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

Introducing the Dark Triad

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

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

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

Incompatible Paradigms

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

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

The paradigm is shifting.

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

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

Clinical Psychology

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

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

DSM-5 Diagnosis

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

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

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

The Paradigm Shift

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

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

Both paradigms cannot simultaneously be true.

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

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

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

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

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

One is true. The other is false.

So which is true?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there is more….

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

The Psychological Control of the Child

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

According to Barber and Harmon:

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

According to Stone, Buehler, & Barber:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dark Triad

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

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

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

According to Paulhus and Williams (2002):

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

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

1) Vulnerable rather than grandiose narcissism,

2) Manipulative psychopathy,

3) Borderline personality traits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To vengefulness in romantic relationships:

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

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

To lying, manipulative fabrication, and deception:

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

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

To attachment-related pathology:

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

And to high-conflict patterns of communication:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given the research literature:

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

Given the research literature:

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

Evil and the Dark Triad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mercer Redux

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

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

So let me address Dr. Mercer one more time.

For the record, this is my position:

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

This is a professional-level diagnostic statement of pathology.

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

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

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

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

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

Checklist of Component Pathology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Barber and Harmon:

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

“… and attachment to parents.”

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

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

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

According to Kerig in the Journal of Emotional Abuse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“…manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“…and threatened attachment to parents.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you disagree with this statement, Dr. Mercer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

The Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parental Psychological Control of Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed (p. 719 of the DSM-5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… and attachment to parents.”

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Psychologist, PSY 18857

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

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

Demanding Professional Competence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professional Incompetence

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

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

Mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to be incompetent.

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

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

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

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

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

Accountability: Defining the Pathology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professional-to-Professional Handout

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

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

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

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

An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Professional Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Complaint

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

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

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

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

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

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

Possible Licensing Board Complaint Letter

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

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

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

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

The APA Solution

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

Petition to Change the APA Position Statement on Parental Alienation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parental Alienation Awareness Day Statement by Dr. Childress

The Michigan Parental Alienation Awareness Day rally graciously asked me to provide a statement to their rally.

Below is a written transcript of my video recorded statement to them:

2016 Parental Alienation Awareness Day

Dr. Childress Statement to Michigan Rally

Part 1: Reclaiming Mental Health as Your Ally

Children love both parents, and they should be allowed to love both parents. That children across the country are being manipulated and exploited by the narcissistic psychopathology of one parent into rejecting the other parent is an abomination. It must stop. Today. Now.

The family nightmare that is “parental alienation” must end. Today. Now.

The domestic violence of “parental alienation” must end. Today. Now.

The psychological abuse of children that is “parental alienation” must end. Today. Now.

This is not a hope; this is not a request. It is a demand. We are demanding professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of this attachment-related pathology.

Right now we are locked in a battle to reclaim mental health as your ally in recovering your children, your authentic children, your sweet and loving children, and returning them to your arms. The citadel of establishment mental health has, for far too long, been held captive by the trauma pathogen of “parental alienation” and its allies, who have sought to keep you isolated and alone, isolated from your allies in the mental health system, isolated from allies in the legal system. It has kept you alone to keep you powerless. This ends. Today. Now.

We are currently engaged in a battle to reclaim mental health as your ally. Once we have reclaimed the mental health system as your rightful ally in your fight to rescue your children, then, with the mental health system at your side, we will turn to recruiting the legal system as your ally in ending your family nightmare; the domestic violence and the psychological child abuse of “parental alienation.”

Leadership among the community of targeted parents has arisen and they created a petition to the American Psychological Association that calls for a change in the official position statement of the APA on “parental alienation.” The current position statement of the APA is only three sentences long.

The first sentence says that allegations of domestic violence should be taken seriously. This sentence makes it seem that the advocates for protection from domestic violence are adversaries of the those of us who seek to end “parental alienation.” This isn’t true.

By framing the advocates who seek an end to “parental alienation” as adversaries of the advocates for domestic violence protection, this sentence divides you from your natural allies in domestic violence protection. We’re not adversaries, we are natural allies of the advocates for domestic violence protection.

