Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based "Parental Alienation" (AB-PA)

I tend to think visually and in imagery.  I see our current situation as a battle, a siege of the citadel that is the American Psychological Association.

We have drawn up our forces on the plains before the citadel.  We are laying siege to the citadel of the APA.  We are reclaiming the APA as an ally of targeted parents and children in solving the pathology of “parental alienation” (defined through a Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model; AB-PA).

The key element of a siege to to draw up one’s troops to surround the fortress, and then just remain there.  Don’t go anywhere.  That’s all there is to it.   It takes time, but eventually the citadel will fall.

The Petition to the APA is a siege engine, a trebuchet if you will.  The united voice of parents is the trebuchet.  Article 3 of the Petition to the APA contains some mighty big boulders, violations of the APA ethics code.  Standard 2.01a Boundaries of Competence is a mighty big boulder.  Standard 9.01a Competent Assessment is a mighty big boulder.  Standard 3.04 Harm to the Client is an absolutely huge big boulder.

We are going to use the trebuchet of your voice, your signatures to the Petition to the APA, to batter the walls of the citadel with the  boulders of Standard 2.01a, Standard 9.01a, and Standard 3.04.

By relying solely on established professional constructs and principles, a Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model defining attachment-based parental “parental alienation” (AB-PA) activates Standards 2.01a, 9.01a, and 3.04 of the APA ethics code.  We are now going to leverage the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association to achieve widespread professional knowledge and competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related family pathology surrounding divorce.

We are going to rid the field of professional ignorance and incompetence, and the remaining mental health professionals will know what they’re doing, they will be knowledgeable and competent, and they will be able to resolve the family pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation.”

We are laying siege to the APA.  The American Psychological Association is your rightful ally in achieving a solution to your family”s deep tragedy and struggles.  Professional psychology can absolutely solve this pathology, once we return to the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.

Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, Millon, van der Kolk…

Clinical Psychology: Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.

We are drawing up our forces at the walls of the citadel (17,570 signatures to the Petition and rising).  We will identify our allies and we bring our allies to the battlefield before the walls of the APA. 

And we won’t leave.  The delivery of the Petition to the APA is just the arrival of the trebuchet on the battlefield.  We will continue to batter the walls of the APA with Standards of the APA ethics code…

Until they listen, and until they act. 

And we will impress upon them that there is urgency.  Every day that passes without a solution is one day too long.  There is immense suffering and lost childhoods.  There is urgency.

With a siege, we engage the citadel and we just don’t leave.  The citadel of the APA will fall to you, and the APA will become your ally in solving the pathology.  You are more powerful than you know.

The Walls

A year ago, an assault began on the walls of the APA.  Many have been participating in the assault on the walls of the APA, but two notables deserve mention, Howie Dennison and Jason Hofer. 

It was primarily through Jason’s efforts, with assistance, that the first petition to the APA was written a year ago.  I wasn’t involved in creating or writing this petition and I was impressed by both the concept and its execution.  The scholarship in this first petition by Jason and colleagues was excellent and extensive.

Howie has been a relentless advocate in developing his relationships with the people in power at the APA.  The APA is an organization, it doesn’t attend to a person.  A person is shunted into the bureaucracy.  A person isn’t heard.  So it’s all the more remarkable that Howie has made himself heard.  He has been pleasantly relentless in his assault on the walls of the APA.

We actually own the walls of the APA thanks to Howie and Jason.  We still don’t have the APA as your ally, the citadel has yet to fall, but we have the walls.  It is entirely possible and it is my complete expectation that the APA will become your ally in relatively short order.

On June 6-9 we are bringing up the siege engines.  There is a chance, and it is my hope, that we will be welcomed by the APA as allies in solving the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation.”

Breaking the Siege

In most sieges, the besieged citadel draws into its fortifications and tries to outlast the siege.  In some cases, however, the beleaguered citadel may try to break the siege by attacking, either from the citadel itself or through a relieving force from the outside.

There is a possibility this may occur in our siege of the APA. 

If this attack occurs, it will likely be directed toward me.  An attack from within the citadel will be the APA’s concern regarding my allegations of ethical violations toward professional colleagues.  An attack by a relieving force from the outside will be to say that this is a “new theory” of Dr. Childress that needs to be “investigated.”

For the attack from the citadel, the allegations of ethical misconduct by psychologists contained in the Petition to the APA are consistent with my professional obligations under Standards 1.04 and 1.05 to take appropriate action “when psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist” (Standard 1.04).

APA Standard 1.05: Reporting Ethical Violations
If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities.

It is my professional judgement as a clinical psychologist, that the appropriate institutional authority to refer these 17,579 parents regarding the rampant and unchecked professional ignorance and incompetence being displayed by professional psychologists is to the American Psychological Association, and that the “further action appropriate to the situation” is to formalize that voice from parents into a Petition.

