The Time is Now

I have just mailed packages containing a cover letter, the Petition to the APA, and 350 pages of your signatures to the leadership of four organizations:

Jo Linder-Crow, PhD
Executive Director
California Psychological Association
1231 I Street, Suite 204
Sacramento, CA 95814

David White, CAE
Executive Director
Texas Psychological Association
7625 White Oak Drive
P.O. Box 1930
Cedar Park, TX 78630

Krista Paternostro
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Psychological Association
416 Forster Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102-1748

Nicola Gale
President, British Psychological Society
St Andrews House
48 Princess Rd E
Leicester LE1 7DR, UK

Your turn.  Same organizations.  14,727 letters asking them to review and endorse the Petition to the APA.

It doesn’t matter where you are.  It doesn’t matter if you live in a different state or different country, 14,728 voices directed toward four organizations.  Don’t let me work harder for your children than you do.  Work for each other, work for all children everywhere.  And we’ll work for your children, each for the other.  When you come together in a single voice, you are more powerful than you know.

Then, do you know what I’ll do next?  I’ll select another four states and I’ll send each of them a cover letter, the Petition to the APA, and 350 pages of your signatures – or 400 pages, or 800 pages, whatever you give me to work with.  I will take your voice to professional psychology.  The strength of that voice is up to you.

I am going to continue selecting psychological organizations from the list:

Psychological Association Directory

There’s a reason I selected each of the first four.

California is obviously my home state.

Texas has developed a substantial foundation in creating the change.  Dwilene Lindsey and Children4Tomorrow are a force to be reckoned with.  I’m sure they could use your support.  If you have any financial resources and you want to make a donation to end “parental alienation” and support healthy child development, Children4Tomorrow would be my strongest recommendation.

Children4Tomorrow

They will absolutely 100% put the money to good use protecting children from the psychological child abuse of “alienation” surrounding divorce.

Pennsylvania also has active forces moving for change, and through individual efforts were able to get me invited to present to their state legislature. I think I was successful in bringing your voice to them.  Things are moving forward in Pennsylvania.  There are other active states, Florida has psychological child abuse legislation submitted, New York, North Carolina, Arizona, and others are churning with activity.

I chose Great Britain because it is the home of John Bowlby and attachment theory.  Honoring the authenticity of the attachment bond to both parents belongs in Great Britain.  It is overdue for Great Britain to claim its leadership in solving attachment-related pathology.

Creating and mailing a submission packet of 350 pages of signatures costs me about $50 per packet, and I plan to send packets to the psychological associations of each of the 50 states and multiple foreign psychological associations.  Why am I doing this?  Why am I spending my money on your kids?  Because your children need me to do it.

We are going to solve this for all children everywhere.

It would be much less expensive if I didn’t send 350 pages of your signatures.  I’m sending 350 pages of your signatures.

As I was downloading your signatures, I scrolled through all 350 pages of signatures.  Each name, each family, each bond of love – destroyed.  It was emotionally powerful, to hear each voice speak on 350 pages.  I’m sending 350 pages of your signatures because I want them to hear your voice as I hear your voice.

The pathology of “parental alienation” must end.

The time of battle for your children is now.  We will no longer tolerate the destruction of children’s lives, we will no longer tolerate the destruction of families.

We will no longer tolerate the psychological abuse of children.

You are the warriors for your children, and the time of battle is now.  We are on the battlefield now.  We need your voice, now.

These submissions to professional organizations are not designed to have an effect on the organization, they’re designed to have an effect on you.  Don’t let me fight harder for your children than you do.  14,729 voices directed toward four organizations.  Make a statement to these four organizations.

And then we will select the next four.

I will do everything I can to take your voice to professional psychology, because your children need me to do that.  This is a narcissistic pathogen.  The solution is the opposite of narcissistic, it is empathy for the other, doing for the other.  It must become about solving this for all children everywhere, not just for the children in this or that specific family.

No matter what state or nation you live in, work for each other.  Come together into a single voice, an unstoppable voice for change.

Start with these four organizations.  Be kind, always be kind.  And be relentless.  Then we will select the next four.  We are going to solve this for all children everywhere.  Because your children need us to.

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

Redux: Dr. Bernet, join me.

Dr. Bernet,

It’s come to my attention that you’re not aware of my offers to collaborate and work together.  That’s unfortunate.  That must mean that you’re not subscribed to my blog.  That too, is unfortunate.  Is that because you don’t think I have anything valuable to say?

To clarify, I offered collaboration in the blog post from September:

Dr. Bernet, join me. (posted 9/5/17)

Let me reiterate from my post in September;


From Dr. Bernet, join me (posted 9/5/17):

The diagnostic paradigm for the attachment-related pathology commonly called “parental alienation” is changing.

I’m asking for you to join me in creating this change.

You have been a stalwart and steady warrior for targeted parents through all of these years.  I saw how you tried to influence the formation of the DSM diagnostic system… You have fought a heroic struggle against the pathology for many years.  Admirable.  Magnificent.

But ultimately, the Gardnerian PAS model has fatal flaws embedded within it.  You didn’t have the proper tool to solve the pathology.  I can tell you exactly what those inherent and terminal problems with the Gardnerian PAS model are – but not now.

The construct of meme-structures will help you understand a lot of things.

Dawkins: The Selfish Gene

Gardnerian PAS is a failed diagnostic paradigm.

The only issue that is relevant at a professional-level is the solution.  It is not relevant how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

AB-PA provides a solution.

Gardnerian PAS does not.

The world is changing.

Stop fighting against AB-PA and fighting against the change it brings.  I am not the source of this change, I am merely the conduit.  There are larger forces at work here.

I would like to propose that we write two collaborative articles together, Dr. Bernet.

The first one would be a reflection on history and the future.  It would pass the torch from Gardnerian PAS to AB-PA for the solution.  We’re both a couple of old guys, Dr. Beret.  This isn’t about us.  There will be a new generation coming to take on the fight against the pathology.