The pathology of “parental alienation” is a form of severe domestic violence where the child’s loving bond with the targeted parent – with the victimized spouse in the domestic violence of “parental alienation” – is being used as a weapon by the narcissistic-abusive spouse to inflict immense suffering on the other spouse, as revenge for divorcing the narcissistic and abusive parent.

Instead of battering the other spouse with fists, and punches, and strikes, the narcissistic-abusive spouse is using the child’ loving bond with the other parent as a weapon to inflict immense suffering on the other spouse. By destroying the loving bond the child has to the other parent, the domestically violent narcissistic and abusive spouse is killing the child’s love for the other parent as a means to exact a retaliatory revenge against the other spouse for divorcing the narcissistic-abusive parent.

The pathology of “parental alienation” is a savage form of domestic violence.

Yet the opening sentence of the APA’s official position statement regarding “parental alienation” makes it seem like advocates for an end to “parental alienation” and the domestic violence protection advocates are adversaries. We’re not. We’re natural allies. This adversarial isolation of you from your natural allies in domestic violence protection needs to end. Today. Now.

The next sentence of the APA’s position statement on “parental alienation” calls into question the very existence of the pathology, referring to “so called” Parental Alienation Syndrome. The pathology exists. Personality disorders exist. The psychological collapse of a narcissistic-borderline personality parent surrounding divorce exists. This is NOT a “so called” pathology. It is a very real; a tragically real pathology. The APA must be called upon to recognize the very real existence of “parental alienation.”

The final sentence of the APA’s position statement is that a conference of the American Psychological Association convened 20 years ago, in the 1990s, questioned the existence of Parental Alienation Syndrome as a pathology. As anyone who follows my work knows, I too challenge the accuracy of Gardnerian PAS because it proposes that “parental alienation” represents a unique new form of pathology in all of mental health, unrelated to any other form of psychopathology in mental health.

I disagree with this proposal of Gardnerian PAS. “Parental alienation” is not a unique new form of pathology, it is a manifestation of standard and well-established forms of personality disorder and attachment trauma pathology, in which parental attachment trauma from their own childhood is being transferred into current relationships, mediated by the narcissistic and borderline personality traits of the parent that are themselves a product of this childhood attachment trauma of the parent.

This is not some unique new form of pathology, it is a manifestation of standard and well-established forms of attachment-trauma and personality disorder pathology. To solve “parental alienation” we don’t need a “new theory” of the pathology as a “new syndrome” in professional psychology. We simply need an accurate diagnosis of the “parental alienation” as an attachment-trauma pathology, mediated by the narcissistic and borderline personality traits of the allied parent.

It’s not a matter of a “new theory” – it’s simply a matter of a correct and accurate diagnosis of the psychopathology within the family.

Nor do we need to have a new syndrome of “parental alienation” accepted into the DSM diagnostic system. Once we accurately diagnose the pathology of “parental alienation” then we will discover that the diagnosis of the pathology is it is ALREADY in the DSM diagnostic system, on page 719. It is a diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

We don’t need anything accepted in order to end “parental alienation”, now, this very instant. We simply need an accurate diagnosis of the pathology within standard and well-established constructs of attachment-related pathology and personality disorder pathology. That’s all we need.

Part 2: A Call to Action

The American Psychological Association needs to change its position statement on “parental alienation.” Its current position statement has been hijacked by the allies of the pathology who seek to keep you separated from your natural and rightful allies within mental health. The official position statement of the American Psychological Association regarding “parental alienation” rightfully belongs to you and your children, not to the pathogen and its allies.

Recently, a group of leaders within the community of targeted parents formulated a petition to the APA seeking a change to the APA’s position statement on “parental alienation.” They sought two goals.

First, that the American Psychological Association formally acknowledge that the pathology of “parental alienation” exists – using whatever name the APA wants; “parental alienation” – attachment-trauma reenactment pathology – or pathogenic parenting – whatever they want to call it – the pathology exists.