I am fulfilling my professional obligations under Standard 1.04 and 1.05 of the APA ethics code.  I’m fine.

As for the attack from outside forces trying to relieve the siege, none of this is Dr. Childress.  This is Bowlby, and Minuchin, and Beck, and Haley, and Millon…  Are they saying that they want to investigate Bowlby?  Minuchin?  Beck?  Because none of this is Childress.

Poof.  That attack vanishes.  Because none of this is Childress.

Diagnosis is the application of standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology (Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck) to a set of symptoms.  Diagnosis.  AB-PA is not a theory, it’s diagnosis; the application of standard and established constructs and principles to a set of symptoms.

They will be unable to break the siege.  We won’t go anywhere.  As the trebuchet of your voice begins hurtling boulders of Standards 2.01a, 9.01a, and 3.04 against the walls of the APA, we will look to increase the media’s attention to your voice, and to the continuing reluctance of the APA to help you solve the pathology.

The Walls Are Ours

However, we may not need to enact a long protracted siege of the APA, because Howie and Jason and their colleagues have already taken the walls of the APA.  The people at the APA know of us.

Their response last year to the assault on the walls was to “deflect into committee” – they said they’d develop a “working group” to look into the research.   It’s been over a year and there is no progress on a working group.  That dodge is done.  They can’t use it again this time.

What the assault on the walls by Howie, Jason, and others did was to expose and use up the APA’s “deflect to committee” defense against doing anything.  They’ve already used that dodge last year.  One year later, no change.  We are now on much stronger ground demanding concrete and immediate action (Article 4: Remedy 1).

It is possible, and it is my hope, that the APA will recognize the legitimacy of your voice and the issues, and that the APA will take active and concrete steps to help you in finding solution (Article 4: Remedies 2 & 3).  I fully expect the APA to become your ally in relatively short order.

If not, then the trebuchet will begin the assault on the walls.  We’re not going anywhere until there is change, until there is a solution for all children and all families.

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

 

I am pleased and excited to announce that I will be presenting a full-day 6-hour seminar in Venice, Italy on Saturday 6/23/18.

This six-hour seminar on Saturday is separate and additional to the one-hour seminar I will be presenting at the EFCAP Congress.  The EFCAP Congress runs from Wednesday through Friday, 6/20 – 6/22. 

On Saturday, 6/23, in collaboration with Peter Knudsen, Director of Bps Jurisfirma and Bpm Parental Alienation Awareness EU, I will be presenting an additional 6-hour seminar at the Park Hotel Ai Pini on the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce and the solution for the family court system.

Venice Seminar Flyer: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Attachment Related Pathology Surrounding Divorce: Solutions for the Family Court System

I am excited by this opportunity to present a substantial seminar in Europe. 

This full-day seminar will cover:

Foundations: The professional foundations in the attachment system, family systems pathology, and personality disorder pathology for an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.”

Diagnosis: The core and expanded symptoms of attachment-based “parental alienation” in high-conflict divorce.

Assessment Protocol: The structure and clinical content for a six-session clinical assessment protocol.

Treatment:  The treatment considerations for resolving attachment-related family pathology surrounding divorce.

Contingent Visitation Schedule: A Strategic family systems intervention for the treatment of ongoing attachment-related family pathology following divorce.

Family Court Solution: The framework for a structured and standardized approach to solution in the family court system for all cases of attachment-related family pathology surrounding divorce.

This will be a professional education seminar of substance and importance. 

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

 

June 6-9, Wendy Perry, Rod McCall, and I will be traveling to Washington, D.C. to deliver the Petition to the APA:

Change.org: search term “parental alienation”

The Petition to the APA

These are the statements I am prepared to provide to the media in my professional capacity as a clinical psychologist.

According to Dr. Childress…

 1.)  Children are not weapons

Children are not weapons, children should never be used as weapons in their parents’ spousal conflicts.

But that’s exactly what’s happening.  Professional psychology and the family courts are allowing, and indeed rewarding, parents who use their child as a weapon in the divorce.

Children have the right of childhood to love both parents, and to receive the love of both parents in return.

We are here to give all children that right, a healthy and normal childhood of love and affection with both parents.

2.)   Professional ignorance and incompetence

Families are being destroyed, childhoods are being destroyed, by rampant and unchecked professional ignorance and incompetence in professional psychology and the family courts, and no one is stopping the destruction of children and families.

The loving bond of shared affection between children and parents is being systematically destroyed by the spiteful malevolence of the other parent in revenge for the divorce, and professional psychology is allowing it, in fact, colluding with it.

We are asking for the help of the APA in upholding standards of professional practice in professional psychology, its own documented standards of professional practice.

Professional-level knowledge and professional competence in assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of children and families is the right of all parents and children.  We are asking the APA’s support in our achieving that right for all parents, all families, and all children.

