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

Okay, listen up. I am going to explain this once. I’m not going to debate it. I’ve got a whole lot of work to do, and I need to get to that work. I’m not going to go round and round on this. So here it is. I’m going to explain it once.

The Problem

The mental health response to “parental alienation” is massively broken. The legal system response to “parental alienation” is massively broken. The solution is in first fixing the mental health system’s response. The diagnosis of pathology is a mental health issue, not a legal issue. Once we fix the mental health response, THEN we can fix the legal response. We cannot fix the legal system’s response to the pathology until we FIRST fix the mental health response.

Any solution that requires us to prove parental alienation in court is no solution at all. So whatever solution we develop (I’ve already developed it. It’s the attachment-based model) must be self-contained within the mental health response to the pathology.

The upper end of the pathology is so extreme that we will need at least the ability to protectively separate some of these children from the pathogenic parent. To accomplish this we will need the cooperation of the legal system. But we can’t get bogged down in proving “parental alienation” to the court. This means that in these extreme cases the mental health system, ALL of the mental health system, must go to the legal system with one clear and united voice to tell – not ask, we’re not going to prove it to them, they have to take our word for it – mental health needs to tell the legal system with a single clear united voice, that these children at the upper end of the pathology need to be protectively separated from the pathogenic parent in order for the mental health system to treat and restore these children’s healthy development.

So, to recap. The solution is not in the legal system’s response. The solution is in the mental health system’s response. We will need the cooperation of the legal system. When we turn to the legal system, the mental health system will need to speak with ONE clear and united voice so that the legal system can act with the decisive clarity necessary to solve this pathology (at least at the upper extremes of the pathology).

Conclusion 1.

We must unite mental health. This division within mental health must be brought to an end. To the extent that the Gardnerian PAS model contributes to continuing this division, we must jettison it. We cannot, however, jettison the divisive Gardnerian PAS model until we have something to replace it, otherwise there is simply a vacuum in our ability to diagnose and treat the pathology. Before we jettison the Gardnerian PAS model, we need a replacement model. This replacement model must be able to unite ALL of mental health into a single united voice so that when mental health goes to the legal system ALL of mental health can speak with a single voice so that the legal system can act with the decisive clarity necessary to solve the pathology (at least at the upper extremes of the pathology – I’ll address the solution to the lower end of the pathology’s spectrum later. But our solution to the upper extreme end of the pathology is key, and then we work our way down. We’re capping the pathology at its most extreme and working our way back).

Solution

So I set about solving Conclusion 1’s need for a replacement model for the pathology that can unite ALL of mental health into a single voice. So what’s causing the division?

Gardner proposed a “new syndrome” and establishment mental health is not accepting a “new syndrome.”

Plus, the Gardnerian eight symptom identifiers are poor. Their operational definitions are poor (I’m not going to debate this. They are. They are poorly defined symptom identifiers. As a professor, I’d give them a grade of D- for a variety of reasons. Primarily, too much subjectivity. Listen, we have to assume that mental health professionals are incredibly stupid. We cannot ask them to think. We have to give them diagnostic indicators that are simple and that minimize as much as is humanly possible the need for them to think – as much as possible we have to idiot-proof the diagnosis so that we can achieve the maximum amount of consistency and standardization to the diagnosis).

The replacement model needs to bring establishment mental health on board into a single unified voice. The Gardnerian PAS model is a poison pill. We need to entirely jettison this model. If we retain any component of it, this will just wrap us up in debate again and this will delay the solution. We need to bring establishment mental health a pristine model that meets their standards. This will allow us to move with the greatest efficiency and speed toward enacting the solution.

Establishment mental health does not want a “new syndrome” proposal. Okay. No “new syndrome.” Even the word “parental alienation” is part of this new syndrome. So to create a completely pristine model, I’ll shift even this term over to “pathogenic parenting.” The term “pathogenic care” was used in the DSM IV TR in reference to a Reactive Attachment Disorder. Since this new model is going to organize the description of the pathology around the attachment system, a change to the term “pathogenic care” or “pathogenic parenting” is appropriate and it will get us by establishment mental health at even this very most fundamental level of what we’re calling the pathology.

But if I switch this term out too soon, we’ll lose the Gardnerians, so I need to continue to use the term “parental alienation,” but I need to begin to also prepare everyone for the additional use of the term “pathogenic parenting” that we’ll need when we start to unite with establishment mental health. I’ll also begin to prepare everyone for this unification by always putting the term “parental alienation” in quotes, so that when we finally reach the point of uniting with establishment mental health, if establishment mental health has any problem with the use of the term “parental alienation” then I’m not tied to it, I can jettison it easily, and this term doesn’t bog us down. We simply switch it out to “pathogenic parenting” and keep moving.

But the construct of pathogenic parenting also offers us a huge, and I mean huge advantage. We don’t need to chase diagnosing the narcissistic/borderline parent down the rabbit hole of trying to get them to expose their pathology. From a clinical psychology perspective, we cannot get trapped into diagnosing the pathology of the “alienating” parent. Their manipulation is to hide behind the child. They’re using the child as a human shield. If we try to get to their pathology they just put the child in our path, “I’m just listening to the child. We need to listen to what the child wants. It’s not me it’s the child.” The pathogen hides. One of the primary defensive structures of the pathology is to remain concealed. The clinical diagnostic solution must be able to penetrate this concealment of the pathology behind the child.

How do we do that?  By not trying to penetrate the concealment.

Here’s the answer:  We cannot psychologically control a child without leaving “psychological fingerprints” of our control in the child’s symptom display. If we stay 100% diagnostically focused solely on the child’s symptom display – using the construct of pathogenic parenting – we can lift the “psychological fingerprints” of the allied narcissistic/borderline parent’s psychological control off of the child’s symptom display. Gotcha.

The “psychological fingerprints” in the child’s symptom display of the child’s psychological control by the narcissistic/borderline parent are the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation”:

1.) Attachment System Display. The attachment system distorts in characteristic ways in response to problematic parenting. The normal attachment system does not ever distort in the way it displays in “parental alienation.” The display of the child’s attachment system – even if we grant problematic parenting by the targeted parent – never displays in the way it does in “parental alienation.” If you know what you’re looking for, the attachment system display in “parental alienation” reveals the psychological control of the narcissistic/borderline parent. But this is too technical a symptom. We need to idiot-proof the diagnosis. We’ll need more blatant fingerprints. This initial diagnostic indicator also puts us in the domain of “parental alienation” pathology (as opposed to ADHD or autism pathology).

