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

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). 

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.  In April of 2016 the proposal was passed by the first of these committees.  It will soon be considered by the second committee.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

A targeted parent in Florida recently contacted her State Senator – not national Senator; her State Senator in Tallahassee, Florida – regarding the State Senator’s willingness to possibly sponsor legislation at the state level to address the pathology of “parental alienation.”  After receiving a positive response from her State Senator, this parent contacted me for my input on a legislative approach to solving “parental alienation.” 

In my view, a legislative approach is appropriate and it should target obtaining a minor one-sentence addition to the child abuse reporting laws in each state that specifically identifies pathogenic parenting as a form of psychological child abuse that would be reportable under child abuse reporting laws.  

A single sentence added to the child abuse reporting laws regarding pathogenic parenting as a form of psychological child abuse reportable under the child abuse reporting laws would be immensely helpful in moving the pathology of “parental alienation” out of the non-responsive court system over to the child protective services system (where it belongs), and would go a long way to solving the family tragedy of “parental alienation.”

In support of this parent’s efforts in Florida, I wrote a letter to the parent and legislative aide for the State Senator describing my recommendation for a legislative approach to addressing the pathology of “parental alienation” as a child protection rather than a child custody issue.  I have posted a copy of this letter to my website as an example for other targeted parents who may also want to explore a legislative option with their own state legislators.  This letter is on my website at the very-very bottom (so it’s easy to find); the last resource on the page, just below the domestic violence support letter.  A direct link to the letter for a Legislative Proposal for Amending Child Abuse Reporting Laws is:

Legislative Support Letter for Amending Child Abuse Reporting Laws

Targeted parents nationwide may wish to consider contacting your individual state legislators to see if they are willing to entertain the idea of sponsoring legislation to add a single sentence to the child abuse reporting laws regarding pathogenic parenting as a form of psychological child abuse which would be reportable under state law.  If you receive a positive response and believe that the letter on my website might be helpful in your lobbying efforts, I’d be more than happy to address a similar letter to you and the legislative aide who will be handling your request made to the legislator. Just email me as to how I should address the letter, and if you could look up the specific wordings of your particular state’s child abuse reporting laws that would be helpful.

I’m a psychologist.  I am not a lawyer, nor am I a political animal.  I’m a psychologist.  So a legislative approach is up to you to make happen.  But I’m willing to do what I can to support any legislative effort to amend child abuse reporting laws to indicate that pathogenic parenting is a reportable form of psychological child abuse under state child abuse reporting laws.

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

In April of this year, the American Psychological Association’s Committee on Children, Youth and Families will consider the issue of changing APA’s official position statement regarding the pathology of “parental alienation.” 

Current APA Position Statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome

This consideration by the Committee on Children, Youth and Families is in response to a petition developed and launched by leadership within the targeted parent community.

Petition for New APA Position Statement

The goal of this effort by targeted parents is twofold:

1.  To have the APA formally acknowledge that the pathology of “parental alienation” exists – by whatever name the APA wishes to label it.

 2.  To have the APA recognize the children and families who are affected by this pathology as representing a “special population” requiring specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat.

I want to take this opportunity to express my recommendations to the APA Committee on Children, Youth and Families regarding changes to the APA position statement on “parental alienation.”

Conference & White Paper

Both the professional and family issues surrounding the pathology of “parental alienation” are complex and should be thoughtfully considered relative to the official position of the American Psychological Association.  All sides of this complex issue should be provided the opportunity to have their voices and concerns heard and recognized.  Since the wording of the APA’s official position statement will have a profound and long-lasting impact on the lives of children and families, precipitous decisions should be avoided and thoughtful consideration is recommended.

I would therefore urge the Committee on Children, Youth and Families to recommend convening a 4-day conference of stakeholders and professional experts to examine this complex family issue with the goal of producing a White Paper describing the issues and offering recommendations from a variety of perspectives for the Committee’s consideration. 

I would recommend the following stakeholders and professional content experts be included in this panel:

• Attachment Theory Expertise: Two recognized experts in attachment theory who could speak to the suppression of attachment bonding motivations and the potential trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma surrounding the pathology of “parental alienation.”

• Family Systems Expertise: Two recognized experts in family systems theory who could speak to the application of established constructs of family systems theory to the pathology of “parental alienation.”
  

• Personality Disorder Expertise: Two recognized experts in personality disorders who could speak to the potential role of parental narcissistic and borderline personality pathology surrounding divorce and its role in the pathology of “parental alienation.”

