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

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

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

The Group Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity Disturbance

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

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

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

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

Scientifically Grounded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what you’re looking for…

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

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

---

---

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

Assessment:  This is what you’re looking for…

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

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

Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.

Assessment

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

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

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

Now here’s a very specific question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what you’re looking for:

Attachment system suppression (diagnostic indicator 1)

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

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

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

This is what you’re looking at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what you do:

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

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

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

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

2.)  Severe parental psychopathology,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.

Assessment:  This is what you’re looking for…

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

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

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

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

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

Protective Separation

The High Road Protocol

The Contingent Visitation Schedule

AB-PA Key Solution

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment leads to diagnosis, and diagnosis guides treatment.

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

Karen, I have a present for you.

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

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

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

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

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

Parent-Child Conflict Coding System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t know… let’s find out…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice the Organizing Headers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PCC-05-02
PCC-05-03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Karen, if I can suggest something,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Key Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Three Pieces of the Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step-by-step.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The absence of empathy.  Trauma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But once it’s solved…

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have three announcement upcoming.  My first announcement is that The Childress Institute website is live.

The Childress Institute

The Childress Institute is established to organize the Training and Certification of mental health professionals in AB-PA.

Of particular note is the Registration page.  The first Basic Certification in AB-PA is scheduled for November 18^th and 19^th at the Westin hotel in Pasadena.

There is a third day optional seminar on November 20^th for Advanced Certification in AB-PA.  This is the day that contains what I consider to be all the really cool stuff.

Enrollment in these seminars is limited to 20 participants to ensure the ability for direct discussion and dialogue during the seminar.

You’ll note when you scroll down the Homepage of The Childress Institute that the Current Focus is Parental Alienation in High-Conflict Divorce, and also that there are Future Projects and Directions.

The reason there are Future Projects and Directions is because we are going to solve “parental alienation” in high-conflict divorce.

There will come a point in time, hopefully within the next two years, when “parental alienation” will be solved.  We will have a systematic early intervention model in place, and the mental health and legal systems will work together efficiently in an effective collaboration to solve the pathology and return children and families to a normal-range trajectory within six months of their first encounter with the mental health or legal system.

All done.  Solved.  An efficient and effective response to the pathology of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) surrounding divorce.

There will be no more need for The Childress Institute to focus on this issue, because it will be solved.  That is my vision, that is my goal, and I fully anticipate achieving that goal.

At that point, once “parental alienation” (AB-PA) is solved for all children and all families everywhere, I’ll turn my attention to solving other things, like the horrific pathological anger of the terrorist mind and the extremism of pathological anger that we recently witnessed in Charlottesville, in Paris, in Orlando, in Manchester – (The Terrorist Mind and the Extremism of Pathological Anger).

And there will be other projects to keep me busy for as long as the universe allows me to do its work.

My goal is to get “parental alienation” done and solved as quickly as is humanly possible because the tragedy of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) needs to end – now – today – and because I want to then move on to solving other things before I leave and return home.

Training and Certification in AB-PA is part of that solution to solving “parental alienation.”  It ensures the necessary level of professional expertise.  By the time we’re done, there will be a substantial number of AB-PA Certified mental health professionals everywhere.  I don’t want to be the expert, I want to give you lots and lots of experts everywhere, mental health professionals that you can trust because you can be assured that they have the highest level of professional expertise in assessing, diagnosing, and treating the attachment-related family pathology of “parental alienation” (AB-PA).

November 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th at the Westin hotel in Pasadena we begin.  In the days ahead, I’ll have more to say on the content of these Training and Certification seminars and their role in the integrated solution.  But I’ll need to make two additional announcements first, so that the entirely integrated solution will become clear.

Currently, The Childress Institute is a DBA.  I have my attorney working on the application for 501c3 nonprofit status.  The estimate for this is about 9 months, sometime late spring early summer of 2018, although various approvals will come along the way.

Down the road, once we solve “parental alienation” (AB-PA), I want a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to solve the terrorist mind and the extremism of pathological anger.

I want a grant from the Gates Foundation to solve the currently dysfunctional education system and elevate the U.S. educational system into an utterly amazing 22^nd Century status.  Children have a developmental right to an amazing education.

I want to construct an online parenting website that provides training and educational seminars that solve ADHD, that solve oppositional and defiant child behavior, that solve school failure, that solve delinquency, that solve pretty much all the troublesome stuff of childhood and adolescence, along with supportive seminars for educating foster parents, and training for child and family therapists in neuro-developmentally supportive child and family therapy as a replacement therapy model for play therapy and behavior therapy.  All housed in an online website of accessible seminars and trainings.