AB-PA is a richer diagnostic model than the Gardnerian model because AB-PA opens wide the full data sets of attachment theory, intersubjectivity, personality disorder pathology, family systems therapy, and complex trauma.

The categorical AB-PA diagnostic framework lends itself better to “operationally defining” the construct of “parental alienation” for research purposes, and those 12 Associated Clinical Signs are jewels – both clinically and from a research perspective.

It will be impossible to prevent AB-PA from fully entering professional discussion and professional practice.  Help me to define the legacy of our fight against the pathogen to the next generation.

I propose that in the first half of a joint collaborative article, you describe the first-fight against the pathogen.  Tell us about Gardner’s courage, the malevolence of the pathology, all the research and the battle surrounding Gardnerian PAS.  Bring out whatever data sets you want and revel in it.

And then end your segment of the article by passing the torch for the solution to AB-PA.

Then let me take the second half of the article to explain that, as courageous and magnificent as Gardner may have been, he skipped the step of diagnosis; the application of standard and established constructs and principles to a set of symptoms.  Instead, he too quickly abandoned the rigors of professional practice by proposing a “new form of pathology” which led professional psychology away from the standards of professional practice regarding diagnosis; the application of standard and established constructs and principles to a set of symptoms (no “unique new forms of pathology” diagnostic proposals).

I’ll describe how AB-PA returns to the foundations of the pathology and corrects this diagnostic step skipped by Gardner.  AB-PA defines the pathology (the set of symptoms) from entirely within standard and established constructs and principles.  Here’s what AB-PA says; pathological mourning, the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma, the addition of splitting pathology to a cross-generational coalition, we need to return to standard and established constructs and principles in our professional diagnosis of pathology, and AB-PA does this.

You and I, in a joint article, bring together both the history and the future of our efforts to solve the pathology of “parental alienation.”

Then, let’s write a second article together.  A much more interesting article.  Let’s set the stage for completing your work with the DSM diagnostic system.  Let’s set the stage for the next generation in their efforts to include the pathology of “parental alienation” into the DSM diagnostic system.

Together, you and I in a joint article, let’s make the argument to the DSM that this pathology is an attachment-trauma pathology that belongs in the Trauma and Stressor-Related section of the DSM.  In doing that, we then have a specific committee we’re targeting for support – we are forming allies within the DSM process – a new Trauma and Stressors disorder – attachment trauma – the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma.

We will argue that the diagnosis should be nearly identical to the prior DSM-IV TR diagnosis of a Shared Psychotic Disorder.  Nearly the same identical everything.  Look how closely that DSM-IV diagnosis mirrors the pathology of “parental alienation”:

DSM IV TR Shared Psychotic Disorder

Diagnostic indicator 3 of AB-PA is the encapsulated persecutory delusion.  What do you want to bet that we will find massive amounts of overlap in the psychological process that the Shared Psychotic Disorder people were looking at for the original DSM-IV disorder, and the pathology we’re looking at with AB-PA.

The DSM system has already acknowledged in the DSM-IV that the pathology of a shared delusion exists.  They acknowledge it in DSM-5 but diagnostically bury it.  All we’ll be asking for is that they re-establish the shared delusion – just like in the DSM-IV – as a primary diagnosis in the Trauma and Stressor-Related section, and we link our reasoning to the shared delusion created by the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma.

We can bring all of the data sets from attachment theory, intersubjectivity, personality disorder pathology, and complex trauma to our argument.

You and I are old guys, Dr. Bernet.  This DSM battle is for the next generation of mental health warriors.  But you and I could lay out the vision for how that battle can be fought and won – the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma creating a shared delusional disorder (Trauma and Stressor-Related section of the DSM – right alongside the other attachment-related disorders).

The world is changing, Dr. Bernet.  There are larger forces at work in this.  This isn’t Dr. Childress.  I’m merely the conduit for catalyzing the change.  The only credit to me is that I’m smart enough to recognize my role in what the universe wants to do.  Join with me in creating this changed world.  Trying to stop the change is like trying to hold back the ocean by putting up your hands to stop the waves from crashing on the shore.

Join me in defining the legacy and the future of our fight with the pathogen.  Trust me, Gardner doesn’t care about his model, he just wants us to defeat the malignancy of this pathogen.  Do you know what I think Gardner would say to me?  “Go for it, Dr. C.”  I am fully convinced that Gardner is supportive of my efforts with AB-PA.  He doesn’t care about “his” model, he just wants us to defeat the pathogen and solve the pathology.  He wants us to finish what he began, he wants us to defeat the pathogen.

But in the interesting way that the universe works, we will fulfill Gardner’s legacy without Gardner’s model.  Curious, isn’t it.  But it’s not surprising to me, because that’s the way things work sometimes.

We can fulfill his wishes using AB-PA.  When we bring the full power of scientifically established data sets to the solution, we can solve the pathology for all children and all families everywhere.

Join us, Dr. Bernet.  Join me.  Let’s write two collaborative articles.  One to reflect on history and the future, and one to define for future generations the path forward to achieve formal inclusion of the pathology into the DSM diagnostic system.

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

From Dr. Bernet, join me. (posted 9/5/17)

 

 

 

Open Letter to the PASG

To the Parental Alienation Study Group:

I am asking you to formally endorse and actively support the Petition to the APA.

We are on the battlefield now.  Today.  We need your support.  Targeted parents and their children need your support.  Now.  Today.

You are the professional organization representing targeted parents.  You are the professional organization of support for them.  It is to your role that advocacy for the Petition to the APA falls. 

It is you who should be seeking formal endorsements to the Petition from professional psychology organizations and professional legal organizations worldwide.

The world is changing.  The work of Bowlby and Minuchin and Beck is replacing the work of Gardner.  We are returning to standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology to define, diagnose, and treat pathology.  Professional psychology will become united around the work of Bowlby and Minuchin and Beck, and the professional standards of practice that this brings.

In defining the pathology entirely within standard and established constructs and principles, the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of attachment-based “parental alienation” (AB-PA) defines domains of knowledge needed for professional competence.