3.)  Financially motivated corruption in professional psychology

Professional psychology in the family courts is corrupt.  The mental health professionals in the family courts are financially feeding off of the suffering of children and families without ever solving anything. 

Professional psychology in the family courts is a corrupt financial system of failed professional practices.  Professional psychology knows this, and there is a conspiracy of silence in professional psychology to allow their continued feeding off of the suffering of families.

We are seeking the APA’s help in cleansing the corruption that is rampant throughout professional psychology in the family court system.  We are seeking standards of professional practice, consistent with the APA’s ethical code governing the practice of all psychologists.

It is the obligation of professional psychology to provide children and families with solution and healing through competent professional practice.  We are here to end the corruption in the family court system that feeds off of the suffering of families while never providing solution.

4.)   Abandoning children to child abuse

Alienating the child from the love of a parent is child abuse.  It is psychological child abuse.

Intentionally and malevolently destroying the child’s healthy bond of love and affection to a parent, to exact a spousal revenge for the divorce, is child abuse, psychological child abuse.

Professional psychology and the family courts are colluding with and supporting the psychological abuse of children.

We are here to end the psychological abuse of children.  We are here to restore children’s loving bonds of shared affection with both parents.

Children have the right to love, and to be loved.  We are here to protect the children from the psychological child abuse of “parental alienation” in divorce. 

Children are not weapons.  Children have the right of childhood to love both parents, and to receive the love of both parents in return.

This is my voice as a clinical psychologist.  Wendy and Rod will bring the voice of parents and children to Washington, D.C… 17,482 signatures on the Petition to the APA brings the voice of parents and families to Washington, D.C.

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

 

In my role as a professional consultant in legal cases I have often been asked to review the professional reports of other assessing and treating psychologists. 

In this review, I frequently find myself deeply troubled by the seemingly sub-standard and exceptionally poor professional practices of my professional colleagues in these cases.

As a clinical psychologist, I am required by Standards 1.04 and 1.05 of the APA ethics code to take steps when I become aware of possible ethical violations by other psychologists.

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

1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations
If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities.

Psychologists are not allowed to be ignorant and incompetent, and through their ignorance and incompetence to then harm their clients.  Professional ignorance and incompetence that then harms the client is a violation of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

APA Ethics Code

My professional colleagues should maintain the highest standards of professional practice.  Failure to possess the required foundational knowledge needed for professional competence is a violation of Standard 2.01a of the APA ethics code. 

If this absence of appropriate professional knowledge required for professional competence then results in an inadequate assessment, this would represent a violation of Standard 9.01a of the APA ethics code.

If the absence of appropriate professional knowledge required for professional competence results in harm to the child, parent, and family, this would be a violation of Standard 3.04 of the APA ethics code. 

If a violation of Standards 2.01a and 9.01a of the APA ethics code “has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization… psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.” (APA ethics code, Standard 1.05)

Standard 2.01: Domains of Knowledge

The Attachment System:

Mental health professionals who are assessing, diagnosing, and treating attachment-related pathology need to be professionally knowledgeable and competent in the attachment system, what it is, how it functions, and how it characteristically dysfunctions.

Failure to possess professional-level knowledge regarding the attachment system when assessing, diagnosing, and treating attachment-related pathology would represent practice beyond the boundaries of professional competence in violation of professional standards of practice.

Personality Disorder Pathology

Mental health professionals who are assessing, diagnosing, and treating personality disorder related pathology as it is affecting family relationships need to be professionally knowledgeable and competent in personality disorder pathology, what it is, how it functions, and how it characteristically affects family relationships following divorce.

Failure to possess professional-level knowledge regarding personality disorder pathology when assessing, diagnosing, and treating personality disorder related pathology in the family would represent practice beyond the boundaries of professional competence in violation of professional standards of practice.

Family Systems

Mental health professionals who are assessing, diagnosing, and treating families need to be professionally knowledgeable and competent in the functioning of family systems and the principles of family systems therapy.

Failure to possess professional-level knowledge regarding the functioning of family systems and the principles of family systems therapy when assessing, diagnosing, and treating family pathology would represent practice beyond the boundaries of professional competence in violation of professional standards of practice.

Notice nowhere I have I referred to “parental alienation” as a pathology.  

Psychologists – ALL psychologists – are required to be knowledgeable about real domains of pathology when treating patients, children, and families.  This is not Dr. Childress saying this, this is the professional standards of practice of the American Psychological Association saying this; Standards 2.01a, 9.01a, 3.04, and 2.03.

The attachment-based model of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) activates Standards 2.01a, 9.01a, 3.04, and 2.03 of the APA ethics code by defining the pathology entirely within standard and  established constructs and principles of professional psychology (Bowlby; Minuchin; Beck, et al.)

An attachment-based model of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) makes the targeted-chosen parent dangerous to professional ignorance and incompetence. 