2) Personality Disorder Traits: These are the most direct and obvious “psychological fingerprints” of the psychological control of the child by a narcissistic/(borderline) parent. They even carry the calling card of the parent’s personality disorder. The child is not evidencing paranoid personality traits, or obsessive-compulsive personality traits. The child is evidencing narcissistic personality traits. There’s a whole lot more here I could talk about, but I’m waiting because I don’t want to distract away from the primary focus. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why do I always use the linked phrase narcissistic/(borderline) and put the term borderline in parentheses? There’s a reason I do this. Later I’ll be discussing narcissistic/(narcissistic) and narcissistic/(borderline)-(hystrionic) and narcissistic/(antisocial), etc. But not just yet. We need to stay focused right now.

3.) Delusional Belief: This is the lynchpin symptom. A child’s response to authentic child abuse is not delusional. It has a basis in reality. This is going to become a key diagnostic indicator when we go up against the allies of the pathogen. The attachment system also doesn’t display the way it does in “parental alienation” in cases of authentic child abuse, but that’s a technical and sophisticated issue requiring professional expertise. For the idiot-proof diagnosis, we’ll use the delusional disorder symptom.

But the use of the word “delusion” to describe the child is initially going to be off-putting to many ignorant mental health professionals. The child doesn’t seem psychotic. The child appears totally rational. That’s where understanding the trauma reenactment narrative is critical. The delusion in this case isn’t some sort of bizarre psychosis, it’s the intransigently held, fixed and false belief of the child that the child is a “victim” of the “abusive” parenting of the targeted parent. The targeted parent’s parenting practices are entirely normal-range.  The parenting practices of the targeted parent are not “abusive.” This is a delusion.

Who is the actual source of this delusion? Who actually has the delusion? The narcissistic/borderline parent. The narcissistic/borderline parent is the primary source of the delusion (the Millon quote is golden in this regard), and the child’s expression of this delusional belief is the result of the psychological control of this child (psychological fingerprint) by the delusional narcissistic/borderline parent (once we solve “parental alienation” we’ll be taking this shared delusion back to the DSM-5.1 revision).

Once I had these three “psychological fingerprints” of the pathogenic parenting (i.e., diagnostic evidence of the psychological control of the child by the allied narcissistic/borderline parent) I then ran through every possible form of parent-child conflict and child pathology to see if any other form of pathology evidences ALL THREE of these diagnostic indicators. Nope. We’re good to go.

Gotcha. These three child symptoms expose the psychological manipulation of the child by the narcissistic/borderline parent using the construct of pathogenic parenting, which is a fully establishment construct (“pathogenic care” DSM-IV TR)

Theoretical Foundation

So in order to unite with establishment mental health we need to define the pathology entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs. No “new syndrome” proposal. And anything that even remotely involves Gardnerian PAS will be a poison pill and will distract us into debate and division. The alternative model needs to be pristine.

And it’s going to receive incredible scrutiny from the allies of the pathogen within mental health, looking for any little flaw in the model that will allow them to discredit it or lock it up in debate and controversy. It’s going to need to be rock solid theoretically. Not just on the surface layers, but down into its core. That’s what has taken me seven years. I had the superficial layers in two years. It’s been the core bedrock that’s taken longer. But let me tell you, there is some stuff in this model that people haven’t recognized yet that is going to ripple for decades. The pathology of “parental alienation” is about to move from the backwaters of high-conflict divorce to front and center of attachment theory. It’s just a matter of time until people start recognizing some of the profound implications (it’s like the ticking clocks on Dark Side of the Moon).

As I said in a previous post, I’m 60 years old and I’ve already had one stroke. My time here is limited. We can hope I have another 10 to 15 years, but it might be as short as 5 to 8. Who knows, maybe tomorrow. I am so far ahead in understanding this pathology than what I’m talking about now that I’m afraid the level I’m at now may be lost unless I get it out, but I don’t want to distract from the focus of solving the pathology. For example, what’s particularly interesting is if we could be talking about the actual specific “information structures” of the attachment system that are being distorted and damaged by the pathogen, there’s some amazing stuff there (the pathogen appears to attack both identity and memory information structures, leading to a loss of self-orientation, which then allows for the psychological control by the other). But I don’t want to distract focus. We need to remain entirely focused on solving this pathology as quickly as is humanly possible. Once it’s solved we’ll have the luxury of unpacking all of this.

I’ve gotten enough out already that if I die now, the solution will continue to reveal and enact itself. The solution genie is out of the bottle and can’t be put back in. So right now, it’s just a matter of how long the solution takes to be enacted, not whether it happens. It will happen.

But it’d be a shame if I die before I get some of this deep-level information out, such as what I just shared about both the construct of “information structures” in the attachment system and which information structures are attacked by the pathogen (I prefer the term “meme-structures” when talking about the structure of the pathogen – the patience is hard, wait, they’re not ready for it yet, wait, they’re still trying to wrap their heads around the solution). The pathology is like a “computer virus” in the attachment system (sorry, couldn’t resist). I’m trying to give clues and pointers in case I go suddenly then at least there are directions that people can follow for unraveling this pathology. The implications into trauma are also profound.  I come out of early childhood and the attachment system. Once the attachment people and the developmental trauma people in the citadel get ahold of this pathology, they’re going to become so excited. It’s like how brain damage can reveal what function the damaged portion of the brain served. The type of damage to the attachment system being expressed and revealed by the “parental alienation” pathology reveals so much about the nature and functioning of the attachment system and about the impact of developmental trauma in the attachment system, layers upon layers. But I can’t talk about any of this yet, because I’m waiting for people to catch up to just the basics of solving the pathology of “parental alienation.” But this is just the tip of the iceberg, people.

