoughts, and feelings of others.  And our thoughts are cocreated in dialogue, even when it is only with ourselves.  In short, our mental life is correlated.  This continuous cocreative dialogue with other minds is what I am calling the intersubjective matrix.” (Stern, 2004, p. 76)

From Stern: “The intersubjective system can be considered separate from and complementary to the attachment motivational system.” (p. 100)

From Stern: “Intersubjectivity is a condition of humanness.  I will suggest that it is also an innate, primary system of motivation, essential for species survival, and has a status like sex or attachment. “(p. 97)

From Stern: “The discovery of mirror neurons has been crucial.  Mirror neurons provide possible neurobiological mechanisms for understanding the following phenomena: reading other people’s states of mind, especially intentions; resonating with another’s emotion; experiencing what someone else is experiencing; and capturing an observed action so that one can imitate it — in short, empathizing with another and establishing intersubjective contact.” (Stern, 2004; p. 78)

The group-mind formation of the AB-PA pathogen represents the continuous over-activation of the shared-mind intersubjective system of the brain (a psychological connection system of the brain that is “complementary to the attachment motivational system”).

We see the malignancy of shared-mind pathology in the group-mind of the Nazis in the 1930s, in the group-mind extremism of al-Qaeda, and in the pathological group-mind of racist ideology.  We see a more benign version of this group-mind feature in sports fans and social fads.  What turns a benign socially bonded group-mind into a pathological expression of anger and vengeance?  A: Trauma.  If there is a specific set of damaged information structures in the attachment system, this set of damaged information structures will hijack the brain’s shared-mind system of intersubjectivity and turn it toward the regulation of the trauma-pain; loneliness and psychological isolation.

In two-person relationships and families, the pathological shared-mind is called “enmeshment” (Minuchin). When the pathogen forms a larger group-mind, the pathological shared-mind is called a cult.  In extremely malevolent strains, the pathogen’s cult becomes the extremist pathological anger of the Nazis and al-Qaeda.

In the pathology of “parental alienation” (AB-PA), the trauma pathogen in the attachment networks is hijacking the intersubjective system of the brain (the shared-mind psychological connection system of the brain) and is creating a pathology of group-mind in the child’s relationship with the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.  The child psychologically disappears in the shared-mind with the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

Identity Disturbance

The intersubjective system is also linked to identity formation and identity stability.

From Stern: “A second felt need for intersubjective orientation is to define, maintain, or reestablish self identity and self cohesion – to make contact with ourselves.   We need the eyes of others to make contact with ourselves.  We need the eyes of others to form and hold ourselves together.” (Stern, 2004, p. 107)

From Stern: “Without some continual input from an intersubjective matrix, human identity dissolves or veers off in odd ways.” (Stern, 2004)

The pathology of AB-PA is a distortion to the child’s identity formation.  The pathological “eyes of the other” contained in the parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent cause identity disorientation and confusion in the child.  Into this identity confusion and disorientation are inserted the feelings, needs, motivations, and desires of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.  The child’s identity is taken over by the allied parent.  The child’s self-authenticity is lost as the identity of the parent becomes the identity of the child in the shared group-mind of the intersubjective system.

Scientifically Grounded

Notice what happens when we return to using the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology to describe the pathology.  A child’s rejection of a parent is an attachment-related pathology (a pathology in the love and bonding system of the brain).  We then gain access to all of the scientific research on the attachment system.

The attachment system is a “complementary” brain system to the intersubjective brain system of the shared-mind (mediated by a set of brain cells called mirror neurons – PBS Nova: Mirror Neurons).  The pathogen in the attachment networks has captured the “complementary” intersubjective system and distorted it into an over-activated state of continual psychological fusion.

We acquire access to all of the scientific research on intersubjectivity and the shared-mind (Stern, Tronick, Trevarthan, Siegel, Shore, Fonagy).

From Tronick: “When mutual regulation is particularly successful, that is when the age-appropriate forms of meaning (e.g., affects, relational intentions, representations) from one individual’s state of consciousness are coordinated with the meanings of another’s state of consciousness — I have hypothesized that a dyadic state of consciousness emerges.” (Tronick, 2003, p. 475)

Once we apply the scientifically established constructs and principles of professional psychology to the attachment-related family pathology of a child rejecting a normal-range parent surrounding divorce (“parental alienation”; AB-PA), a truly immense bounty of amazing insights are revealed about how trauma impacts these brain systems – across generations.

Once we return to using standard and established constructs and principles to describe the pathology, a wealth of scientific information becomes available.

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

Tronick, E.Z. (2003). Of course all relationships are unique: How co-creative processes generate unique mother-infant and patient-therapist relationships and change other relationships. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 23, 473-491.

This is what you’re looking for…

If you see that, then this is what you’re looking at…

If that is what you’re looking at, then this is what you do…

---

---

I want to carry this theme for a bit.  Like a spiral, we’ll be drilling down in a circle of three sentences to expose the rock-solid core of the issues.