• Trauma Expertise: Two recognized experts in childhood abuse and developmental trauma who could speak to both the child’s response to trauma and the trans-generational transmission of trauma schemas in future relationships.

• Targeted Parent Representation: Two members from the community of targeted parents affected by the pathology of “parental alienation” to represent their perspective on the pathology.

• Child Survivor Representation: Two members from the community of now-adult survivors of childhood “parental alienation” to represent their perspective on the pathology.

• International Representation: The pathology of “parental alienation” spans international boundaries and the decisions made by the APA Committee on Children, Youth and Families will have international repercussions.  Stakeholder representatives should therefore be invited from the international community affected by decisions regarding the pathology of “parental alienation” to present their perspective.

• Traditional Advocates from the Professional Community: Two representatives from the professional community of traditional advocates for the construct of “parental alienation” pathology.

• Traditional Opponents from the Professional Community: Two representatives from the professional community of traditional opponents to the construct of “parental alienation” pathology.

I would recommend that the first three days of the conference involve invited paper presentations by the participants and discussion of the issues raised, with the fourth day allocated to discussion of recommendations for the official APA position statement regarding “parental alienation” pathology.  This conference would result in a White Paper summarizing the conference discussion and incorporating the paper submissions from the participants.  The APA Committee on Children, Youth and Families could then incorporate the discussion and recommendations of this conference in their decisions regarding the official position statement of the APA regarding “parental alienation” pathology.

The implications of the APA position statement on the pathology of “parental alienation” has profound and potentially long-lasting consequences on children and families, both in the U.S. and internationally, and should receive the highest level of measured and thoughtful consideration commensurate with this profound importance.

Proposed Position Statement

If a position statement is to be produced without the benefit of professional expert and stakeholder discussion and recommendations, I would offer the following proposal as my recommendation for an official position statement of the APA regarding the pathology of “parental alienation”:

Title:  Place the term “parental alienation” in quotes to indicate that it is a popular-culture term that is used to capture a complex family pathology.

Opening Sentence 1:  Definition of the construct.  Operationally define the popular-culture construct of “parental alienation” which is to be addressed by the position statement.

Sentence 2:  A statement regarding the range of issues that need to be considered in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of this complex form of family pathology.

Sentence 3:  The designation of children and families affected by this form of pathology as representing a special population in mental health who require specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat.

Sentence 4:  A statement that professional expertise and professional competence in the relevant domains of psychology is an expectation of working with this population of children and families.

Closing Sentence 5:  A concluding statement that the APA does not take an official position regarding any proposal or model for the pathology.

This format might result in the following example for a position statement:

Statement on “Parental Alienation” Pathology Surrounding Divorce

---

When a child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range and affectionally available parent (the targeted parent) are artificially suppressed by the pathogenic parenting practices of the other parent (the allied parent), this represents a serious distortion to the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment system which has received the label of “parental alienation” in the popular culture.  In assessing, diagnosing, and treating this form of family pathology, a variety of factors need to be considered in addition to the potential triangulation of the child into the spousal conflict by the formation of a cross-generational coalition with the allied parent against the targeted parent, including the specific nature and features of the child’s symptoms, a potential trauma history within the family and potentially experienced by the child, and the parenting practices and possibility of parental pathology creating the child’s attachment-related symptoms.  The complexity of the family processes surrounding divorce, particularly high-conflict divorce in which a child is evidencing a severe distortion to normal-range attachment bonding motivations toward a parent, warrants the designation of these children and families as a special population within mental health who require specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat.  The potential complexity of family dynamics surrounding attachment-related pathology and divorce, and the potential for professional counter-transference issues, requires that psychologists who are involved in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment-related pathology within the family should possess superior professional expertise in the relevant domains of psychological constructs, principles, and pathologies to be able to competently assess, diagnose, and treat the complexity of the family relationship dynamics.  The APA, however, does not have an official position on any specific model for defining the pathology which has received the common-culture label of “parental alienation.”

I offer this as an example for a proposed position statement that is balanced and based in established psychological constructs and principles of attachment theory and family systems constructs.  I would, however, first propose that a conference be held to more fully examine the issues surrounding the pathology of “parental alienation” from a variety of expert domains and stakeholder perspectives.  The impact of an official position statement by the American Psychological Association on the pathology of “parental alienation” will have profound and long-lasting consequences for countless children and families far into the future.  This decision should therefore receive the highest level of thoughtful consideration prior to issuing a formal position statement representing the American Psychological Association.

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

Something big is happening in April. 

