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

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

 

I have now had a threat relayed to me back-channel that if the criticism of Karen Woodall by people does not stop,

“…there is consideration of complaints to Police and regulatory authorities about your Posts.”

Here is the full threat that was delivered to me by a supposed “friend” and ally:

“The debate has now provoked such abuse and harassment from the public that there is consideration of complaints to Police and regulatory authorities about your Posts.”

I am being threatened in order to silence you… a message delivered to me back-channel by a supposed “friend” and ally that if I don’t act to silence your criticism of Karen Woodall then I will face “complaints to Police and regulatory authorities” about my Posts.

Apparently, we are not allowed to criticize Karen Woodall.  We must all accept what she says without question, criticism, or debate.

Nonsense.

Do I care about the threat?  Not one bit.  There is nothing in my posts that is problematic on either legal or regulatory grounds.

But I want to be clear, criticizing Karen Woodall is now dangerous.  I have been put on notice that I face legal retaliation against me if targeted parents continue to criticize Karen Woodall.  The threat is designed to induce me to silence you.

I don’t care about the threat to me… bring it.  But if I am now at risk, then that means that you are now at risk too.  It has become dangerous to criticize Karen Woodall.  If you criticize Karen Woodall you may face legal retaliation.  Be careful.  Criticizing Karen Woodall is dangerous.

This threat has now been made directly to me back-channel by a supposed “friend.”  I am passing it along.  Do not criticize Karen Woodall.  She will not abide criticism.  She will retaliate against critics to silence them.  Be careful.

Do not criticize Karen Woodall.

And my offer still stands for a professional level discussion of the pathology:

Conversation Between Karen Woodall & Dr. Childress

Not Relevant

At this point, Karen Woodall is not relevant to a professional-level discussion of the issues.  The only thing that matters is a solution to the pathology.  I don’t care how may angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Until Karen Woodall describes a path to a solution using the Gardnerian eight diagnostic symptoms, she is not relevant to a professional-level discussion.

I describe in comprehensive detail the path to the solution using the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA:

The Solution: The Return to Professional Practice

The Solution: The Dominoes

We are going to enact this solution.  We begin with a return to standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.  From this professional foundation, we are going to establish professional standards of practice for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce (AB-PA).  Once we establish this ground baseline for professional competence, we will then move into establishing professional expertise.

The Gardnerian PAS “experts” are simply obstructionists (describe the path to a solution using the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model), and they are quickly moving into irrelevancy, and actually they have already arrived at irrelevancy.

Karen Woodall is dangerous.  She will not abide criticism.  Do not criticize Karen Woodall.  Allow her to recede into irrelevancy.  We are moving on into the solution without her.

And Karen… describe your path to a solution using the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model.  The only thing that is relevant is the path to the solution.  Describe your proposed path to the solution – or recede into irrelevancy.

Do not criticize Karen Woodall.  Not because it places me at risk.  I’m fine.  But because it places you at risk.

The Garnderian PAS “experts” are not relevant.  Until they describe a path to a solution using the Gardnerian PAS diagnostic model, they are not relevant to a professional-level discussion.

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

The Petition to the APA asserts the right of targeted parents for professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of their children and families.

Article 3 of the Petition to the APA describes four domains of great concern regarding potential violations of the APA ethics code:

Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence
Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment
Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm
Standard 2.03 Maintaining Competence

I am a clinical psychologist.  If I become aware of ethical violations by colleagues, there are professional guidelines for me as a psychologist.

Standard 1.05 of the APA Ethics Code
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.

“…psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.”

On June 6-8^th, I will be traveling to Washington D.C. to personally deliver a petition of 15,926 voices to the APA.  I will be doing this because I am a clinical psychologist.  I will be doing this as a clinical psychologist in deference to Standard 1.05 of the APA ethics code.

Professional standards of practice have meaning. 

My traveling to Washington, D.C. to deliver the Petition to the APA is consistent with my professional obligation under Standard 1.05 to take “further action appropriate to the situation.”  I am going to Washington, D.C. because I am a clinical psychologist… and that’s what we do if we need to do it.

I’m not from the field of forensic psychology and high-conflict divorce.  I’m from ADHD and early childhood mental health.  I only came into this field of high-conflict divorce once I entered private practice back in 2008.  There are serious professional concerns regarding the professional practices surrounding high-conflict divorce and child custody decision-making that greatly warrants the focused attention of the APA.

There are a whole class of clients, families with a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent, who are receiving deeply deficient professional services substantially below acceptable standards of practice for knowledge and professional competence.  As a result, thousands of families are being destroyed by the ignorance and incompetence of mental health professionals.