And Dorcy and I are going to get to work on substantially reducing the trauma-mindset that leads to prison recidivism, using a catalytic model of transformative and healing change – and ultimately, through improvements in parenting and direct catalytic interventions, I want to reduce prison incarceration in the first place.  Our kids – even if they’re now grown-up adult kids – should not be in cages.  That would be abhorrent for my son or daughter – and I consider all kids to be “my sons” and “my daughters” (you all just have the privilege of raising “my kids”).

And the super-long range goal is to solve Syria, the Ukraine, Nigeria, and the Sudan; ethnic violence and inter-nation violence and conflict.

Are these solutions possible?  Yep.  I see the path to solution in each of these areas.  My goal is for The Childress Institute to serve as a catalyst for the solution in each of these areas, as I have served as a catalyst in the solution to “parental alienation” (AB-PA) that is on its way.

But first things first, we need to solve the attachment-related family pathology of “parental alienation” (AB-PA) for all children and all families everywhere.  Is this possible?  Yep.

The Childress Institute website is the seed structure.  We start by laying the foundation.  The Childress Institute is the seed foundation for these solutions.

The important feature of getting The Childress Institute website up is getting the online Registration function for seminars.  As long as I’m constructing a website foundation, might as well have a bookstore page.  The bookstore page provides discounts for my books.  There’s also a donations page.  The Childress Institute is not currently a 501c3 nonprofit, donations to The Childress Institute are not tax deductible yet.

I figure I have about another decade of shelf-life, maybe less, before I return home.  My goal is for us to solve the pathology of “parental alienation” as soon as we possibly can, and then I’ll shift my focus to these other areas and set as many of the solutions in as many of these other areas into motion as I can, and then I’ll leave the planet and return home, leaving the work to be completed by the next generation coming forward – to our children.

Announcement 1.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Psychologist, PSY 18857

To:  Clinical psychologists who are assessing, diagnosing, and treating attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce (AB-PA)

Re:  Professional Competence

---

I am appalled that clinical psychologists are not recognizing and diagnosing a psychotic pathology that is sitting right in front of you in your office – an encapsulated persecutory delusion.

A psychotic pathology.   Right in front of you.  And you are totally missing recognizing it and diagnosing it.

Wow.  You know what?  You are a really bad clinical psychologist.  Just awful.

We’re not talking some strange esoteric form of pathology.  We’re talking psychotic pathology, right in front of you.  And you are entirely missing it.

I mean, seriously… psychotic pathology.  Wow.  You are a really bad clinical psychologist if you can’t even recognize and diagnose psychotic pathology when it’s sitting right in front of you.

The child is displaying an encapsulated persecutory delusion – a fixed and false belief that the child is being malevolently treated – being “victimized” – by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent.

Here, let me take you by the hand and lead you through this…

Does the child believe that he or she is being malevolently treated – being “victimized” – by the targeted parent? – Yes.

Persecutory belief.

Is this true? – No.

False belief.

Does the child evidence the ability to change this false persecutory belief in response to the actual reality that the child is NOT being malevolently treated – is not being “victimized” – by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent?  – No.

Persecutory delusion.

Does the child evidence delusions in other areas of life? – No.

Encapsulated persecutory delusion.

See how this diagnosis thing works?  Jeez Louise, you’re supposed to be a clinical psychologist.  This is your job.  Holy cow.

But you are looking squarely at a psychotic pathology – an encapsulated persecutory delusion – and you are totally missing it.

Wow.  I am absolutely floored.  You are a really bad clinical psychologist if you can’t even recognize and diagnose a psychotic pathology.

Does the child have an endogenous psychosis, like schizoprhenia?  No.  Wait… You can’t possibly be such an awful clinical psychologist that you would actually think that the child’s encapsulated persecutory delusion represents an endogenous psychosis originating in the child… can you?  I don’t know.  I’m so stunned that you can’t even recognize and diagnose psychotic pathology that I’m not sure quite how bad things are with you.

But no, the child does not have an endogenous psychotic pathology.  So if the psychotic pathology is not arising spontaneously to the child, then what is the source for the child’s encapsulated persecutory delusional belief that the child is being “victimized” by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent?