Through the efforts of leadership within the community of targeted parents, the American Psychological Association is beginning the process of reconsidering their official position statement regarding the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation.”  This reconsideration is being prompted by the work of leadership among targeted parents who, among other efforts, are actively petitioning the APA’s Committee on Children, Youth and  Families to revise the APA’s formal Position Statement on “parental alienation.” 

This petition is at:

New APA Position Statement: Some children are manipulated into rejecting a parent.

I urge you to sign the petition.  Ask your extended family and your friends to sign the petition.  Also, note the statement that is linked at the end of the petition:

Results! The APA has initiated the process to update their position statement!

The National Alliance for Targeted Parents

Mar 7, 2016 — Dr. Lauren Caldwell of the APA Committee on Children, Youth and Families, has informed us that “we have initiated [the] process regarding the request to update the 2008 statement. Our next governance meetings will be held in April. I will be back in touch after the meetings to provide an additional update regarding your request.”

Nothing has been accomplished yet.  Organizational inertia is strong.  Systems are traditionally resistant to change. 

But the battle to reclaim professional mental health as your ally has been joined.  We’ll see what happens in April.  But it is time for targeted parents, all targeted parents, your friends and family, to stand up and begin demanding professional competence from the mental health professionals who are assessing, diagnosing, and treating your children and families. 

Leadership is emerging from within the community of targeted parents.  Listen to and follow this leadership.  This is a fight for your children; all of your children.  This is the battle to reclaim the mental health profession as your ally.  We cannot solve this nightmare in any one family until we solve it for all families.  In one voice you are alone and powerless.  In 100, you reclaim your voice.  In 1,000 you reclaim your power.  In 10,000 you become an unstoppable force.  Come together into an unstoppable force.

The goal in changing the official position statement of the APA is twofold

1. The Pathology Exists: We seek formal acknowledgement by the APA through their position statement regarding “parental alienation” that the pathology of pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/borderline personality parent surrounding divorce exists.  They can call it whatever they want, “parental alienation,” pathogenic parenting, trauma reenactment pathology, personality disorder pathology surrounding divorce, whatever.  But they must formally acknowledge that the pathology exists. 

2. Special Population Status: We seek formal recognition from the APA that the children and families experiencing this type of family pathology (your children and your families) represent a “special population” requiring specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat.  We must eliminate the vast number of ignorant and incompetent mental health persons who are currently assessing, diagnosing, and treating your children and families.  Professional competence is not a hope; it is an expectation.

Once we obtain a formal change to the position statement of the APA regarding “parental alienation,” where will this lead?  To professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of your children and families by ALL mental health professionals.

Diagnosis and Protective Separation

I was recently sent a blog written by Karen Woodall that referenced my work and in which she disagreed with my position on the need for a protective separation of the child from the psychologically abusive parent.

Reunification Therapy: A Comparison of Outcomes in the UK Family Court System

I respect the work Ms. Woodall does.  Unfortunately, she disagrees with my framework.  I, in turn, likely disagree with the framework she is using. Such is the nature of systems change.

This professional disagreement is healthy, and it raises an important point in moving forward with the APA and professional competence generally.  In order to require professional competence we must achieve professional clarity on the terminology we are using to describe the pathology we are seeking to assess, diagnose, and treat.

In her blog post, Ms. Woodall appears to expand the definition of the pathology beyond the pathology of what I am discussing, and she uses a variety of non-defined terms that undermine clarity in the discussion of this pathology.  So I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what I am discussing, even if I remain unsure regarding the pathology that Ms. Woodall is discussing.

Digression: Reunification Therapy

Before getting to my main point regarding the diagnosis of pathology, I have to take an excursion into the realm of mythical therapies.  Ms. Woodall references something called “reunification therapy.”  I’m a clinical psychologist, yet I don’t know what “reunification therapy” is.  That’s because there is no such thing as “reunification therapy” which has ever been defined and described in any of the literature within professional psychology.  It is a mythical form of therapy.  I would request a citation to any description of what “reunification therapy” is. 

I know what psychoanalytic psychotherapy is.  There are numerous descriptions of psychodynamic psychotherapy.  I know what humanistic-existential therapy is.  There are descriptions of various forms of humanistic-existential therapy, such as Rogers’ client-centered therapy and Perls’ Gestalt therapy.  Yalom wrote a wonderful book on humanistic-existential therapy.  I know what family systems therapy entails because there are published descriptions of family systems models of psychotherapy (e.g., Bowen, Satir, Minuchin, Haley, Madanes, and many others).  I know what cognitive-behavioral therapy is.  There are ample descriptions of the theoretical underpinnings and techniques of cognitive-behavioral therapy.  I’m even familiar with post-modern therapies such as narrative therapy, solution focused therapy, and feminist therapy.  But nowhere in all of the vast literature on various forms of psychotherapy can I find a description of what “reunification therapy” is.  It is, I’m afraid, a mythical form of psychotherapy.  There is no such thing. 