To My Professional Colleagues: If you’re going to assess, diagnose, and treat attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce, you absolutely need to know what you’re doing.  Your assessment needs to be appropriate, your diagnosis needs to be accurate, and your treatment needs to be effective.

If a psychologist is unwilling to conduct an appropriate assessment, make an accurate diagnosis, and provide effective treatment, then that psychologist needs to go away and work with some other form of pathology.

The world is changing.  Professional competence is an expectation.

If you are an ignorant and incompetent mental health professional, you’d better hope that I don’t review your reports… because I am bound by ethical Standards 1.04 and 1.05 of the APA ethics code.  You’re not allowed to destroy the lives of children and families because of your professional ignorance and incompetence.

“If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation…”

“…Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities.” (APA  Standard 1.05)

To my professional colleagues:  You’re aware of my ethical obligations.  I’m aware of yours.

The era of rampant professional ignorance and incompetence is over.  There are standards of professional practice to which ALL mental health professionals are held accountable.

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

 

 

I’m a clinical psychologist.  A child rejecting a parent is an attachment-related pathology.  It is up to professional psychology to solve this family issue.  That’s our job.  That’s what we do.

Professional psychology is failing parents.  Professional psychology is failing the courts.  Professional psychology is not solving attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.

It is up to professional psychology to solve this.

_______________

That being said… Dorcy is doing something intriguing.  Really intriguing.  I’m so enjoying Dorcy’s class.  As a clinical psychologist who’s a specialist in family healing, I’m absolutely giddy with excitement listening to the ideas Dorcy is introducing; she introduced incredibly powerful change agents already in the first two classes.  And the way she is weaving them is masterful.

Second class she introduces the mirror.  My goodness gracious, that’s an incredibly powerful change agent.  Self-reflection.  More.  The mirror unlocks the power of self-reflective insight.  

The world is so captivating, causing us great pain and great pleasure.  What the world does to us is so captivating that we come to believe that the world does TO us.  When hurt, we believe we are victims of what the world does to us.  That’s trauma’s voice.

I can provide citations.  But the beauty of Dorcy’s creation is marred by professional language.  Dorcy’s unfolding of powerful change agents is elegant. 

We repeat patterns.  This provides our relationships with stability, even if it is a pathological stability.  The universe also gives us a way of growth and change – self-reflection.  When we engage self-reflection we have choice, and choice creates empowerment.

It’s a balancing for the brain.  Repeating patterns provides stability.  Self-reflection directed toward the patterns allows change.  Our patterns repeat unconsciously.  If the patterns are created unconsciously, outside of our self-awareness, how can we see the patterns we create; our patterns?  A: By using tools, tools described in sessions one and two, sourcing and the mirror. 

Yep.  That’ll do it.  She’s absolutely right. 

As she notes, the lower-self (where fears reside trying to protect us from re-traumatization) will resist efforts at self-reflection, because self-reflection brings us face-to-face with our hurt and our fears; with our trauma, with our self-criticism and fundamental insecurities. 

So our fears try to protect us, to keep us away from self-refection, distracted by the themes of blame.  Who’s to blame?  I’m not to blame.  You’re to blame.  Blame is the voice of trauma.

It’s not about victims; it’s not about blame.  Those are trauma-born orientations.  We are responsible.  Self-awareness brings empowerment.

When we have the compassion to look, “blame” becomes “responsible,” responsible becomes choice, and choice becomes change.

The mirror that Dorcy describes in week two is an extraordinarily powerful change agent.  The lower-self will run (defenses will activate).  That’s okay.  Go back to week one, use the tools of week one.  Work the steps.  Dorcy uses catalytic change agents.  Just do the steps.   

In week two, in addition to self-reflection, Dorcy opened mindfulness.  These are related, but ever-so-slightly different, concepts.  That’s a strong week two curriculum.  We’re only at week two and Dorcy’s got some strong stuff going.  We’ve got another seven sessions?  I’m absolutely giddy with delight, a little boy clapping my hands and jumping from side-to-side. Everything she’s saying is accurate.  I have not heard a single thing in two classes that I would disagree with.  Not one thing.  Everything Dorcy has said in weeks one and two is accurate.

But it’s also the way she’s putting the ideas together that is absolutely delightful.  I’m impressed.

The things Dorcy is describing to do, the shift in mind-orientation to events, is hard to do… well, actually, it’s only hard to do until it’s not, and then it’s easy to do.  It’s funny how that works.  It’s not actually hard, we make it hard.  When we stop making it hard, it’s actually really easy.  So it’s hard until it’s not, and then it’s easy.

Fear in the lower-self (fear in the micro- and macro-trauma networks) will seek to avoid, it runs from self-awareness. The fear is trying to protect us.

How do we respond to the fear, and to the avoidance it tries to create?  A: by appreciating its source.  Appreciate the role of our fears in trying to protect us.  Don’t fight.  …and don’t flee.  Allow.  Accept.  Appreciate.  Recognize.  Bring compassion and kindness to yourself, and to your fears.