Okay, take my hand again and let me walk you through this…

Can the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent create a delusion in the child – a false belief – that the child is being “victimized” by the normal range parenting of the targeted parent?  No.  Normal-range parenting cannot create a delusion.

Have you ever heard of any case in which a normal-range parent created a persecutory delusion in the child by normal-range parenting? – No.  Normal-range parenting cannot create a delusion.

Okay, then we can safely rule-out the targeted parent as the source of this delusional belief evidenced by the child.

So now we’ve ruled out the child having an endogenous psychosis (or are you still thinking that this might be childhood schizophrenia? – It’s not – but you’re such a bad clinical psychologist I don’t know what you’re thinking – but it’s not. There is no evidence to suggest that the child is independently psychotic).

And we’ve ruled-out the targeted parent as the source of the child’s encapsulated persecutory delusion.  Care to hazard a guess as to the next possible source to explore?  Right, the allied and supposedly “favored” parent.  Yay for you.

So, is it possible that the allied and supposedly “favored” parent has a false belief that the child is being “victimized” by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent?  Yes, that’s possible.  Hmmm, how could we go about checking this out, to see if the allied and supposedly “favored” parent has the same beliefs as the child that the child is being “victimized” by the supposedly bad parenting of the targeted parent?

Hey, I know… how about we interview the allied parent and obtain this parent’s perceptions of the child’s supposed “victimization” by the parenting practices of the other parent.  Whaddya think?  Good idea?

And you know what, the allied and supposedly “favored” parent evidences exactly the same beliefs as the child.  Wow.  What a coincidence, eh?  They both share the same persecutory delusional belief surrounding the child’s supposed “victimization” by the normal-range parenting practices of the targeted parent.

Okay, now here’s a tough diagnostic question… what is the pathology called when two people (who live together and are closely related by blood, and are in a close relationship in which one of them is dominant over the other one) – what is the clinical psychology pathology called when these two people share the same delusion? — Right, a shared delusion.  Whew, I’m so proud of you.  You’re doing great.  When two people share the same delusion, the clinical pathology is called a shared delusion.

So we’ve now diagnosed a shared persecutory delusion – shared between the child and the allied and supposedly “favored” parent.

Okay, so we’re about to close out this diagnostic walk through, but before we do… you know what I find so amazing – and so incredibly appalling?  That you never-ever reached this point in the diagnosis of the psychotic pathology that is sitting right in front of you.  I am stunned.

You’re supposed to be a clinical psychologist, yet you entirely miss recognizing and diagnosing a psychotic pathology that’s sitting right in front of you with a flashing neon sign that says “Delusion – Encapsulated Persecutory Delusion” – and you’re just oblivious.  Wow.

You are a really bad clinical psychologist.  Really bad.

Okay, but let’s finish off this hand-holding diagnostic walk-through…

The child has an encapsulated persecutory delusion.  We’ve ruled-out that the child has an endogenous psychosis (like schizophrenia – you’ll agree with me on that, right?), and we’ve ruled-out the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent as a potential source for creating a persecutory delusion in the child, and we’ve identified that the child and the supposedly “favored” parent share the same delusion, so… what do we know about a shared delusion?

Let’s turn to the American Psychiatric Association in the DSM-IV TR.  Yes, I know we’re using the DSM-5 now, but for more than a decade the diagnosis of a shared delusion (which they call a Shared Psychotic Disorder) was acknowledged by the American Psychiatric Association, let’s just look at what they say about the pathology:

From the American Psychiatric Association: “Usually the primary case in Shared Psychotic Disorder is dominant in the relationship and gradually imposes the delusional system on the more passive and initially healthy second person.”

So, who is “dominant” in this case?  A:  The allied and supposedly “favored” parent.

And did the child’s persecutory delusion toward the targeted parent develop gradually over time?  A: Yes.

So this would seemingly indicate that the allied and supposedly “favored” parent is the “inducer” and the child is “the more passive and initially healthy second person.”

From the American Psychiatric Association: “Individuals who come to share delusional beliefs are often related by blood or marriage and have lived together for a long time, sometimes in relative isolation.”

Are the child and the allied parent “related by blood”?  A: Yes.

Have they “lived together for a long time?”  A:  Yes.

So far the pathology fits perfectly.

From the American Psychiatric Association: “If the relationship with the primary case is interrupted, the delusional beliefs of the other individual usually diminish or disappear.”