I am not this voice, 15,925 signatures to the Petition to the APA are the voice of this truth.  I am merely the conduit for the voice. 

There are four domains of professional knowledge needed for professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related family surrounding divorce:

The attachment system,
Personality disorder pathology,
Family systems therapy,
Complex trauma.

The assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce without the necessary professional knowledge required for professional competence would represent practice beyond the boundaries of professional competence in violation of Standard 2.01a of the APA ethics code.

Professional standards of practice have meaning.  Mental health professionals are not allowed to be ignorant and incompetent.

This pathology ends, for all children everywhere.  We will no longer sacrifice children to the pathology of their parents because of professional ignorance and incompetence.

It is up to professional psychology to solve this, and professional psychology can 100% solve this once we return to the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.

Bowlby, Ainsworth, Millon, Beck, Linehan, Kernberg, Bowen, Minuchin, Haley, van der Kolk

The attachment system,
Personality disorder pathology,
Family systems therapy,
Complex trauma.

There is absolutely zero reason for the APA not to support a call for professional competence.  It is your right granted to you by the APA’s own ethics code.  The APA is your rightful ally in creating the solution.

The APA has been asleep.  We are waking them up.  You will not be erased from the lives of your children, and you’re children shall not be erased from your lives.  We will fight with every measure of our voice for your children.  We will no longer abandon children to the pathology of their parents.

In the first week of June, 2018, I will be going to Washington, D.C. because I’m a clinical psychologist.  I am acting as the professional conduit between your voice and my profession.  That’s my job as a clinical psychologist.

Professional standards of practice have meaning.

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

We are going to establish a standard of practice in the assessment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce. 

We are then going to move toward professional expertise.  Mental health professionals who know what they’re doing – within standard and established constructs and principles.

Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.

It begins with assessment. 

Attachment-related pathology is always created by pathogenic parenting.  A child’s rejection of a parent (attachment-related pathology) is either being caused by the pathogenic parenting of the targeted-rejected parent (through hostile-aggressive child abuse), or it is being caused by the pathogenic parenting of the allied and supposedly “favored” parent (through the formation of a cross-generational coalition with the child against the other spouse-and-parent).

A semi-structured six-session treatment-focused assessment protocol can identify the source of pathogenic parenting creating the attachment-related pathology.

The Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology Surrounding Divorce

AB-PA Certification

There are four mental health professionals that I know of who are qualified to conduct a treatment-focused assessment of attachment related pathology surrounding divorce.  Each of these mental health professionals has trained with me personally, and each has direct access to me for consultation as needed.  These four mental health professionals are Certified in AB-PA, including administration and documentation of the six-session treatment-focused assessment protocol.

We are establishing a ground foundation of professional knowledge in the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology required for professional competence, and ultimately for professional expertise.

The Attachment System
Family Systems Therapy
Personality Disorder Pathology
Complex Trauma

Does a mental health professional need to be “certified” to conduct a treatment-focused assessment protocol?  No.  Absolutely not.  All mental health professionals should be conducting a treatment-focused assessment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce right now.  It’s all standard and established professional psychology.

Can they?  I have no idea. I am appalled by the degree of professional ignorance and incompetence that’s out there.

I do know this.  There are four mental health professionals who can.  They are the certified mental health professionals I worked with across three days of seminars in November.  There are four mental health professionals who absolutely know how to conduct a treatment-focused assessment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.

They have the knowledge, and they have my ear if they want consultation on a particularly troubling case.  What’s more they have each other.  They don’t realize this yet, but as things develop I’m planning to encourage a network of inter-professional consultation across AB-PA Certified mental health professionals; to use each other as resources of professional consultation.

What the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA provides is a shared common knowledge and language of professional psychology – cross-generational coalitions, emotional cutoffs, personality pathology, splitting, attachment trauma – all understood even before the consultation begins.  The constructs of established professional psychology (Bowlby, Bowen, Beck, Minuchin, Millon) can unravel the diagnostic complexities and treatment issues.

There are four mental health professionals who are certified in AB-PA, who understand the pathology, who know what to do, and who are part of a growing network of professional collaboration. 

They are not advocates or friends on Facebook; they don’t offer “advice” on what parents should do.  They work with clients.  They bring solution to family pathology for their clients.  They are a verified source of high-level professional knowledge regarding attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce for families and the Courts.  These four mental health professionals are:

Jayna Haney, MS, LPC Intern:  Houston, Texas.
Advanced Certified in AB-PA

Ms. Haney is in a leadership role in bringing professional knowledge and expertise to the solution for “parental alienation.” She has studied with Karen Woodall in Great Britain as well as becoming Advanced Certified in AB-PA with me in November.  Of additional note, Jayna is also trained in EMDR treatment for trauma and brings this additional trauma expertise to her work with the complex trauma of “parental alienation.”  Jayna Haney has my full support, and she has my ear.

