Uncategorized – Page 29 – Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based "Parental Alienation" (AB-PA)

Dorcy Pruter & the High Road Protocol

The narcissistic Dark Triad personality is an empirically validated constellation of personality traits involving:

Narcissism
Psychopathic personality traits
Machiavellian manipulativeness

Psychopathic – narcissistic – manipulation. Cold, unfeeling, uncaring – manipulative – cruel and deceitful.

At the clinical level of this pathology, this particular personality constellation is extremely dangerous because it is extremely vengeful.

And it lies. It manipulatively weaves a veil of lies to conceal its malevolence as it enlists and exploits naïve allies into colluding with the pathology.

The psychopathy presents as superficially charming and engaging. The Dark Triad personalty uses its superficial charm and its wholesale distortions to truth to manipulate other people into becoming allies who it then exploits to achieve its desired ends. Psychopathic. Narcissistic. Manipulative. The Dark Triad.

That’s the nature of the pathology.

Empirical research has demonstrated that this constellation of personality characteristics is associated with the capacity for human cruelty (Jonason & Krause, 2013; Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012).

Empirical research has demonstrated that this constellation of personality characteristics is associated with vengefulness (Giammarco & Vernon, 2014; Rasmussen & Boon, 2014).

Empirical research has demonstrated that this constellation of personality characteristics is associated with lying, with fabrication, and with manipulative deceit for self-serving motivations (Jonason, Lyons, Baughman, & Vernon, 2014; Baughman, Jonason, Lyons, & Vernon, 2014)

Empirical research has even associated the core of this constellation of personality characteristics with the definition of “evil” (Book, Visser, & Volk, 2015)

In their article, Unpacking ‘‘evil’’: Claiming the core of the Dark Triad, Angela Book and her colleagues identify the core of the Dark Triad personality as representing the core of evil:

“Researchers have proposed various models to account for the common core of these antisocial personalities [of the Dark Triad] – a core that might well be considered the psychological equivalent of the core of “evil.” (Book, Visser, & Volk, p. 29)

“Our two studies represent the first empirical comparison of all the major theories explaining the core of the Dark Triad, a cluster of traits that fits the English definition of evil.” (Book, Visser, & Volk, p. 35)

This pathology is extremely malevolent and extremely dangerous.

And that’s why Dorcy Pruter’s courage is so remarkable. Dorcy has the courage – the courage – to walk straight up to this dark and malevolent pathology, stare evil directly in the eye, and say, “Give me back the child.”

I am in awe of her courage.

Dorcy Pruter is placing herself at personal risk in order to protect your children. Dorcy is directly challenging the vengeful malevolence of this dark pathology in order to rescue your children from the evil and malignant grasp of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent. She is remarkable.

And for her courage in facing this malevolent pathology to recover your loving children for you, for her courage in fighting to rescue your children from the vicious and dark psychopathic and narcissistic pathology of the allied parent, she is now being slandered and viciously attacked in an effort by the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology to destroy her personally and professionally, and destroy her ability to rescue your children.

The High Road Protocol

I am a licensed clinical psychologist. I have personally reviewed the High Road protocol. I have had extensive professional-level discussions with Dorcy Puter. I consider her to be a professional colleague and a well qualified expert in the resolution of this form of pathology. All of the accusations made against her and the High Road protocol are false.

They are lies and malicious slander born in the manipulative and malevolent psychopathy of the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology that seeks to remain hidden by attacking with lies, distortions, and fabrications those who seek to protect and rescue the child from the psychological control of the manipulative psychopathy of the Dark Triad parent. The malicious attacks against Dorcy and the High Road protocol are a symptom of the pathology.

The power of this particular pathogen – the narcissistic and psychopathic power to manipulate and exploit – comes from remaining concealed. From its hidden place of concealment the narcissistic Dark Triad personality weaves its lies, falsely accusing others of alleged “abuse” – falsely accusing the normal-range targeted parent of being an “abusive” parent – falsely accusing the High Road workshop of being “abusive” – falsely accusing those who seek to protect the child from the manipulative narcissistic pathology of the Dark Triad parent of somehow “forcing” the child to have a loving relationship with a normal-range and lovingly affectionate parent. Lies, falsehood, distortions, deceit; all designed to manipulate from its place of concealment those who are naïve and unknowledgeable into becoming allies of the pathology – the narcissistic, psychopathic, manipulative pathology of the Dark Triad personality.

The manipulation of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent falsely accuses the normal-range parent of “abuse,” and immediately the normal-range parent is placed on the defensive. That’s the manipulative intent of the allegation, to immediately place the other person on the defensive. The allegation is a SYMPTOM of the manipulative pathology of the Dark Triad personality.

By placing the other person on the defensive, the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology distracts away from a focus on its pathology by alleging that it is the other person who is pathological, that it is the other person who is “abusive.”

The narcissistic Dark Triad pathology seeks to manipulate and exploit the “child protection response” that the allegation of “abuse” immediately provokes in others. The focus of attention immediately becomes whether the other person is “abusive” – the other person is (manipulatively) placed on the defensive and the “child protection response” of others is exploited by the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology to enlist them as allies in enacting the pathology. The allegation is a SYMPTOM of the manipulative exploitation of the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology.

When this manipulative exploitation of others is directed against the normal-range and loving targeted parent, the “child protection” response of others prevents the child from being with the normal-range parent while an “investigation” is conducted. The narcissistic pathology of the Dark Triad parent has successfully manipulated and exploited the system though lies and deception into giving the child solely to the Dark Triad parent.

Empirical research has demonstrated that the Dark Triad constellation of personality characteristics is associated with lying, fabrication, and manipulative deceit for self-serving motivations (Jonason, Lyons, Baughman, & Vernon, 2014; Baughman, Jonason, Lyons, & Vernon, 2014)

When the investigation is finally completed and the allegations are determined to be “unfounded,” the damage is already done. The narcissistic Dark Triad parent has had months of sole-possession of the child during which to work the parent’s manipulation, and to clearly demonstrate to the child the power of the Dark Triad parent.

The Dark Triad parent has the power to nullify Court orders for shared custody and visitation. The Dark Triad parent has the power to take the child away from the other parent… and the child is powerless to escape. The narcissistic Dark Triad parent has also clearly and definitively shown the child that the other parent is powerless to protect the child.

Power – control – and domination; the hallmarks of domestic violence. This is a form of unrecognized and undiagnosed domestic violence involving the psychological intimidation, manipulation, and control of the child.

The child is alone in coping with the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology of the parent. In the child’s psychological isolation, the narcissistic Dark Triad parent psychologically forces the child to surrender to the dark and manipulative psychological control of the Dark Triad parent, or else the child will face this parent’s vengeful emotional and psychological retaliation.

Manipulation through lies and false allegations are a SYMPTOM of the Dark Triad personality pathology.

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M. Baughman, H.M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). What a tangled web we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 117–119

Baughman, H.M., Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Liar liar pants on fire: Cheater strategies linked to the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 35–38

The false allegation being leveled against Dorcy Pruter that the High Road protocol is somehow “abusive” toward the child represents a SYMPTOM of the Dark Triad pathology at work.

The false allegation that Dorcy Pruter is not an eminently qualified expert in resolving the influence of this form of Dark Triad pathology on the child’s attachment system represents a SYMPTOM of the Dark Triad pathology at work.

The Truth

The Basis of My Professional Opinion: I am a licensed clinical psychologist with an expertise in child and family therapy, diagnosis and psychopathology, and child development. I have personally reviewed the High Road protocol and I have had extensive professional-level discussions with Dorcy Pruter.

My Conclusions Regarding Ms. Pruter’s Professional Expertise: I consider Dorcy Pruter to be a professional colleague of the highest caliber and an expert in resolving the effects of attachment-based “parental alienation” (i.e., the psychological manipulation and control of the child by a Dark Triad narcissistic parent) on the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range and affectionally available parent (i.e., the targeted parent).

My Conclusions Regarding the High Road Protocol: Any allegation that the High Road protocol is coercive is false. Any allegation that the High Road protocol is “abusive” is false. Any allegation that the High Road protocol is in any way problematic for the child is false.

False allegations represent a symptom of the Dark Triad pathology that are designed to manipulate and exploit others (Jonason, Lyons, Baughman, & Vernon, 2014; Baughman, Jonason, Lyons, & Vernon, 2014), and represent a professional occupational hazard of working with this severe form of highly malignant and dangerous psychopathology.

As a clinical psychologist, I have described the content of the High Road protocol in an Appendix to my book, Single Case ABAB Assessment and Remedy, and have posted this Appendix to my website for both public and professional review and scrutiny:

Analysis of the High Road Protocol

This description of the High Road protocol is designed to provide an appropriate explanation of the protocol’s nature and its effectiveness while at the same time protecting Ms. Pruter’s intellectual property rights regarding the exact structure of the protocol. Respect for Ms. Pruter’s intellectual property rights regarding the exact nature of the protocol is warranted and necessary in order to maintain the fidelity of the intervention.

Professional Presentation: Ms. Pruter and I have submitted proposals to the APA and AFCC for professional conference presentations at which Ms. Pruter will present and describe the structure of the High Road protocol to a professional audience. A professional conference presentation to the APA or AFCC is the appropriate professional venue for a more complete discussion of the protocol’s structure and effectiveness.

My Introduction to the High Road Protocol

I first met Dorcy several years ago during a period when I was working on a model for “reunification therapy” to address the form of family pathology I describe in Foundations (i.e., the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent to the current family relationships, mediated by the personality pathology of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent which is itself a product of the childhood attachment trauma of this parent). Our professional-level conversation that day lasted about six hours as we extensively discussed and exchanged ideas regarding the nature of this form of pathology and its resolution. About three hours into this professional-level discussion, Dorcy showed me the High Road protocol. I immediately recognized how this structured psychoeducational workshop achieves its success in restoring the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system.

It is unlike how psychotherapy achieves change. The High Road protocol is a catalytic intervention, in which the child is led through a series of structured activities that have the catalytic effect of restoring the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system.

There is no blaming of either parent for family problems, and there is no effort to resolve prior family conflict. That’s not how the intervention works. It is a solution-focused catalytic intervention.