Assessment:  This is what you’re looking for…

Diagnosis:  If you see that, then this is what you’re looking at:

Treatment:  If that is what you’re looking at, then this is what you do:

Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.

Assessment

Assessment is the set of procedures used to identify the symptom patterns of various pathologies.

In assessment, the clinician is looking for the symptom patterns of known pathologies.  The more patterns one is familiar with as a mental health professional, the more the symptoms tell you about the origins of the pathology.

Assessment begins by knowing what symptoms you’re looking for from various pathologies.  That’s why we earn advanced degrees in psychology, we’re learning the patterns of symptoms for various pathologies from differing organizing systems.  What is the pattern of symptoms for autism?  What is the pattern of symptoms surrounding ADHD?  Is the child displaying the pattern of symptoms associated with an anxiety disorder?

Now here’s a very specific question:

What is the pattern of symptoms displayed in a family containing a spouse/parent who has prominent narcissistic and/or borderline personality pathology, in response to the inherent rejection and perceived abandonment surrounding divorce?

We know that the narcissistic personality is vulnerable to rejection and that the borderline personality is vulnerable to abandonment fears.  Neither of these personalities is going to respond well to the inherent rejection and the triggering of abandonment fears associated with divorce.  So what is the pattern of symptoms we’re going to see in the family as a result of the psychological collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent surrounding divorce?

This is the key to the assessment of “parental alienation”:

Q:  What is the pattern of symptoms associated with the collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent in response to the inherent rejection and perceived abandonment surrounding divorce?

A:  AB-PA answers that question by identifying three specific child symptoms that are evidence of the psychological collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality spouse/parent in response to divorce:

Attachment system suppression toward a normal-range parent (diagnostic indicator 1)

Personality disorder traits in the child’s symptom display (diagnostic indicator 2)

Delusional belief in the child’s supposed “victimization” (diagnostic indicator 3)

This is the symptom pattern described by AB-PA (Foundations) to answer the question of what pattern of symptoms is displayed in a family with a narcissistic/(borderline) spouse/parent who is psychologically collapsing in response to the divorce.

Foundations describes exactly and fully where these three symptoms come from in the pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) personality.

The ONLY pathology in all of mental health that will create this specific pattern of three child symptoms (attachment system suppression, personality disorder traits, an encapsulated persecutory delusion) is the psychological collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality spouse/parent in response to divorce (as described in Foundations).

No other pathology in all of mental health will produce this specific set of three child symptoms other than the collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality spouse/parent in response to divorce.

This is what you’re looking for:

Attachment system suppression (diagnostic indicator 1)

Specific personality disorder pathology in the child’s symptom display (diagnostic indicator 2)

An encapsulated persecutory delusion in the child’s symptom display (diagnostic indicator 3)

This is what you’re looking for (this is what you’re assessing for): those three symptoms of AB-PA, attachment system suppression, personality disorder traits, an encapsulated persecutory delusion.

This is what you’re looking at:

If you see those three symptoms (assessment), then this is what you’re looking at… (diagnosis)

This is what you’re looking for (assessment):  The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA.

This is what you’re looking at (diagnosis):  The collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent surrounding divorce.

Do we need to prove that the allied parent has narcissistic and/or borderline personalty pathology?  No.  Why?  Because those three child symptoms are the symptom pattern for the collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent surrounding divorce.  No other pathology in all of mental health will produce that specific pattern of symptoms in the child other than pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

This is what you’re looking for:  The three diagnostic symptoms of AB-PA.

If you see that, this is what you’re looking at:  Severe Parental Psychopathology.

Narcissistic and borderline personalty pathology is severely distorting to interpersonal relationships and is unlikely to ever change.  This parent will, with almost 100% certainty, triangulate the child into the spousal conflict.

Because narcissistic and borderline personality pathology is so severely pathological and highly resistant to change, it is highly likely that this family will require at least five years (maybe more) of active mental health stabilization following the divorce.

This is what you’re looking at:  Child Psychological Abuse.

Parental narcissistic/(borderline) personality pathology that is creating:

1.)  Severe developmental psychopathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1: attachment system suppression),

2.)  Severe personality disorder psychopathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2: five specific narcissistic personality disorder traits displayed by the child),

3.)  Severe delusional-psychotic psychopathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3: an encapsulated persecutory delusion),

is a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

This is what you do:

If this is what you’re looking at (diagnosis), then this is what you do (treatment):

Assessment:  This is what you’re looking for:  The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA.

Diagnosis:  If you see that (the three diagnostic indicators), then this is what you’re looking at:

1.)  The collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent surrounding divorce,

2.)  Severe parental psychopathology,

3.)  A DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (the creation of severe psychopathology in the child by pathogenic parenting practices).