Jayna Haney: jayna@thebridgeacross.com

Michelle Jones, LCSW: Provo, Utah.
Advanced Certified in AB-PA

Michelle Jones, LCSW is a licensed clinical social worker who works with Concordia Families agency in Provo, Utah.  Ms. Jones brings her AB-PA Advanced Certification into a professional clinic already experienced with the family pathology of “parental alienation” and court-involved families.  Michelle Jones and the therapeutic team at Concordia Families has my full support, and they have my ear.

Michelle Jones: mjones@concordiafamilies.com
Concordia Families Website

Nadine Colgan, MS, NCC, LPCMH: Kennett Square, PA
Advanced Certified in AB-PA

Ms. Colgan brings a wealth of experience to her work.  She holds a Master’s Degree in Counseling and Human Relations, she is a Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor, she is a National Board Certified Counselor and a Certified Mediator.  Ms. Colgan has extensive experience working with high-conflict divorce and is a strong resource in the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore area.

Nadine Colgan: nadinecr1@nadinecolgan.com
Nadine Colgan Website

Larken J. Sutherland MS, LPC: Corpus Christi, Texas

Larken Sutherland is a Licensed Professional Counselor and Parenting Coordinator/Facilitator in private practice in Corpus Christi, Texas.  Ms. Sutherland is experienced in working with high conflict families and she is Certified in AB-PA, she is a strong resource for families in the Corpus Christi area.  Ms. Sutherland has my full support, and she has my ear.

Additional Certification

Three others also received Certification in AB-PA, one is a legal professional, and two are parent-advocates.

JulieAnne Leonard
Advanced Certified in AB-PA

JulieAnne Leonard is an attorney who is completing her psychology degree in developmental psychology.  Of note is that developmental psychology is a particularly useful domain of knowledge for understanding the influence of parenting on child development.  Ms. Leonard has an extensive background serving as a Guardian ad Litem with high-conflict families.  Through her legal background as an attorney, her extensive experience as a GAL, and her AB-PA Certification, Ms. Leonard represents an exceptionally strong resource for the Court in assisting the Court to identify “parental alienation” pathology and in coordinating effective treatment services for the family.

Peter Knudsen
Advanced Certified in AB-PA

Peter Knudsen is a parent-advocate located in the Netherlands.  He is active in bringing the knowledge and protocols of AB-PA to the European mental health system and family courts.  Peter and I are currently collaborating on several avenues for expanding AB-PA into the European mental health and family law systems.  Peter has my full support and he has my ear.

Bryan Hale
Advanced Certified in AB-PA

Bryan Hale is a theology student and parent-advocate completing his degree in theology with the goal of becoming an ordained minister.  I suspect the universe has designs for the life of Mr. Hale.  He brings a unique array of talents to the solution, including a strong background in business and in creating organization support structures for projects and endeavors.  Bryan Hale has my full support, and he has my ear.

Professional Expertise

Jayna Haney
Michelle Jones (Concordia)
Nadine Colgan
Larken Sutherland

I know that these four mental health professionals can conduct a treatment-focused assessment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.  These four mental health professionals are a verified resource for knowledge and professional skill sets for families, family law attorneys, and the Court. 

As an attorney and Guardian ad Litem, JulieAnne Leonard also represents a strong resource for the Court in helping the Court to identify “parental alienation” and in coordinating the treatment.

Peter Knudsen, Bryan Hale, and I will be working behind the scenes on creating the support structures for change across the entire mental health and family court systems, for all children, everywhere.

As importantly… they are the core for a network of consultation support for each other, each bringing a different facet of knowledge, yet all with a common foundation of knowledge.

Change is Coming

This is not about me.  This is about you.  You are the change.  I am merely a catalyst.  I am simply the clarion call returning professional psychology to the ground foundations of professional psychology; Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, Millon, Bowen.  You are the agents of change.

We are establishing a ground foundation of knowledge and standards of practice for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related family pathology surrounding divorce.  From this foundation, we then build professional expertise.

The ground foundation is not me.  It’s Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck and the established constructs and principles of professional psychology.

This is about you and your children.  This is about solving the family pathology of “parental alienation” for all children everywhere.

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

I just wrote the following email to an attorney who was seeking consultation.  I thought the information I provide might be more broadly of interest

To an attorney:

---

Attachment-Related Pathology

A child rejecting a parent is an attachment-related pathology.  The attachment system is the brain system governing all aspects of love and bonding throughout the lifespan. A child rejecting a parent is a problem in the love and bonding system of the brain; in the attachment system.