The attachment system

Personality disorder pathology

Family systems therapy

Complex trauma

All mental health professionals can unite around standard principles of professional psychology for basic competence.  Targeted parents and their children need your voice.  They need you to stand with them in their call for basic professional competence.

The 14,175 voices of the Petition are asking for yours;  14,179 voices are asking the PASG to formally endorse and actively support the Petition to the APA.

This is your purpose.  To bring your united voice to solving “parental alienation” for all children everywhere.

To help targeted parents create the change they need to restore their families. 

Join them.  Join with the 14,181 voices in support of the Petition to the APA.

The battle to reclaim the American Psychological Association as an ally of targeted parents is here.  The battle is now.  We need your voice now.

The 14,183 voices of the Petition to the APA are asking you to formally endorse and actively support the Petition to the APA.

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

Family Systems Therapy

Divorce ends the marriage. It does not end the family. When there is a child there will always be a family.

Divorce involves the transition of the family from an intact family structure united by the marital bond, to a separated family structure united by the parent-child bonds.

If you are a mental health professional working with a dysfunctional family transition from an intact family structure (united by the marriage) to a healthy separated family structure (united by the shared bonds of affection between the child and both parents), then understanding the process of family transitions is central to your professional responsibility.

The pathology of a child rejecting a parent surrounding divorce is called a “cutoff” family structure (Bowen).

If you are a mental health professional who doesn’t know what a cutoff family relationship is, you need to stop right now and learn about Murray Bowen and family systems therapy.  Murray Bowen is one of the foundational figures in family systems therapy.  His work provides a ground understanding for the processes in families, especially this type of dysfunctional family.

Once you have read and understand Bowen family systems, study specifically the construct of “emotional cutoff.”  What people are calling “parental alienation” is an emotional cutoff in the parent-child relationship.  It is essential to professional competence in assessing, diagnosing, and treating this type of family pathology, that all mental health professionals know and understand Murray Bowen’s construct of an emotional cutoff.

For all mental health professionals working with attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce, read Titelman.

Titelman, P. (2003). Emotional Cutoff: Bowen Family Systems Theory Perspectives. New York: Haworth Press.

“The origins of the concept of cutoff are rooted in Bowen’s parallel early understandings of differentiation, triangles, the nuclear family emotional process, family projection process, and multigenerational transmission process.” (Titelman, 2003, p. 16)

“Bowen theory postulates two main variables in human functioning: anxiety and differentiation. His theory makes the distinction between acute and chronic anxiety. Acute anxiety occurs in response to real threats and is time-limited. Chronic anxiety generally occurs in response to imagined threats and is not experienced as time-limited. Acute anxiety is fed by fear of what is: chronic anxiety is fed by fear of what might be (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 113)” (Titelman, 2003, p. 20)

Bowen’s constructs of differentiation and emotional cutoff are centrally relevant to working with attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.  If you are a mental health professional working with attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce and you do not know Murray Bowen’s work on differentiation and the emotional cutoff, stop what your doing.  Stop.  Seriously, Stop.  Learn about Murray Bowen and the constructs of differentiation and emotional cutoffs.

It’s a matter of basic professional competence.  Bowen.  Emotional cutoff.

A cutoff family structure after divorce is always pathological. There is no such thing as a “healthy cutoff family structure.”

A cutoff family structure is always a symptom of pathology in the family, having to do with psychological boundaries and differentiation within the family. Bowen.

It is vital that all mental health professionals working with attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce understand Bowen, particularly the construct of “emotional cutoff.”

This is standard foundational family systems therapy stuff. Bowen. Murray Bowen. Emotional cutoff.

No Parent-Child Relationship is Expendable

There are four parent-child relationship types;

The mother-son relationship;
The father-son relationship;
The mother-daughter relationship;
The father-daughter relationship.

Each of these relationship types is unique. Each is essential to the healthy development of the child.  None of these relationships are interchangeable.  None of these relationships are expendable.

The value of each of these relationship types should receive the full support of professional psychology, and from the family courts.

It is ALWAYS in the child’s best interests to maintain a full and complex relationship with both parents.  It is ALWAYS in the child’s best interest that the family make a successful transition following divorce from the previous intact family structure (united by the marriage) to a healthy separated family strucutre (united by the child, and by the child’s shared bonds of affection with both parents).

The mother-son bond can be a deeply emotional bond.  Much of the son’s foundational self-worth is created in the mother-son bond.  As the son matures into adulthood, the mother-son bond serves as the template for the spousal bond, and how love is navigated in that relationship.

The father-son bond is central to the boy’s gender self-identity.  The father-son bond tends to be less overtly emotional but can be deeply loving, and is vital to the boy’s sense of self-worth and self-esteem.  The father-son relationship is the template for the boy’s maturation into being a man.

The mother-daughter relationship is one of the most complex.  In this relationship, the maturing daughter role-models her development on her mother, and the mother can sometimes see her own development and vulnerabilities mirrored in her daughter.  The mother-daughter relationship also serves as the template for the daughter’s future role behavior as a mother to her own children.

The father-daughter relationship rivals the mother-son relationship for emotional warmth –  with daddy’s princess being the classic characterization of this bond. The father-daughter bond is an important source of self-esteem and self-worth for the daughter, and she will use the father-daughter bond as the template for the future spousal bond with her husband.

Each of these relationships is unique. Each is valuable. Each is essential to the child’s healthy development.  None of these relationships are expendable.

It is always in the child’s best interest for the family to make a successful transition to a healthy separated family structure.

A cutoff family structure is ALWAYS pathological.  There is no such thing as a “healthy cutoff family.”

I want to be extremely clear on this for all of my professional colleagues.  There is no such thing as a healthy cutoff family structure.  A cutoff family structure is always pathological.  Read Bowen.  Read the stuff about differentiation of self and emotional cutoffs in the family.

There is no such thing as a healthy cutoff family structure.