Again, I would ask for a reference citation that describes the theoretical foundations for “reunification therapy” (is it a form of psychodynamic object relations therapy?  Or cognitive-behavioral therapy?  Or what?  What school of psychotherapy does reunification therapy belong to?) and what are the techniques used in reunification therapy.  How is a determination made to use what type of technique in what type of situation?

Because if there are no descriptions of what “reunification therapy” entails, then the term has no meaning, and I am of the opinion that when we discuss things it helps a lot to use words and terms that have meaning.  I’m a clinical psychologist, and yet I have no idea what “reunification therapy” is.  Citation please.

Main Point: Diagnosis

This issue of clarity in the terms we use leads into the second point, which I believe is even more centrally important to the issue of demanding professional competence in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of family pathology; in clinical psychology there is no such thing as “parental alienation.”  I know this is sacrilegious to even suggest such a thing, and I know that people use the term a lot, as if it had meaning… but it doesn’t.  People also use the term “reunification therapy” as if it had meaning when it doesn’t. 

The construct of “parental alienation” is not a defined construct in clinical psychology.  Sorry.  Not my fault.  The only definition of what the term “parental alienation” means is Gardner’s model of Parental Alienation Syndrome, and the PAS model is not an accepted model of pathology in clinical psychology.  And you know what, I agree with the critics of the PAS model.  It’s a really poor model of the supposed pathology.

But let me add one minor correction to my claims that there exists no description of what “reunification therapy” entails and that the construct of “parental alienation” is not a defined construct in clinical psychology.  There actually is one description of a model for what “reunification therapy” entails.  It’s mine. It’s up on my website and in my book Essays. Also, there is one definition for the construct of “parental alienation” which is based in fully established psychological principles and constructs.   Again, it’s mine.  Foundations offers a defined model for what the construct of “parental alienation” is.  (I know a lot of people have described multiple aspects of the elephant, it’s ears are like fans, its legs are like tree trunks.  But I have not located any other description of the entire elephant that resembles the elephant.)

In my view, discussion improves considerably when terminology has defined meaning, and in my view defined meaning in clinical psychology is based on established psychological principles and constructs.  Proposals for “new syndromes” that represent unique forms of pathology in all of mental health aren’t really solid foundations on which to base clinical assessment, diagnosis, and psychotherapy.  Call me conservative, but in my professional view mental health professionals must assess, diagnose, and treat pathology using standard and established psychological principles and constructs without resorting to a proposed “new syndrome” that is supposedly a unique new form of pathology unrelated to any other form of pathology in all of mental health.

Treatment:  Protective Separation

In her blog post, Ms. Woodall seemingly takes exception to my call for a protective separation of the child from the pathogenic parenting of the allied narcissistic/borderline parent, and also apparently broadens the pathology under discussion to types of pathologies not involving a narcissistic/borderline parent.  I am only talking about what I am talking about.  I am not trying to solve everything under the sun… at least not yet.  We need to take diagnosis of pathology step-by-step.

Diagnosis guides treatment.  This is a really important principle of clinical psychology to understand.  Diagnosis guides treatment. 

We start with diagnosis.

Premise 1:  Pathogenic parenting that is creating significant developmental pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 2), and psychiatric-delusional pathology in the child (diagnostic indicator 3) as a means to stabilize the psychopathology of the parent represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Question 1:  Is there any disagreement with this premise? 

If so, what is the disagreement?  Is it considered acceptable parenting to create significant developmental pathology, personality disorder pathology, and psychiatric-delusional pathology in a child in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent?

If there is no disagreement, then we can move on.

Premise 2:  When a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse is made, this confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse triggers the mental health professional’s “duty to protect,” and the treatment-related issues change from those involving child custody considerations to those of child protection concerns.

Question 2:  Is there any disagreement with this premise? 

If so, what is the disagreement?  Why wouldn’t a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse trigger the mental health professional’s duty to protect?

If there is no disagreement with this premise, then we can move on.

Premise 3:  In all cases of child abuse, physical child abuse, sexual child abuse, and psychological child abuse, the duty to protect requires that we protectively separate the child from the actively abusive parent.

Question 3:  Is there any disagreement with this premise? 