The attachment system NEVER spontaneously dysfunctions.  It ONLY becomes dysfunctional in response to pathogenic parenting (patho=pathology; genic=genesis, creation).  Pathogenic parenting is the creation of significant pathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices.

Attachment-related pathology is always caused by pathogenic parenting, either from the mother or from the father.  The diagnostic question is which parent is the source of the pathogenic parenting creating the child’s attachment-related pathology (the rejection of a parent).  In this case, is it the mother’s parenting (child abuse), or is it the father’s parenting (a “cross-generational coalition” with the child against the targeted parent)?

Pathogenic parenting is an established construct in both clinical psychology and developmental psychology and it is used most commonly in reference to attachment-related pathology because the attachment system never spontaneously dysfunctions, but ONLY becomes dysfunctional in response to pathogenic parenting.

A “cross-generational coalition” is also a defined, standard, and established construct in family systems therapy.

The process of diagnosis regarding the source of pathogenic parenting is to evaluate the parenting practices of both parents.

1.  Targeted-Rejected Parent

We start with the parenting practices of the targeted-rejected parent. We assess the parenting practices of the targeted-rejected parent using:

The Parenting Practices Rating Scale

The Parenting Practices Rating Scale documents the findings from the assessment of the targeted parent’s parenting practices.

First, identify the category of parenting,

Abusive (level 1)
Severely Problematic (level 2)
Problematic (level 3)
Healthy (level 4)

Levels 1 and 2 parenting by the targeted-rejected parent would represent pathogenic parenting by this parent.  Treatment for Levels 1 and 2 parenting should focus on changing the parenting behavior of the targeted-rejected parent.

Levels 3 and 4 parenting represent broadly normal-range parenting and could not account for a suppression in the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a parent.

Next, rate the parenting of the targeted-rejected parent on a continuum from 0 to 100, from neglectful-uninvolved parenting (0) to hostile over-controlling parenting (100).

Normal range parenting is anything in the 25-75 range.  Our preference in professional psychology is in the range of 40-60, but respect should be given to parents to define family values within their families and with their children, consistent with their personal, cultural, and religious values.  Some parents will tend to be more permissive and lax, but still within normal-range expectations (ratings in the 30s), some parents will tend to be more firm, structured, and rule-oriented, but still normal-range (ratings in the 60s).

If a clinical assessment by the involved mental health professional identifies that the parenting practices of the targeted-rejected parent are in the normal range (documented as Category 3 or 4; and between 25-75 on the Permissive-to-Structured continuum), then the parenting practices of this parent are broadly normal-range and cannot account for the attachment-related pathology being evidenced by the child (a rejection of a normal-range attachment bond to the parent).

2.  The Allied Parent

The next step is to assess the possibility of pathogenic parenting by the allied and supposedly “favored” parent. This becomes a little more challenging because the allied parent is hiding their negative-controlling influence on the child behind the child:

Allied Parent: “It’s not me, it’s the child who is refusing.  I tell the child to go, but what can I do?  I can’t force the child to go.”

The way to assess the pathogenic parenting of the allied parent is to lift the evidence of parental psychological control of the child from off of the child’s symptom features (the “psychological fingerprints” of parental control of the child).

We cannot psychologically control a child without leaving “psychological fingerprint” evidence of the control in the child’s symptom display.

Three symptoms in the child’s symptom display represent definitive diagnostic indicators of psychological control of the child by an allied narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent:

1.  Attachment System Suppression:  The suppression of the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range parent.

2.  Personality Disorder Traits:  Five specific narcissistic personality traits in the child’s symptom display (grandiose judging of the targeted parent; absence of empathy toward the targeted parent; entitled expectations relative to the targeted parent; haughty and arrogant attitude toward the targeted parent; splitting/polarization of perception).

3.  Persecutory Delusion:  The child displays a fixed and false belief (a delusion) in the child’s supposed “victimization” by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent (an encapsulated persecutory delusion).

When all three of these symptom indicators are present in the child’s symptom presentation – no other pathology in all of mental health will create this specific set of symptoms other than a cross-generational coalition of the child with a narcissistic/(borderline) parent against the targeted parent.

The presence of these three symptoms are documented using:

The Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting

Current Providers:

If the involved mental health professional completes these two assessment documentation instruments, then I can absolutely tell you what the origins are for the attachment-related pathology in the family based on the symptom features displayed.

Normal-range parenting by the targeted parent and the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting by the allied parent are evident in the child’s symptom display… the pathogenic parenting creating the child’s attachment-related pathology is emanating from the allied and supposedly “favored” parent (a cross-generational coalition with the child against the other parent).