It is always in the child’s best interests for the family to make a successful transition to a healthy separated family structure united by the child, and by the child’s bonds of shared affection with both parents.

Divorce ends the marriage, not the family.  When there is a child, there is always a family.

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

PASG: The Petition to the APA

To targeted parents:  Identify your allies.  Bring your allies.  Ask organizations to endorse the Petition to the APA.

The Petition to the APA

I will seek to bring your allies too. 

Parental Alienation Study Group, we want your support. 

Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG)

I, along with 13,568 signatories, are asking the Parental Alienation Study Group to support and endorse the Petition to the APA.

This is the time when parents and children need you to stand with them.  Bring your formal voice to theirs in their call on the APA for professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of their families.

Now is the time to speak your support.  We are asking you to bring the support and formal endorsement of the Parental Alienation Study Group to the Petition to the APA.

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

 

Do the Gardnerians Stand With Us?

To targeted parents:  Identify your allies.  Bring your allies.  Ask organizations to endorse the Petition to the APA.

The Petition to the American Psychological Association

I will seek to bring your allies too.

In November of 2015, two years ago, I described the APA end game strategy which is now here.

APA End Game

Read the APA End Game.

Fully two years ago I was trying as hard as I could to recruit your allies at the time, the Gardnerian PAS “experts,” to cooperate with us in solving the pathology of “parental alienation.”

In a continuing effort to enlist their cooperation, I have now extended an offer to Karen Woodall for a professional-level discussion of the pathology.

Professional Conversation

Now, the APA end game that I described two years ago is here.

I am calling on your allies to formally endorse the Petition to the APA.

I am asking Dr. Bernet, Karen Woodall, Amy Baker, Linda Gottlieb, and the Parental Alienation Study Group to sign the Petition to the APA, and to make a formal statement endorsing the Petition to the American Psychological Association.

It’s time for your allies to stand with us, to join us in our fight for your children.

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

The Information-Structures of the Petition to the APA

The Petition to the APA contains a set of “meme-structures” – in fact, several sets of parallel and overlapping “information-structures” are contained within the Petition.

I want to take a moment and identify some of them. 

Think of the Petition as an information-virus.  The information-structures (meme-structures) of the Petition represent the viral DNA code of knowledge that is going to be inserted into the institution of the APA.

Information-Structure: Professional Knowledge & Competence

This is an unstoppable information structure.  The Petition itself is simply a small pebble.  The information-structure of professional knowledge and competence is the power.  This first small pebble of the competence information-structure will increasingly become a battering ram, a catapult, a trebuchet, and a cannon in each transformation.

The battle is to claim the narrative.  The pathogen has its narrative, and it has used this narrative to captivate allies and disable the response of the mental health system to the pathology.  The meme-structures of AB-PA are designed to claim the narrative.

For example, the narcissistic/(borderline) parent claims to be the “protective parent.” 

No.  We are claiming the narrative.  The targeted parent is the protective parent, and it is the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent who is the abusive parent.  We are protectively separating the child from the abusive narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

All of the information structures of the Petition claim the narrative, beginning with the Prelude. 

I chose the term Prelude intentionally, because I see the Petition as a musical piece with a Prelude and Five Movements.  The fifth Movement is simply a return to the themes of the Prelude (an ouroboros). 

The organizing core theme of the entire Petition – the central organizing information-structure – is a call for professional knowledge and competence.  This information-structure is unstoppable.

No one in the APA can credibly argue that there is an “acceptable level” of professional ignorance and incompetence that is allowable. 

The central meme-structure of the Petition asserts the high-ground of professional responsibility.  This is a central organizing information-structure that 100% of psychologists can agree to.

This information structure is unstoppable.  It serves as a battering ram information-structure.  Professional competence.  All we seek is the APA’s support in obtaining professional competence.  Bam – the information structure of professional competence, Standard 2.01a of the APA ethics code, beats against the doors of the APA. 

Professional competence is a right guaranteed by Standards 2.01a and 2.03 of the APA ethics code.  Bam against the doors of the APA.

All we seek is the APA’s support in obtaining professional competence.  Bam against the doors of the APA. 

We are going to force them argue that there is an “acceptable” level of ignorance and incompetence allowable.  They can’t do that.  We own the high-ground.

All we seek is the APA’s support in obtaining professional competence.  Bam against the doors of the APA. 

Over time, we will turn the battering ram into a catapult, then into a trebuchet hurling boulders at the APA’s walls, then into a cannon that simply blast open the door.  This information structure of professional competence is unstoppable with the APA.  They will support the principles of their own ethics code.  It is inevitable.

Support Meme-Structures: The Four Domains

A second set of meme-structures activates immediately upon the introduction of the competence information-structure.  The four domains of knowledge meme-structures define the knowledge required for professional competence; the attachment system, personality disorder pathology, family systems therapy, complex trauma.

The specific meme-structure nuggets are:

Pathological mourning
Cross-generational coalition
Narcissistic/borderline personality
Attachment trauma
Pathogenic parenting

The information-structure of professional competence will open the doors of the APA.  The four domains of knowledge meme-structures are the “viral dna-code” of knowledge structures that will enter the host organism – the APA.

Information Structure:  The Voice of Parents

The Prelude represents the voice of parents.  In the Prelude I am blunt and direct, because the stultified attitude of professional psychology needs to hear the suffering.  The APA is asleep to the suffering.  The direct voice of suffering and pain needs to wake them from their slumber.

I chose strong words and made strong allegations toward my professional colleagues.  I’m sure I’m not making friends among my professional colleagues.  I don’t care.  They need to hear the voice of parents.  The lives of children are being destroyed by the collusive incompetence of ignorant mental health persons.

The APA, and all of professional psychology needs to hear that statement.  If someone says,

“Back that up Dr. Childress.  Show me the evidence that the lives of children are being destroyed by the ignorance and incompetence of mental health professionals.”

I’ll respond with,

13,000.  The Petition to the APA has 13,000 signatures.  There are your 13 thousand data points of evidence.