Yep.  That’ll do it.  She’s absolutely right.

…and don’t flee.  Work the steps.

The mirror Dorcy described in week two is an incredibly powerful tool.  The lower-self will try to flee.  That’s okay.  Use the tools of week one.  Simple.  Not complicated.  It may seem hard (until it’s not). That’s the fears seeking to avoid.  Work the steps.  If you work the steps, things will change – because you will change them.

I love what Dorcy’s doing, and it’s only week two.  Seven more weeks… my goodness gracious. I’m excited.  What’s coming next?  I don’t know.  So far, it’s masterful work.  I’m truly impressed. 

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

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

A child’s rejection of a parent surrounding divorce is an attachment-related pathology.

That is a meme structure.

---

We are changing systems.

We are changing how the mental health system responds to attachment-related family pathology surrounding divorce.

We are changing how the legal system responds to attachment-related family pathology surrounding divorce.

To understand more deeply how this foundational change in systems is being accomplished, it benefits to know about Richard Dawkins and his construct of memes.  Currently the Internet has adopted the term “meme” to describe an idea, typically captured in a picture combined with a few words.  It was Richard Dawkins, however, in his book The Selfish Gene, who first introduced the construct of meme structures as representing units of culturally relevant information that are transmitted from brain to brain (i.e., memes are self-replicating units of information).

Dawkins: The Selfish Gene
Chapter 11. Memes: the new replicators

According to Dawkins, meme structures are units of information that are passed from brain to brain; they self-replicate.  As self-replicating entities, memes are subject to the same forces, laws, and principles of evolution as genes are for physical development. 

I find this to be an intriguing idea and one that has been quite productive in my professional work as a clinical psychologist, particularly with regard to conceptualizing the inter-generational transmission of the attachment-related family pathology of “parental alienation.”

I first read Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene decades ago.  I found the ideas expressed in The Selfish Gene so intellectually provocative that I remember returning to the book to re-read it several times within the span of a couple of years.  These ideas have been actively percolating in my brain ever since, altering, developing, and transforming my ideas and perception.  The meme-structures provided in The Selfish Gene have proven to be highly productive.

As we move more fully into this time of systems change, I’ve been refreshing myself on the principles and ideas of The Selfish Gene.  In wandering through Chapter 12 on the development of cooperation, I came across a description by Dawkins of divorce in the legal system.  When I first read this book, the topical content for this example wasn’t particularly important to me because I wasn’t working with high-conflict divorcing families in the legal system.  At the time I first read the book I was in the fields of ADHD and early childhood mental health, not high-conflict divorce.  I took the broader point Dawkins was making about the evolution of zero sum and nonzero sum activities in human social interaction, but the specific content of the example he used, about divorce in the legal system, flowed in and flowed out of memory.

In re-reading his example now, however, in the context of my current work with high-conflict divorce in the legal system, the observations of Dawkins regarding the application of game theory to high-conflict divorce in the legal system are striking and intriguing, and I want to highlight them for consideration as we create systems change.

In Chapter 12 Dawkins is making a point about the development of Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS) in a social context, and the role of game theory in illuminating the development of cooperation and selfishness, in particular a game called the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ which highlights the development and subsequent stability of cooperation and selfish strategies for how we socially relate to each other. 

The prisoner’s dilemma game introduces the constructs of a zero sum game in which one person winning causes the other person to lose (win-lose strategies; selfishness), and nonzero sum games where both players can win (win-win strategies; cooperation).  Dawkins uses the example of divorce in the legal system to highlight the evolutionary development of zero sum and nonzero sum activities. 

Re-reading his example now, twenty or so years later, I find the description of divorce in the legal system offered by Dawkins to be intriguing.

From Dawkins:

“In what are called ‘civil disputes’ there is often in fact great scope for cooperation. What looks like a zero sum confrontation can, with a little goodwill, be transformed into a mutually beneficial nonzero sum game.  Consider divorce. A good marriage is obviously a nonzero sum game, brimming with mutual cooperation.  But even when it breaks down there are all sorts of reasons why a couple could benefit by continuing to cooperate, and treating their divorce, too, as nonzero sum.  As if child welfare we’re not a sufficient reason, the fees of two lawyers will make a nasty dent in the family finances. So obviously a sensible and civilized couple begin by going together to see one lawyer, don’t they?”

“Well, actually no. At least in England and, until recently, in all 50 states of the USA, the law, or more strictly – and significantly – the lawyers’ own professional code, doesn’t allow them to. Lawyers must accept only one member of a couple as a client. The other person is turned from the door, and either has no legal advice at all or is forced to go to another lawyer. And that is when the fun begins. In separate chambers but with one voice, the two lawyers immediately start referring to ‘us’ and ‘them.’  ‘Us’, you understand, doesn’t mean me and my wife; it means me and my lawyer against her and her lawyer. When the case comes to court, it is actually listed as ‘Smith’ versus ‘Smith’!  it is assumed to be adversarial, whether the couple feel adversarial or not, whether or not they have specifically agreed that they want to be sensibly amicable. And who benefits from treating it as an ‘I win, you lose’ tussle? The chances are, only the lawyers.”