So I worked out the description of this pathology at a fine-grained level, so that when the time comes to integrate with establishment mental health, which is now, the time is now, the theoretical foundations of the alternative model are rock solid. I don’t want to get over-confident until the battle is fought, but I’m expecting the attachment-based model is going to fly through vetting by establishment mental health with nary a whisper of challenge. So far, there has been no challenge to the substance of the model. None.

This model can then bring us together with establishment mental health into a single unified voice. And then look what the model gives us:

An idiot-proof diagnostic model. Three diagnostic indicators. Not twelve, not eight. Three. Just three. Simple. To make it even simpler I’ve listed them as a checklist, One… check – Two… check – Three… check. Good, very good. Now when these three symptoms are present, all at the same time, in the child’s symptom display, what does that mean? Pathogenic parenting, right. Good. Oh, I’m so proud of you. And what DSM-5 diagnosis do we give to pathogenic parenting involving severe developmental pathology (Diagnostic Indicator 1), personality disorder pathology (Diagnostic Indicator 2), and psychiatric (delusional) pathology (Diagnostic Indicator 3)? That’s right, V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse. Good, very good. Oh, you’re doing so well with this. Now, is the child abuse suspected or is it confirmed? It’s confirmed, that’s right, good job. It’s confirmed because the child is displaying these symptoms, the pathogenic parenting is confirmed by the symptoms in the child’s symptom display. Good. Now, final question, so pay attention, as a mental health professional, when you’ve diagnosed child abuse what do you do? Oh my goodness, right again, you report it to Child Protective Services. Wow. You did such a good job. That was amazing. I’m so impressed.

Whew.

So now we have reports of Child Psychological Abuse starting to be made to CPS by mental health professionals based on an attachment based model of “parental alienation.” The social workers at CPS aren’t going to know what to do with these reports. They’ll interview people and come back with “inconclusive.” But they’ll start to be annoyed and curious. What’s this attachment-based model of “parental alienation” that’s creating all of these reports. Dr. Childress, can you offer a training for our social workers in an attachment-based model?

Certainly, I’d be glad to. Theory-theory-theory, narcissistic/borderline parent, attachment trauma reenactment narrative, theory-theory. Now, this pathology can always be recognized by a specific set of three diagnostic indicators. When all three of these child symptoms are present in the child’s symptom display there is no other possible explanation, other than attachment-based “parental alienation” by a narcissistic/borderline parent. Here, I’ve got this checklist right here for you of these three symptoms, can you pass these back, thank you. You’ll notice it also has some associated clinical signs listed. Now these associated clinical signs are not diagnostic, the diagnosis is made solely on the presence or absence of the three diagnostic indicators, but these associated clinical signs are some additional things you can listen for in your assessment that can help confirm and support the diagnosis. So, lets go over these indicators and associated signs. There are three definitive diagnostic indicators for this pathology. The first one is…

At that point, we’ll have CPS trained and on board.

Protective Separation

Diagnosis guides treatment. If a child has ADHD, we do treatment for ADHD. If a child has autism, we do autism treatment. If a child is being abused, we respond with a child protection response. In all cases of child abuse, we protectively separate the child from the actively abusive parent and we place the child in kinship care with a normal-range caregiver. In the case of “parental alienation” the kinship care is with the normal-range and affectionally available targeted parent.

Now, if the treatment team believes that a child protection response is not yet warranted in any specific situation, then no treatment is ever mandatory. But the focus should always be on the child’s symptoms. No symptoms, no need to protectively separate the child from the pathogenic parent. But if there are child symptoms, then we need to protect the child.

Narcissistic personalities do not understand the construct of authority. But they do understand the construct of power.

To the Narcissistic/Borderline Parent: If the child continues to evidence these symptoms directed toward the targeted parent, then the next step will be a protective separation of the child from you for at least a nine-month period, which is the required period needed to restore the child to normal-range functioning.  We’ve already discussed it fully and I’m not going to discuss it further.

See what we’re doing? We’re not placing pressure on the child to love and bond to the targeted parent, which only makes the child a “psychological battleground” between our efforts to restore normal-range functioning and the continuing efforts of the narcissistic/borderline parent to keep the child symptomatic. Instead, we’re going to the source (the actual source for the “stimulus control” of the child’s behavior), the narcissistic/borderline parent, and we’re making a very clear statement that provides the narcissistic/borderline parent with clearly structured boundaries for their (disorganized) manipulative pathology of exploiting the child: “Stop it. Release the child to love the other parent or we will remove the child from your care.”

An attachment-based model gives you the option to protectively separate the child from the psychologically abusive parent if this is what’s needed in order to treat and resolve the child’s pathology.

The solution is entirely contained within the mental health system response to the pathology, particularly once we reach the CPS level of the solution. If the court system becomes involved, the targeted parent has two independently made DSM-5 diagnoses of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, one from an expert in this form of pathology and a confirming diagnosis from Child Protective Services. When presented with a single unified voice from the mental health system, the legal system will be able to act with the decisive clarity necessary to resolve the pathology.

Correcting Gardner’s Mistake

There is a correct professional procedure to follow in professional clinical psychology. Define the pathology from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs. This leads to making the correct diagnosis of the pathology. The treatment we use is based on the diagnosis.

Gardner did not follow this procedure. In his eagerness to identify the pathology, he skipped the first step. He did not define the pathology using standard and established psychological constructs and principles. Instead, he opted for a short-cut of proposing a unique “new syndrome” with unique new symptom identifiers. But then notice the problem that this creates regarding diagnosis.

Rather than having a formal diagnosis for the pathology which would have been available if Gardner had followed the correct professional procedure, a short-cut “new syndrome” proposal REQUIRES that the syndrome itself be accepted as the diagnosis. This has produced 30 years of impasse.

I’m a clinical psychologist. What I’ve done is gone back and fixed the mistake of Gardner when he used a short-cut instead of established professional clinical psychology procedures of assessment and diagnosis. What I’ve done with an attachment-based reformulation of the pathology is to go back to that initial step that was skipped by Gardner, and I’ve done a proper clinical assessment of the pathology. I’ve defined the pathology (pathogenic care) entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, which then leads to the diagnosis of the pathology, which then leads to the treatment plan. That’s how things are supposed to work. What I’ve done is standard clinical psychology.