Treatment:  If that is what you’re looking at, then this is what you do:

Protective Separation:  In all cases of child abuse (physical child abuse, sexual child abuse, and psychological child abuse) the professional standard of practice and duty to protect requires the child’s protective separation from the abusive parent.

High Road Protocol:  If needed, Dorcy Pruter’s High Road workshop will gently and effectively restore the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment bonding motivations within a matter of days.

The Contingent Visitation Schedule:  A Strategic family systems intervention that offers a Response to Intervention (RTI) alternative to a complete protective separation, and that can help stabilize family functioning following a protective separation and the reintroduction of the pathogenic parenting of the psychologically abusive parent.

AB-PA Key Solution:  The teaming of an AB-PA Certified mental health professional with an AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney to provide long-term stabilization of family functioning.

The professional rationale for the protective separation is the confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.

The AB-PA Key teaming of an AB-PA Certified mental health professional with an AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney is the treatment-oriented solution response to the severity and chronicity of the parental personality pathology within the family.

The High Road protocol and the Contingent Visitation Schedule are additional options that can be applied as warranted in individual cases.

If the High Road protocol is used to quickly and gently restore the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations within a matter of days, then the AB-PA Certified mental health professional serves as the follow-up recovery stabilization and “maintenance care” therapist for the family.

If the Contingent Visitation Schedule is used, then the AB-PA Certified therapist serves as the Organizing Family Therapist to develop and implement the court-ordered Contingent Visitation Schedule.

Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.

Assessment:  This is what you’re looking for…

The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA: attachment system suppression toward a normal-range parent (diagnostic indicator 1), five specific narcissistic personality traits in the child’s symptom display (diagnostic indicator 2), an encapsulated persecutory delusion regarding the child’s supposed “victimization” by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent.

Diagnosis: If you see that, then this is what you’re looking at…

The psychological collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent surrounding the divorce (and/or surrounding the remarriage of the other spouse following divorce).

A DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed based on the severity of the child’s pathology created by the pathogenic parenting of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent.

Treatment: If that is what you’re looking at, then this is what you do…

Protective Separation

The High Road Protocol

The Contingent Visitation Schedule

AB-PA Key Solution

This linkage series is not a matter of opinion.  This is a rock solid fact.

There is no other pathology in all of mental health that will produce that specific set of three child symptoms other than the collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent surrounding divorce. (Assessment)

The collapse of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality is a severe form of psychopathology within the family, and the creation of severe psychopathology in the child is a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. (Diagnosis)

The confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 provides the professional rationale for the protective separation, and the severity of the parental personality pathology warrants the insertion of an AB-PA Key team to stabilize the family’s post-divorce functioning and transition to a healthy separated family structure. (Treatment)

This linked series is not a matter of opinion.  It is a rock-solid locked-in fact.

Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.

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

Karen, I have a present for you.

I know that you’re all concerned about the different “hybrid” variants of “alienation,” and I know that you’re a parental alienation expert and all, but when you enter the world of general parent-child conflict, what you’re calling “hybrid cases” – well you’re spot-on in my domain of expertise now.

I’m an ADHD expert.  Because of that, I’m also an oppositional-defiant expert, with a particular focus in angry, grumpy, fighting families, and I’m an expert in high-functioning autism, along with learning disabilities, problematic parenting, sensory-motor dysregulation, school failure, post-divorce, delinquency, step-families – all the possible things that are creating family conflict and are co-morbid factors to ADHD.

So when you’re in the world of not “pure alienation” parent-child conflict as you characterize it, that’s my professional home as a child and family clinical psychologist.

Since I know you have an interest in what you’re calling “hybrid” cases of “alienation” that are caused by “many factors,” I’d like to offer you a gift that you might find helpful.  It’s something I started in 2014, I then did some additional work with it in 2015, and I’m hoping I’ll be getting back to it once we solve “parental alienation.”

It’s a coding system for all forms of parent-child conflict.  Everything.  Every type – every causal factor – of parent-child conflict can be captured with a unique number sequence by this coding system.

Parent-Child Conflict Coding System

I want you to have it.  It might help you keep track of all the different “hybrid” variants of parent-child conflict there are.

On the first page is the coding form for AB-PA.  Since AB-PA has two variants, there are two coding variants for the AB-PA “Syndrome Category” (SC), the narcissistic variant (SC-01: 01) and the borderline variant (SC-01: 02).  Notice that the Primary Origin code and the first of the Secondary Factors codes are the same for both variants.  The narcissistic variant differs from the borderline variant due to the influence of differing Parent Vulnerability factors.

Also notice all the Modifiers at the bottom (listed as the same for both variants).  While all of these modifiers may not be present in any specific case, I’d say that at least the first two, Narcissistic Parent (NP) and Terminal Course (TC), must be present for it to be AB-PA.