Treatment-Focused Assessment

These two domains (potential pathogenic parenting by the targeted-rejected parent, and potential pathogenic parenting by the allied parent) can be assessed in six to eight treatment-focused assessment sessions.

I describe this six-session assessment protocol in the booklet:

The Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology Surrounding Divorce

DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse

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.

Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment:

In all cases of child abuse, physical child abuse, sexual child abuse, and psychological child abuse, the standard of practice and “duty to protect” requires the child’s protective separation from the abusive parent.

The child is then treated for the consequences of the child abuse, and the child’s healthy and normal-range development is recovered and restored.

Once the child’s healthy development is restored, the child’s relationship with the formerly abusive parent is then reestablished with sufficient safeguards to ensure that the child abuse does not resume once contact with the formerly abusive parent is reestablished.  Typically, the abusive parent is required to obtain collateral individual therapy to gain and demonstrate insight into the prior abusive behavior (in this case, the psychological abuse of the child), and the level of safeguards for the child are typically based on the degree of cooperation and insight shown by the formerly abusive parent.

It is the confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (based on the treatment-focused assessment using the Parenting Practices Rating Scale and the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting) that serves as the professional and legal rationale for the protective separation period.

My typical recommendation is for a 9-month protective separation period.

Remedy: Contingent Visitation Schedule

An alternative to a protective separation period is available from a Strategic family systems intervention of a Contingent Visitation Schedule

Strategic family systems therapy (principle theorist: Jay Haley) is one of the two primary models for family therapy, the other being Structural family therapy (principle theorist: Salvador Minuchin).  Strategic family systems therapy alters how the symptom confers power within the family.

A Contingent Visitation Schedule makes time with the allied pathogenic parent contingent upon the child remaining symptom free.

Custody is ordered as 50-50%.  If the child develops symptoms (as determined by daily rating scales, monitored by the family therapist), then time with the allied pathogenic parent is reduced (to reduce the negative pathogenic influence of this parent who is creating the child’s symptoms), and time with the targeted parent is increased (to increase the time needed to repair the relationship being damaged by the pathogenic parenting of the other parent).

This increase-decrease time in visitation is defined within the structure of the Contingent Visitation Schedule.  Once the child returns to non-symptomatic, custody visitation is returned to the shared 50-50% order.

The Contingent Visitation Schedule can be used prior to a protective separation, to give the allied parent one last chance to release the child from the coalition and allow the child to love both parents, or it can be used following the protective separation to ensure that the child psychological abuse does not resume once the distorted parenting of the allied pathogenic parent is reintroduced.

Summary

Parenting Practices Rating Scale

Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting

Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology Surrounding Divorce

Contingent Visitation Schedule

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

Definition of Cross-Generational Coalition

Jay Haley (1977)

“The people responding to each other in the triangle are not peers, but one of them is of a different generation from the other two… In the process of their interaction together, the person of one generation forms a coalition with the person of the other generation against his peer. By ‘coalition’ is meant a process of joint action which is against the third person… The coalition between the two persons is denied. That is, there is certain behavior which indicates a coalition which, when it is queried, will be denied as a coalition… In essence, the perverse triangle is one in which the separation of generations is breached in a covert way. When this occurs as a repetitive pattern, the system will be pathological.” (p. 37)

Haley, J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds.), The interactional view (pp. 31-48). New York: Norton.

Professional psychology is failing the family courts.

A child’s rejection of a parent surrounding divorce is a family therapy issue, not a child custody issue.

Child’s Best Interests

The family’s successful transition to a healthy and functional separated family structure following divorce is always in the child’s best interests.

Divorce ends the marriage, not the family.  A cutoff family structure is always pathological.  A cutoff family structure is NEVER a healthy post-divorce family.

It is always in the child’s best interests for the family to transition to a healthy and functional separated family structure following divorce.

The courtroom is not the proper venue to solve family pathology.  Family pathology cannot be litigated.  The resolution of family pathology is the domain of professional psychology.

The legal system therefore turns to  professional psychology for consultation on family pathology.

This request for consultation takes one of two forms, an order for something called “reunification therapy” or an order for a child custody evaluation by professional psychology.

In each of these, professional psychology is failing the court.

First, there is no such thing as reunification therapy.  This is important to understand.  There is no such thing as reunification therapy.  It’s an entirely made up thing.  There is no book, no article, no theorist who has ever described anything called “reunification therapy.”  It’s a sham construct designed to allow the “reunification therapist” to just make stuff up and do whatever they want, and just call it “reunification therapy.”

I’m a clinical psychology.  Psychotherapy is what I do, and I don’t think I’m being clear enough about this yet:

“Reunification therapy” is a snake-oil remedy of unknown contents that is more likely as not to kill you as to cure ya.  If any mental health person says they do “reunification therapy” – run.  There is no such thing as “reunification therapy.”