If so, what is the disagreement?  Why is it acceptable to leave a child with a diagnostically confirmed abusive parent who is creating significant developmental pathology in the child, significant personality disorder pathology in the child, and significant psychiatric-delusional pathology in the child?

Diagnosis guides treatment.  Is Ms. Woodall suggesting that we leave a child with an actively abusive parent?

My position is that it is never acceptable to abandon a child to a physically abusive parent; it is never acceptable to abandon a child to a sexually abusive parent; and it is never acceptable to abandon a child to a psychologically abusive parent.  When a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse is made, child protection considerations take precedence over all other considerations.

My position is that a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed warrants an immediate protective separation of the child from the psychologically abusive parent.

So is Ms. Woodall’s position that a child who has been given a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse be left with the psychologically abusive parent?  If that’s not her position… then which one of the three premises listed above does Ms. Woodall disagree with?  Because if she agrees with the three premises listed above and agrees that we never abandon a child to an actively abusive parent, then she is in agreement with me regarding the need for a protective separation of the child in all cases where the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting are present in the child’s symptom display.

Easy-peasy.  Just administer the Diagnostic Checklist of Pathogenic Parenting available on my website and poof, everything’s good.  If the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting are present in the child’s symptom display then make the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed and – because diagnosis guides treatment – a protective separation of the child from the actively abusive parent is warranted (based on the mental health professional’s “duty to protect”). 

Diagnosis guides treatment.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Bear in mind, I’m only talking about the pathology I’m talking about.  I’m not trying to solve all forms of parent-child conflict… yet.

Diagnosis guides treatment.  See how that works.  Simple.

All that other stuff in Foundations about parental narcissistic and borderline pathology, disorganized attachment, trauma reenactment narratives, and role-reversal relationships just provides the Foundations for making the diagnosis based in fully established and fully accepted psychological principles and constructs.

An attachment-based model for the construct of “parental alienation” isn’t some form of “new theory” – it’s just diagnosis.  Identify the pathology using fully established and fully accepted psychological constructs and pathologies, and make the diagnosis.  Foundations simply provides the Foundations for the diagnosis in established psychological principles and constructs for why each of the three diagnostic indicators are present in the child’s symptom display.  But once it comes to diagnosis, it’s really-really simple.  Three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent and voila – the diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Diagnosis guides treatment, so a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse warrants the child’s protective separation from the actively abusive parent.  Seems pretty clear to me.

This is not some new theory – it’s called diagnosis.

Now could Ms. Woodall be treating forms of pathology other than pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/(borderline) parent?  Of course.  There are all sorts of family pathologies out there.  There is authentic parent-child conflict.  There is authentic child abuse.  There are parental coalitions in which the parents join together against the child.  There is ADHD and autism spectrum disorders.  There are all sorts of stuff out there.  I’m not trying to solve everything under the sun… not just yet at least.  I’m only talking about one specific form of pathology:

Three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting = V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.  That’s all I’m talking about.

A DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse warrants a child protection response of protectively separating the child from the actively abusive parent.

Diagnosis guides treatment.

Clinical Psychology & Parental Alienation

In clinical psychology, there is no such thing as “parental alienation.” That’s why I always put the term in quotes.

Gardner’s model of PAS is both inadequate and it is wrong.  The pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” is NOT a “new syndrome” that is unique within all of mental health (which then requires an equally unique new set of diagnostic symptom identifiers that have no relationship with any other pathology in all of mental health).

In proposing a “new syndrome” for the pathology Gardner was simply a poor diagnostician.  In proposing that the pathology identified by Gardner as representing “parental alienation” was a “new syndrome” that was a unique new pathology in all of mental health, Gardner too quickly abandoned the professional rigor required for diagnosing the pathology within established psychological principles and constructs.

Diagnosis guides treatment.  Gardner skipped the first step of making a diagnosis.  He too quickly adopted an intellectually lazy approach of proposing a unique “new syndrome.”

In actuality, the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” is amply described within standard, fully accepted, and fully established psychological constructs and principles.  The parent-child conflict traditionally called “parental alienation” simply represents the child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational coalition with one parent against the other parent.  No big deal.  This form of pathology is amply described in the family systems literature.  The preeminent family systems theorist Jay Haley provided the following definition of a cross-generational coalition:

“The people responding to each other in the triangle are not peers, but one of them is of a different generation from the other two… In the process of their interaction together, the person of one generation forms a coalition with the person of the other generation against his peer.  By ‘coalition’ is meant a process of joint action which is against the third person… The coalition between the two persons is denied.  That is, there is certain behavior which indicates a coalition which, when it is queried, will be denied as a coalition… In essence, the perverse triangle is one in which the separation of generations is breached in a covert way.  When this occurs as a repetitive pattern, the system will be pathological.” (Haley, 1977, p. 37; emphasis added)

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

I honestly don’t see what all the controversy is about for the past 30 years.  Cross-generational coalition.  Standard stuff.