So the pathology that I am working on solving is categorized on the first page by the two variant codes:

SC-01: 01: AB-PA Pathology; Narcissistic Variant
PCC-05: 02 PCC-00: 02 PCC-04: 01: 01

SC-01: 02: AB-PA Pathology, Borderline Variant
PCC-05: 02 PCC-00:  02 PCC-04: 03

I highlighted the first two category codes to indicate the common core features of the pathology, and to also emphasize the differing feature for the two variants.  This is not a diagnostic system, it’s a coding system that gives a unique code to all the different types of parent-child conflict – all of them.

If the Parent-Child Conflict codes for the family do not match the codes on that coding sheet describing the category codes for AB-PA, then it’s not AB-PA.

What is it – if it’s not AB-PA?  What is the type of conflict if the family’s category codes are NOT the category codes for AB-PA?

I don’t know… let’s find out…

Start by identifying the primary category of conflict.  Is the parent-child conflict primarily resulting from the child’s inherent vulnerabilities (something like impulsivity problems from ADHD), or is it coming from problematic parenting, goodness-of-fit issues, situational factors…? What is the primary cause?  Assign a Primary Origin category.

Now if we’re talking about a hybrid of “alienation,” then I’d say we’re likely talking about a Primary Origin category of PCC-05:02 Family Systems Strain; Child Triangulation – Parent-Child Coalition Against a Parent.

If you want to call a parent-child conflict that is not primarily a cross-generational coalition of the child with an allied parent a “hybrid” case of “alienation,” you can do that if you want.  Just specify what the Primary Origin category is for the cause of the parent-child conflict.

But if you want to start labeling parent-child conflicts that are primarily caused by factors other than a cross-generational coalition as still being “hybrid cases” of “alienation,” I’m likely to suggest that you’re using an over-broad definition of what “alienation” is, and that we’d do better to use a more restricted coding definition for that form of  pathology.  From where I sit, I think the construct of “hybrid cases” of “alienation” should be restricted to parent-child conflicts with the Primary Origin of PCC-05:02; Family Systems Strain; Child Triangulation – Parent-Child Coalition Against a Parent.

Once you determine the Primary Origin code for the parent-child conflict, then you can add Secondary Factors, child vulnerability factors, parent vulnerability factors, all the different variant influences on creating parent-child conflict.

This will result in a set of code numbers for your variant – for your “hybrid” type of “alienation.”  If you want to get really fancy, rank order the importance of the Secondary Factors from most important to least.

Try it.  You will be able to give any type of parent-child conflict a unique code.  Pick one of your favorite “hybrid” variants and start applying the coding system.  I’ve given you a blank coding sheet in the Appendix.  Start with the Primary Origin code, then add relevant Secondary codes, and look at what you wind up with… a code that uniquely captures the features of that type of parent-child conflict.

Notice the Organizing Headers:

00 Empathic Failure
01 Situational Factors
02 Child Vulnerability Strains
03 Child/Parent Vulnerability Strains
04 Parent Vulnerability Strains
05 Family Systems Strains

Try it for conflicts other than “alienation.” Anything.  Pick a parent-child conflict situation – anything you’d like.  Then assign a Primary Origin code and start developing a (hierarchy) of Secondary Factors, and then look at the completed code you wind up with.

I think it’s a pretty darn good coding system for a very complex issue.  People are going to be hard-pressed to come up with a better coding system that covers ALL types of parent-child conflict any better than the Parent-Child Conflict Coding System.  Every causal factor for every type of parent-child conflict will yield a unique code specifically for that type of conflict.

The key for the coding system is to capture all the possible types of things that go into creating parent-child conflict – normal conflict, abnormal conflict, pathological conflict – everything.  What are all the possible things that contribute to parent-child conflict?

I think I’ve got them all in the Parent-Child Conflict Coding System.  I may have missed one or two, but once it gets rolled out in a couple of years, any gaps in the coding system will become clear, and we just add a feature or two that I may have missed.

I developed the categories in 2014 and I began my work on describing the features of each of the different categories and sub-categories in 2015, describing all the nuances of each factor.  Then I got all busy with “parental alienation” (AB-PA), and I haven’t been able to get back to the expanded descriptions of each category and subcategory of parent-child conflict.  But I’m hoping to have some time to work on this soon.  Once it’s completed, it’s going to be a pretty interesting categorical system for capturing all forms of parent-child conflict.

And you know what, it’s really useful if you want to propose a “syndrome.”  See what I did using the coding system?  I assigned a code number for my proposed “syndrome” (SC-01) and I gave this proposed “syndrome” a name; Attachment-Based Parental Alienation.  Now because there are two variants to AB-PA, I have a second-level code number for each of the variant forms of the AB-PA pathology, the Narcissistic Variant (01) and the Borderline Variant (02).