There, is that clear enough?

If any mental health professional disagrees, there is a Comment section to this blog.  Cite for me a single book or article that describes what “reunification therapy” is.

Crickets.  Nothing.

What the court and all parents want is family systems therapy; either Structural family systems (Minuchin) or Strategic family systems (Haley; Madanes).  Bowen has a foundational family systems model (Bowenian family systems therapy; The Bowen Center).  Satir has a model strong on family communication dynamics.

A competent family systems therapist is knowledgeable about all of these variations.  They all center around the same basic core constructs of Bowen; elaborated by Munichin and Haley.

Family systems therapy is one of the four primary schools of psychotherapy, the others are psychoanalytic psychotherapy (think Freud and his couch), cognitive-behavioral therapy (think lab rats pressing a lever), and humanistic-existential psychotherapy (think hot tub in Esalen). 

Family systems therapy is the only school of psychotherapy that is designed to address and solve current family relationship conflict. Family systems therapy is the appropriate form of psychotherapy for addressing and resolving family-related conflict surrounding divorce.

The pathology of a child-rejecting a parent surrounding divorce is called an “emotional cutoff” (Bowen).  This is not Dr. Childress saying this. This is Murray Bowen saying this.  Standard family systems construct.

The pathology of an “emotional cutoff” is caused by disturbances in the process of “differentiation” within and among the family members.  Read:

Bowen Center: Eight Concepts
2. Differentiation of Self

This is not Dr. Childress.  This is Bowen.  Standard family systems therapy.  Disturbances in differentiation within family members can lead to the child’s “triangulation” into the spousal conflict to stabilize a parent’s vulnerability. 

The child’s “triangulation” into the spousal conflict can take the form of a “cross-generational coalition” with one parent against the other parent, resulting in an “emotional cutoff” in the child’s relationship with the targeted parent.

Triangulation

Cross-generational coalition

Emotional cutoff

Differentiation of self

All standard family systems therapy stuff.  Bowen, Minuchin, Haley.

There is no such thing as “reunification therapy.”  No book.  No article.  No theorist.  The court and parents want family systems therapy.

Structural family systems therapy (Minuchin)

Strategic family systems therapy (Haley, Madanes)

Bowenian family systems therapy (Bowen)

Problem 1: Professional psychology is failing to provide the court with the proper professional knowledge and expertise needed to solve attachment-related family pathology surrounding divorce.  Instead, mental health persons surrounding the legal system are simply making stuff up willy nilly.

Problem 2: Child custody evaluations.

This is important to understand:  There is no scientifically established support for the validity of child custody evaluations. 

Child custody evaluations violate every standard of professional practice regarding the development of an assessment procedure.  I discuss all of this more fully in:

The Child Custody Industry in Mental Health

There are multiple-multiple devastating problems with the practice of child custody evaluations, but I’ll focus here on just one, the most devastating one: No inter-rater reliability.

The conclusions and recommendations reached by child custody evaluations have no inter-rater reliability.  What this sentence means is that two different evaluators can reach two entirely different sets of conclusions and recommendations based on exactly the same data.

Well, that’s a problem.  According to the axioms of assessment, if an assessment procedure is not reliable (does not produce stable results), then the assessment procedure CANNOT – by definition – be valid.  The conclusions and recommendations from child custody evaluations are not valid.

If there is no inter-rater reliability, the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations are simply the opinions of one person, that specific evaluator, perhaps based loosely on some psychological principles, perhaps based on no psychological principles whatsoever, just a matter of the individual opinion of the evaluator.

Don’t believe me?  There is a Comment section to this blog.  I challenge any mental health professional to cite for me a single study indicating the inter-rater reliability of the conclusions and recommendations reached by child custody evaluations.

Crickets.  Nothing.

The conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations are no more valid than a monkey throwing darts at a dart board, and a lot less entertaining – and, I might add, far more expensive.  Child custody evaluations are a very lucrative industry for professional psychology surrounding the family courts.

Child custody evaluations are a financial racket, pure and simple.  That is a strong professional statement to make, and I am absolutely prepared to back it up anytime, anywhere.  If any mental health professional wants to take exception to my statement, cite for me a single study identifying the inter-rater reliability of child custody evaluations.  If an assessment procedure is not reliable, it cannot, by axiomatic definition within professional assessment, be valid.  Child custody evaluations are a financial racket, pure and simple:

RICO

Do child custody evaluations actually do anything to solve the family pathology?  No.  Of course not.  They’re “evaluations” – not “therapy.”  For therapy, you’ll need “reunification therapy.” 