Gardner got us off on the wrong track. I’m putting us back on the correct path. I’m doing this because I’m a clinical psychologist. That’s what I do. I assess, diagnose, and treat pathology. All sorts of pathology. In this case it’s a complicated pathology, but it’s not an unsolvable pathology. We just need to follow the appropriate professional steps of defining the pathology from entirely within established psychological principles and constructs, which will lead us to the proper diagnosis, which will lead us to the necessary treatment plan. I teach this to students all the time. Standard clinical psychology.

The solution is available to us, right here, right now, if we simply return back to the standard procedures of professional clinical psychology. What was needed was to fix the step skipped by Gardner of defining the pathology from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs. Because of specific features of my professional background I was able to do this. That’s what I do in my book Foundations. That’s why it’s entitled Foundations. Through establishing the necessary Foundations in defining the pathology, I return us to the proper path of professional clinical psychology.

It’s not Dr. Childress’ new theory. There is nothing “new” in Foundations. It’s all standard and established psychological constructs and principles. That’s why I didn’t call it the “Childress Theory of Parental Alienation.”  No. It’s an attachment-based model for describing the pathology. The correct clinical psychology term for the pathology is pathogenic parenting (pathogenic care that’s distorting the child’s attachment system). I am just doing what a good clinical psychologist does. I’m first defining the pathology from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, which then leads to the proper diagnosis, which then leads to the necessary treatment plan. Standard clinical psychology.

For all mental health professionals:  At this point you are now either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. The only thing that is no longer acceptable will be our abandonment of children to the psychological abuse of a narcissistic/borderline parent. That stops. If you are going to collude with child abuse because of your ignorance and professional incompetence, then you may be looking at licensing board complaints and malpractice lawsuits from targeted parents based on violations of Standards 2.01, 9.01, and 3.04 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association and for failure in your professional “duty to protect.”

Everyone’s gotten lost in Wonderland by thinking that we have to have the diagnosis of “parental alienation” accepted by establishment mental health and that we need to prove “parental alienation” in court. No we don’t. All we need is professionally competent clinical psychology. I’m a professionally competent clinical psychologist. I’m pulling us out of Wonderland and I’m putting us back on the right path.

Lesser Forms of the Pathology

This is easy. 

Once we solve the broken response of the mental health system to the extreme form of the pathology, then we can turn our attention to the lesser forms of the pathology and all the different variants.

And we will solve these in exactly the same way we solve the more extreme version of the pathology:  We define the nature of the pathology within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, which will lead us to the proper diagnosis, which will direct us toward the required treatment response.  No big deal. It’s called professionally competent clinical psychology. 

But first things first.  We need to solve the extreme version of the pathology first and put mental health back on the proper path of professional clinical psychology.

So. There it is. I’m going to get back to work.

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

Why did I take on the Gardnerians so directly?

Because targeted parents are going into battle for their children and the Gardnerian PAS experts are abandoning them to fight this fight on their own.

They are not lifting a finger to help you.

For thirty years the Gardnerian PAS model has provided no solution whatsoever to the pathology of “parental alienation.” What solution do they propose that the continuation of the Gardnerian PAS paradigm is now going to provide that it hasn’t provided in the last 30 years.

The three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model provide an immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, the eight Gardnerian PAS symptom indicators do not. Why hold onto the Gardnerian PAS paradigm?

An attachment-based model provides 12 Associated Clinical Signs of the pathology, the Exclusion Demand, the use of the word “forced” to characterize being with the targeted parent, seeking the child’s testimony in court, excessive and intrusive texting and email contact,… The continuation of the Gardnerian PAS model does not offer any of these.

And here’s one I haven’t discussed before. If a narcissistic/borderline makes a false allegation of abuse and Child Protective Services investigates and finds the allegation to be unfounded, then CPS should ALSO investigate if the child’s symptoms evidence the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” representing the psychological abuse of the child by the allied narcissistic/borderline parent, and which would warrant the child’s protective separation from the pathogenic care of the allied narcissistic/borderline parent as a consequence of a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. Suddenly, allegations of abuse become a double-edged sword. If they are unfounded, then false allegations of abuse can initiate an equal investigation of the psychological abuse of the child by the allied narcissistic/borderline parent based on the presence of the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” in the child’s symptom display.

I haven’t discussed this double-edged investigation of abuse allegations previously because it only becomes available once we have CPS on board with the paradigm shift, which will be toward the end of the paradigm shift. But once we have CPS trained in the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation,” this double-edged investigation of unfounded abuse allegations would represent a strong disincentive to the narcissistic/borderline parent for manipulatively making false allegations of abuse toward a normal-range targeted parent as a means to terminate this parent’s involvement with the child. With a switch to the three definitive diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation,” unfounded allegations of abuse can equally prompt an investigation of the allied parent for psychological abuse of the child because authentically abused children will not evidence the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation.”

Continuing the Gardnerian PAS paradigm changes nothing.  Everything remains just the way it is right now. False allegations of abuse result in no investigation of the allied narcissistic/borderline parent because the eight symptom identifiers of the Gardnerian PAS model are inadequate for the purpose.

The new paradigm of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” allows you to seek and to obtain a change to the APA’s position statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome, to change the title of this position statement to “The Family Pathology of Parental Alienation,” to obtain formal acknowledgement from the APA that the pathology of “parental alienation” exists (using whatever term they wish to use for the pathology), and designating your children and families as a “special population” requiring specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat (thereby eliminating professional incompetence in mental health professionals working with your children and families and providing you with expert mental health professionals trained in the pathology of “parental alienation”).

Continuing with the Gardnerian PAS model does not allow you to seek or acquire this change, because the position statement of the APA is already about Gardnerian PAS. It’s right there in the title. Gardnerian PAS gives you the current position statement of the APA regarding the pathology being expressed in your family. Is this what you want?

An attachment-based model of “parental alienation” makes relevant the Standards of the Ethical Code of Conduct for Psychologists and Standards of Practice of the American Psychological Association regarding professional competence and avoiding harm to the client, and will activate the mental health professional’s “duty to protect” when the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” are evident in the child’s symptom display.

With the Gardnerian PAS model all of these standards and the duty to protect remain unavailable and inactive.

The continuation of the Gardnerian PAS model continues exactly what we have right now. No solution.