We then have the category codes for defining each variant of the proposed “syndrome.”  When offering a “syndrome” proposal, I’d recommend for the author to also present a comprehensive description for why that set of conflict categories hold together in an associated group, like Foundations.

Then, you know how we can test whether there is actually a syndrome?  We can collect lots and lots of data in which parent-child conflicts surrounding high-conflict divorce are categorized using the Parent-Child Conflict Coding System and we look to see (do a factor analysis) if we get various coherent groupings that would amount to a “syndrome” – to a particular constellation of causal factors.

Back in 2014 I did a brief workup of the attributions of causality for the parent-child conflict of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) from each person’s perspective.

The Domains of Parent-Child Conflict and the Causal Attributions for “Parental Alienation”

I start off with the list of code categories, and I then provide a category workup for the attributions of causality offered by each person in the “parental alienation” family conflict.

The characteristic attribution of causality codes offered by the allied parent and child are:

PCC-04-01-01
PCC-04-02
PCC-04-04
PCC-00-02
PCC-04-05
PCC-04-XX

These are all attributions of causality to the (targeted) parent.

The category codes for the targeted parent’s attributions of causality for the parent-child conflict are:

PCC-05-02
PCC-05-03

Notice the pattern here.  The child and allied parent are attributing the cause of the parent-child conflict to Category 04; the parenting failures of the targeted parent, while the allied parent is attributing the cause to Category 05; family factors.

When we see this Category constellation of attributions for family conflict (a parent-child attribution to Category 4 and a parent attribution to Category 05), we should at least be thinking about the possibility of SC-01: AB-PA.

I’m still working on the descriptions for each of the category factors… but I know that you’re interested in what you call the various “hybrid” cases of “alienation” that have “many causes,” so I thought I’d provide you with the Parent-Child Conflict Coding System.  You might find it helpful in organizing all the different variants of parent-child conflict.

I assigned the Syndrome Category of SC-01 to AB-PA because… well because I’m the first person using it, so I might as well take the first slot.  If you want to propose some “syndrome” constellation of causal factors, go ahead and take SC-02, give your proposed “syndrome” a name, describe why you expect this grouping of causal categories to hold together into a pattern, and then, when we ultimately collect lots and lots of data, we’ll do a factor analysis on the data and see if the proposed groupings do indeed show up.

But for now, just try out the Parent-Child Conflict Coding System.  Pick a few different types of parent-child conflict, from a kid wanting candy at the supermarket to the most complex type of conflict you can imagine.

To possibly anticipate a question you might have, I’m not sure what you mean by the supposed “split state of mind” for the child that you talk about, so I’m going to hold off commenting on that, but from what I suspect you’re reaching for, the child’s psychological stress from a “split state of mind” that you’re proposing would fall under the category of:

PCC-01:    Situational Factors
07  Child – Stress-Related Emotionality/Behavioral Dysregulation

So I suspect the category code for what you’re calling a “split state of mind” would be: PCC-01: 07

But notice something, if you want to identify the specific type of stress the child is experiencing that is causing the emotional/behavioral dysregulation, we just add another sub-level to this sub-category that lists all the various sources of stress, homework, social issues, a death in the family, changes in residence, probably numbering in the hundreds.  And if you wanted to give “split state of mind” a category number as a source of situational stress, that’s do-able.  We’d have to develop the entire sub-sub-category list of all possible sources of stress, and then embed your “split state of mind” proposal into the list.  But I don’t think that level of specificity adds much of value.  However, if anyone wants to get that specific, the Parent-Child Conflict Coding System can adapt to handle it.  We can get incredibly fine-grained on coding the cause of the parent-child conflict.

And Karen, if I can suggest something,

If you’re not taking and using my stuff… you should be.

The three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA, the trauma reenactment narrative, the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting, the Parenting Practices Rating Scale, and now the Parent-Child Conflict Coding System are all really good stuff.

If you’re not taking and using the systems of information I’m developing, you should be.

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

I’m up in Oregon today taking my daughter back to college and helping her move into her apartment, and just coincidentally we’re here for the eclipse.  Also coincidentally, but I think auspiciously, I am making the third in a series of three announcements.

The first announcement was for The Childress Institute which will be offering Training and Certification in AB-PA.

The second announcement was for the Contingent Visitation Schedule, a Strategic family systems intervention that makes the child’s custody visitation time with the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent contingent on the child being symptom-free.