The renowned family systems theorist, Salvador Minuchin, also identified and described the pathology of the cross-generational coalition:

“An inappropriately rigid cross-generational subsystem of mother and son versus father appears, and the boundary around this coalition of mother and son excludes the father.  A cross-generational dysfunctional transactional pattern has developed.” (Minuchin, 1974, p. 61-62)

“The boundary between the parental subsystem and the child becomes diffuse, and the boundary around the parents-child triad, which should be diffuse, becomes inappropriately rigid.  This type of structure is called a rigid triangle… The rigid triangle can also take the form of a stable coalition.  One of the parents joins the child in a rigidly bounded cross-generational coalition against the other parent.” (Minuchin, 1974, p. 102; emphasis added)

Salvador Minuchin even provided a clinical description of the effects of a cross-generational coalition:

“The parents were divorced six months earlier and the father is now living alone… Two of the children who were very attached to their father, now refuse any contact with him.  The younger children visit their father but express great unhappiness with the situation.” (Minuchin, 1974, p. 101; emphasis added)

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Harvard University Press.

Doesn’t Minuchin’s clinical description of a cross-generational coalition match identically the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” within the popular culture? – “Two of the children who were very attached to their father, now refuse any contact with him.”  People in the general public call this “parental alienation” – in clinical psychology it’s called the child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational coalition.  Standard stuff.  No big deal.

In clinical psychology, there is no such thing as “parental alienation.”  The term “parental alienation” is an undefined construct.  That’s why everything is such a mess right now, because we’re routinely using a term that lacks defined meaning in clinical psychology.   In clinical psychology the pathology is described as “pathogenic parenting” (i.e., producing psychopathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices) and as a “cross-generational coalition” of the child with one parent against the other parent.  Standard stuff.  This is not some “new theory” – it’s simply diagnosis.   Gardner was a very poor diagnostician, and because he was diagnostically lazy and proposed a “new syndrome” he led everyone down the wrong path for thirty years of controversy.

Gardner’s definition of the pathology as representing a “new syndrome” which is unique in all of mental health is 100% wrong.  The pathology is not a “new syndrome.”  It is a manifestation of fully established and well-defined forms of existing pathology.  To solve things we simply need to stop applying some vague and poorly defined popular-culture construct of “parental alienation” to diagnosing pathology, and instead apply the professional rigor necessary to diagnose the pathology from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs.  No big deal.

Mental health professionals need to STOP using the term “parental alienation” to describe the pathology.  The correct clinical psychology constructs for the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” are:

1)  The child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational coalition with one parent against the other parent, and

2)  Pathogenic parenting in which the distorted parenting practices of the allied parent in the cross-generational coalition are 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).

If, as Ms. Woodall suggests regarding her cases, the effects of pathogenic parenting are not evidenced in the child’s symptom display, then she needs to define what type of pathology that represents.  But whatever pathology she is treating, it is not what I am discussing.  I am discussing 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).

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

A confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse activates the mental health professional’s “duty to protect” which must be discharged by the mental health professional taking affirmative action to protect the child.  In all forms of child abuse, physical child abuse, sexual child abuse, and psychological child abuse, we protectively separate the child from the abusive parent. 

Is Ms. Woodall suggesting that we leave the child with a diagnostically confirmed actively abusive parent?

Diagnosis guides treatment.

See how remaining within standard and established psychological principles brings clarity?  An attachment-based model of the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” isn’t some “new theory” – it’s called diagnosis.  Diagnosis.

Some cross-generational coalitions involve personality disordered allied parents.  Some don’t.  I’m not talking about those that don’t.  I’m only talking about those that do.  See how using established and defined clinical terminology brings clarity to the discussion?

How do we treat cross-generational coalitions that don’t involve personality disordered parents?  Read Minuchin.  Read Haley.  Read Bowen.  Read Satir.  Read Madanes.  Read Framo.  Read Boszormenyi-Nagy.  That’s not my current concern.  That’s not what I am currently talking about.