A direct result of my professional review of the High Road protocol is that I discontinued my work on developing a model for “reunification therapy.” There was no longer a need for “reunification therapy” since the High Road protocol could gently and effectively restore the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system within a matter of days. It is really quite an elegant intervention. I’m impressed. And it’s unlike anything we do in psychotherapy.

By way of disclosure, I have no financial interest in the High Road protocol nor do I have any association with the Conscious Co-Parenting Institute of Dorcy Pruter. In fact, it would likely have been in my personal financial and professional interest to continue my work in developing a model for “reunification therapy.” However, after reviewing the High Road protocol I believe it would be professionally unethical to conduct “reunification therapy” that would require months of extended therapy involving parent-child conflict when an alternative intervention model exists that can gently and effectively restore the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system within a matter of days.

Let me be entirely clear on this…

I have personally reviewed the High Road protocol as a professional clinical psychologist. Based on this professional review of the protocol, I believe it would be unethical professional practice NOT to use the High Road protocol as the first-line intervention to restore the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system (which has been distorted by the psychological manipulation and control of the child by a narcissistic Dark Triad parent).

What Dorcy Does

Dorcy is not a mental health professional. Dorcy does not diagnose. When a mental health professional makes a diagnosis of pathogenic parenting, Dorcy will work with the mental health professional. Dorcy will conduct the four- to five-day High Road workshop – a structured psycho-educational intervention of watching videos of family stories, much like one would see on Saturday morning television, integrated with a series of structured communication and problem-solving activities. Once the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system is recovered through this structured series of family activities, Dorcy turns over the follow-up recovery stabilization care to the mental health professional.

That’s what Dorcy does. She conducts a four- to five-day structured psycho-educational workshop that gently and effectively restores the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system through a series of catalytic interventions of watching videos and participating in structured family problem-solving communication exercises.

Restoring the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment bond to a loving and affectionally available parent is a good thing. It is healthy for the child.

The parent-child bond that has been reestablished after having been distorted by the highly manipulative and psychologically controlling parenting practices of the formerly allied Dark Triad narcissistic parent requires a period of recovery stabilization before the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent is reintroduced. This “recovery stabilization therapy” is conducted by a mental health professional.

A premature reintroduction of the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent will result in the child’s relapse into pathology. A period of protective separation of the child from the manipulative and psychologically controlling pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent is needed in order to provide follow-up therapy the opportunity to stabilize the recovery of the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system.

Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant psychopathology in the child is not a child custody issue; it is a child protection issue.

The period of the child’s protective separation from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent requires a Court order from a judge. Dorcy Pruter is not a judge. Dorcy does not order protective separations of the child from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent.

If a judge, after hearing the evidence in the case, reaches a conclusion that the child’s relationship with the targeted-rejected parent would benefit from the restoration of the child’s normal-range attachment-bonding motivations toward this parent (which were distorted by the pathogenic parenting of a narcissistic Dark Triad parent), then the judge can order a protective separation of the child from the pathogenic parenting of the allied parent, and the judge can order the implementation of the High Road protocol to gently and effectively restore the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system within a matter of days.

The judge orders a protective separation; not Dorcy.

When a judge orders a protective separation and the High Road workshop, Dorcy will conduct the workshop in accord with the Court order, and she will restore the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system. That’s what Dorcy does.

Once she has restored the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system, then Dorcy will turn over follow-up recovery stabilization therapy to a licensed mental health professional. If there is a premature breach in the protective separation that allows the child to be prematurely re-exposed to the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent, then the child symptoms will relapse.

It is my professional recommendation, after professionally reviewing the content and structure of the High Road protocol, that the High Road protocol should be Court ordered in every case in which the Court seeks to restore the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system when, in the Court’s determination (and in appropriate consultation with diagnostic information provided by mental health professionals) the child’s relationship with the targeted parent was damaged by the pathogenic parenting of a narcissistic Dark Triad parent.

It is my professional recommendation, after professionally reviewing the content and structure of the High Road protocol, that the High Road protocol of Dorcy Pruter should be the first-line intervention ordered by the Court in cases of attachment-based “parental alienation” (as described in Foundations):

i.e., the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent (the Dark Triad/Vulnerable Dark Triad parent) to the current family relationships, mediated by the personality pathology of the parent which is itself a product of the parent’s childhood attachment trauma (i.e., a disorganized attachment).

Slander and Lies Are a Symptom

The Dark Triad narcissistic personality lies, distorts, and makes false allegations as a manipulative tactic to place the other person on the defensive and thereby take pressure off of having its manipulative control of the child exposed from its concealment. It does this with the targeted parent, and it does this with anyone who seeks to protect the child and expose the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic Dark Triad parent.

The unfounded, distorted, and malicious attacks on Dorcy Pruter and the High Road protocol are a SYMPTOM of the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology, just like the false, distorted, and malicious attacks on the normal-range and affectionally available targeted parent are a SYMPTOM of the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology.

The Dark Triad pathology seeks to maintain its concealment so that it can manipulate and exploit naïve and unknowledgeable mental health and legal professionals into becoming allies of the pathology. Once the manipulative deceit and distortions of the narcissistic Dark Triad personality are exposed, and once they are recognized for what they are, a symptom of pathology, then the pathology will lose its power.

But until the distorted and false attacks are recognized as a manipulative symptom of the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology, naïve mental health and legal professionals will continue to be exploited by the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology of the pathogenic parent, and they will continue to collude with the pathology and with the psychological abuse of the child.

Dr. Jean Mercer

Dr. Jean Mercer’s false innuendos and allegations directed toward Dorcy Pruter are a SYMPTOM of the narcissistic Dark Triad pathology that we are diagnosing and attempting to resolve. In making these false and distorted innuendos and allegations, Dr. Mercer becomes an ally of the manipulative distortions and lies inherent to the pathology of the narcissistic Dark Triad personality.

It is incumbent upon mental health professionals to be knowledgeable about the pathology they are addressing. Dr. Mercer does not appear to possess an adequate professional knowledge of the narcissistic Dark Triad (and borderline Vulnerable Dark Triad) personality pathology needed to render professionally responsible statements. Dr. Mercer’s innuendos and allegations appear professionally ill-informed and evidence a deeply concerning irresponsible and reckless disregard for the impact of her statements in impugning the professional reputation of Ms. Pruter.

Dr. Mercer’s statements are a symptom of the pathology.

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

References for the Dark Triad Personality:

Baughman, H.M., Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Liar liar pants on fire: Cheater strategies linked to the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 35–38.

Book, A., Visser, B.A., and Volk, A.A. (2015). Unpacking ‘‘evil’’: Claiming the core of the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences. 73 (2015) 29–38.

Giammarco, E.A. and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Vengeance and the Dark Triad: The role of empathy and perspective taking in trait forgivingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 23–29.

Horan, S.M., Guinn, T.D., and Banghart, S. (2015). Understanding relationships among the Dark Triad personality profile and romantic partners’ conflict communication. Communication Quarterly, 63, 156-170.

Jonason, P. K. and Krause, L. (2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 532–537.

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M. Baughman, H.M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). What a tangled web we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 117–119.

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Bethell, E. (2014). The making of Darth Vader: Parent–child care and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 30–34.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Miller, J.D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L.R., and Campbell, W.K. (2010). Searching for a Vulnerable Dark Triad: Comparing Factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78, 1529-1564.

Rasmussen, K.R. and Boon, S.D. (2014). Romantic revenge and the Dark Triad: A model of impellance and inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 51–56.

Wai, M. and Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 794–799.

Really, Dr. Mercer? Really?

Holy cow, Jean Mercer is still at it. In her most recent post on her “ChildMyths” blog (you know, I’m beginning to think her blog title is self-referential), she takes on Dorcy Pruter because Dorcy is not a psychotherapist.

Are “Coaches” the Same as Psychologists or Psychotherapists

She concludes by somehow trying to use my testimony in support of Dorcy Pruter to imply some sort of questionable ethical malfeasance by Ms. Pruter:

“Craig Childress’ statement that a coach does not have to conform to ethical guidelines tells us much about the possible outcomes of choosing a coach over a licensed mental health professional.”

So let me be abundantly clear on this:

I consider Dorcy Pruter to be a professional colleague of the highest caliber. I consider Ms. Pruter’s ethical standards to be exceptional. Ms. Pruter and the High Road protocol have my 100% complete and unqualified endorsement. I have personally reviewed the High Road protocol and I understand exactly how it achieves its record of 100% success in gently and effectively restoring the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations toward the normal-range and affectionally available parent. And I AM held to the ethical standards of the APA.

Clear enough?

Oh, by the way, Dr. Mercer… Dorcy doesn’t have to conform to the ethical standards of architects either (American Institute of Architects), or dentists for that matter (American Dental Association).

Outside of my testimony in support of Dorcy Pruter, the only time I have ever discussed the issue of coaching is in the Proposed Treatment Team essay up on my website, in which I propose a model of treatment that incorporates a coach-consultant acting as the organizing interface between the parent and a comprehensive treatment team of legal and mental health professionals.

Proposed Treatment Team Model

Note that this essay was written two years ago, in 2014. I’d also like to note in particular a statement I made in this essay:

“The goal of mental health assessment should never be to establish the presence of attachment-based “parental alienation.” The goal should ALWAYS be the accurate diagnosis of the child’s symptom display. All possible differential diagnoses should be considered and diagnostic determinations should be based on the constellations of clinical evidence.

“In some cases the diagnosis may be an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” involving the induced suppression of the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system as a product of distorted parenting practices from a narcissistic/(borderline) parent. In other cases the diagnosis will be that some other causative agent is responsible for the excessive parent-child conflict within the family. Mental health assessment should always be balanced and should always evaluate all possible differential diagnoses under consideration. The assessment and diagnosis should then follow the clinical evidence and be based on the emerging constellations of the clinical evidence. This approach will result in an accurate diagnosis of the child’s needs, on which effective treatment can be delivered to resolve the child’s symptoms and restore the child’s healthy emotional and psychological development.” (Childress, 2014, p. 4)

So with this general framework for clinical assessment and diagnosis in mind, let me address Dr. Mercer’s latest efforts to continue the professional collusion of mental health with the psychological abuse of children. I will address Dr. Mercer’s unfounded and unprofessional slander of Dorcy Pruter in two blog-post responses:

Part 1: Jean, you need to answer my questions.