Within the structure of the Contingent Visitation Schedule, if the child begins to show elevated symptoms of concern as documented on the Parent-Child Rating Scale, then the child’s custody visitation time with the allied narcissistic/(borderline) will be reduced in order to reduce the pathogenic influence of this parent’s problematic parenting on the child, and the child’s time with the targeted parent will be increased in order to repair the parent-child relationship that is being damaged by the pathogenic parenting of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

The Contingent Visitation Schedule requires a court order as a structured treatment modality, and it is directed by an Organizing Family Therapist (an AB-PA Certified mental health professional who is trained in AB-PA and in the management of the Contingent Visitation Schedule)

Announcement 3 is the availability of a booklet on Amazon.com that briefly describes a proposal for a pilot program in the family courts to solve high-conflict divorce:

The Key to Solving High-Conflict Divorce in the Family Courts: Proposal for a Pilot Program in the Family Law Courts

Cumbersome title, but it’s not for you.  It’s a support booklet.  Fifteen pages of text, short and to the point.  Twenty-five pages of appendices – 7 Appendices.

In seven pages this booklet describes the nature of the pathology.

In eight pages this booklet describes a proposal for a pilot program in the family courts of teaming an AB-PA Certified mental health professional with an AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney and inserting this team of high-caliber professional expertise into families evidencing attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.

The Key Solution

When the Court is presented with a case of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce, it first orders a Treatment-Focused Assessment Protocol (Appendix 1) from an assessing AB-PA Certified mental health professional.

This structured six- to eight-session Treatment Focused Assessment protocol produces a report to the Court documenting the family’s treatment-related needs with recommendations (Sample Reports; Appendix 2).

If the assessing AB-PA Certified mental health professional finds evidence for the attachment-related family pathology of AB-PA, as documented on the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting (Appendix 3) and supported by the Parenting Practices Rating Scale (Appendix 4), then the assessing AB-PA Certified mental health professional will recommend the creation of a Key teaming of a treating AB-PA Certified mental health professional and an AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney.

If the assessing AB-PA Certified mental health professional finds that the pathology in the family does not meet symptom criteria for AB-PA, then alternative recommendations will be made based on the treatment-related needs of the family, which may include a recommendation for a six-month Response-to-Intervention (RTI) trial with a Contingent Visitation Schedule to clarify diagnostic considerations and the treatment-related needs of the family.

If the recommendation from the Treatment-Focused Assessment Protocol is for the Court to assemble a Key team of an AB-PA Certified mental health professional and an AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney, then the Court and the parties will select a new AB-PA Certified mental health professional (not the assessing mental health professional) to be the treating AB-PA Certified mental health professional.

If the recommendation from The Treatment-Focused Assessment Protocol is for a 90-day protective separation, then the treating AB-PA Certified mental health professional will treat and recover the child’s healthy development, and will then coordinate the reintroduction of the child’s contact with the psychologically abusive allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent.  If practical, the targeted parent and children will begin the 90-day protective separation period with the High Road protocol to restore the children’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations within the first few days of the protective separation period, and the treating AB-PA Certified mental health professional will then provide follow-up recovery stabilization therapeutic support.

If the recommendation from The Treatment-Focused Assessment Protocol is for a six-month Response-to-Intervention trial with the Contingent Visitation Schedule, then the treating AB-PA Certified mental health professional will become the Organizing Family Therapist for the Contingent Visitation Schedule.  If the six-month RTI trial with the Contingent Visitation Schedule does not succeed in resolving and stabilizing the family’s pathology, then a 9-month protective separation with a High Road augmented recovery response is warranted, and the treating AB-PA Certified mental health professional becomes the treating family therapist for the family.

During all interventions, either a protective separation period, a Contingent Visitation Schedule, and follow-up recovery stabilization, the narcissistic/(borderline) parent should be court ordered into collateral individual therapy (and possibly conjoint co-parenting therapy) with the treating AB-PA Certified mental health professional.

Working as a team, the AB-PA Certified mental health professional and the AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney will ensure all Court orders necessary for effective treatment.

The Key team of an AB-PA Certified mental health professional and the AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney will continue their active involvement with the family over at least a five-year period (possibly longer, depending on the psychological needs in the family) of stabilizing the family’s ability to make a successful transition to a functional and successful separated family structure of effective and nurturing co-parenting.

All family conflicts regarding co-parenting will be resolved through the mediating treatment-related influence of the AB-PA Certified mental health professional, with legal interface and support from the AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney.  The goal is to foster effective and successful co-parenting and conflict resolution skills, and the family’s successful transition to a relatively healthy separated family structure that does NOT triangulate the child into the spousal conflicts, and that will substantially limit the family’s reliance on litigation as a problem-solving approach.

The Three Pieces of the Solution

Announcement 1 establishes the foundation for creating the AB-PA Certified mental health professionals and AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorneys for the Key Solution Pilot Program for the Family Courts.

Announcement 2 provides a potential compromise solution to a protective separation period, the Strategic family systems intervention of the Contingent Visitation Schedule, as a Court-ordered intervention that will be directed by an AB-PA Certified mental health professional.

Announcement 3 is a pilot program proposal for the family law courts that brings all of these component pieces into an organized and replicable framework for successfully resolving all cases of attachment-related pathology surrounding high-conflict divorce.