Second, that your children and families represent a “special population” within psychology who require specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose and treat.

The leaders within the targeted parent community also requested that the American Psychological Association convene a high-level conference of experts in attachment theory, personality disorder pathology, trauma, and family systems therapy to produce a white paper on the pathology of “parental alienation” and to recommended the wording changes to the official APA position statement on “parental alienation.”

This proposal for a high-level conference of experts must pass two committees in order to be submitted to the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association for its consideration. Just weeks ago, in April of 2016, the first of these committees passed the motion to submit the proposal for a high-level conference of experts to the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association. If the second committee which meets soon also approves the motion, then the proposal for a high-level conference of experts will be submitted to the Board of Directors of the APA for its consideration.

The APA convening a high-level conference of experts to produce a white paper on the pathology of “parental alienation” would represent an important tipping point in our demand that all mental health professionals begin accurately diagnosing this family pathology from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs. We don’t need a “new theory” of psychopathology, we simply need an accurate diagnosis of “parental alienation” using standard and fully established psychological principles and constructs of attachment-related pathology and personality disorder pathology.

The family psychopathology of “parental alienation” is already in the DSM diagnostic system. It’s on page 719. Once we accurately define “parental alienation” as pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child– personality disorder pathology in the child –– and delusional psychiatric pathology in the child – in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of a decompensating narcissistic/borderline parent, the pathology of “parental alienation” will warrant a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

This pathology is already in the DSM-5, we just need to make an accurate diagnosis of it.

In response to the petition of targeted parents, this past week the APA removed its prior flawed position statement on parental alienation from its website. Let me say that again; in response to you – the parents who have been targeted by this vicious and cruel trauma pathogen – the APA has now removed its flawed position statement on “parental alienation” from its website.

Let’s hope that this represents a signal that they are listening to you, that they are hearing your suffering and the suffering of your children; and that they intend to work with us to bring your suffering and the suffering of your children to an end.

The American Psychological Association cares about you and your children. Bring your voices to them, let them hear you, now, today. Write to them, asking them to convene this high-level conference of professional expertise in attachment theory, personality disorder pathology, trauma, and family systems therapy to examine the construct of “parental alienation.”

You are suffering such terrible-terrible trauma and pain. Professional psychology should be your ally in bringing your pain and your children’s suffering to an end. Contact the APA. Let them hear your voice. The leadership among your ranks has the appropriate contact information for the APA. Write them letters, today, now. Write them emails. Have your friends and extended family write to the APA.

Australia, Great Britain, South Africa, Poland, France, all of our international allies, contact the APA and urge them to convene this high-level conference of experts. The time is now. We are on the battlefield fighting for your children.

Dorcy Pruter and I stand squarely in the center of this battlefield fighting to return your children to you. We will not waver. We will not relent. Join us on the battlefield fighting for your children, fighting to rescue your children. Contact the APA. Let them hear your voice.

The family nightmare that is “parental alienation” must end. Today. Now. This is not a hope; this is not a request. It is a reality. It is time to bring this nightmare to an end.

Children have a right to love both parents, and to be loved by both parents in return.

You have more power than you know.

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

The video recorded statement of Dr. Childress is at:

2016 Statement of Dr. Childress to Michigan Rally: Part 1

2016 Statement of Dr. Childress to Michigan Rally: Part 2

The Domestic Violence of Parental Alienation

I was housecleaning some of the writing files on my computer and I came across an essay from 2011 that I started and never finished… five years ago. That’s how long this has been waiting. I read through it and decided it was time now to finish it. In fact it’s overdue.

This essay is now on my website, buried up toward the top because there are just too many writings piling up on my website. I need to do some housecleaning on my website too, but there are so many things calling for my attention.

The direct link to this essay is:

The Domestic Violence of Parental Alienation

The pathology of “parental alienation” is psychological child abuse.

The pathology of “parental alienation” is domestic violence; spousal abuse.