I have asked you three questions, Dr. Mercer. If you don’t answer my very simple and very basic questions, then you will have demonstrated that you really don’t have anything relevant to add to the discussion.

My three very simple questions to you are:

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree that parental psychological control of children exists? (as defined in the scientific research literature I’ve previously cited, e.g., Barber, 2002; Kerig, 2005)

That is a very simple question, Dr. Mercer. A quick yes or no will suffice. Do you believe that the psychological control of children exists? (e.g., through manipulative guilt induction, contingent withdrawal of love, things like that).

If you don’t think that parental psychological control exists, I’d be interested in hearing why you don’t accept the findings of over 40 empirically based scientific studies cited by Barber in his book Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescence (published by the American Psychological Association) in Table 1 on pages 29-32. Forty scientific studies, Dr. Mercer. Forty.

But I’ll accept a simple yes or no to my question.

Question 2: Do you believe narcissistic and borderline pathology exists? Will you please describe for us the psychological response of a narcissistic or borderline parent to the rejection and abandonment inherent to divorce?

I’ll admit, the answer to this question does take a tiny bit of professional thought in conceptualizing and describing the response of a narcissistic/borderline parent to rejection and abandonment. But actually, this is pretty simple too. Basically what I’m asking is that you demonstrate that you know the basics of personality disorder pathology. What happens to a narcissistic personality in response to rejection; and what happens to a borderline personality in response to abandonment. Pretty basic clinical psychology stuff.

Question 3: Do you agree or disagree that pathogenic parenting which is creating significant developmental pathology in the child, personality disorder pathology in the child, and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed?

Again, this isn’t tough, Dr. Mercer. A simple yes or no is all it requires.

Although again, if you think that a parent who is creating significant developmental pathology, personality pathology, and delusional-psychiatric pathology is not psychologically abusive, then I’d be interested in your reasoning as to why you believe inducing significant psychopathology in the child is acceptable parenting.

In my next post, Part 2, I’ll address Dr. Mercer’s using the credibility of her professional degree to specifically slander Dorcy Pruter (pretty unseemly and unprofessional Dr. Mercer, considering you’ve never reviewed the High Road protocol so you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever for what you’re talking about). But I don’t want to distract from the basic issue that Dr. Mercer is avoiding my questions.

Question 1: Does parental psychological control of children exist?

Question 2: Please describe the response of the narcissistic and borderline personality to the rejection and abandonment inherent to divorce.

Question 3: Is pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child, personality disorder pathology in the child, and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent psychological child abuse?

Because if you don’t answer my questions, Dr. Mercer, then your blog posts are not designed to engage in a professional illumination of the issues, as you deceptively present them to be, but are instead designed simply to advance a personal agenda through slander and innuendo under the guise of false “professionalism” – an agenda, by the way, that is colluding with the psychological abuse of children by narcissistic and borderline personality parents.

Are you familiar with the construct of projection, Dr. Mercer? I find it intriguing that “ChildMyths” appears self-referential about the content of your blogs, and you express concern about mental health professionals colluding with child abuse when your own expressed position is to collude with the psychological abuse of children by a narcissistic/borderline parent (a Dark Triad and Vulnerable Dark Triad personality parent).

Projection is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as:

“The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by falsely attributing to another his or her own unacceptable feelings, impulses, or thoughts.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 812)

“… falsely attributing to another…”

I’ll address your unprofessional slander of Ms. Pruter in my next post. But let me preface my next post with one additional question:

Question 4: Dr. Mercer, have you ever personally reviewed the content of the High Road intervention protocol of Ms. Pruter?

Because if you haven’t – and you haven’t – then I would respectfully submit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Talking about things that you know nothing about is called ignorance.

From Dictionary.com:

Ignorance:

lacking in knowledge or training
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
uninformed
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training

“Lack of knowledge,” Dr. Mercer, “lacking in knowledge.”

At this point, Dr. Mercer, I’m calling your professional knowledge of the relevant domains of clinical psychopathology into question. You need to answer my three questions or else you will have demonstrated that you are inappropriately using your professional degree to advance a personal rather than professional agenda that colludes with the psychological abuse of children by narcissistic and borderline personality parents.

I posed my questions to you over a month ago. I’m waiting…

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

References for Psychological Control:

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

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

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

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

From Stone, Buehler, and Barber:

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

From Soenens and Vansteenkiste:

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

From Barber and Harman:

“Numerous elements of the child’s self-in-relation-to-parent have been discussed as being compromised by psychologically controlling behaviors such as…

individuality (Goldin, 1969; Kurdek, et al., 1995; Litovsky & Dusek, 1985; Schaefer, 1965a, 1965b, Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992);

individuation (Barber et al., 1994; Barber & Shagle, 1992; Costanzo & Woody, 1985; Goldin, 1969, Smetana, 1995; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986; Wakschlag, Chanse-Landsdale & Brooks-Gunn, 1996 1996);

independence (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hein & Lewko, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1994);

degree of psychological distance between parents and children (Barber et all, 1994);

and threatened attachment to parents (Barber, 1996; Becker, 1964)” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 25; emphasis added).

From Kerig in the Journal of Emotional Abuse:

“Rather than telling the child directly what to do or think, as does the behaviorally controlling parent, the psychologically controlling parent uses indirect hints and responds with guilt induction or withdrawal of love if the child refuses to comply. In short, an intrusive parent strives to manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings in such a way that the child’s psyche will conform to the parent’s wishes.” (Kerig, 2005, p. 12)

References for the Dark Triad Personality:

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Research has linked the Dark Triad personality constellation with the absence of empathy:

Wai, M. and Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 794–799

To vengefulness in romantic relationships:

Giammarco, E.A. and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Vengeance and the Dark Triad: The role of empathy and perspective taking in trait forgivingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 23–29

Rasmussen, K.R. and Boon, S.D. (2014). Romantic revenge and the Dark Triad: A model of impellance and inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 51–56

To lying, manipulative fabrication, and deception:

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M. Baughman, H.M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). What a tangled web we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 117–119

Baughman, H.M., Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Liar liar pants on fire: Cheater strategies linked to the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 35–38

To attachment-related pathology:

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Bethell, E. (2014). The making of Darth Vader: Parent–child care and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 30–34

To high-conflict patterns of communication:

And to the core of evil:

Book, A., Visser, B.A., and Volk, A.A. (2015). Unpacking ‘‘evil’’: Claiming the core of the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences. 73 (2015) 29–38.

Treatment Related Considerations

I am sometimes asked to provide professional consultation reports on materials submitted to me for review. In one of these consultation reports I recently described treatment-related considerations surrounding the resolution of a cross-generational coalition of the child with one parent (the allied and supposedly “favored parent”) against the other parent (the targeted-rejected parent).

These treatment-related considerations are based in established principles and models of psychotherapy, and I thought that they may be of broader general interest to targeted parents and other professionals.

I have therefore excised this general-description section of my consultation report and posted a version of it on my website:

Cross-Generational Coalition: General Treatment-Related Considerations

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

A New Resource

I am doing what I can to bring the tragic nightmare of “parental alienation” to an end. The battle to reclaim professional mental health as your ally has been engaged. We are demanding professional competence in the mental health assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of the pathogenic parenting referred to as “parental alienation” in the common-culture. It’s time now to also start turning our attention to the failures of the legal system as well.

Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Pathogenic parenting is not a child custody issue, it is a child protection issue.

It is a child protection issue.

It is the professional responsibility of ALL mental health professionals to appropriately assess and to accurately diagnose the pathology. This is an expectation of professional competence consistent with Standards 9.01a and 2.01a of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association.

Yet even as the battle to reclaim professional mental health as your ally is underway, it is time to also turn our attention to solving the current failures of the legal system to appropriately respond to the pathology of “parental alienation.” One of the greatest challenges faced by targeted parents is explaining the pathology to legal professionals, such as minor’s counsel and guardians ad litem, as well as to family law judges.

In an effort to address this issue I have written a 40-page booklet for legal professionals describing the pathology of the narcissistic parent using standard and established psychological principles and constructs. This booklet relies on descriptions of the narcissistic pathology drawn directly from the established literature of professional psychology to both describe the pathology of the narcissistic parent and to highlight its characteristic features. This booklet is now available on Amazon.com:

The Narcissistic Parent: A Guidebook for Legal Professionals Working with Families in High-Conflict Divorce

My goal is to provide targeted parents with a resource that they can provide to legal professionals involved with their families, such as minor’s counsel and guardians ad litem, which will explain the pathology of the narcissistic parent in high-conflict divorce. I wanted to make this resource brief enough to be easily accessible yet also substantial enough to be authoritative and accepted. To accomplish this I relied on quotes drawn directly from the professional literature woven amidst my narrative framework.

I do not use the term “parental alienation” at any point in the booklet. The description of the pathology relies entirely on standard and established psychological principles and constructs grounded in the professional literature.

The brief 2-4 page Chapters of The Narcissistic Parent are:

Introduction
The Narcissistic Parent
A Hidden Pathology
Blame and Projection
Triangulation of the Child
Disregard for Truth and Authority
Trauma Reenactment Narrative
Processing Sadness and Grief
The Co-Narcissistic Child
The Attachment System
Child Testimony
Epilogue: The Dark Triad
References

This booklet:

The Narcissistic Parent: A Guidebook for Legal Professionals Working with Families in High-Conflict Divorce,

is now available through Amazon.com.

The School

I’m aware that many targeted parents have asked that I produce a similar resource that they can provide to school personnel. I’m still working on conceptualizing what school personnel would need to know about families and children in high-conflict divorce. It hasn’t yet framed itself into my mind. But in the meantime, this booklet, The Narcissistic Parent, may also be useful to educate school personnel regarding the pathology until I can develop a booklet which is more directly focused on issues relevant for school personnel.

I’m doing what I can as quickly as I can because I understand that each day that passes without a solution to the pathology of “parental alienation” is one day too long.

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

June 2016 Flying Monkey Newsletter

I have posted the June edition of the Flying Monkey Newsletter to my website:

Flying Monkey Newsletter: June 2016

The June edition deals with the false assertion by the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent and their flying monkey supporters that children’s expressed “preference” for parents represents an authentic expression of the child’s feelings and is not being manipulated and influenced by the allied and supposedly “preferred” narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

Which reminds me, I haven’t heard from Dr. Mercer regarding the questions I posed to her:

Dr. Mercer:

Do you agree or disagree that parental psychological control of children (as defined in the scientific research literature cited in my previous post; e.g., Barber, 2002) exists?