Your signatures determine how strong you want this rebuttal response to be.  I would urge you to make it as strong as possible.  When I’m in dialogue with the APA and I’m asked for “evidence” of the problem’s magnitude, my response will be to cite the number of current signatures to the Petition.  When I’m asked for “evidence” that the problem is as bad as I say it is, I’ll go on the Internet and directly read the current number of signatures to the Petition.

It’s up to you how strong you want to become.  20,000?  More?  80,000?

The Prelude is the voice of children.  This isn’t about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  This is about the lost bonds of love between a parent and a child.  We are restoring that bond.  We need the support of the APA.

So while my initial challenging words in the Prelude are blunt, the message they deliver is one of love.  We are fighting to protect the emotional and psychological development of children.  We will fight fiercely for children.  And we are fighting for love, and peace, and happiness. 

This is the meme-structure of the Prelude:  We will fight fiercely to protect children.  It is a message of love.

“Dr. Childress, prove that it’s as bad as you say.”

13,000 signatures.  13,000 voices.

Information-Structure: The Four Domains of Knowledge

Once the information-structure of professional competence opens the door of the APA, the viral meme-structures of AB-PA will insert their expansive “dna-code” of knowledge into the APA.  Articles 1 and 2 contain the individual meme-structures comprising the larger four domains of knowledge information-structure.  Each quote used in Article 1 and Article 2 is a meme-structure packet that will expand once inside the APA – attachment pathology, personality pathology, complex trauma.  

Each quote is a knowledge seed, an individual meme-structure packet that will expand once it finds a fertile mind.

Information-Structure:  Problem to Solution

The  information-structures of the Prelude and professional competence voice the problem, the four domains of knowledge meme-structures provide the solution.  This becomes a linking set, a coupling of information-structures.  The professional competence information structure opens the door.  The four domains of knowledge provide the content (the “dna” information of the knowledge structure).

The four domains of knowledge information-structures are critical to the strength of the Petition, since these are the specific meme-structures that will propagate from brain-to-brain within professional psychology.  In organizing this set of meme-structures, I tried to limit the introduction of “new” constructs as much as possible.  The standard constructs of professional psychology are “new”  enough to the ignorant.  Which is why I rely on so many quotes rather than statements by me with citation reference.  I’m using a delivery vehicle for these meme-structures of recognized authorities in professional psychology – Bowlby; Minuchin; Beck.

The information-structures of the four domains of knowledge are exceedingly strong.  They will hold the knowledge weight that serves as the foundation for professional competence.  The professional competence and four domains of knowledge are linked information-structures, and once we turn the corner on these, the four domains of knowledge open the ethics meme structures.

Information-Structure: Ethics

This too is an unstoppable information-structure.

By defining the pathology entirely using standard and established constructs and principles (the four domains of knowledge) the Petition activates Standards 2.01a and 2.03 of the APA ethics code.  We have identified domains of knowledge required for professional competence.

There is no credible argument that the APA can make that there is an “acceptable” violation of the APA ethics code.  We have claimed the high-ground of the APA ethics code.

The ethics meme-structure set originates in the ground foundation of the APA’s own ethics code, which is then linked through the four domains of knowledge into a petition for action; a statement of support from the APA for its own ethics code, and a statement of support from the APA for professional competence.

Information-Structures: The Action Structures

The meme-structures of the Petition to the APA have linked a voiced problem (the Prelude) to an identified solution (the four domains of knowledge).  Article 4 introduces the action meme-structures.

The sought for action is clear, 1, 2, 3. 

The sought for action is specific (offering specific suggested wording for the statements). 

The sought for action unfolds through three time frames, immediate (Remedy 1), intermediate (Remedy 2), and longer-term (Remedy 3).

Within this information-structure, we solve the “controversy” surrounding Gardnerian PAS in Remedy 2 dealing with the APA’s Position Statement on PAS.  I discard Gardnerian PAS.  No more controversy.  No more endless argument.  Done.  We’re shifting to the four domains of knowledge needed for professional competence.  Everyone, 100% of professional psychology, can join in this unified solution to attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.

The “controversy” is over.  Let’s get on with the solution.  We are ending the division in professional psychology and we are delivering the APA to targeted parents as their ally.

The longer-term action of a conference of experts is the meme-structure that leads to a solution to the broken family law court system.  The Petition to end “parental alienation” is the seed of change, the conference of experts is the fruit of this change.

We have claimed the high-ground.  The information-structure of professional competence is unstoppable.  The four domains of knowledge meme-structures provide a solid foundation on which to stand.  The ethics information-structure is unstoppable.  The action meme-structures are vibrant and alive.

Eventually, the APA will issue a statement endorsing its own ethics code.  It must.  This is an entirely reasonable request from the consumer population for psychological services, “Please endorse your ethics code so we can get professional competence out here.”  How can they possibly say no?  13,000 signatures.  20,000 signatures? The more signatures, the stronger your pressure on them.

These information structures are your siege weapons.  Your siege towers are already against the walls, having been constructed during your prior assault on the APA a year ago.  You already know the entry points, the contact points.  Expand the outreach to state psychological associations asking them to endorse the Petition to the APA.  Begin to ping the AFCC, asking for their endorsement to the Petition.

In its raw form, the Petition becomes a battering ram at the doors of the APA.  All we are seeking is professional competence – bam.   We simply want the APA to support its own ethics code – bam.  All we are seeking is professional competence – bam…

This set of siege weapons can also be taken to other citadels, other organizations and the media.  The AFCC.  The British Psychological Association.  State psychological associations.  State bar associations.  Ask them to endorse the Petition.  All we are seeking is professional competence – bam.  We simply want your endorsement of a call for professional competence – bam.  All we are seeking is… – bam.