These are facts. The pathology of “parental alienation” is the manifestation of a narcissistic personality psychopathology within the family. The narcissistic/(borderline) spouse-and-parent is using the child as a weapon, as a narcissistic object, to inflict suffering on the other spouse for the rejection of the divorce.

The time for recognizing the pathology of “parental alienation” as domestic spousal abuse is long past overdue – long past overdue. I deeply apologize that I have been delayed for so long, but there was much to accomplish. But it is time now to fully and completely recognize the pathology of “parental alienation” as a severe and heinous form of emotional-psychological domestic violence, and to respond accordingly. Professional psychology must recognize this extremely destructive form of psychological child abuse and this emotionally violent form spousal abuse. Professional ignorance and collusion with the domestic violence, the spousal abuse, and the psychological abuse of the child is abhorrent and can no longer be tolerated. The pathology of “parental alienation” is domestic violence, pure and simple.

And it needs to stop. Today.

Mental health professionals, ALL mental health professionals need to begin routinely assessing for the three diagnostic indicators and twelve associated clinical signs of the pathology when there is an evident disturbance to the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range and affectionally available parent following divorce.

When a severe disturbance to the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range and affectionally available parent is evident in the child’s symptom display, failure to properly assess for the potential domestic violence and psychological child abuse of a narcissistic/(borderline) spouse-and-parent would represent a violation of Standard 9.01a of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association which requires that all psychologists – ALL psychologists – base their diagnostic statements on “information sufficient to substantiate their findings.” If the psychologist does not even assess for the pathology, then they have not based their diagnostic findings on “information sufficient to substantiate their findings” and they are therefore in violation of Standard 9.01a of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association.

If they do not know how to assess for the domestic violence and psychological child abuse pathology of a narcissistic spouse-and-parent, then they are likely practicing beyond the boundaries of professional competence in diagnosing and treating this form of pathology, in violation of Standard 2.01a of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association.

If harm then accrues to the targeted parent and child as a result of the domestic violence and psychological child abuse that was not properly assessed and diagnosed by the mental health professional, then this would likely represent both a violation of Standard 3.04 of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association regarding avoiding harm to the client, and a failure in the psychologist’s “duty to protect.”

Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting

Violations of Standards 9.01a, 2.01a, and 3.04 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association and the psychologist’s “duty to protect” may warrant administrative review by the licensing board of the psychologist regarding the possibility of sanctions on the license of the mental health professional.

This is not a “new theory” of pathology. It is the diagnosis of psychopathology.

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

Research Study Opportunity

I want to put out a call in support of a research study being conducted by the University of Tasmania that is seeking adult parents and adult (or teen) children of former “alienation” who have recovered and restored their relationship for an interview on your experience.

So this is not for currently alienated children and families. This study is for previously alienated – now restored relationships.

The research interviews can be conducted over Skype or phone, and everything is confidential.

Here are the links:

Current research:

Reunification of Alienated Parents and their Adult* Children: A Qualitative Investigation

and upcoming research

PAAR Research

This type of research is incredibly valuable and important. If you are a recovered parent or adult-child, please consider participating in this research opportunity.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Strategic Family Therapy Treatment Plan

I am a clinical psychologist. Diagnosis and treatment are what I do. I specialize in child and family therapy, parent-child conflict, parenting, and child development. I also teach graduate level courses in models of psychotherapy, clinical assessment, diagnosis and treatment planning, and child development. This is what I do. And you know what? I’m pretty good at what I do.

I was recently consulting on a court-involved case in which I was reviewing the clinical data, conclusions, and recommendations of a child custody evaluation. Like far too many child custody evaluations I’m asked to review, the collection of clinically relevant data was excellent, but the interpretation of the data was abysmal, and the recommendations were 100% wrong. Harmful in fact.