“The hapless couple have been dragged into a zero sum game. For the lawyers, however, the case of Smith v. Smith is a nice fat nonzero sum game, with the Smiths providing the payoffs and the two professionals milking their clients’ joint account in elaborately coded cooperation.  One way in which they cooperate is to make proposals that they both know the other side will not accept. This prompts a counter proposal that, again, both know is unacceptable. And so it goes on. Every letter, every telephone call exchanged between the cooperating ‘adversaries’ adds another wad to the bill.  With luck, this procedure can be dragged out for months or even years, with costs mounting in parallel.  The lawyers don’t get together to work all this out. On the contrary, it is ironically their scrupulous separateness that is the chief instrument of their cooperation at the expense of the clients. The lawyers may not even be aware of what they’re doing. Like the vampire bats that we shall meet in a moment, they’re playing to well-ritualized rules.  The system works without any conscious overseeing or organizing. It is all geared to forcing us into zero sum games. Zero sum for the clients, very much nonzero sum for the lawyers.”

(Dawkins, 1989, p. 221-222)

The solution using an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) addresses this by teaming the treating family therapist with an amicus attorney representing the court.  This brings the solution to the family conflict under the purview of a single mental health professional (the AB-PA Certified therapist) cooperating with a single legal professional (the AB-PA Knowledgeable amicus attorney), altering the current adversarial context of the legal system’s response to divorce.

In re-reading The Selfish Gene, I thought the comments of Dawkins about divorce in the legal system warranted note.

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

 

This coming Tuesday I begin the nine week course in Higher Purpose Parenting taught by Dorcy Pruter. 

I’m taking the nine week Webinar course because I believe it is consistent with my professional obligation as a clinical psychologist to maintain my professional knowledge and professional competence (Standard 2.03). 

Every two years, clinical psychologists in California renew their license.  As part of this two-year renewal, the psychologist must complete 36 hours of continuing education.

It is the professional obligation of psychologists to continually seek knowledge and education, it is our professional obligation to stay abreast of current and emerging developments.

This obligation to seek knowledge is even codified into the ethics code of the APA:

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

Dorcy’s approach to extracting a trauma pathogen from the trans-generational flow is impressive.  I understand what she’s doing.  It will be successful.  I want to learn more.  Not because I’m going to incorporate Higher Purpose Parenting into my work.   I’m not particularly.  I know enough to know the limits of what I should and should not be doing.  I know what I don’t know, if that makes any sense.  I’m smart enough to know what I should leave to others.

I’m going to leave implementing Higher Purpose Parenting to Dorcy and her coaches.  I’m going to absorb information, and I’m going to let it percolate with the other information structures of the pathology.  I want to know more about what she’s doing from my professional appreciation for the nature and quality of the intervention, for coordination of services implications, and for the insights her approach has for understanding the nature of trauma and solution.

This coming Tuesday is my first day of class.  I’m excited.  Should I bring an apple?

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

The first week of June, Wendy Perry, Rod McCall, and I are traveling to Washington, D.C. to present the Petition to the APA to the APA.  I will be contacting the APA in the upcoming weeks and months to discuss planning for a formal presentation event.

Ginger Gentile of the documentary Erasing Family will be joining us with her film crew to cover the presentation event.  This is huge, because it will help motivate the APA to be pleasant and cooperative in planning an appropriate presentation event.

If they want the event to simply be handing the Petition to the APA to the security guard… we can do that… but such insensitivity by the APA to the suffering of parents is going to be captured on film.  I am confident that with our oh-so-pleasant invitation for cooperation, the APA will offer an appropriate representative to accept the Petition to the APA.  We’ll also be seeking a separate meeting with representatives of the APA at which the voice of targeted-chosen parents can be heard.

Thank you Ginger.  Your support is immensely important to bringing the voice of targeted-chosen parents to the APA.

The annual convention of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is also being held in Washington, D.C. that week, offering us an additional opportunity for the voice of targeted-chosen parents to be heard by the primary legal-psychological professional organization involved in child custody and high-conflict divorce.

Our Agenda

Here is our proposed agenda for the Washington, D.C. trip.            