The attachment-based model of “parental alienation” provides the solution because it was specifically designed to provide the solution.

The Gardnerian PAS model has actually created exactly the situation we have right now, and as far as I can tell it promises another 30 years of the exactly the same. I would ask any Gardnerian PAS expert to please describe for me how they envision the continuation of the Gardnerian PAS paradigm is going to lead to a solution?

If you want to see the solution provided by the Gardnerian PAS model, just look around you. For thirty years it’s been the dominant paradigm for describing the pathology. The situation we have right now is exactly what’s produced by the Gardnerian PAS model.

Why in the world would anyone want to continue with the failed paradigm of Gardnerian PAS when a change to the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based paradigm offers targeted parents an immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

So far, the reasons offered have been 1) that an attachment based model is not really a change but is simply Gardnerian PAS using different words (Old Wine in Old Skins: Bernet and Reay), which is bizarre and strained reasoning on its face, and 2) that an attachment-based model does not address situations where the targeted parent is also to blame for the alienation (Parental Alienation and Paradigm Shifts: An unnecessary diversion for the UK: Woodall).

An attachment-based model deals only with the pathology it is designed to deal with, i.e., the presence in the child’s symptom display of the three characteristic and definitive diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting associated with attachment-based “parental alienation.” I’m not trying to solve everything under the sun, just this type of pathology (call it whatever you want). The apparent reasoning is that because an attachment-based model does not solve all forms of pathology we shouldn’t solve this specific form of pathology; because an attachment-based model doesn’t solve all forms of pathology, we shouldn’t provide targeted parents with a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for this form of pathology; because an attachment-based model does not solve all forms of pathology, we shouldn’t obtain a change in the APA’s position statement regarding the pathology of “parental alienation” generally. That too, is strained reasoning.

Neither of these arguments address the actual substance of an attachment-based model. Is there any disagreement with the substance of the model?

It’s as if they are searching as hard as they can to identify reasons NOT to give up the Gardnerian PAS model with its eight symptom identifiers to be replaced by an attachment-based model and its three diagnostic indicators. If you’re going to make a case for holding onto the obviously failed paradigm of Gardnerian PAS (just look around you, this current situation is what the Gardnerian PAS model gives us), then you’ll have to do better than these two weak and irrational reasons.

In sports, there is a definitive argument for ending debates about games: “scoreboard” – which means just look to the scoreboard to see who won.

Scoreboard – just look to what the Gardnerian PAS model has given us in 30 years of being the dominant paradigm governing how we define the pathology of “parental alienation.” How’s that workin’ for you? Are you satisfied with how things are? Then maybe we should consider a paradigm shift to an attachment-based model that is grounded entirely within standard and existing forms of pathology, that gives us an immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as Child Psychological Abuse, that allows us to change the APA’s position statement to formally acknowledge that the pathology exists and to REQUIRE professional expertise in assessing, diagnosing, and treating the pathology.

Scoreboard.

Targeted parents are going into battle to achieve this paradigm shift for their children and families because they want this paradigm shift. They want a diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed regarding the distorted pathogenic parenting of their ex-spouse that is destroying their lives and the lives of their children. We are going into battle with them to fight the minions of the pathogen who will seek to stop us. We could use all the help we can get in the upcoming battle to create this paradigm shift. The time is now. The battle is now. Bring your banner to the battlefield now. Or we will note your absence. We will note that when targeted parents went to battle for their children, your banner was nowhere to be seen on the battlefield.

It is better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand. – Tamerlane

Place the Gardnerian PAS model next to the attachment-based model described by Foundations. Which is a better description of the pathology?

An attachment-based definition of the pathology describes the pathology in detail from each of three distinctively different levels of analysis, the family systems level, the personality disorder level, and the attachment trauma level, as well as integrating this description of the pathology across all three of these levels. It describes in detail how the child’s symptoms are induced and how the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment-bonding motivations are suppressed by the pathogenic parenting of the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent. It links this underlying theoretical structure to three specific diagnostic indicators of the pathology in the child’s symptom display, and it defines specific domains of knowledge within professional psychology necessary for professionally competent assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. It also links this underlying theoretical structure to a specific DSM-5 diagnosis that includes a definition of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed which requires the child’s protective separation from the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent during the active phase of the child’s treatment and recovery.

And what is the theoretical foundation for a Gardnerian PAS model? “Brainwashing.”

That’s it. That’s the totality of it. “Brainwashing.”

Objectively, which one of those models is better? Is there any question about it? Really? Then why would any responsible mental health professional continue to hold to the simplistic and woefully inadequate “brainwashing” model when they have an elaborated theoretical framework offered by Foundations? It makes no sense.

It appears to be almost a motivated disregard for truth. Why?

What advantage does holding onto the failed Gardnerian description of the pathology provide? Tell us. Because I cannot see any advantage whatsoever.

A pathology cannot simultaneously be a “new syndrome” that is unique in all of mental health AND, at the same time, a manifestation of fully established and existing forms of pathology. It’s either one or the other. If it’s a unique new form of pathology as proposed by the Gardnerian PAS model, then it is not a manifestation of established and existing forms of pathology. If it’s a manifestation of established and existing forms of pathology, as proposed by the attachment-based model, then it is not a unique new form of pathology. Both cannot simultaneously be true. If one is true, the other is false.

So which is it?  Is the pathology of “parental alienation” a unique new form of pathology (a “new syndrome”) or is it a manifestation of established and existing forms of pathology? We will know your answer by which set of diagnostic indicators you use, the eight symptoms of Gardnerian PAS or the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model. Decide.

But just take a look for a moment at what happens when we stop trying to propose that the pathology of “parental alienation” represents a “new syndrome” that is unique in all of mental health, and we instead apply the necessary professional rigor to define the pathology entirely from within standard and established psychological constructs and principles. When we do this, the clinical pathology actually becomes pathogenic parenting and we wind up with a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed for the pathology. Isn’t that exactly the proper diagnosis for this pathology? All we had to do is stop proposing a “new syndrome” and do the work needed to define the pathology within established psychological constructs and principles and we arrive at the proper diagnosis. Duhhh. That’s exactly how things are supposed to work. When we define the pathology using standard and established psychological principles and constructs we will arrive at the proper diagnosis of the pathology.