See, right here in Recommendation 3 of the child custody evaluation, right after Recommendation 2 that custody time-share should remain exactly where it is right now (with the child rejecting one parent), see, a recommendation for “reunification therapy.”

Child custody evaluations don’t actually fix things, they just tell the court to keep things where they are right now (with the child rejecting one parent) and do “reunification therapy.”

And do you know what the “reunification therapist” is going to say?

“We need to go slowly and not rush the child.  We’ll start with 2 hours of supervised visitation and then increase it from there as the child decides they want to spend time with the parent.  We don’t actually want to solve the family pathology of a cutoff family relationship.”

“We need to go “slowly” – a consistent hour of “therapy” on my schedule every week.  Court-ordered, month after month, year after year.  But nothing actually changes, because “reunification therapy” isn’t really a form of therapy.  It’s just designed to give pablum to the court as if something was taking place.”

But the child never “decides” to spend more time with the targeted parent.  Surprise, surprise.  In fact, things get worse, and worse, and worse, throughout all of the “reunification therapy.”

Professional Responsibility

It is the responsibility of professional psychology to treat and resolve family pathology.  That’s our job.

Professional psychology is failing the family court system.  Professional psychology is not providing the court with the proper professional expertise required to solve the family conflict.

The court and parents don’t want or need a pointless child custody evaluation.  If you’re tempted to conduct a child custody evaluation I suggest you hire a monkey with darts instead; it’ll be more entertaining and equally as valid.

The court and parents don’t want a mythical “reunification therapy,” a snake-oil therapy that solves nothing, ever.

The court and parents want family systems therapy – real psychotherapy that will solve the family conflict and facilitate the family’s successful transition to a healthy and functional separated family structure following divorce, which is always in the child’s best interests.

It is time for professional competence based in the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.

Family systems therapy: Bowen, Minuchin, Haley.

The finger that points at the moon is not the moon.

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

 

A question was posed to me.  I thought my answer might be of broader interest.

---

Q:  A Child rejecting a parent, is it a problem to the child?

There are five answers to this question

Answer 1:  Diagnostic Indicators

In attachment-based parental alienation (AB-PA), there are three diagnostic indicators, and the identification of AB-PA is made based on all three being present.

Attachment System Suppression: A child’s rejection of a normal-range and affectionally available parent.

Personality Disorder Traits: Five specific narcissistic personality traits displayed by the child.

Persecutory Delusion: The child evidences a fixed and false belief (a delusion) in the child’s supposed “victimization by the normal-range parenting of the targeted-rejected parent.

All three of these symptoms must be present.

Answer 1 to the question “Is rejection of a parent a problem for the child?” is that the creation of significant developmental pathology (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology (diagnostic indicator 3) in the child is damaging to the child’s healthy psychological development.

Creating significant psychopathology in the child is damaging to the child.

This is a sufficient answer, but there are 4 more equally sufficient answers.

Answer 2:  Types of Parent-Child Relationship

The second answer to this question is to recognize the importance of each type of parent-child relationship to the child’s healthy development.  There are four types of parent-child relationships:

Mother-son
Father-son
Mother-daughter
Father-daughter

Each of these relationships is unique.  None are interchangeable.  None are expendable.

I discuss this on pages 1 and 2 of the Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology Surrounding Divorce:

“Families contain four primary types of parent-child relationship; mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son, father-daughter.  The benefits to the child from each of these relationship types is unique to that relationship, they are not replaceable or interchangeable in the value they provide to the child because each confers unique and vital developmental experiences that are immensely important for the child’s healthy emotional and psychological development.

Mother-son bond: The deep emotional and psychological connection between a male child and his mother is potentially one of the most affectionate parent-child bonding types.  A positive and healthy mother-son bond creates for the child a deep inner sense of the child’s inherent value as a person, and the mother-son bond forms the basis for the child’s emotional security.  The quality of the mother-son bond also establishes the template of expectations (the “internal working models”) for the later formation of the child’s spousal relationship in marriage.

Mother-daughter bond: The mother-daughter bond can be one of the most complex parent-child relationships as the mother psychologically re-experiences herself and her own childhood in her daughter’s development.  The daughter draws important self-worth and gender identity modeling from a positive and healthy mother-daughter bond, and the mother-daughter bond serves as the template for the daughter’s future role as a mother for her own children.  Daughters become future mothers, and the relationship template formed in the mother-daughter bond carries important implications for the daughter’s future parenting with her own children.

Father-son bond: The son’s emotional and psychological bond with the father provides essential self-esteem and gender identity modeling for the child.  The son’s healthy emotional and psychological bond to his father provides important communications of support from the father for the male child’s sense of self-value as an emerging young man, and the son’s bonded relationship with his father provides critical support for the child’s development of the maturity that leads to the child entering the world as an emotionally mature and responsible young man.