How do we treat cross-generational coalitions that DO involve narcissistic/borderline parents?  We first diagnose the degree of pathogenic parenting involved.  How do we do that?  By looking at the child’s symptoms. If the child’s symptoms are evidencing severe developmental pathology (diagnostic indicator 1), personality disorder pathology (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology (diagnostic indicator 3), then we make the DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

And if we’ve made the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed then this activates our “duty to protect” and the treatment related considerations shift from child custody and visitation issues to child protection considerations.   In all cases of child abuse we protectively separate the child from the actively abusive parent. 

Is anyone actually suggesting we leave the child with the actively abusive parent when a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse is made?

It’s actually really simple.  Diagnosis guides treatment. 

Standard 9.01a of the Ethical Principles of Psychologist and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association requires that:

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings.

ALL mental health professionals assessing, diagnosing, and treating the suppression of a child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range and affectionally available parent following divorce should assess for the pathology of pathogenic parenting associated with the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of the allied parent to the current family relationships through the formation of a cross-generational coalition with the child, mediated by the narcissistic/(borderline) personality disorder pathology of the allied parent.  The clinical assessment of pathogenic parenting is based entirely on the features of the child’s symptom display as evidenced in the three definitive diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting created by an attachment-trauma reenactment pathology. 

Notice I never once used the term “parental alienation” in the preceding paragraph.  The construct of “parental alienation” is vague and unnecessary.  It is a term used in the common-culture but it lacks a defined meaning in clinical psychology. 

New syndrome proposals are intellectually and professionally lazy.  All mental health professionals must do the work necessary for the formal diagnosis of pathology.  All mental health professionals need to make the diagnosis of pathology from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs and stop relying on imprecise terminology and constructs.

An attachment-based model for the construct called “parental alienation” is not some “new theory” – it’s called diagnosis.

Diagnosis guides treatment.  Mental health professionals need to stop using the term “parental alienation” – “parental alienation” doesn’t exist in clinical psychology.  Don’t be lazy.

By the way, I am not an expert in “parental alienation.”  I have testified as an expert witness in a variety of cases, and never once have I been qualified by the court as an expert in “parental alienation.”  Not once.  When targeted parents request information about my possible role as an expert consultant and witness I send them a handout in which I explicitly state:

“My professional expertise is in clinical psychology, child and family therapy, diagnosis and psychopathology, parent-child conflict, and child development, not in “parental alienation,” since I approach what has traditionally been referred to as “parental alienation” from within standard mental health constructs and principles, particularly centering around the normal-range development and expression of the “attachment system” during childhood.  In my professional view, the term “parental alienation” is a general common-culture label rather than a professional term, which is used in common parlance to quickly refer to a complex set of family process involving the induced suppression of the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward one parent (i.e., the “targeted parent”) as a result of the pathogenic influence on the child of the other parent’s personality disordered psychopathology (i.e., the “alienating parent”)… I typically do not use the term “parental alienation” in my expert work and testimony, and my expertise for Court purposes is in:

• Clinical psychology
• Child and family therapy
• Diagnosis and treatment of parent-child conflict
• Diagnosis of psychopathology within a family context
• Child development”

Handout:  Dr. Childress Expert Consultation and Testimony

So just for future reference, I’m not an expert in “parental alienation.”  I’m a clinical psychologist.  Diagnosing and treating psychopathology is what clinical psychologists do.  I specialize in child and family pathology, particularly ADHD, angry-oppositional children, and parent-child conflict.  All types.  I’m familiar with autism-spectrum disorders, early childhood pathologies, school failure, childhood developmental trauma and child abuse, attachment related pathologies, juvenile delinquency, and child behavior problems surrounding divorce.  My professional expertise is across  the spectrum of parent-child and family conflict because I’m a clinical psychologist specializing in child and family therapy.  Cross-generational coalitions and pathogenic parenting?  Standard forms of pathology.

I’m not talking about everything under the sun.  I’m only talking about the pathology that I am talking about.  If someone wants to talk about some other form of parent-child or family pathology, then it is incumbent upon them to define what that pathology entails using standard and established psychological principles and constructs that have defined meaning in clinical psychology.  I’m only talking about pathogenic parenting that is creating 1) a suppression of the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range and affectionally available parent, 2) a set of five a-priori predicted narcissistic and borderline personality traits in the child’s symptom display, and 3) an intransigently held fixed and false belief (i.e., a delusion) regarding the supposedly “abusive” parental inadequacy of a normal-range and affectionally available parent.

When this symptom set is evidenced in the child’s symptom display the appropriate DSM-5 diagnosis is V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed and a protective separation of the child from the actively abusive parent is indicated. 

Diagnosis guides treatment.  A DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed warrants a child protection response under the mental health professional’s duty to protect. 