In early childhood mental health there’s a saying, you have to introduce a new food to a toddler 11 times before the toddler tries it. The first 10 times, the food is too “foreign” for the toddler to risk actually putting in the mouth.  But by time 11, the child has now seen the food ten other times, the food is now “familiar,” and the toddler tries it.  We’re introducing a new food to a toddler – knowledge to the APA and professional psychology.  One time… two times… three times…

The Petition contains the viral “dna-code” of knowledge; of specific information-structures.  A virus takes control of the host cell by first attaching to an entry point on the host cell, and then it inserts its viral dna-code into the host cell.  Attach to the APA (and to any other organization) at an entry point, and insert the information-structures of the Petition (“Please endorse the Petition to the APA”), and let the meme-structures contained in the Petition propagate and expand within the organism – broadly across the mental health system.  

Some entry points may be disconnected from the organism as a whole, and the information-structures sent to these entry points will simply languish at the inactive entry point.  However, some entry points will propagate the information structures throughout the host organism – throughout the organization.  We won’t know if an entry point is active or inactive until we ask,

‘”Will xyz organization endorse the Petition to the APA?”

All of this is within the flow of that-which-leads.  Each of us has our role.  I am your resource.  You are the warrior.  The time is now.  The battle for your children is now.  The battle for the APA is here.

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

Find Your Allies; Bring Them

The Petition to the APA received 10,000 signatures on its first day.  You breath, and your power pulses.  You are more powerful than you know.  Come together into a single voice. 

Petition to the American Psychological Association 

I will begin my work on formal submission of the Petition to the APA.  In the meantime, continue recruiting allies.  We want to find all of your allies in this battle.  And toward that end I have something for you to do – find and bring your allies.

We want to leverage the Petition to the APA to call forth current allies and educate future allies.  I want you to continue to recruit signatures to the Petition, each signature represents a voice, an ally.  But let’s also identify your organizational allies, beginning with all state psychological associations. 

We are going to identify your current allies and begin recruiting your future allies by asking these organizational entities to formally endorse the Petition to the APA.

The remedies sought by the Petition to the APA are entirely reasonable.  The Petition is simply asking the APA to provide statements affirming the Standards of its own ethics code.  This is an entirely reasonable request. 

Supporting professional knowledge and professional competence is something every professional organization should be able to endorse. 

So then, let’s ask all professional organizations to please formally endorse the Petition to the APA.  Let’s identify your current allies, voices who will stand with you. 

But even if they don’t endorse, simply reading the Petition to the APA will educate them.  That is a very good thing.  We are recruiting them as your future allies.  The world is changing.

Start with your state’s psychological organization (such as the Pennsylvania Psychological Association, the New York Psychological Association, the Oregon Psychological Association, the North Carolina Psychological Association…)

I want you to ask all of your state psychological organizations to formally endorse the Petition to the APA.  Master’s level psychological organizations as well.  Every mental health organization, ask them to formally endorse the Petition to the APA.

Internationally, I would ask the same.  Ask your national and regional psychological organizations in your country to formally endorse the Petition to the APA.  (the British Psychological Association, the Australian Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Nederlands Instituut van Psychologen, the Polish Psychologists’ Association…).  Ask them to endorse the Petition to the APA.

We are identifying your current allies and bringing their voices to yours, and we are educating your future allies.  This is all good.

And let’s not stop at the mental health system.  Let’s seek the endorsement of legal organizations as well.  Let’s ask all of your state bar associations to endorse the Petition to the APA.  Will any of them endorse the Petition?  I don’t know.  Let’s find out.

How about law schools and graduate psychology programs at universities… would any of them formally endorse the Petition to the APA?  I don’t know.  I do know that they won’t endorse the Petition if they’re not asked.

What about all of your state licensing boards?  I doubt that they’ll take an official position on the Petition to the APA, but they will at least know about the issues.  Statement of Concern 4 speaks directly to licensing boards.  We are not only calling for current allies, we are educating future allies.

What about your state legislators… will they introduce legislation to endorse the Petition to the APA?  Maybe not, but at least its an opportunity to educate the office of your state legislator about the trauma to families and the unchecked professional ignorance and incompetence.  Ask for a formal statement from the office of the representative endorsing the Petition to the APA.

What about the media?  Do you think journalists and the media might be interested in the story of the Petition to the APA? 

Parents seeking professional competence from a broken mental health system.  Family’s destroyed by rampant and unchecked professional ignorance and incompetence in professional psychology. 

Parents calling out to the APA for relief, calling for the APA to affirm its  support for their own professional standards guaranteeing parents their foundational right to professional knowledge and professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of their children and families.

Do you think the media might be interested in that story?  I don’t know.  Let’s ask.

The Petition to the APA is on Change.org.  A pdf copy of the Petition to the APA is on my website, right at the top of the Parental Alienation section.  In seeking formal endorsements from organizations, you can link your request to the Petition directly or you can send a pdf of the Petition as part of your request.

I’d suggest writing a cover letter saying something like:

The lives of children and families experiencing attachment-related family pathology surrounding divorce are being destroyed by professional ignorance and incompetence. 

A Petition to the American Psychological Association signed by over X0,000 is gathering voices of support for the APA to affirm its Standards guaranteeing parents the right to professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of their children and families (Standard 2.01a of the APA ethics code).

I am requesting that the xyz organization also add its voice to this call for professional competence by formally endorsing the Petition to the APA regarding standards of professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.

You will find a copy of the Petition to the APA attached. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request that xyz organization provide a statement of support endorsing the Petition to the APA.

Emails to organizations may be one approach.  I think postal mail is always more powerful.  Even if they don’t formally endorse the Petition, or even if their endorsement takes ages to work its way through their endorsement process, these organizations become educated by simply reading the Petition.  The knowledge will percolate, embed itself, and they will become our future allies. 

Every professional quote in the Petition is a seed of knowledge planted in the mind of the reading mental health professional.  In the fertile soil of an authentic professional mind, each seed of knowledge will grow.  And just look how many seeds of knowledge the Petition contains, each quote is a seed.

All of Article 3 is a valuable seed of knowledge for licensing boards, with Statement of Concern 4 amplifying the message to licensing boards. 