As part of my analysis of this custody evaluation for my client and his attorney, I wrote up a more accurate case conceptualization based on the clinical data reported in the child custody evaluation, along with a possible treatment plan based on this case conceptualization. I did what I do as a clinical psychologist. I collect relevant clinical data (in this case the custody evaluator collected the data for me), I formulate a case conceptualization based on the clinical data (which is called diagnosis), and I develop a treatment plan based on the case conceptualization. I’m a clinical psychologist; that’s what I do.

After completing my brief report for the attorney, my brain was still swirling with all the information and I thought to myself: this information may be more broadly useful to other parents in similar situations. While my case conceptualization and treatment plan was individual to the family situation I was reviewing, the pathology of “parental alienation” (as described and defined in Foundations), is pretty similar across families. It’s a cross-generational coalition of the child with one parent (a narcissistic/(borderline) parent) against the other parent. This is standard family systems pathology (with the addition of parental personality disorder pathology that transforms the cross-generational coalition into a particularly malignant and virulent form).

The treatment plan recommendations are two variants of a prescriptive Strategic family systems intervention. Strategic family therapy is one of the major schools of family therapy, but it requires a fairly sophisticated and knowledgeable family therapist to formulate and enact a Strategic family systems intervention. It is unlikely that most targeted parents will find a general family systems therapist, and it’s extremely unlikely that they will find one capable of developing a prescriptive Strategic family systems intervention. But here I had just done it for this case. For the possible benefit of other targeted parents, I decided to take out the individualized material and construct a generic mini-report on case conceptualization and treatment plan recommendations for the family systems pathology of a cross-generational coalition of the child with one parent against the other parent.

The Strategic family systems intervention requires the cooperation of Court-order to enact. The case I’m consulting on is Court-involved, so that’s what the attorney for my client is seeking. My case conceptualization and treatment plan provides my client’s attorney with an alternative proposal – based in clinical psychology and family therapy – to the extremely flawed recommendations of the child custody evaluation – which are based in forensic psychology of collect the data and then make things up… basically punt because the evaluator has no idea what to do (because they are forensic psychologists who collect data and makes things up, not clinical psychologists who actually do family therapy and solve family pathology).

I have posted my generic case conceptualization and treatment plan to my website, way down at the bottom. A direct link to it is:

Strategic Family Therapy for a Cross-Generational Coalition

I’m not sure if this will be helpful to other targeted parents or not. If it is, I’m happy. If not, oh well, I tried.

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

April Flying Monkey Newsletter

The April edition of the Flying Monkey Newsletter is now available on my website:

April 2016 Flying Monkey Newsletter

The April edition addresses the false justification offered by the flying monkey allies of the pathology that peer-reviewed research is needed in order to make an accurate diagnosis of the pathology as pathogenic parenting that represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

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

Pathogenic parenting is NOT a proposal of some “new theory” of pathology, but is based entirely within standard and well-established, fully accepted psychological constructs and principles. All of these psychological constructs and principles already have substantial peer-reviewed research foundations. Applying standard and fully established psychological principles and constructs to a child’s symptom set is NOT a “new theory” – it is called diagnosis.

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

The term “parental alienation” is a popular-culture term used to describe a complex set of family pathology involving the child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational coalition of the child with one parent against the other parent (as described by the preeminent family systems therapists Jay Haley and Salvador Minuchin). The pathogenic parenting involves a role-reversal relationship in which the child is being used (manipulated and exploited) as an external “regulatory object” by the allied parent in order to stabilize the emotional and psychological state of the parent.

If anyone wants the peer-reviewed research supporting the diagnosis of pathogenic parenting, the creation of attachment-related pathology, the association of attachment trauma and personality disorder pathology, the child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational coalition of the child with one parent against the other parent, or any other aspect of an attachment-based model for the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation,” it is incumbent upon them to identify what aspect of the component psychological constructs and principles they question and need additional peer-reviewed research for. I would be happy to provide this peer-reviewed research on the established and well-documented psychological constructs and principles that form the bases of the diagnosis.

An attachment-based model of the “parental alienation” pathology is NOT a new theory – it is diagnosis.

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