And in mental health, we then use the diagnosis to guide our treatment of the pathology. This is exactly how it is supposed to work. But the proposal that the pathology represents a “new syndrome” that is unique in all of mental health diverts us from this process of what is supposed to happen and we wind up in the current morass in mental health that we are witnessing with the pathology of “parental alienation.”

An attachment-based model of the pathology is specifically designed to fix this and to put us back on the proper path again.

For thirty years the Gardnerian PAS experts have intransigently insisted that establishment mental health accept a Gardnerian PAS model of the pathology as being a “new syndrome” unique in all of mental health as a condition of the solution. For thirty years establishment mental health has said no, that the theoretical foundations of the Gardnerian PAS model as a “new syndrome” lack the professional rigor necessary for an acceptable theoretical construct.

For thirty years professional mental health has been locked in this unproductive gridlock regarding the diagnosis of the pathology. Gardnerian PAS experts endlessly insisting that the pathology is a unique “new syndrome” within mental health, and establishment mental health endlessly telling them that the theoretical foundations of their construct lacked sufficient professional foundation. Round, and round, and round, in this same stale and unproductive debate that creates an echo-chamber for the Gardnerian PAS experts where they support each other in endlessly repeating the mantras of their model, but totally out of touch with the requirements of establishment mental health to propose a definition of the pathology from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs.

Round and round, for 30 years. Thirty years.  Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This is insane.

We need to end this insanity. We need to solve the pathology of “parental alienation” by ending this unproductive debate. In order to do this, we must give up our rigid insistence that establishment mental health accept a “new syndrome” model as defined by Gardnerian PAS. It’s not going to happen. Establishment mental health is not going to accept a Gardnerian PAS model for the pathology. Ever. Thirty years. Scoreboard.

To solve the pathology of “parental alienation” requires a change. It requires that we change to a new paradigm for defining the pathology. The attachment-based model for describing the pathology was created specifically for this purpose. It meets the standards of establishment mental health that the pathology be defined exclusively through established and scientifically valid forms of existing psychopathology. Done.

An attachment-based model meets this standard and can bring all of mental health together into a single voice as your ally in resolving the pathology of “parental alienation.”

The solution requires a paradigm shift to an attachment-based model for the pathology.

Targeted parents understand this. They will be going to battle to achieve the paradigm shift that’s necessary to solve the pathology in their families. They need your help. Don’t abandon them to fight this battle on their own. Join them and add your professional voices to theirs in a call for a new paradigm.

Because if you continue to hold onto the failed Gardnerian PAS paradigm for some unknown reason, then you become part of the problem which must be overcome. You have fought for so long and so hard, don’t become part of the problem now, at this moment when we are finally at the brink of solving the pathology of “parental alienation.” I know I’m an “outsider” and I’m not part of the club of Gardnerian PAS experts, and I know it’s hard for you to relinquish your beloved model of Gardnerian PAS which you’ve fought for so strenuously for 30 years.

But to achieve a solution to the pathology of “parental alienation,” we must sacrifice our intransigent insistence that establishment mental health accept a Gardnerian PAS “new syndrome” as a condition of solving the pathology of “parental alienation.” We must let go of the Gardnerian PAS model. Its time is done. A new model for the pathology has arrived that is specifically designed to solve the pathology of “parental alienation.” You must allow me to solve “parental alienation.” I know exactly what needs to happen – and it requires a paradigm shift to an attachment-based model for the pathology.

That’s why I developed the attachment-based model, specifically for this purpose based on an analysis of what was needed in order to fix the broken mental health response to the pathology. We need the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model rather than the eight Gardnerian PAS symptom indicators, and we need the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed that these three diagnostic indicators provide.

If you join us in this new paradigm, I assure you that you will find that a wealth of new opportunities in research and diagnosis emerge that were not available under the Gardnerian PAS model.

But if you continue to propose the eight symptom identifiers of Gardnerian PAS rather than helping us replace these with the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model which we need in order to enact the solution to “parental alienation” then you become part of the problem and you become my adversary. I don’t want this. But neither will I shrink from this.

I will stand in the center of this battlefield and I will fight with steadfast determination for targeted parents and their children, with all the firm commitment and necessary ferocity needed to achieve a solution. I will take the fight to incompetent “reunification therapists,” I will take the fight to child custody evaluators, I will take the fight to the minions of the pathogen, I will take the fight to the APA, and I will take the fight to you if necessary. Please don’t make it necessary. But understand this, the solution to the pathology of “parental alienation” REQUIRES a paradigm shift from the failed Gardnerian PAS model to an attachment-based model. The days of abandoning children to Psychological Child Abuse are over.

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

Karen Woodall is one of the most beloved experts in “parental alienation” and her efforts on the behalf of targeted parents and their children are legendary and heroic.

Dr. Childress is one of staunchest and fiery allies of targeted parents and their children.

Dr. Childress provides a blunt and caustic challenge to Karen Woodall.

Why?

To make a point.

So Karen…

The solution to “parental alienation” REQUIRES a paradigm shift from a Gardnerian PAS model to an attachment-based model of the pathology.

I don’t care if you don’t see it. Trust me, it does.

For nearly a year now I’ve been alerting Gardnerian PAS experts that this day is coming when we must sacrifice the Gardnerian PAS model in order to achieve a solution to the pathology of “parental alienation.” I know it will be hard for them. They have fought for so long and with such valor and determination to have the Gardnerian PAS model accepted by establishment mental health.

And then this outsider is going to come along and tell them that they have to give up their beloved PAS model of “parental alienation.” They know every nook and cranny of this beloved model. They’ve lived it and breathed it for decades.

But to achieve synthesis with establishment mental health, which we must do to achieve a solution, we must sacrifice the Gardnerian PAS model for the pathology.

I knew this from the start. The mental health system is broken and rife with incompetence. We must clear out all of the professional incompetence. But a Gardnerian PAS model didn’t allow us to do that because it wasn’t accepted by establishment mental health. It was “controversial.” It did not allow us to establish standards of practice to which mental health professionals could be held accountable.