On October 20^th in Houston, Texas, I will be presenting a 4-hour seminar hosted by Children4Tomorrow regarding AB-PA and the Pilot Program Proposal for the Family Courts.  The booklet now available on Amazon is a support booklet for the October 20^th seminar in Houston.

The Key to Solving High-Conflict Divorce in the Family Courts: Proposal for a Pilot Program in the Family Law Courts

Appendix 6 of the booklet describes the program evaluation data component of the pilot program, and Appendix 7 provides copies of program Outcome Questionnaires.  If the pilot program proposal is accepted in the Houston area family courts, the collaboration of The Childress Institute and Children4Tomorrow will implement the pilot program and will be seeking local university involvement to support program evaluation research and additional research activities as appropriate.

Registration for the October 20^th seminar on the Pilot Program Proposal for the Family Courts is being managed by Children4Tomorrow in Houston.

If any legal professionals and court-involved mental health professionals in other geographic jurisdictions are interested in learning more about a comprehensive integrated family law/mental health solution to attachment-related family pathology surrounding high-conflict divorce, a solution that is replicable across the country (and internationally), I would urge you to attend the October 20^th seminar in Houston if you possibly can.

The booklet, The Key to Solving High-Conflict Divorce in the Family Courts, is a support booklet for the October 20^th seminar, but it will provide a brief overview for the structure of the program, and might be useful in generating interest in other parts of the country (and internationally).

The Childress Institute is currently collaborating with Children4Tomorrow in Houston, Texas.  The Childress Institute will also collaborate with any agency in any other jurisdiction in their efforts to bring a Key Solution to High Conflict Divorce pilot program to their family court system.  The Key Solution pilot program has a data-driven program evaluation component integrated into the pilot program.  Once the pilot program is implemented and its effectiveness is demonstrated, then it is a replicable model for the solution across jurisdictions.

The first step to solving the attachment-related family pathology of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) is to restore an appropriate mental health system response to the pathology from within the required domains of professional expertise.  The appropriate mental health system response can then be leveraged to restore an appropriate legal system response of clear and effective action.  Working in an effective collaboration, the expertise of professional psychology and the effective support of the legal system can successfully resolve the attachment-related pathology of AB-PA for all children and all families in all cases, everywhere.

That is the goal, and it is now an achievable goal.  We just need approval to set up a pilot program within the court system.

Step-by-step.

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

Barcelona, Orlando, Paris, Manchester, Mumbai, 911; the terrorist mind and the extremism of pathological anger.

The research says that the terrorist mind does not reflect any consistent form of pathology.  That’s not true, they just don’t know where to look.

It’s an attachment trauma pathology moving through generations, similar to the pathogen creating AB-PA, but with important variations.  The pathogen creating AB-PA results in the child’s “alienation” from a parent, created by the actions of the other parent.  The pathogen creating the terrorist mind triggers in adulthood and results in the adult’s “alienation” from society – and at a deeper level, from the self.

They are both pathogens of “alienation” – and both are created in and expressed through a profound absence of empathy.  A trauma pathogen, created in generations past and moving from attachment system to attachment system – like a computer virus – across generations.

Remain hidden.  Seek allies.  Attack perceived threats with great viciousness.

I know this pathogen’s structure.  The AB-PA pathogen and the terrorist mind pathogen are different, but they are variants of a basic core trauma pathology moving through generations.  There are a few key structures in the pattern of damaged and broken information structures creating the terrorism mind and the extremism of pathological anger that I’ve yet to work out, but I recognize the core structure.

In Charlottesville, militant White supremacists and neo-Nazi’s marched in open provocation – look at me – pay attention to me – I’m special – I’m provoking you to anger.  Stop me or I will destroy you.

Hundreds of attachment networks infected with a particular set of damaged and broken information structures, linked into a common group-mind by the pathogen.  But only one activated into an act of terrorism.  But the potential is there in all of them.  Which one will activate into violent action?  And when?

Diagnosis.  In my literature review on the terrorist mind the extremism of pathological anger, the research says there is no pattern of psychiatric disturbance.  Nonsense.  They’re simply not looking in the correct place.  An assessment first needs to know where to look, and what to look for.

In working out the diagnostic indicators for AB-PA, I began by first working out the structure of the pathogen, and I then identified the most parsimonious, distinctive, and definitive expressions of the underlying pathogenic structure.  We first need to work out the structure of the pathogen so we know where to look and what we’re looking for.

From what I see, there appears to be two gender-linked strains, a male variant and a female variant, with the male variant being more malevolent.  Within the male variant strain there also appears to be two severity-strains, one leads to an inspired-inflation leadership mindset (the Kahlied Sheik Mohammed mindset; the organizer, the leader) while the other leads to the righteous-soldier mindset.

What I still need to work out is the righteous-holy-warrior structure of the terrorist mind, Himmler’s obsession with religious symbols, the KKK and the burning cross, the holy jihad of Muslim extremism.