Wednesday 6/6

Day 1 Morning:  Press conference
Day 1 Afternoon:  Visit congressional offices

Thursday 6/7

Day 2 Morning: APA presentation event
Day 2 Afternoon:  Meeting with APA representative

Friday 6/8

Day 3 Morning: Visit congressional offices
Day 3 Afternoon: Visit congressional offices
Day 3 Evening: Erasing Family fundraiser

Saturday 6/9

4-hour Seminar: Dr. Childress & Dorcy Pruter
Solutions to Parental Alienation in High-Conflict Divorce

The Delegation

The Petition to the APA is your voice.  This isn’t about me, it’s about you and your children.  Which is why I asked Wendy Perry and Rod McCall to join me in making the formal presentation of the Petition to the APA. 

Wendy and Rod both agreed to travel to Washington D.C. at their own expense for the presentation of the Petition to the APA.  Which leads to my first request for support from targeted-chosen parents. 

The Childress Institute for Child Development is now up and operational as a 501c3 non-profit with a Board of Directors governing its operation.  The Childress Institute will support my speaking and training of mental health and legal professionals in AB-PA.  Once we solve “parental alienation,” the focus of The Childress Institute for Child Development will shift to unraveling and solving the terrorist mind and pathological violence, seminars in healthy parenting for all parents, revising our foundational approach to educating children, and healing the trauma mindset of prisoners to reduce the rate of prison recidivism.  I’m planning to start each of these projects once we solve “parental alienation,” leaving a legacy for healthy child development that will outlive my tenure on the planet.

As the first formal act of the Childress Institute, I am asking for contributions to reimburse Wendy Perry and Rod McCall for their travel expenses to Washington, D.C.  I did not discuss reimbursing them prior to my invitation, and they have both spent their own money for hotel reservations and airfare.  They are your voice with me.  Please help to reimburse their travel expenses by making a tax deductible contribution to The Childress Institute. 

Donations to The Childress Institute for Child Development

I know that fighting the pathology of “parental alienation” is exceedingly expensive.  But whatever you can afford to help Wendy and Rod with their travel expenses would be greatly appreciated.

What about my travel expenses?  I’ll cover my own expenses.  Wendy and Rod are my priority.  No one is rich here.  They could use your help.  If we receive enough donations to zero-out their travel expenses, any addition money collected by The Childress Institute will be used to purchase an event table at the AFCC convention.  I’ll talk about that shortly.

There was discussion of possibly including the voice of now-adult children of alienation in our presentation event to the APA.  Wendy, Rod, and I decided against including a representative of now-adult children of alienation for a couple of reasons.  First, and most importantly, parents speak for children.  We do not use the child to make our point.  Parents protect children, parents speak for children.  We have this.  We will carry the voice of children.

And trust me, Eryk will be with us in Rod. (For the Love of Eryk)

So we will not be including a representative of now-adult children of alienation in the formal presentation event to the APA.

At the same time, children have a voice, and we want to respect the authenticity of children’s voice.  Adults have the right to discuss their lives and childhood experiences.  Now-adult children of alienation have a right to their voice.  We would like to honor and respect that voice in the following ways:

1.)  We would like representation from the voice of now-adult children of alienation at the opening press conference (I’ll discuss this shortly). 

2.)  We would like representation from the voice of now-adult children of alienation at the meeting with the APA following the presentation event. 

3.)  We would like representation from the voice of now-adult children of alienation at the visits to the congressional offices.

4.)  I would invite representation from the voice of now-adult children at The Childress Institute event table at the AFCC convention.

It’s just at the formal presentation event that we want parents to speak for children.  That’s the right thing to do.

Dorcy Pruter

When Dorcy learned that Wendy, Rod, and I were traveling to Washington, D.C., she wanted so much to be part of the trip and the delegation.  I said no.  She is too bright a luminary.  I want this to be the quiet voice of all the parents everywhere.  Wendy and Rod can fully carry this voice.

In my participation at the various activities, I plan to only make a brief introductory statement at each event before turning the floor over to Wendy and Rod, and the other participants at the events.  I am merely a conduit for the voice of parents and children.  I plan to get out of the way.  There will be time enough for my voice.  This is about the suffering of targeted-chosen parents and their children, and their call for solution.

Dorcy is also an immensely powerful voice in the solution, and her participation would be extremely valuable.  Dorcy will be coming to Washington, D.C. and she will be participating in all of the surrounding events, the press conference, the separate meeting with the APA (anticipating that this can be arranged), and perhaps some of the visits to the congressional offices.  But the congressional office visits are not as important a venue for Dorcy’s voice than is the AFCC convention in Washinton, D.C. that week.

The Childress Institute is going to purchase an event table at the AFCC convention, and Dorcy has agreed to staff that table as much as she is able to bring the voice of parents and children, and the call for solution, to the AFCC.

Erasing Family

Ginger Gentile from the documentary Erasing Family will be holding a fund-raising event on Friday evening.  Dorcy and I will both be at this fundraising event, meeting and exchanging ideas with the people who attend.