Then, when I looked to the legal system I saw that the response of this system was also massively broken. We could not get an appropriate legal response because mental health was not giving clear direction to the legal system.  Why?  Because of the Gardnerian PAS model. It was too hard to prove. If one mental health professional says it’s “parental alienation” another one says no it’s not. Even if some symptoms are present it’s considered only moderate alienation and no effective action is taken. And courts are reluctant to separate the child from the supposedly bonded relationship with the allied narcissistic/borderline parent, so they’d order “reunification therapy” that was undermined by the allied narcissistic/borderline parent and which was totally ineffective. It was, and is, a complete mess.

And if the allied parent made allegations of child abuse then another whole level presented itself. Immediately, the targeted parent lost visitation for six months, a year, two years, and was sometimes placed on supervised visitation. All the while the alienation becomes more firmly entrenched. The entirety of the surrounding systems were a complete and total mess.

So… where to start.

First, any solution that requires targeted parents to prove parental alienation in court is no solution at all. The financial cost of proving “parental alienation” in court is prohibitive to the vast majority of targeted parents. Proving “parental alienation” in court takes way too long, years that are lost to the relationship of the child with the beloved targeted parent, years that can never by recovered, and all the while during the legal process the alienation becomes ever more firmly entrenched. It’s also far too easy for the narcissistic/borderline personality to manipulate the legal system with delays, and delays, and delays, and to nullify court orders by simply disregarding them, forcing the targeted parent into endlessly seeking additional court redress, costing more and more money, draining the financial ability of the targeted parent to continue to fight the alienation.

Any solution that requires targeted parents to prove parental alienation in court is no solution whatsoever.

So what then? The solution must come from mental health. How?

If we try to diagnose “parental alienation” it’s too subtle. Because of my expertise in family systems therapy and early childhood mental health, the role-reversal use of the child as a regulatory object stands out with neon lights. But for most incompetent mental health professionals, they totally miss it. They don’t know what they’re doing so they get caught in the manipulative drama that the narcissistic/borderline parent and child play out before them.

And the manipulation of the child into the role-reversal relationship doesn’t happen by “badmouthing” the other parent. It’s much more subtle. The child first is induced into stabilizing the emotional and psychological state of the narcissistic/borderline parent to prevent the psychological collapse of this parent into dysregulation.  Then, once the child is a regulatory object for the parent, the child is easily induced into being a “victim” of the supposedly “abusive” parenting of the targeted parent. But no one – and I mean no one – was talking about that. It seemed everyone thought that the manipulation of the child occurred in a more direct way through saying bad things about the other parent.

And then there’s the anxiety variant of the pathology, where the child would have “panic attacks” at visitation transfers, and later at even the thought of an upcoming visitation with the targeted parent. How can we educate all mental health professionals in all of the subtleties of the induction and expression process?

Okay. First things first.  We need to clear out professional incompetence and get to only a select set of experts who assess, diagnose, and treat this type of pathology. How do we do that? We need standard and established domains of professional competence to which all mental health professionals can be held accountable. Can Gardnerian PAS give us these domains? No, because Gardnerian PAS is not accepted by establishment mental health and because it is not defined using any accepted and established forms of pathology to which we can hold mental health professionals accountable.

So the first thing we’re going to need to do is develop a model of the pathology that gives us clear and well-defined domains of professional competence to which we can hold all mental health professionals accountable in order to clear out all of the incompetent mental health professionals so that we’re only working with a select group of experts.

Another failure of the Gardnerian PAS model is by  proposing that the pathology is a “new syndrome” it gives establishment mental health the opportunity to reject it. Which establishment mental health did. So in this new model we must define the pathology entirely using standard and fully established psychological principles and constructs that don’t give establishment mental health the opportunity to reject the model because everything about the model is all based entirely on established and existing forms of already accepted pathology.

One of the biggest hurdles so far, one that is still only partially accomplished, has been changing the mindset of everyone to realize that if the model is properly structured we don’t need establishment mental health to accept anything, because everything is already standard and established stuff.  Everyone, including the critics, are all so used to the “new syndrome” idea that they’re having a rough time breaking free of that mindset.  Personality disorders are not “Dr. Childress’ new model” – the attachment system is not “Dr. Childress’ new model.”  It’s not even “parental alienation” – it’s a cross-generational coalition.  The “new syndrome” mindset is so deeply embedded in everyone. 

That’s why a solution is available right this moment but no one sees it, because everyone is thinking “new syndrome” rather than established pathology.  I’m a clinical psychologist.  All the pathology is right there, and it’s always been there.  It’s just that everyone is so conceptually captivated by the “new syndrome” mindset they didn’t apply standard models of psychopathology.  If people can just break free of the “new syndrome” mindset they’ll realize that the solution has been there all along, like Dorthy’s ruby slippers.

Another problem we face, however, is if we try to prove “parental alienation” by the allied pathological parent then we’re chasing the narcissistic/borderline parent down a rabbit hole of trying to prove the parent’s pathology and subtle actions (“I’m just listening to the child”). We can’t get trapped into trying to prove the bad parenting of the allied narcissistic/borderline parent.  That’s just a rabbit hole of endless frustration.

Wait a minute, if we switch to the construct of “pathogenic parenting” then we can remain totally with the child’s symptoms, and then extrapolate to the parenting practices that produce that specific set of child symptoms. So what symptoms are the key identifiers of the pathology?

And so I set about unraveling the pathology.

This road didn’t just suddenly come about. I’ve been working on this for seven years. I’m a pretty smart guy, and I’ve studied the pathology in detail, and I bring a unique perspective out of early childhood mental health and the neuro-development of brain systems.  If you know the attachment system, you can diagnose the pathology on the attachment system display alone (it has to do with it being a “goal corrected primary motivational system”).  there is so much more that I haven’t even gotten to yet.  I’m just waiting for people to catch up.  For example, I haven’t even begun to address the intersubjectivity system accounting for the “psychological enmeshment” in the pathology (what Tronick refers to as a “dyadic state of consciousness” involving mutual co-regulation of psychological states). 

I studied every nook and cranny of this pathology and I wove a model that is going to catch it. Three diagnostic indicators. Gotcha. Pathogenic parenting. Totally focused on the child’s symptom display. Totally defined using standard and established symptom identifiers. And giving us the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed – not Suspected… Confirmed.