The attachment system is a primary motivational system in the brain.  Other types of pathology have their origins in other parts of the brain.  ADHD is a pathology in the regulatory systems of the brain for impulse control, attention regulation, and behavioral regulation.  Autism-spectrum pathology emerges from hardware malfunctions.  Attachment-related pathology, on the other hand, is a pathology in the love-and-bonding system of the brain, a primary motivational system of the brain.  Pathogenic structures in the attachment networks have access to motivations.  They act with intent.

Cruel intent, the intent to cause suffering.  Alienation forming a bond through creating suffering.  Distorted, damaged, broken information structures in the love-and-bonding system of the brain.

The absence of empathy.  Trauma.

Attachment trauma moving through generations – hidden – until it emerges as traumatic suffering intentionally created.

The terrorist mind and the extremism of pathological hatred ultimately ends in self-destruction after causing its burst of immense suffering in others – the Nazis leading Germany into self-destruction following the immense cruelty of the holocaust – the suicide end of the 911 terrorists in the cruelty of their terrorist act.  Self-destruction.  Self-loathing.  Primal self-alienation.

Remain hidden – seek allies – attack perceived threats with great viciousness.   I know this pathogen.

There are four primary emotions; anger, sad, afraid, and happy.

Professional psychology is aware of and is actively addressing pathological sadness – depression and suicidality.  There are DSM diagnoses for pathological sadness.  Professional psychology is aware of and is actively addressing pathological anxiety – panic attacks and phobias.  There are DSM diagnoses for pathological anxiety.  Professional psychology is aware of and is actively addressing pathological happy – the mania of bipolar disorder.

But there is no DSM diagnosis for any type of pathological anger – for the intent to be cruel – for the intent to create suffering – for pathologies of love-and-bonding in which creating suffering in others alleviates alienation and serves as a perverse-bond.

Professional psychology is currently far to indolent and ignorant regarding pathological anger.  The defensive structure of the pathogen is to remain hidden.  Pathological anger has shrouded our observation of it by a veil of concealment.  I know this pathogen.

I have had several clients with the extremism of pathological anger.  I have unlocked key components.  Working with the pathogen of AB-PA has also taught me a lot about this pathogen’s structure.  But to unlock the final set of key structures, particularly surrounding the righteous-holy fervor, I still need to sit in the same room with it –with the terrorist mind of extremist pathological anger.  I need to speak directly to this particular variant of the pathogen, let it speak to me, let it tell me about itself.

To assess and diagnose, we first need to know where to look and what to look for.  The terrorist mind is an attachment-related pathology – a pathogen in the love-and-bonding system of the brain.  I know this pathogen, but I need to speak to it directly to unlock a few key features.

If there’s any doubt that I can unlock the pathogen of the terrorist mind and the extremism of pathological hatred, simply look at what I did in unlocking the pathogen of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) in Foundations when I was able to speak to the pathogen directly.  With the pathogen of the terrorist mind and the extremism of pathological anger, I know exactly where to look and I know what I’m looking for, I just need to talk directly to the pathogen.

The really challenging part will be the treatment.  Catalytic transformative meme-structures that extract trauma pathogens may be helpful… Dorcy?  APA, learn what Dorcy is doing, how she extracts the pathogenic structures of trauma.  It’s as different from psychotherapy as a silicon-based life form is from our carbon-based life forms.

But just like the Center for Disease control begins by first unlocking the structure of the virus, which then leads to the construction of the anti-pathogen treatment, we also need to begin by unlocking the “viral” structure of the pathogen creating the terrorist mind, the pathogen structure that is creating the extremism of pathological anger, with its the intent to be cruel, its purposeful intent to create suffering as a perverse-bonding in its attachment networks to satisfy its “alienation,” a comfort for its deep-level suffering, its self-loathing.

But first things first.  We first need to end the pathology of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) for all children everywhere.

But once it’s solved…

Barcelona, Orlando, Charlottesville, Paris, Manchester, Mumbai.  Variants of an underlying pathogenic structure creating the extremism – the cruelty – the violence – of pathological anger.

The attachment system is the brain system for love-and-bonding.  The terrorist mind and the extremism of pathological anger is a pathology in the love-and-bonding system of the brain.  It is an attachment-related pathology – the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma – a “computer virus” in the attachment system created in trauma and being passed from generation to generation.

The attachment system is a primary motivational system of the brain.  Pathogens in the attachment system have access to motivational networks.  Pathogens in the attachment networks act with intent – the intent to be cruel – the intent to creat suffering.

The Childress, Institute is more than AB-PA.  But it starts with AB-PA, and with solving AB-PA for all children and all families everywhere.  There are two more announcements coming in the comprehensive solution to AB-PA.

Once AB-PA is solved for all children and all families everywhere – and it will be solved – then we’ll turn our attention to other matters of importance.

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