Oh wow, here we’re getting some potentially useful treatment recommendations.  If we separate the child from the pathology of the parent, the child’s encapsulated persecutory delusion regarding the targeted parent will “diminish or disappear.”  Good to know, don’t ya think?

From the American Psychiatric Association: “Although most commonly seen in relationships of only two people, Shared Psychotic Disorder can occur in larger number of individuals, especially in family situations in which the parent is the primary case and the children, sometimes to varying degrees, adopt the parent’s delusional beliefs.” (p. 333)

“…especially in family situations in which the parent is the primary case and the children, sometimes to varying degrees, adopt the parent’s delusional beliefs.”

Wow.  Sounds pretty much like an exact fit to me.

Does the American Psychiatric Association have anything to say about the course of a shared delusional belief?  Why yes they do.

From the American Psychiatric Association: “Without intervention, the course is usually chronic, because this disorder most commonly occurs in relationships that are long-standing and resistant to change.”

Pretty spot on, don’t ya think?  Does the American Psychiatric Association have anything to say about treatment?  Whaddya know, yes they do.

From the American Psychiatric Association: “With separation from the primary case, the individual’s delusional beliefs disappear, sometimes quickly and sometimes quite slowly.” (p. 333)

Well, there ya go… “With separation from the primary case, the individual’s delusional beliefs disappear…”

So, according the the American Psychiatric Association, the child’s persecutory delusional beliefs that the child is being somehow “victimized” by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent will “disappear” with the child’s “separation” from the “inducer” of the allied and supposedly “favored” parent.

Wow.  From the American Psychiatric Association.  Shared delusional pathology fits exactly.  Seriously, I can’t imagine a more perfect diagnostic fit.  With treatment recommendations even.  American Psychiatric Association… the child’s symptomatic rejection of the targeted parent will “disappear” with the child’s “separation” from the allied parent.  Wow.  There ya go.

All that’s needed is a competent clinical psychologist.  Dang, instead we have you.  Dang, dang, dang.  Tough luck for the family then, because they have an ignorant and incompetent clinical psychologist who is going to sacrifice the child to a psychotic psychopathology because of flat out ignorance and incompetence.  Dang.

And did you also know that the diagnosis of Shared Psychotic Disorder is still in the ICD-10 diagnostic system (a diagnostic code of F24) of the World Health Organization, so you can still make that diagnosis if you want to, just use the ICD-10 diagnostic system.  The ICD-10 diagnostic system is a fully credible and accepted diagnostic system.  Internationally accepted.  World Health Organization.  All insurance companies in the U.S. require an ICD-10 diagnosis.  You’d be completely on solid ground making the ICD-10 diagnosis of F24 if you wanted to.

But you know what?  You are such a really-really bad clinical psychologist that this isn’t even an option for you because you can’t even recognize when you have a psychotic pathology sitting right in front of you.  Whoosh, nothing.  Completely oblivious to a psychotic pathology sitting right in front of you.

In Chapter 6 of Foundations I even describe in detail exactly the communication dynamic between the child and the allied parent that creates the child’s persecutory delusional belief, and in Chapter 7 of Foundations I describe in detail the origins of the delusional belief in the false trauma reenactment narrative contained in the internal working models of the allied parent’s attachment networks.  I explain it all for you in Foundations.

But here’s the thing… bottom line…

You’re supposed to be a clinical psychologist, but you can’t even recognize and diagnose psychotic pathology when it’s sitting right in front of you.  You seriously need to review your diagnostic skill set and you need to start to care about developing basic, minimal, standards of professional competence.

Start with the psychotic disorders – the really clear stuff.  Schizophrenia, hallucinations, delusions.  Then move to the mood disorder pathologies, major depression, anxiety disorders, panic attacks.  Don’t take on the subtler diagnostic stuff like PTSD or autism-spectrum disorders until you get the really clear and basic stuff down.  Get your feet under yourself first.

Seriously, if you cannot even recognize psychotic pathology when it’s sitting right in front of you, you shouldn’t be practicing clinical psychology – because you’re a really bad clinical psychologist – and when you’re such a really-really bad clinical psychologist, you are then directly responsible for destroying the lives of children and families who come to you for help.

You shouldn’t destroy the lives of children and families.  Go become a plumber or a shopkeeper, because you should not be a clinical psychologist.  If you cannot diagnose psychotic pathology that’s sitting right in front of you, then you are a really bad clinical psychologist who will destroy the lives of the children and families who come to you for help.

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