Do you believe narcissistic and borderline pathology exists? Please describe for us the psychological response of a narcissistic or borderline parent to the rejection and abandonment inherent to divorce?

Do you agree or disagree that pathogenic parenting which is creating significant developmental pathology in the child, personality disorder pathology in the child, and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed?

Would someone please alert Dr. Mercer that the new edition of the Flying Monkey Newsletter is available, since she has taken such an interest in these newsletters, and let her know that I’m still waiting for her response to my questions…

Because if she doesn’t respond to my questions then this means that her prior critique of my work was professionally irresponsible and extremely reckless, which is definitely not a professional attitude which should be taken regarding the lack of care and potential psychological abuse of children by a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent.

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

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

Barber and Harmon (2002) define parental psychological control of the child:

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

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

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

Introducing the Dark Triad

The paradigm for defining the pathology of “parental alienation” is shifting.

Gardner led everyone down the wrong path when he proposed that “parental alienation” represented a unique new form of pathology unrelated to any other form of pathology in all of mental health – a “new syndrome.”

Gardner was wrong. The pathology of “parental alienation” is NOT a unique “new syndrome.” It is a manifestation of well-established and well-defined forms of personality disorder pathology, family systems pathology, and attachment-trauma pathology.

Incompatible Paradigms

The family pathology commonly referred to as “parental alienation” CANNOT simultaneously be an entirely unique new form of pathology – a “new syndrome” – which is unrelated to any other form of pathology in all of mental health – as Gardner proposed in PAS – and, at the same time, also be a manifestation of well-established and well-defined forms of existing pathology.

Either it is a new form of pathology or it is an existing form of pathology. It cannot simultaneously be both.

The paradigm is shifting.

And once the paradigm shifts, once the pathology of “parental alienation” is defined entirely from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, a wealth of existing research becomes immediately available to assess, diagnose, and treat the family pathology of “parental alienation.”

Once the paradigm shifts, once the pathology of “parental alienation” is defined entirely from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, ALL mental health professionals can be held ACCOUNTABLE for professional competence in the domains of standard and established psychological principles and constructs that comprise the pathology commonly referred to as “parental alienation.”

Clinical Psychology

In clinical psychology, there is no such thing as “parental alienation” and there is no such thing as “reunification therapy.”

In clinical psychology the pathology is defined as pathogenic parenting (creating pathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices) and there is family systems therapy that disrupts the cross-generational coalition of the child with the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

DSM-5 Diagnosis

The diagnosis of Parental Alienation Syndrome is not in the DSM-5.

Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

PAS is not in the DSM-5. Once we shift to defining the pathology of “parental alienation” from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, the pathology of “parental alienation” is found on page 719 of the DSM-5; a diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

The paradigm is shifting. The era of a “new syndrome” definition of the pathology is over. The “new syndrome” model of Gardnerian PAS is a failed paradign that has produced nothing but 30 years of controversy, rampant professional incompetence, and the continued family tragedy of “parental alienation.”

The Paradigm Shift

A new era in the diagnosis and treatment of the family pathology of “parental alienation” is arriving in which the family pathology of “parental alienation” is defined entirely from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs.

You will know which paradigm the mental health professional follows by which diagnostic indicators the mental health professional uses in diagnosing the pathology; the 8 unique symptom identifiers of Gardnerian PAS or the 3 standard symptom identifiers of an attachment-based model.

Both paradigms cannot simultaneously be true.

Either the pathology is a “new syndrome” that is unique in all of mental health – representing the Gardnerian PAS model with its 8 unique symptom identifiers that are unrelated to any other form of pathology in all of mental health;

Or the family pathology is a manifestation of standard and established forms of existing pathology (parental attachment trauma mediated by the personality disorder pathology of the parent) – representing the attachment-based model with its 3 diagnostic indicators.

It is a logical impossibility for both to simultaneously be true. If one is true, then the other is false.

If the family pathology is a unique “new syndrome,” then it is not a manifestation of established forms of pathology.

If the family pathology is a manifestation of established forms of pathology, then it is not a unique “new syndrome.”

One is true. The other is false.

So which is true?

The family pathology of “parental alienation” is NOT a unique new form of pathology – it is not a “new syndrome.” Gardnerian PAS is wrong. Gardnerian PAS is untrue.

The family pathology of “parental alienation” is a manifestation of well-established and well-defined, fully accepted, existing forms of pathology. An attachment-based model is a true and correct description of the pathology.

In Foundations, I provide a comprehensive description of the pathology. The pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” represents:

The trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent into the current family relationships;

Mediated by the narcissistic/(borderline) personality traits of the allied parent, which are themselves a product of the parent’s childhood attachment trauma;

Through the formation of a cross-generational coalition of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent with the child against the targeted parent.

The addition of the splitting pathology characteristic of the narcissistic/(borderline) personality transforms an already pathological cross-generational coalition (a “perverse triangle” – Haley) into a particularly virulent and malignant form that seeks to entirely terminate the child’s relationship with the targeted parent.

But there is more….

It’s now time to move deeper; to extend the definitional networks for “parental alienation” pathology even more fully into established psychological principles and constructs of professional psychology. Scientifically established constructs. Empirically grounded; evidenced-based.

The Psychological Control of the Child

In his book, Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents, published by the American Psychological Association, Brian Barber and his colleague, Elizabeth Harmon, identify and describe 40 empirically validated scientific studies demonstrating the psychological control of children by parents.

According to Barber and Harmon:

“Psychological control refers to parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of children’s thoughts, feelings, and attachment to parents.” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 15; emphasis added)

According to Stone, Buehler, & Barber:

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

In the Journal of Emotional Abuse, Kerig describes parental psychological control of the child:

“Rather than telling the child directly what to do or think, as does the behaviorally controlling parent, the psychologically controlling parent uses indirect hints and responds with guilt induction or withdrawal of love if the child refuses to comply. In short, an intrusive parent strives to manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings in such a way that the child’s psyche will conform to the parent’s wishes.” (Kerig, 2005, p. 12; emphasis added)

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

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

Parental psychological control of the child represents a violation of the psychological integrity of the child:

“The essential impact of psychological control of the child is to violate the self-system of the child.” (Barber & Harmon: 2002, p. 24; emphasis added)

Barber and Harmon reference the established research regarding the damage that this violation of the child’s psychological integrity has on the child:

“Numerous elements of the child’s self-in-relation-to-parent have been discussed as being compromised by psychologically controlling behaviors such as…

Individuality (Goldin, 1969; Kurdek, et al., 1995; Litovsky & Dusek, 1985; Schaefer, 1965a, 1965b, Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992);

Individuation (Barber et al., 1994; Barber & Shagle, 1992; Costanzo & Woody, 1985; Goldin, 1969, Smetana, 1995; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986; Wakschlag, Chase-Landsdale & Brooks-Gunn, 1996 1996);

Independence (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hein & Lewko, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1994);

Degree of psychological distance between parents and children (Barber et al., 1994);

and threatened attachment to parents (Barber, 1996; Becker, 1964).” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 25; emphasis added).

Research by Stone, Buehler, and Barber establishes the link between parental psychological control of children and marital conflict:

“This study was conducted using two different samples of youth. The first sample consisted of youth living in Knox County, Tennessee. The second sample consisted of youth living in Ogden, Utah.” (Stone, Buehler, and Barber, 2002, p. 62)

“The analyses reveal that variability in psychological control used by parents is not random but it is linked to interparental conflict, particularly covert conflict. Higher levels of covert conflict in the marital relationship heighten the likelihood that parents would use psychological control with their children. This might be because both parental psychological control and covert conflict are anxiety-driven. They share defining characteristics, particularly the qualities of intrusiveness, indirectness, and manipulation.” (Stone, Buehler, and Barber, 2002, p. 86; emphasis added)

Stone, Buehler, and Barber offer an explanation for their finding that intrusive parental psychological control of children is related to high inter-spousal conflict:

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

This is all from scientifically established psychological principles and constructs. There is no need for a proposal of a unique new form of pathology – a “new syndrome” – the construct of PAS is unnecessary, and to the extent that it divides mental health and allows professional incompetence to thrive unchecked, it it destructive.

It is time for the paradigm to shift. We need to apply the professional rigor necessary to define the family pathology of “parental alienation” from ENTIRELY within established and accepted psychological principles and constructs. No “new syndrome” proposal.

The “new syndrome” model of Gardnerian PAS is a dead paradigm.

The Dark Triad

You have seen how I continually define the parental personality pathology with the term “narcissistic/(borderline).” This is broadly correct, but it’s now time to begin to refine this construct of the parental personality pathology even more.

The actual personality pathology is referred to as the Dark Triad. It’s a set of three personality traits, 1) Narcissism, 2) Machiavellianism (cynical self-serving manipulation), and 3) Psychopathy. The term Dark Triad for this constellation of personality characteristics was coined in 2002 (over a decade ago) by Paulhus and Williams:

“First cited by Paulhus and Williams (2002), the Dark Triad refers to a set of three distinct but related antisocial personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Each of the Dark Triad traits is associated with feelings of superiority and privilege. This, coupled with a lack of remorse and empathy, often leads individuals high in these socially malevolent traits to exploit others for their own personal gain.” (Giammarco & Vernon, 2014, p. 23)

According to Paulhus and Williams (2002):

“Despite their diverse origins, the personalities composing this Dark Triad share a number of features. To varying degrees, all three entail a socially malevolent character with behavior tendencies toward self-promotion, emotional coldness, duplicity, and aggressiveness. In the clinical literature, the links among the triad have been noted for some time (e.g., Hart & Hare, 1998). The recent development of non-clinical measures of all three constructs has permitted the evaluation of empirical associations in normal populations. As a result, there is now empirical evidence for the overlap of (a) Machiavellianism with psychopathy (Fehr, Samsom, & Paulhus, 1992; McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998), (b) narcissism with psychopathy (Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995), and (c) Machiavellianism with narcissism (McHoskey, 1995).” (Paulhus & Williams, 2002, p. 557; emphasis added)

There is even a variation of the Dark Triad that has also been identified, called the Vulnerable Dark Triad (Miller, Dir, Gentile, Wilson, Pryor, & Campbell, 2010), comprised of

1) Vulnerable rather than grandiose narcissism,

2) Manipulative psychopathy,

3) Borderline personality traits.