Articles 1 and 2 provide an unraveling of the pathology for legal professionals and CPS social workers, familiarizing them with the vocabulary and concepts; a cross-generational coalition, pathogenic parenting, pathological mourning by a narcissistic/(borderline) parent, the psychological control of the child.

Education requires repeated exposure to familiarize the construct and begin to embed and anchor the information.  Each source of information, the Petition and the booklets – The Narcissistic Parent, the Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology, the Contingent Visitation Schedule – provides a repetition and slightly varied extension of the information.  Through each source of information the knowledge becomes increasingly anchored and reinforced.

It’s time for all of your allies to join us on the battlefield.  The time is now.  The battle to recover your children, all of your children, is now.  Let’s identify your current allies and bring them to the field to join us, and let’s begin to recruit your future allies. 

For individuals, ask every person you know to sign the petition.  For organizations, ask every organization you can identify to endorse the petition.

Professional psychology associations.  Professional legal associations.  All licensing boards (CPS agencies?).  Media outlets.  Your extended family.  Your friends.  Identify all of your allies and bring them to the field, and begin to recruit your future allies. 

Organizations won’t endorse the Petition if they’re not asked.  No harm in asking:

“Please endorse… attached is the Petition to the APA.  Thank you.”

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

Petition to the APA

I have just posted the Petition to the APA to Change.org.

Petition to the American Psychological Association

I will formally submit this petition to the APA when it has 10,000 signatures.

This is the time for your voice to be heard.  You are the warriors for your children.  You are more powerful than you know.  Become an unstoppable force for change.

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

Time to Decide Karen

In September, I invited Karen Woodall and the clinical psychologist with whom she works to Certification training in the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of attachment-based “parental alienation” (AB-PA).  A personal invitation for professional collaboration.

An Invitation to Karen Woodall

I extended the invitation to both Karen and her clinical psychologist, because apparently, according to Karen on her blogs, she is not professionally qualified to diagnose personality disorder pathology so she must refer cases of “parental alienation” involving suspected narcissistic or borderline personality disorder pathology of the parent to a clinical psychologist:

From Karen Woodall: “If I suspect a personality disorder is present I will ask our clinical psychologist to evaluate this and on the basis of this outcome we will design and deliver a treatment route, often in a team setting, sometimes headed by our clinical psychologist.”

I find this intriguing, since personality disorder pathology exists on a spectrum (mild, moderate, severe) and is often unrecognized during initial assessment presentations. 

From Beck:Underdiagnosis constitutes a big problem that results in insufficient treatment.  In many cases we saw, it took years of fruitless attempts to treat these patients before it became clear they were in fact suffering from BPD.” (Beck, et al. 2004 p. 196)

Dr. Childress Comment:  Aaron Beck is one of the preeminent leading figures in professional psychology.

From Cohen: “The perception [of narcissism in a patient] is hampered by the fact that narcissistic individuals may well be intelligent, charming, and sometimes creative people who function effectively in their professional lives and in a range of social situations… While narcissism is recognized as a serious mental disorder, its manifestations may not be immediately recognized as pathological, even by persons in the helping professions, and its implications may remain unattended to.” (Cohen, 1998, p. 197)

So I wonder… at what threshold does Karen refer to her “clinical psychologist to evaluate this”?  Might she be missing cases of parental narcissistic or borderline personality pathology because she is not personally capable or qualified to independently assess and independently diagnose parental personality pathology, and therefore doesn’t make the referral to her clinical psychologist in sub-threshold cases of personality disorder traits or features?  Because in addition to actual personality “disorders” there are also personality “traits” and “features” that don’t meet full diagnostic criteria for a “disorder.”  At what threshold does Karen refer to her clinical psychologist?

If she and her clinical psychologist had attended the AB-PA Certification in November, this could have been a very productive conversation between Karen, myself, and her clinical psychologist at the AB-PA Certification seminar.  After all, I am a clinical psychologist with an expertise in the area of pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/(borderline) parent.  A lost opportunity for seemingly valuable professional-to-professional dialogue.

In my invitation to Karen and her clinical psychologist back in September, I explicitly offered a professional collaboration in solving the attachment-related pathology of “parental alienation” in the UK.

From An Invitation to Karen Woodall:

“And you know what Karen?  If you have an AB-PA Certified psychologist on staff at your clinic, and if you’re documenting your assessments using the instruments of AB-PA, then you can unleash me on the British mental health system. 

Hmmm, if I’m taking on the incompetent mental health assessment of attachment-related pathology in the British mental health system, it sure would be nice to have an AB-PA Certified psychologist in England who could conduct a proper assessment of AB-PA.  Hmmm, who could that be?  Hey, I know.  There is only one clinical psychologist in all of England who is AB-PA Certified.  Go to that person and you’ll get an exceptionally good diagnostic workup.

Come on Karen.  Personal invitation from Dr. C.  Come to Pasadena with your clinical psychologist in November.  Three days – Advanced Certification in AB-PA for both you and your clinical psychologist.  Then unleash me into your mental health system.”

Crickets.  No response from Karen.  I offer professional collaboration in solving “parental alienation.”  She refuses the offer.

Two weeks ago, I extended another invitation to Karen Woodall to engage in a professional collaboration; a professional level discussion of the pathology on a joint blog:

Invitation to Karen Woodall

Joint Blog: A Conversation Between Karen Woodall & Dr. Childress

This would be an immensely valuable opportunity for a professional-level discussion regarding the nature of the pathology, its assessment, its diagnosis, and its treatment.  This professional-level conversation could advance both the professional-level understanding for the pathology and its definition, and could potentially speed the enactment of a solution to “parental alienation” pathology in Great Britain.

So far, I’ve heard nothing but crickets.  No response from Karen.  She is apparently refusing my offer of a professional-level discussion of the pathology and collaboration in its solution.

What the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of attachment-based “parental alienation” (AB-PA) does is return professional practice to the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.  No “new forms of pathology” proposals that are rejected by establishment psychology and that open us to mental health persons simply making stuff up, whatever they want, that then leads to our current situation of rampant and profound professional ignorance and incompetence.

The Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA returns professional psychology to standard and established constructs and principles, and doing so immediately provides all targeted parents everywhere with a solution:

The Solution: The Return to Professional Practice

The Solution: The Dominoes

There is not a rational and responsible mental health professional who can possibly argue against a professional reliance on the established constructs and principles of professional psychology to assess, diagnose, and treat pathology – any pathology – all pathology – including attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.

What the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA does is establish a defined standard of practice using the defined and established foundational principles and constructs of professional psychology;

The Attachment System

Personality Disorder Pathology

Family Systems Therapy

Complex Trauma

If Karen Woodall wants to add “new forms of pathology” that she thinks she’s “discovered” to the work of Bowlby and Minuchin and Beck and Haley and van der Kolk and Millon and Kernberg…, fine by me.  Add all the unicorns and mermaids you want.  If you can get your unicorns and mermaids accepted by professional psychology, woo hoo.  I have no problem with that.

But in the meantime, let’s solve the attachment-related pathology of “parental alienation” using the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.

If Karen Woodall wants to argue that the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA doesn’t solve all the different variants of the pathology, and that the standard and established constructs and principles from the accumulated wisdom and scientific investigation of professional psychology is inadequate to solve the pathology, and that she alone possesses the wisdom needed to solve the pathology, fine by me.  Make the argument to professional psychology that you’re a new magnificent expert.  I have no problem with that.

But in the meantime, let’s solve what we can – the severe form or “pure case” as you call it – of “parental alienation” surrounding divorce.  Let’s start by solving the most severe form using the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.  There is absolutely zero reason why we should not begin immediately implementing the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA to solve the (allegedly) “severe cases” of “parental alienation”.  If we can solve the suffering of these families right now, today – and we can – let’s do it. 

Let’s not waste a minute arguing among ourselves.  If the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA immediately solves the most severe cases, lets all of us get on the mountaintops and church steeples and begin to shout about this.  Lets all of us work together to get this change into place as fast as we possibly can.

In truth, the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model (i.e., the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology) CAN and will solve all the different variants of the pathology as well, I just won’t argue that at this point.  In my view, first things first.  We start with solving the most severe form, develop the system-wide professional knowledge and competence to solve that, and then we expand this knowledge and competence into the variant expressions of parental pathology following divorce.  Step-by-step.

I’m a clinical psychologist.  I know the constructs and principles of professional psychology – Bowlby, Minuchin, Beck, Haley, Fonagy, Stern, Kohut, Winnicott, Tronick, van der Kolk, Ainsworth, Main, Sroufe, Bowen, Satir, Millon, Linehan, Kernberg – we can absolutely solve all the different variants of attachment-related family pathology following divorce by using the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.

But I won’t argue that at this point.  If Karen Woodall thinks she’s discovered “new things” and “new forms of pathology” fine by me.  Let’s just solve the severe cases using the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA and end the suffering of these families everywhere – in the United States, in England, in Australia, in the Netherlands, in South Africa, in Japan, everywhere.  Then we can discuss your “hybrid cases,” the different variations of the pathology.

And you know what, Karen?  I’m more than happy to discuss that with you on a professional level:

A Conversation Between Karen Woodall & Dr. Childress

Send me an email and I’ll send you the password for this joint blog and we can begin the professional-level discussion.

But unless you’re willing to engage in a professional level-discussion and join with us in solving the pathology using the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology (the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA), then you are just using your platform and supposed “expertise” to sow confusion, controversy, discord, and division.  Stop it.  We’re trying to solve this. 

Join with us in creating the solution – using ONLY the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology – to which ALL mental health professionals can be held ACCOUNTABLE – thereby establishing a baseline professional standard of practice for all mental health professionals everywhere using standard and established professional domains of knowledge, or else you simply become an obstructionist seeking to promote your own self-interest at the expense of a solution.

My offer for you and your clinical psychologist to become AB-PA Certified in the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of “parental alienation” stands.  If you and your clinical psychologist want to become AB-PA Certified in the spring of 2018, just give me the dates and I’ll book a seminar at a hotel in Long Beach.  My offer to then collaborate on bringing the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA to England also stands, as it would to collaborate with any mental health professional anywhere.

My offer for you and I to engage in a professional-level discussion of the pathology so that we can bring professional division to an end using a joint blog  – A Conversation Between Karen Woodall & Dr. Childress – stands.  Send me an email and I’ll send you the password to this blog and we can begin the professional-level dialogue.

But understand this clearly Karen… I will NOT allow you impede the solution available to targeted parents and their children provided by a return of professional psychology to the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.  If you do not want to collaborate in the solution offered by the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA, then I suggest you simply stand aside for the next year or so while we solve this – internationally.  Because I will NOT allow you to impede the solution by your sowing of confusion, controversy, discord, and division.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.  The world is changing.  The status quo is not acceptable.  More of the same is not acceptable.

We are returning to the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology.  That is a fact.

We are going to establish a ground foundation for a professional standard of practice in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce.  That is a fact.

Gardnerian PAS and its eight symptom identifiers are NOT part of the solution.  Gardnerian PAS is dead.  That is a fact.

We are going to solve the attachment-related pathology of “parental alienation” for all children and all families everywhere using the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology (as defined through the Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck model of AB-PA) .  That is a fact.

Join us in the solution.  Or stand aside.

Because I will not allow you to simply obstruct the solution for your own self-interest.  Gardnerian PAS is dead.  Let it go.  Embrace the coming change and join us in creating the change.  That is my invitation to you.

Send me an email, I’ll send you the password, and we can begin our professional-level conversation:

A Conversation Between Karen Woodall & Dr. Childress

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


Beck, A.T., Freeman, A., Davis, D.D., & Associates (2004). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. (2nd edition). New York: Guilford.

Cohen, O. (1998). Parental narcissism and the disengagement of the non-custodial father after divorce. Clinical Social Work Journal, 26, 195-215