Father-daughter bond: A daughter’s relationship with her father is one of the most affectionally important of the parent-child relationships.  The daughter develops the core foundation for her self-worth from her affectionally bonded relationship with her father (an affectional process exemplified by the classic family roles as “daddy’s princess” and “daddy’s little girl”).  As a primary relationship pattern, the father-daughter relationship also serves as the template (the “internal working model”) that will guide the formation of her future spousal relationship with her own husband during marriage.

Each of these primary relationship types is unique, and the special value that each of these relationship types confer to the child is not interchangeable through the child’s relationship with the other parent.  The mother-son relationship offers a special loving warmth and richness in the child’s development that is not interchangeable with the value offered to the son by the male-male affectional bond he has with his father.  The father’s relationship with his daughter is similarly filled with deep warmth and enriching love, and it is not interchangeable with the rich complexity of the mother-daughter bond.  The child benefits from each of these unique relationships within the family, and each relationship type merits the full support of both parents and the Court in nourishing its development…

Attempting to compare the relative benefits received by the child from any of these primary relationship types is an impossible task.  The scientific and professional literature in developmental and clinical psychology does not allow for a comparison of parenting to determine the “better parent” that would warrant truncating the child’s opportunity to develop any of the entirely unique parent-child bonding relationships within the family.  Each parent brings unique benefits from a complex relationship with the child that cannot be replaced or duplicated by the other parent.  The unique developmental benefits that accrue from the son’s relationship with his father is not interchangeable with the unique emotional and psychological benefits found in the son’s bonded relationship with his mother.  Similarly, the benefits to the daughter from an affectionally bonded relationship with her mother are unique to that relationship and are not interchangeable with the unique emotional and psychological benefits to the daughter acquired through her affectionate bond to her father.  Each relationship type within the family – father-son; father-daughter; mother-son; mother-daughter – is unique, special, and critically important to the child’s healthy development.”

Childress, 2017; Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology Surrounding Divorce, p. 1-2)

Answer 3: Identity Formation

A child’s psychological identity is embedded in two families.  The child’s self-identity is a combination of two heritages, one from the mother’s side of the family’s origins, and one from the father’s side of the family’s origins.  A child’s self-identity formation is grounded within two families of origin.

A child’s rejection of one parent is the child’s rejection of one half of the child’s self-identity.  The rejection of a foundational component to self-identity will significantly damage the child’s healthy development of identity structures.

While damage to self-identity development is of concern throughout childhood, this becomes a particularly preeminent concern during the child’s adolescent period of identity development.  It is extremely valuable for the adolescent to have a healthy and bonded relationships with both parents, both halves of the child’s self-identity, during the identity development period of adolescence.

A child’s rejection of a parent is prominently damaging to the child’s development of self-identity.

Answer 4: Conflict Resolution

Childhood is the time period for learning the skills needed in successful adulthood.  Conflict resolution in intimate relationships is an essential adult life skill, vital to later healthy emotional and psychological functioning in adult relationships.

When conflict develops in intimate partner relations, it is important to know how to repair these ruptures in the relationship.  Interpersonal conflict in family relationships happens all the time, it is important to know how to repair relationships, how to fix conflict.  A “cutoff” family relationship (Bowen) is never healthy, it is always pathological.  The ability to repair breaches to relationship is a key feature of healthy psychological functioning.

Allowing the child to remain in a breached relationship with a parent is never healthy, it is simply sustaining the pathology of trauma contained and being transmitted within the family.  Healing involves the restoration of relationship bonds.  Healing is always a good thing.

Answer 5: Loving Children

Children benefit immensely from parental love.  For a child, parental love is the manna of life.

Children have the right to receive the love of both parents and from each parent, fully, richly, and in all of its wonderful complexity.

For a child, the love of a parent fosters an immensely powerful psychological bond of deep shared intimacy with the parent, with each parent, unique to their relationship.  With each parent, and through both parents, the child develops a special and unique relationship of great importance to the child’s core sense of self-worth and core value.

From each parent, and through both parents, the child learns the lessons of life contained in the personal fabric and family of origin story for that parent, embedded within that parent’s ways of being.  The life experience embedded in each parent helps form the substance of the child by informing the quality of their relationship.  Life moves through generations.

Children have the right to be loved by each parent, and by both parents.  And by grandmothers and grandfathers, by aunts and uncles and cousins, by family.  And by friends, coaches, teachers, everyone.  Love is good for a child, it is their manna of life.

When a parent wants to love a child, this should happen.  It is immensely healthy for the child.

Children have the right to be loved by both parents.

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