“In the current study, we posit the existence of a second related triad – one that includes personality styles composed of both dark and emotionally vulnerable traits… The members of this putative vulnerable dark triad (VDT) would include (a) Factor 2 psychopathy, (b) vulnerable narcissism, and (c) borderline PD (BPD).” (Miller, Dir, Gentile, Wilson, Pryor, & Campbell, 2010, p. 1530)

“We believe that the current evidence supports the existence of a second ‘‘dark’’ triad, one that is characterized by an antagonistic interpersonal style and emotional vulnerability… All VDT [Vulnerable Dark Triad] members manifested significant relations with similar etiological factors, such as retrospective reports of childhood abuse and colder, more invalidating parenting styles.” (Miller, Dir, Gentile, Wilson, Pryor, & Campbell, 2010, p. 1554)

Self-report personality assessment measures have also been developed to assess for the component personality traits, such as:

Narcissism: Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979)

Machiavellianism: MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970)

Subclinical Psychopathy: Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2009).

Self-report measures have also been developed to specifically assess for the Dark Triad personality constellation,

Dark Triad: Short Dark Triad (SD3) scale (Jones & Paulhus, 2014)

These are all self-report scales, meaning that they are all vulnerable to innacuracy in a clinical setting due to reporting bias, but these measures give us a starting direction for developing a measure that would be useful in a clinical setting.

In addition, research on the core personality characteristics uniting the three “dark” personality traits comprising the Dark Triad has associated the Dark Triad with low scores on Scale H (Honesty-Humility) on a prominent personality assessment, the HEXACO (Book, Visser, & Volk, 2015; Lee, & Ashton, 2012). As a start, the HEXACO should therefore be included in all child custody evaluations, with a specific focus on interpreting the H Scale (Honesty-Humility).

Research has further linked the Dark Triad personality constellation with the absence of empathy:

Wai, M. and Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 794–799

To vengefulness in romantic relationships:

Giammarco, E.A. and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Vengeance and the Dark Triad: The role of empathy and perspective taking in trait forgivingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 23–29

Rasmussen, K.R. and Boon, S.D. (2014). Romantic revenge and the Dark Triad: A model of impellance and inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 51–56

To lying, manipulative fabrication, and deception:

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M. Baughman, H.M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). What a tangled web we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 117–119

Baughman, H.M., Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Vernon, P.A. (2014). Liar liar pants on fire: Cheater strategies linked to the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 35–38

To attachment-related pathology:

Jonason, P.K., Lyons, M., and Bethell, E. (2014). The making of Darth Vader: Parent–child care and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 30–34

And to high-conflict patterns of communication:

This last article on the association of the Dark Triad to high-conflict communication style is particularly important. This study examined the association of the Dark Triad personality with a set of high-conflict communication patterns previously identified in the communication literature. According to Horan, Guinn, and Banghart:

“How individuals communicate during conflict is important, and the previously reviewed studies reinforce that personality is important in understanding this process. Four conflict messages that have received academic attention are contempt, criticism, stonewalling, and defensiveness.

“Contempt involves “statements that come from a relative position of superiority…‘You’re an idiot’”;

“Criticism entails “stating one’s complaints as a defect in one’s partner’s personality…‘You always talk about yourself. You are so selfish’”;

“Stonewalling describes “the listener’s withdrawal from interaction;”

“and defensiveness describes self-protection in the form of “righteous indignation or innocent victimhood.” (Gottman, 1993, p. 62).

“Such behaviors can work together, wherein there is “process cascade in which criticism leads to contempt, which leads to defensiveness, which leads to stonewalling” (Gottman, 1993, p. 62). Collectively, these conflict messages are known as The Four Horsemen (Gottman, 1993).” (Horan, Guinn, & Banghart. 2015, 159; emphasis added)

“Recently, Fowler and Dillow (2011) examined how attachment orientations predicted the enactment of Four Horsemen. They found that attachment anxiety predicted an increased use of the Four Horsemen and attachment avoidance predicted the use of stonewalling. Their findings underscore the importance of studying individual personality traits, or predispositions, in conjunction with the Four Horsemen; a similar approach was adopted here by studying the Dark Triad.” (Horan, Guinn, & Banghart. 2015, p. 160)

The study by Horan, Guinn, and Banghart tested a set of hypotheses:

“Hypotheses 1a–1c examined the relationships among the Dark Triad personality structure and general nature of romantic partner conflict. Results demonstrated that individuals reporting higher levels of Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathy, and subclinical narcissism tended to have higher levels of romantic partner disagreement and that such conflict discussions were both intense and hostile.” (Horan, Guinn, & Banghart. 2015, p. 165)

“Hypothesis 2 explored the relationships among the Dark Triad personality structure and use of the Four Horsemen during romantic partner conflict. Correlations revealed that individuals reporting higher levels Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy also reported greater use of contempt, criticism, stonewalling, and defensiveness. A similar picture was painted for narcissism, with the exception of stonewalling.”

Given the research literature:

ALL mental health professionals involved in assessing, diagnosing, and treating families evidencing high-conflict divorce need to possess the requisite professional knowledge and expertise needed to assess for the Dark Triad and the Vulnerable Dark Triad personality constellations.

Given the research literature:

ALL child custody evaluations should include the HEXACO personality inventory to assess for low Scale H (Honesty-Humility).

Evil and the Dark Triad

An article by Book, Visser, and Volk proposes that the core of the Dark Triad represents the essence of evil:

“Evil is a concept familiar to many, but one that has proven difficult to define and study… As psychologists, our goal is to translate this linguistic concept of evil into a measurable aspect of individual differences in traits and/or behaviors (e.g., psychopathy; Hare, 2003). Recently, Paulhus and Williams (2002) attempted to elucidate ‘‘evil’’ under the umbrella of the ‘‘Dark Triad’’ (Book, Visser, and Volk, 2015, p. 29)

“Understanding the nature of ‘‘evil’’ has been challenging for a number of reasons. A productive psychological approach to this problem has been to study antisocial traits associated with negative outcomes. One such approach has grouped together three antisocial personalities known as the ‘‘Dark Triad’’: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy. Researchers have proposed various models to account for the common core of these antisocial personalities – a core that might well be considered the psychological equivalent of the core of ‘‘evil.’’ (Book, Visser, and Volk, 2015, p. 29)

“Our two studies represent the first empirical comparison of all the major theories explaining the core of the Dark Triad, a cluster of traits that fits the English definition of evil.” (Book, Visser, and Volk, 2015, p. 36)

“Taken together, these explanations offer a complete adaptive, developmental, and ecological framework for explaining the presence of ‘‘evil’’ in some individuals’ traits and behaviors. Individuals are born with different predispositions towards certain levels of HEXACO traits (Lewis & Bates, 2014). These predispositions are modified by environmental cues and events (James & Ellis, 2013), resulting in an adult set of personality traits (i.e., the Dark Triad) that is expressed as antisocial behavior in an effort to maximize an individual’s evolutionary fitness within a given environmental context (Jonason et al., 2010).” (Book, Visser, and Volk, 2015, p. 36)

“We therefore feel confident in recommending the HEXACO as the measurement tool of choice for understanding the core of the Dark Triad in particular, and the psychological concept of ‘‘evil’’ in general.” (Book, Visser, and Volk, 2015, p. 36)

Once we shift paradigms for defining the pathology of “parental alienation” away from the incorrect model of a “new syndrome” proposed by Gardernian PAS with its 8 unique symptom identifiers over to defining the pathology of “parental alienation” from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, the solution to the pathology of “parental alienation” becomes available immediately; three diagnostic indicators, a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Pathogenic parenting is not a child custody issue; it is a child protection issue.

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

References

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

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

Book, A., Visser, B.A., and Volk, A.A. (2015). Unpacking ‘‘evil’’: Claiming the core of the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences 73 (2015) 29–38

Christie, R. C., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Jones, D.N. and Paulhus, D.L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A Brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28-41.

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

Lee, K., and Ashton, M. C. (2012). The H factor of personality: Why some people are manipulative, self-entitled, materialistic, and exploitative —and why it matters for everyone. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Raskin, R. N. and Hall, C. S. (1981). The narcissistic personality inventory: alternative form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159–162.

Mercer Redux

Dr. Jean Mercer is at it again. Challenging an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” with vague allegations and outright falsehood.

Flying Monkeys, “Parental Alienation”, and… No Vivid Writing Please

So let me address Dr. Mercer one more time.

For the record, this is my position:

The pathology that is traditionally called “parental alienation” in the common-culture represents the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent to the current family relationships, mediated by the personality disorder pathology of the parent that is itself a product of this childhood attachment trauma.

This is a professional-level diagnostic statement of pathology.

And let me be entirely clear, I in no way endorse or support the antiquated and foundationally incorrect formulation of the family pathology as described by Gardernian PAS. I am in no way talking about Gardnerian PAS.

The term “parental alienation” is not a defined term in clinical psychology. The discussion of this pathology within professional psychology needs to shift away from the use of the poorly defined construct of “parental alienation” over to the use of professionally accepted and professionally established constructs of:

Attachment pathology
Personality disorder pathology
Family systems therapy
Established research on parental psychological control of children

Through her appellation of “pseudoscience,” Dr. Mercer makes the allegation that there is no scientific foundation to the diagnostic formulation of the family pathology as described in Foundations. This statement by Dr. Mercer is not true, and in fact Dr. Mercer’s statement so blatantly disregards objective reality as to be professionally reckless and irresponsible.

In response to Dr. Mercer’s completely unfounded and professionally irresponsible allegation, I would ask that she identify what aspect of the diagnostic formulation as put forward in Foundations she seeks additional research support? On my website is a checklist of the component pathology of an attachment-based diagnostic model of the pathology as described in Foundations:

Checklist of Component Pathology

Since Dr. Mercer has chosen to denigrate my work by making the unfounded assertion that it lacks scientific support, I ask that she identify what aspect of Foundations she believes warrants additional research support.