I am inviting Ginger to also participate in all aspects of the week’s events.  I would like her on the dias at the press conference to discuss her documentary and the voices of children and families.  Similarly, I would like her in the separate meeting with the APA to again offer the voice of children and families.  If she wants to film some of the congressional office visits, that’s fine with me and we will make prior arrangements with the congressional offices for permission and cooperation with the filming.  If Ginger wants to simply attend these congressional office visits and speak to the voice of children and families, that’s fine too.

At each event, we will highlight the Friday evening soiree of the Erasing Family fundraiser, inviting congressional staffers, APA representatives, and AFCC convention participants (attorneys and mental health professionals) to come to the Friday evening Erasing Family event.

The Erasing Family fundraiser will be the crescendo focal point for the week’s activities.

Saturday Seminar

The formal week’s events end on Friday with the Erasing Family soiree event.  Wendy and Rod are free to return home or sight see in Washington, D.C.

Dorcy and I, on the other hand, have one more event. 

Dorcy and I are going to conduct a 4-hour seminar on Saturday 6/9 on the Solution to Parental Alienation in High-Conflict Divorce.  Hopefully we can generate interest from the legal and mental health professionals attending the AFCC convention, from APA representatives, and from congressional staffers.

The Dorcy & Dr. Childress Seminar on Saturday is like an epilogue to the week’s event.

The Press Conference

We want to begin the week’s activities with a press conference.  At the dias I would like Wendy, Rod, Ginger, Dorcy, and a representative of now-adult children.

Needless to say, I don’t know anything about putting on a press conference.  I’m going to need some help in this if it is to happen.  Everything is in the hands of the universe, so we’ll see what happens.  But for my part, I’m going to try to learn as much as I can in the next few months to be able to put together this opening press conference event.

Congressional Office Visits

Wendy, Rod, and I will be arranging visits with the offices of our congressional representatives.  We may not be able to meet directly with our representatives, but I’m fairly confident we can at least arrange meetings with their congressional staffers.  Ginger, Dorcy, and a representative for now-adult children are invited to join us for these meetings.

At these meetings, we will be inviting the congressional staffers to the Friday evening Erasing Family soiree and the Saturday Dorcy and Dr. Childress Seminar on solutions.

AFCC Convention

The Childress Institute is going to purchase an event table at the AFCC convention.  I will pay for this out of my own pocket, but if The Childress Institute is able to collect donations that zero-out Wendy and Rod’s travel expenses, then any additional money will be put toward purchasing this event table.

I’m probably going to be pretty busy during the week’s events, so I’m not likely to be at the AFCC event table very much.  I’ll have materials there, along with flyers to the Erasing Family fundraising event on Friday evening and flyers for the Saturday seminar with Dr. Childress and Dorcy on solutions to “parental alienation.” 

I’m hoping to drop by the event table for at least two-hours each day, with the schedule for my personal availability at the event table posted at the table, so that anyone who wants to speak with me personally can drop by the event table at these times and I’ll be there.

In the meantime, Dorcy will also provide coverage at The Childress Institute event table for times that I’m unavailable.  We’ll have my materials at the table.  Dorcy will also have her materials at the table.  And we’ll have flyers at the AFCC event table for the Friday Erasing Family fundraiser and the Saturday Dorcy and Dr. Childress seminar.

For times that neither Dorcy nor I are available to staff the table, it may go unattended, or we may be able to arrange for a volunteer who lives in the D.C. area to staff the table.  We’ll see what happens.

Your Voice

Everything is in the hands of the universe.  Each of us has our roles to play.  My role in this is to serve as the catalyst for making this event happen, and then to serve as the conduit to facilitate the voice of parents and their children.

Your voice is the Petition to the APA (16,718 signatures).  Your voice becomes more powerful with more signatures.  Is 16,718 signatures enough?  It is for me.  You have given me a strong enough voice to take to the APA.  But if I were a targeted parent, I’d want to make my voice as strong as possible.  Are there only 16,000 people in the world affected by “parental alienation”?  There are supposedly hundreds of thousands of parents, grandparents, extended family, and friends who have been affected by the pathology of “parental alienation.”  So…

This is your voice.  Wendy, Rod, and I are bringing your voice to the APA.  How strong that voice will ultimately be by June of this year is up to you.

Washington, D.C.

That’s the initial plan.  Things seldom work out as planned, and I understand that all of this is in the hands of the universe. 

Thank you to Wendy and Rod.  Thank you to Ginger.  Thank you to Dorcy.  And thank you to all of you who support us in bringing the voice of targeted parents and their children to the APA.

I also want to acknowledge Howie Dennision for his prior and ongoing advocacy with the APA and Jason Hofer for the prior petition he wrote calling for change.  Their work has been formative to the Petition to the APA and to the week in Washingon, D.C.  This is an extension of their prior efforts.

The world is changing.  We are bringing your voice to the APA.  The solution is coming.  We will not stop until all of your children, including your now-adult children are back in your arms.

Donations to The Childress Institute for Child Development

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 1885