In my view, a failure by the mental health professional to assess for pathogenic parenting using the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting available on my website would likely represent a breach of Standard 9.01a of the APA ethics code which requires that psychologists base diagnostic statements on information “sufficient to substantiate their findings.”  How can the mental health professional have information “sufficient to substantiate their findings” if the mental health professional did not even assess for the pathology?

If anyone wants to know if the pathology I am talking about applies to your family or your clients, simply complete the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting which is available on my website:

If the child’s symptoms meet the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting by the allied parent, then I’m talking about your family situation. 

If the child’s symptoms do not meet the three diagnostic indicators, then I’m not talking about your family situation.

Simple.

If your child’s symptoms meet the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting by the allied parent, then the appropriate and warranted DSM-5 diagnosis is V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed – because no other pathology in all of mental health will result in these three diagnostic indicators except pathogenic parenting by an allied narcissistic/borderline parent. 

Diagnosis guides treatment.   A DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed engages the mental health professional’s “duty to protect” and shifts treatment-related concerns from those of child custody and visitation to prominent child protection considerations that require the mental health professional take affirmative action to ensure the child’s protection and discharge the mental health professional’s “duty to protect.”

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

In future case examples of alleged “parental alienation” that are offered by mental health professionals, it would be extremely helpful to include data regarding the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting – such as whether the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting were met, and if the diagnostic indicators were not evident in the child’s symptom display, which indicator(s) of pathogenic parenting were not evident and why.  Information regarding whether any of the Associated Clinical Signs were evident would also be helpful in understanding the case dynamics.

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

I know my blog has been dark, and I do not intend to reactivate my writing to it at this time, but I want to make a general announcement regarding the availability of a new resource I am making available to targeted parents in our battle to protect and recover your children: The Flying Monkey Newsletter.

---

 

Announcement:  The first edition of The Flying Monkey Newsletter is available on my website, just below the Checklist of diagnostic indicators:

The Flying Monkey Newsletter – March 2016

According to the Urban Dictionary, a “flying monkey” is an ally of the narcissist who seeks to inflict additional suffering on the victim of the narcissist.

In attachment-based “parental alienation” these allies of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent provide support for maintaining the pathology involving the psychological abuse of the child by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent. They likely do so because of their own ignorance or because of trauma histories in their own background that resonate with the false trauma reenactment narrative being presented in attachment-based “parental alienation” (a process called “counter-transference” in professional psychology).

The Flying Monkey Newsletter will address the false justifications made by the allies of the pathology for maintaining the pathology of “parental alienation,” with each edition of the newsletter addressing a specific false justification offered by the allies of the pathology. When targeted parents encounter one of these false justifications, they can provide the ally of the pathology with the relevant Flying Monkey Newsletter in response.

The March 2016 Flying Monkey Newsletter addresses the false justification that separating the child from the psychologically abusive narcissistic/(borderline) parent will somehow be harmful for the child.

The April 2016 edition of the Flying Monkey Newsletter will address the false justification made by flying monkeys that an attachment-based model of the “parental alienation” pathology lacks empirical support (it has substantial empirical support in the established literature of professional psychology).

Each edition of the Flying Monkey Newsletter will address a specific false justification offered by the allies of the pathology that they use in their effort to continue the psychological abuse of children by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

The pathology of pathogenic parenting that is producing severe developmental pathology (diagnostic indicator 1), personality pathology (diagnostic indicator 2), and delusional-psychiatric pathology (diagnostic indicator 3) in the child as a means to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent represents 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.

In our fight to protect and recover your children, I ask all targeted parents, your friends and families, to sign the petition demanding that the American Psychological Association acknowledge that pathogenic parenting exists and that the APA requires professional competence from ALL mental health professionals working with the “special population” of your children and families:

New APA Position Statement: Some children are manipulated into rejecting a parent.

Work with the leadership within your community of targeted parents to write letters, advocate, publicize, and demand professional competence from ALL mental health professionals working with your children and families.

The pathology of “parental alienation” is in the DSM-5. The DSM-5 diagnosis of attachment-based “parental alienation” – as described in Foundations – is V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

We must require that ALL mental health professionals be required to assess for the pathology of pathogenic parenting under Standard 9.01a of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association, and if the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting are present in the child’s symptom display, then ALL mental health professionals must make an appropriate and ACCURATE DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology evident in the child’s symptom display as representing V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

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

We will no longer abandon your children to the psychological child abuse inflicted on them by your narcissistic/(borderline) ex-. The battle to protect and recover your children has been joined.

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