Let me, for example, take just one aspect of an attachment-based diagnostic formulation of this pathology, that of parental psychological control of the child by a narcissistic/(borderline) parent. In his book, Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents – published by the American Psychological Association – Brian Barber and his colleague, Elizabeth Harmon, identify and describe 40 scientifically based studies on the psychological control of children in Table 1 on pages 29-32. Forty scientific studies, Dr. Mercer. Forty.

And this is just one aspect of Foundations having to do with the psychological control of the child. Forty studies. No scientific support? Are you nuts? There is overwhelming and substantial scientific support for every aspect of Foundations.

In their 2014 study of parental psychological control of children and emotional regulation, Cui, Morris, Criss, Houltberg, and Silk state:

“Because psychological control is emotionally manipulative in nature, making parental love and acceptance contingent on children’s behavior, it is likely that psychological control has a deleterious impact on emotion regulation (Morris et al., 2002). Indeed, the reasons for this link are rooted in the defining features of psychological control.

Specifically, psychological control has historically been defined as psychologically and emotionally manipulative techniques or parental behaviors that are not responsive to children’s psychological and emotional needs (Barber, Maughan, & Olsen, 2005). Psychologically controlling parents create a coercive, unpredictable, or negative emotional climate of the family, which serves as one of the ways the family context influences children’s emotion regulation (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007; Steinberg, 2005).

Such parenting strategies ignore the child’s need for autonomy, impede the child’s volitional functioning, and intervene in the individuation process (Barber & Xia, 2013; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). In such an environment, children feel pressure to conform to parental authority, which results in children’s emotional insecurity and dependence (Morris et al., 2002).” (Cui, Morris, Criss, Houltberg, & Silk, 2014, p. 48)

According to Barber and Harmon:

“Psychological control refers to parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of children’s thoughts, feelings, and attachment to parents.” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 15)

“… and attachment to parents.”

Parental psychological control of the child represents a violation of the psychological integrity of the child:

“The essential impact of psychological control of the child is to violate the self-system of the child.” (Barber & Harmon: 2002, p. 24)

“…violate the self-system of the child.”

According to Kerig in the Journal of Emotional Abuse:

“Rather than telling the child directly what to do or think, as does the behaviorally controlling parent, the psychologically controlling parent uses indirect hints and responds with guilt induction or withdrawal of love if the child refuses to comply. In short, an intrusive parent strives to manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings in such a way that the child’s psyche will conform to the parent’s wishes.” (Kerig, 2005, p. 12)

“…the child’s psyche will conform to the parent’s wishes.”

“In order to carve out an island of safety and responsivity in an unpredictable, harsh, and depriving parent-child relationship, children of highly maladaptive parents may become precocious caretakers who are adept at reading the cues and meeting the needs of those around them. The ensuing preoccupied attachment with the parent interferes with the child’s development of important ego functions, such as self organization, affect regulation, and emotional object constancy.” (Kerig, 2005, p. 14)

“…adept at reading the cues and meeting the needs…”

In their research on parental psychological control of children, Stone, Buehler, and Barber report:

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

“…manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings”

Barber and Harmon reference the established research regarding the damage that this violation of the child’s psychological integrity has on the child:

“Numerous elements of the child’s self-in-relation-to-parent have been discussed as being compromised by psychologically controlling behaviors such as…

Individuality (Goldin, 1969; Kurdek, et al., 1995; Litovsky & Dusek, 1985; Schaefer, 1965a, 1965b, Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992);

Individuation (Barber et al., 1994; Barber & Shagle, 1992; Costanzo & Woody, 1985; Goldin, 1969, Smetana, 1995; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986; Wakschlag, Chase-Landsdale & Brooks-Gunn, 1996 1996);

Independence (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hein & Lewko, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1994);

Degree of psychological distance between parents and children (Barber et al., 1994);

and threatened attachment to parents (Barber, 1996; Becker, 1964).” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 25).

Compromised “…individuality, individuation, independence, degree of psychological distance between parents and children, and threatened attachment to parents.”

“…and threatened attachment to parents.”

The research by Stone, Buehler, and Barber establishes the link between parental psychological control of children and marital conflict:

“This study was conducted using two different samples of youth. The first sample consisted of youth living in Knox County, Tennessee. The second sample consisted of youth living in Ogden, Utah.” (Stone, Buehler, and Barber, 2002, p. 62)

“The analyses reveal that variability in psychological control used by parents is not random but it is linked to interparental conflict, particularly covert conflict. Higher levels of covert conflict in the marital relationship heighten the likelihood that parents would use psychological control with their children. This might be because both parental psychological control and covert conflict are anxiety-driven. They share defining characteristics, particularly the qualities of intrusiveness, indirectness, and manipulation.” (Stone, Buehler, and Barber, 2002, p. 86)

“…psychological control used by parents is not random but it is linked to interparental conflict, particularly covert conflict”

Stone, Buehler, and Barber offer an explanation for their finding that intrusive parental psychological control of children is related to high inter-spousal conflict:

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

“…the resulting enmeshment and cross-generational coalition would exemplify parents’ use of psychological control to coerce and maintain a parent-youth emotional alliance against the other parent.”

The narcissistic parent is particularly prone to exercising psychological control over the child:

“To the extent that parents are narcissistic, they are controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of their children’s needs and of the effects of their behavior on their children, and require that the children see them as the parents wish to be seen. They may also demand certain behavior from their children because they see the children as extensions of themselves, and need the children to represent them in the world in ways that meet the parents’ emotional needs.” (Rappoport, 2005, p. 2)

“…they may also demand certain behavior from their children because they see the children as extensions of themselves”

“In regard to narcissistic parents, the child must exhibit the same qualities, values, feelings, and behavior which the parent employs to defend his or her self-esteem.” (Rappoport, 2005, p. 3)

“…the child must exhibit the same qualities, values, feelings, and behavior which the parent employs”

There is abundant scientifically established research support for all aspects of the diagnostic formulation of this family pathology as described in Foundations. If Dr. Mercer is going to use her professional standing to assert that Foundations lacks scientific support, it is incumbent upon her to identify which aspect of the diagnostic formulation contained in Foundations she believes lacks scientific foundation.

Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Do you disagree with this statement, Dr. Mercer?

In response to Dr. Mercer’s professionally irresponsible, reckless, and false statements, I call on her to back them up with specifics. Which aspects of Foundations does she believe lack scientific foundation?

I am not averse to criticism. So let’s hear it:

Your criticism, Dr. Mercer, is that the diagnostic formulation provided in Foundations lacks scientific support. So specifically, Dr. Mercer, which aspects of the diagnostic formulation contained in Foundations do you believe lack scientific foundation? I am fully ready, willing, and able to engage you in a professional debate.

I am willing to defend my position, Dr. Mercer. Are you willing to defend yours?

Do you agree or disagree that parental psychological control of children (as defined in the scientific research literature cited above) exists?

Do you believe narcissistic and borderline pathology exists? Describe for us the psychological response of a narcissistic or borderline parent to the rejection and abandonment inherent to divorce?

You want to engage in a professional debate, Dr. Mercer? Fine by me. I’m not averse to criticism. Are you? I’ll address your questions; you address mine.

You allege that Foundations lacks scientific support. Back up your criticism. What aspect of Foundations do you believe lacks scientific support?

Because if you don’t do so, Dr. Mercer, then your prior statements were professionally irresponsible and professionally reckless. So back them up. What aspect of Foundations do you believe lacks scientific support?

And, as a mental health professional, answer my questions to you Dr. Mercer. Describe what happens to a narcissistic/borderline personality parent in response to the rejection and abandonment inherent to divorce?

Do you agree or disagree that pathogenic parenting which is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed?

I’m not averse to professional debate, Dr. Mercer. Are you?

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

References

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

Cui, L., Morris, A.S., Criss, M.M., Houltberg, B.J., and Jennifer S. Silk, J.S. (2014). Parental Psychological Control and Adolescent Adjustment: The Role of Adolescent Emotion Regulation. Parenting: Science and Practice, 14, 47–67.

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

Rappoport, A. (2005). Co-narcissism: How we accommodate to narcissistic parents. The Therapist.

The Solution

In all cases involving the suppression of the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations toward a parent surrounding divorce, the mental health professional should assess for these three specific diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting by an allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent (in accord with their professional obligations under Standard 9.01a of the ethics code of the APA to base diagnostic statements on “information sufficient to substantiate their findings”).

(notice I did not use the term, “parental alienation” – standard and established psychological principles and constructs)

When the three diagnostic indicators are present in the child’s symptom display, then all mental health professions should make the accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

When a mental health professional makes a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (on p. 719 of the DSM-5), then this activates the professional’s “duty to protect” obligation that must be discharged by taking affirmative action to protect the child.

The easiest and most direct protective action would be filing a suspected child abuse report with Child Protective Services.

The goal then becomes getting the social workers at Child Protective Services to become professionally competent in recognizing and diagnosing this pathology (i.e., pathogenic parenting by an allied narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent – not “parental alienation; standard and established psychological principles and constructs) using the same three diagnostic indicators for pathogenic parenting.

The social workers would then use the same diagnostic criteria to confirm the DSM-5 diagnosis made by the mental health professional, thereby providing two independently made confirmed DSM-5 diagnoses of Child Psychological Abuse.

CPS would then respond by protectively separating the child from the abusive parent and placing the child in kinship care if available. Kinship care in cases of child psychological abuse involving pathogenic parenting by an allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent (commonly referred to in the popular culture terminology as “parental alienation”) would typically be available from the normal-range and affectionally available targeted parent.

The pathology is solved entirely within the mental health response, without the need for the involvement of the legal system. If the courts become involved to verify the appropriateness of the protective separation, then the targeted parent has two independently made DSM-5 diagnoses of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed to present to the Court as the treatment-related justification for the protective separation period required for the child’s treatment and recovery.

Once the child’s pathology has been treated and resolved, and the normal-range functioning of the child has been recovered and stabilized, then the pathogenic parenting of the abusive parent is reintroduced with appropriate therapeutic monitoring to ensure that the child does not relapse when re-exposed to the pathogenic parenting of the psychologically abusive parent.

This solution is available today. Right this instant. All it waits on is mental health professionals assessing for the pathology of pathogenic parenting by an allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent (the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting) and making the correct and accurate diagnosis of the family pathology based on the child’s symptom display.

Does this solve everything under the sun? No. It just solves what it is designed to solve. But let’s solve this to start.

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

Parental Psychological Control of Children

In his book, Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents, published by the American Psychological Association, Brian Barber and his colleague, Elizabeth Harmon, define the psychological control of children by a parent:

“Psychological control refers to parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of children’s thoughts, feelings, and attachment to parents.” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 15).

In table 1 on pages 29-32, Barber and Harmon list and describe 40 empirically validated scientific studies demonstrating the psychological control of children by parents. Forty studies in the scientific literature.

Parental psychological control of the child represents a violation of the psychological integrity of the child.

“The essential impact of psychological control of the child is to violate the self-system of the child.” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 24).

Barber and Harmon cite the established research regarding the damage that this violation of the child’s psychological integrity has on the child.

“Numerous elements of the child’s self-in-relation-to-parent have been discussed as being compromised by psychologically controlling behaviors such as…

individuality (Goldin, 1969; Kurdek, et al., 1995; Litovsky & Dusek, 1985; Schaefer, 1965a, 1965b, Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992);

individuation (Barber et al., 1994; Barber & Shagle, 1992; Costanzo & Woody, 1985; Goldin, 1969, Smetana, 1995; Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986; Wakschlag, Chanse-Landsdale & Brooks-Gunn, 1996 1996);

independence (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hein & Lewko, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1994);

degree of psychological distance between parents and children (Barber et all, 1994);

and threatened attachment to parents (Barber, 1996; Becker, 1964)” (Barber & Harmon, 2002, p. 25; emphasis added).

In Chapter 3 of Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents, published by the American Psychological Association, entitled “Interparental Conflict, Parental Psychological Control, and Youth Behavior Problems,” Stone, Buehler, and Barber describe their research on the association of parental psychological control of children and interparental conflict.

“Parental psychological control is defined as verbal and nonverbal behaviors that intrude on youth’s emotional and psychological autonomy.” (Stone, Buehler, and Barber, p. 57)

“One important aspect of covert interparental conflict is triangulating children (Minuchin, 1974). This involves active recruitment (even though this activity might be fairly subtle) or implicit approval of child-initiated involvement in the parents’ disputes.” (Stone, Buehler, and Barber, 2002, p. 56)

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

The empirically validated scientific research of Stone, Buehler, and Barber (2002) used two separate samples of families.

“This study was conducted using two different samples of youth. The first sample consisted of youth living in Knox County, Tennessee. The second sample consisted of youth living in Ogden, Utah.” (Stone, Buehler, and Barber, 2002, p. 62)

“The analyses reveal that variability in psychological control used by parents is not random but it is linked to interparental conflict, particularly covert conflict. Higher levels of covert conflict in the marital relationship heighten the likelihood that parents would use psychological control with their children. This might be because both parental psychological control and covert conflict are anxiety-driven. They share defining characteristics, particularly the qualities of intrusiveness, indirectness, and manipulation.” (Stone, Buehler, and Barber, p. 86)

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

This is not a “new theory” of Dr. Childress. This is scientifically established fact. These quotes are from a book published by the American Psychological Association in 2002. Evidenced-based, empirically supported, scientifically established fact.

This is not a “new theory” of Dr. Childress. It’s called diagnosis. The application of scientifically established psychological constructs and principles to the child’s symptom display.

Once we define this form of family pathology using standard and established psychological principles and constructs, of personality disorder pathology, attachment-trauma pathology, and parental “psychological control” of children as established in the scientific literature (e.g., Barber, 2002), the solution becomes available immediately.

It is simply a matter of obtaining an accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology.

This is not a “new theory” – this is diagnosis.

Failure by any psychologist to appropriately assess for this pathology would represent a violation of Standard 9.01a of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association requiring that psychologists base their diagnostic statements on “information sufficient to substantiate their findings.”

If the psychologist does not know how to assess for this form of family pathology, then this would represent a violation of Standard 2.01a of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association regarding boundaries of professional competence.

If the psychologist does not know how to diagnose this form of family pathology, then this would represent a violation of Standard 2.01a of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association regarding boundaries of professional competence.

If harm then accrues to the client child and targeted parent because of the psychologist’s practice beyond the boundaries of professional competence and failure to appropriately assess the pathology (personality disorder pathology, attachment trauma pathology, and parental psychological control of the child) “sufficient to substantiate” their diagnostic findings, then this would represent a violation of Standard 3.04 of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association regarding avoiding harm to the client.

Psychologists – and all mental health professionals – are not allowed to be incompetent.

This is not a “new theory” of Dr. Childress. This is diagnosis. Based on scientifically established principles and constructs of professional psychology.

Barber’s book, Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents was published by the American Psychological Association.

From Barber & Harmon: “Psychological control refers to parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of children’s thoughts, feelings, and attachment to parents.” (2002, p. 15)

“… and attachment to parents.”

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Psychologist, PSY 18857

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

Demanding Professional Competence

We are bringing an end to the family nightmare of “parental alienation.”

The reason “parental alienation” continues is because of a fundamental failure within professional mental health to accurately diagnose the pathology.

The reason professional mental health is failing to accurately diagnose the pathology is the professional ignorance and incompetence regarding personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology of the specific mental health persons who are assessing and diagnosing the pathology within the family,

These mental health persons simply don’t know what they’re doing.

Ignorance and professional incompetence is not allowed by professional standards of practice governing the licenses of these mental health persons.

For psychologists, Standard 2.01a of the American Psychological Association states:

2.01 Boundaries of Competence
(a) Psychologists provide services, teach and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study or professional experience.

For marriage and family therapists, Standards 3.1 and 3.10 of the Code of Ethics for the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy states:

3.1 Maintenance of Competency
Marriage and family therapists pursue knowledge of new developments and maintain their competence in marriage and family therapy through education, training, and/or supervised experience.

3.10 Scope of Competence.
Marriage and family therapists do not diagnose, treat, or advise on problems outside the recognized boundaries of their competencies.

For Master’s level mental health counselors, Standard C.2.a. of the Code of Ethics for the American Counseling Association states:

C.2.a. Boundaries of Competence
Counselors practice only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, state and national professional credentials, and appropriate professional experience.

For social workers, the Ethics Code of the National Association of Social Workers states:

Value: Competence
Ethical Principle: Social workers practice within their areas of competence and develop and enhance their professional expertise. Social workers continually strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice.

1.04 Competence
(a) Social workers should provide services and represent themselves as competent only within the boundaries of their education, training, license, certification, consultation received, supervised experience, or other relevant professional experience.

In Canada, the Values Statement for Principle II, Responsible Caring, of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists states:

In order to carry out these steps, psychologists recognize the need for competence and self-knowledge. They consider incompetent action to be unethical per se, as it is unlikely to be of benefit and likely to be harmful. They engage only in those activities in which they have competence or for which they are receiving supervision, and they perform their activities as competently as possible. They acquire, contribute to, and use the existing knowledge most relevant to the best interests of those concerned.

II.6 Competence and self-knowledge
Offer or carry out (without supervision) only those activities for which they have established their competence to carry them out to the benefit of others.

In Australia, Standard B.1.2.a of the Australian Psychological Society Code of Ethics states:

B.1 Competence
B.1.2. Psychologists only provide psychological services within the boundaries of their professional competence. This includes, but is not restricted to: (a) working within the limits of their education, training, supervised experience and appropriate professional experience

In Great Britain, Standard 2 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct of the British Psychological Society states

2 Ethical Principle: COMPETENCE
Statement of values
Psychologists value the continuing development and maintenance of high standards of competence in their professional work, and the importance of preserving their ability to function optimally within the recognised limits of their knowledge, skill, training, education, and experience

Professional Incompetence

Professional incompetence is a violation of ethical standards of practice for all mental health professionals everywhere.

This means that if a mental health professional is assessing and diagnosing personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology manifesting in family relationships, that mental health professional MUST BE COMPETENT in the assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology as it manifests in family relationships (notice I did not say “parental alienation” pathology).

Mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to be incompetent.

Our goal is to ensure that whenever there is evidence of an attachment related disorder following divorce – i.e., the suppression of the child’s normal-range attachment bonding motivations toward a parent – that ALL mental health professionals working with your children and families properly assess for the presence of narcissistic and borderline personality disorder pathology and attachment-trauma pathology within the family that is influencing family relationships and creating the attachment-related pathology displayed by the child.

Notice I never said “parental alienation.” In professional psychology, the construct of “parental alienation” does not exist. Personality disorder pathology exists. Attachment-trauma pathology exists. We are going to begin holding ALL mental health professionals who are assessing and diagnosing the pathology in your families accountable for professional competence in the assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder pathology and attachment trauma pathology.

If the mental health professional does not know how to assess for the presence of narcissistic and borderline personality disorder pathology and attachment-trauma pathology within the family that is influencing family relationships and creating the attachment-related pathology displayed by the child – then they are practicing outside the boundaries of their competence in violation of their ethical standards of practice.

If the mental health professional does not know how to diagnose the presence of narcissistic and borderline personality disorder pathology and attachment-trauma pathology within the family that is influencing family relationships and creating the attachment-related pathology displayed by the child – then they are practicing outside the boundaries of their competence in violation of their ethical standards of practice.

This is not negotiable. Mental health professionals must be professionally competent. If they are assessing and diagnosing personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology within the family, then they must be professionally competent in the assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology as expressed within the family’s relationships.

Accountability: Defining the Pathology

This has been my goal since day one, to eliminate the profound degree of professional incompetence in mental health surrounding the diagnosis of “parental alienation” pathology by holding mental health professionals ACCOUNTABLE.

We cannot hold them accountable to the construct of “parental alienation” since the construct of “parental alienation” is not an accepted or well-defined construct in professional psychology. So I had to define the pathology of “parental alienation” entirely from within standard and fully established psychological principles and constructs. That’s what I set about doing, uncovering layer upon layer of the pathology, working out the details of its structure and diagnosis.

With the publication of An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Foundations in June of 2015, we can now hold all mental health professionals accountable for professional competence. In Foundations, the pathology of “parental alienation” is fully explained and described as a manifestation of narcissistic/(borderline) personality disorder pathology and attachment-trauma.

Yet I also understand that the many ignorant and incompetent mental health professionals have not read Foundations.

I wrote professional-to-professional letters and posted them to my website that targeted parents could provide to mental health professionals working with their families to explain the pathology:

Professional-to-Professional Letter: The Hostile-Rejecting Child

Professional-to-Professional Letter: The Hyper-Anxious Child

I wrote a professional-to-professional handout and posted it to my website so that targeted parents could provide it to mental health professionals working with their families to explain the pathology:

Professional-to-Professional Handout

I filmed YouTube videos that are publicly available for mental health professionals to watch that explain the pathology. I presented two Master’s Lecture Series seminars for California Southern University describing the pathology that are available online:

Parental Alienation: An Attachment-Based Model 7/18/14: Masters Lecture Series California Southern University

Treatment of Attachment-Based Parental Alienation 11/21/14:

I wrote a booklet, Professional Consultation, for targeted parents to provide to mental health professionals involved with their families:

An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Professional Consultation

I am offering professional-to-professional Skype and telephone consultation to other mental health professionals who are assessing, diagnosing, and treating this form of family pathology.

I don’t know what else I can do. At this point, their professional ignorance and incompetence in personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology becomes their problem, because they are NOT ALLOWED to be incompetent under established ethical principles governing the practice of professional psychology.

We must begin to hold mental health professionals ACCOUNTABLE for professional competence in the assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology as it is being manifested in family relationships following divorce (a family pathology that is commonly referred to in the popular culture as “parental alienation”).

The way to hold mental health professionals accountable for professional competence is to file licensing board complaints and malpractice lawsuits for professional incompetence in the assessment and diagnosis of the personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology being evidenced in your family (notice I did not use the term “parental alienation”).

Our ultimate goal is not to seek revenge or retaliation for professional incompetence – it is to provoke a “risk management” response throughout the entire mental health system in which ALL mental health professionals begin properly assessing for the personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology involved in your families. Our goal is to make it professionally painful for them to remain incompetent so that they will begin to assess for the personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology not because they are nice people, but to avoid being hit with a licensing board complaint by the targeted parent because they refused to assess for the pathology.

I have made it incredibly simple for them to assess for the pathology. I have posted to my website a diagnostic checklist of symptom features of the pathology:

Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting

The mental health professional simply needs to review each symptom category and put a check in the appropriate box, then document the results of this assessment in the patient record. Documentation can be as simple as placing the Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting in the patient record. Easy.

If the mental health professional refuses to undertake even the most basic assessment of personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology manifesting within the family’s relationships (as described in Foundations) after the targeted parent has specifically requested that this assessment of personality disorder and attachment trauma pathology be made (along with providing appropriate support materials to the mental health professional), then I would recommend that the targeted parent begin laying the paper trail for the licensing board complaint. This begins with:

1. The Request: Request that the mental health professional assess for the personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology of pathogenic parenting by the allied parent in the cross-generational coalition with the child (notice I did not use the term “parental alienation”). Be nice. Be kind. Be cooperative. No not be demanding and argumentative and strident. Don’t let the mental health professional use your attitude of anger and frustration against you. Be nice. Be kind. Be cooperative. But be relentless.

2. Support Materials: Provide the mental health professional with the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting from my website, along with support materials, such as the professional-to-professional letters, my booklet Professional Consultation, and perhaps the links to my online Masters Lecture series through California Southern University. Indicate that Dr. Childress has offered to provide Skype or telephone professional-to-professional consultation with the mental health professional if this would be helpful, and that the mental health professional should send me an email to drcraigchildress@gmail.com (note: professional practice standards and laws governing the practice of psychology prevent me from providing consultation directly to targeted parents. I can only provide professional consultation and expert testimony to targeted parents and their attorneys regarding court cases).

3. Refusal: If the mental health professional refuses to assess for the personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology (notice I did not say “parental alienation”), then remain kind and oh-so-pleasant. Document this refusal of the mental health professional to assess for the pathology in a polite letter (that will ultimately be submitted to the licensing board – so while you’re sending the letter to the mental health professional, you’re actually writing the content as documentation for later review by the licensing board). State your understanding in this letter that despite your request that the mental health professional specifically assess for personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology (notice I did not say “parental alienation”) and to document this assessment in the patient record, the mental health professional is refusing to assess for this pathology.

4. Records: If you have joint legal custody for your child, write a letter to the mental health professional documenting your request for a review of the patient records regarding the treatment of your child. Ask for a copy of the records. Things will get very interesting at this point. A request for records terrifies mental health professionals. It means you’re up to something and that they are going to be held accountable. They may also not have kept very good records, so they might be afraid that their poor documentation will be revealed. They might refuse to release records under an assertion of confidentiality, but if you have joint legal custody for your child then you are the child’s legal representative and you have the right to review the patient records. They might refuse to release the records claiming that such a release would somehow be harmful to the child. If this is the justification, then laws in your state may require them to release the records to another mental health professional of your choosing for external review. I’ll address all of this in a future blog post, but for right now simply request their records. Even if they don’t release them you can still proceed, but this step might lead to additional violations of professional practice standards by the mental health professional.

5. Termination: At this point, the mental health professional may terminate services with you and your family (you’ve scared them). Their termination of a client has to be handled appropriately, with a proper transfer of care, otherwise it is considered “patient abandonment” which is a violation of professional practice standards. You are making the mental health professional navigate a mine field of possible violations. An abrupt termination would likely be considered “patient abandonment.”

6. The Complaint: I am only going to address filing a licensing board complaint against a psychologist in the United States, since this is my profession and these are my colleagues. I don’t feel comfortable stepping outside of my professional colleagues. Our goal, however, is not retaliation or revenge, it is to provoke a “risk management” response in mental health professionals in which it is easier to assess for the pathology than it is to remain incompetent.

The Complaint

Licensing boards do not care about the specifics of your case.

What they care about are violations of professional practice standards by the mental health professional, such as the violation of ethical standards of practice. So let me be abundantly clear, the licensing board will not care that the psychologist did not diagnose “parental alienation” – what the licensing board will care about is whether the psychologist was practicing beyond their boundaries of competence (relative to personality disorder and attachment-trauma pathology; notice I did not say “parental alienation”).

It’s like an appeals court in the legal profession, only this is psychology. The appeals court is NOT going to retry the facts of the case. The only thing the appeals court will consider is if there were procedural violations of the rights of the litigants. The licensing board is NOT going to review the details of your case to determine if a correct diagnosis was made. The only thing the licensing board will consider are violations of ethical standards of practice.

The three violations of ethical standards of practice for psychologists that we are going to focus on are Standard 9.01a regarding proper assessment to reach a diagnostic conclusion, Standard 2.01a regarding boundaries of competence, and Standard 3.04 regarding preventing foreseeable harm to the client.

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

I have just posted to my website a template letter you may want to use in formulating your licensing board complaint against an incompetent psychologist.

Possible Licensing Board Complaint Letter

Again, our purpose in filing licensing board complaints against incompetent mental health professionals is NOT revenge or retaliation, it is to provoke a system-wide “risk-management” response in ALL mental health professionals of simply assessing for the pathology rather than face a licensing board complaint.

For all mental health professionals, we want to make taking one path – professional incompetence – very dangerous; dark woods full of dangerous wolves and scary monsters. We want to make their taking the other path – assessment for the pathology – very easy; a bright sunlit path through flowers and singing birds. For all mental health professionals… we’re just doing it one-by-one until they recognize what we’re doing and their choice in paths. Then ALL mental health professionals will begin making “risk management” decisions of simply assessing for the pathology (using the simple Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting).

Malpractice Lawsuits: If the licensing board finds any violation of ethical or professional practice standards, then this potentially becomes grounds for a legal malpractice lawsuit. Mental health professionals dread malpractice lawsuits because there is always a very real possibility that the malpractice insurance carrier will SETTLE the lawsuit rather than take it to trial because it is less expensive for them to settle the lawsuit – especially if there are ethical violations substantiated by the licensing board – than to take the case to trial. If the malpractice insurance carrier settles before trial, this will become a permanent black-mark on the mental health professional’s record. Malpractice lawsuit; Outcome – settled.

Again, our goal is not retaliation or revenge, it is to provoke a system-wide “risk-management” response of simply assessing for the pathology because it is too professionally dangerous NOT to assess for the pathology.

The APA Solution

I’ll be posting more about licensing board complaints in the future. But hopefully this won’t be necessary. Hopefully, the American Psychological Association will take leadership in requiring professional competence from its members (consistent with its own ethics code) by convening a conference of high-level professional expertise in attachment theory, personality disorder pathology, trauma, and family systems therapy to study the issue of “parental alienation” and produce a white paper regarding its findings. This solution is currently being sought by leadership within the community of targeted parents.

Petition to Change the APA Position Statement on Parental Alienation

Now is the time for all targeted parents, your family and friends, to write to the APA requesting that they convene this high-level conference of experts in attachment theory, personality disorder pathology, trauma, and family systems therapy. Leadership within the community of targeted parents has the appropriate contact information for the APA (Howie Dennison, Jason Hofer, Phil Taylor, Kay Johnson and the National Alliance of Targeted Parents are leading this effort).

This proposal for a high-level conference of experts must pass two committees in order to be submitted to the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association for its consideration. In April of 2016 the proposal was passed by the first of these committees. It will soon be considered by the second committee.

Write to the APA. The American Psychological Association cares about you and your children. Let them hear your voice. Let them know your immense suffering and that of your children. Tell them about the failure of the mental health system. Ask for their help in bringing your suffering to an end. Ask that they convene this high-level conference of experts to address the pathology of “parental alienation.”

We don’t need a “new theory” of pathology in mental health. We simply need an accurate diagnosis of the pathology using standard and well established psychological principles and constructs of personality disorder and attachment trauma pathologies.

Pathogenic parenting is the correct clinical psychology term for the pathology that is described in the common-culture as “parental alienation” (patho=pathology; genic=creation). Pathogenic parenting is the creation of significant psychopathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices.

Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Once we correctly and accurately diagnose the pathology of “parental alienation” using standard and established psychological constructs and principles, we will find that the pathology is already in the DSM-5 – on page 719 – it’s a diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Pathogenic parenting is not a child custody issue; it is a child protection issue.

All we need is the necessary professional competence to produce an accurate diagnosis of the pathology. The time is now. Write to the APA.

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