And establishment mental health can’t avoid it because it’s all standard and established stuff.

Ooooo, but I need to avoid getting locked into establishment mental health nitpicking the pathology. So I need to define it at a micro level. It’s going to get kicked into the experts on personality disorders and the attachment system within the citadel for vetting. It has to withstand that. Reading, reading, reading. Kernberg, Millon, Bowlby, Beck, van der Kolk, research and more research, disorganized attachment, narcissistic personalities, unraveling, unraveling. Seven years in preparation for this point right now.

And then, how do I explain it to people. It’s so complex and interwoven. It’s a knot of pathology expressed across generations of trauma. Try to explain it this way, that way, another way. Three levels, family systems level, personality level, attachment level, yeah, that seems to work the best.

Done. Foundations. Now we have domains of professional competence to which we can hold mental health professionals accountable. Now we can begin to clear out the massive incompetence and get down to a select group of experts who know what they’re doing.

Three diagnostic indicators. Don’t give them a choice to be incompetent. If the three diagnostic indicators are present, it’s V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. Get ready for the “No it’s not – prove it.” I’m ready. Nothing yet. Pretty straightforward – pathogenic parenting creating developmental pathology, personality pathology, and delusional pathology. Prepare for the challenge to delusional pathology. I’m ready. It will hold.

Three diagnostic indicators then ALL mental health professionals must make a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. Standards of practice to which ALL mental health professionals can be held accountable. Clear out the incompetence.

Duty to protect. Encourage (require) the mental health professional to file a child abuse report with Child Protective Services. CPS won’t know what to do initially, but as these reports start coming in more and more they will read up on the attachment-based model and adopt the same framework for assessing the pathology. Three diagnostic indicators = V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. The targeted parent will then have two independently provided diagnoses of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed to take into the court system.

There is so much more. So much more.

But this is no accident. I didn’t suddenly wake up one morning and say, hmmm, I think I’ll come up with an idea to solve parental alienation.

Seven years I’ve been working out exactly – exactly – what’s needed to fix both the broken mental health system and the legal system surrounding their response to this pathology. And this is it.

I’m sixty years old. I’ve already had one stroke. My time is limited. I’m an ADHD guy who got sidetracked into this pathology. I want to go back to writing my ADHD and parenting books. There’s some amazing stuff I’ve got with that, but I can’t get to it because I’m busy with this “parental alienation” stuff. We need to wrap up this pathology first, then I can go back to ADHD and neuro-developmental parenting.

The focal target is the Position Statement of the APA. We want them to acknowledge the existence of the pathology, and they have no choice. The pathology is NOT “parental alienation, it’s narcissistic and borderline personality pathology. They have no choice but to acknowledge the pathology. I purposely didn’t give them a choice. This will completely address the “parental alienation” doesn’t exist statement.

A major symbolic shift will occur when the APA changes their position statement to acknowledge that the pathology exists. And they will change it because they have no choice.  When they do, it will create a tectonic shift in our response to the pathology of “parental alienation.” I don’t care what they call the pathology. If they object to the term “parental alienation” then we’ll compromise on “pathogenic parenting.”  The details of what they call the pathology are less important than that they formally acknowledge that the pathology (i.e., the impact of narcissistic and borderline personality pathology on family relationships following divorce) exists.

By the way, the term “pathogenic” is an established term in clinical psychology and developmental psychology. It was a term used in the DSM-IV TR related to Reactive Attachment Disorder

“Pathogenic care as evidenced by at least one of the following…” (DSM-IV TR p. 170)

Seven years. Detail by detail. I am not giving establishment mental health a choice.

Pathogenic care is their word.  They have no choice but to recognize the pathology of “pathogenic care” – we’re just adapting the term to this pathology.  The presence in the child’s symptom display of Diagnostic Indicator 1 attachment system suppression (notice that the use of the term pathogenic care in the DSM-IV TR is related to an attachment disorder – every detail), Diagnostic Indicator 2 personality disorder traits, Diagnostic indicator 3 delusional beliefs = pathogenic care. The APA doesn’t have a choice. Gardner made a mistake in his “new syndrome” proposal because it gives them the choice to reject it. And they did.  I saw that. I’m not making the same mistake. I’m not giving them the choice to accept or reject any of this.

The delusional belief (Diagnostic Indicator 3) is really interesting. That potentially has the most vulnerability because the construct of delusions is not widely understood. In my younger days, before entering my ADHD work, I worked for about 15 years on a clinical research project at UCLA on schizophrenia. Every two weeks with each patient we would administer the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale of 18 symptom domains, including severity of delusional beliefs, rated on a seven-point scale from not present to severe. Every year we would go through reliability training. I know delusions. The cutoff of pathological is a rating of 4 on the seven-point scale. Below a rating of 4 the beliefs are unusual, but broadly normal-range. Above a rating of 4 they become pathological. I know the difference between a delusion rating of a 3 and a delusion rating a 4. I know the difference between a delusion rating a 5 and a delusion rating a 6. I know delusions. That’s what allowed me to recognize the delusion in “parental alienation.” It would be considered an “encapsulated persecutory delusion” with a rating of between 5 and 6. The delusional belief of the parent is between a 6 and 7. The actual pathology is a shared delusional disorder.

But in order to support this diagnostic indicator of the delusional belief, I needed to describe it’s theoretical support in the attachment-trauma reenactment narrative and the misattribution of anxiety by the narcissistic/borderline parent. This stuff is solid.

And the delusion is what kicks the pathogenic care into Child Psychological Abuse. There is no way establishment mental health can argue that inducing a delusional belief in the child, particularly one that results in the loss of a normal-range relationship with an affectionally available parent, does NOT represent pathogenic care. I’m not giving them a choice.

So the moment the APA adjusts its position statement to acknowledge that the pathology exists, this will send a seismic shockwave through all of mental health, both in the U.S. and abroad, particularly since this change in the position statement is caused by the advocacy of targeted parents. The pathology exists. Done. No argument.

Then, we also have the second change to the position statement: “special population” status. By defining the construct entirely within standard and established psychological constructs and principles that establishment mental health MUST acknowledge, I have established domains of professional knowledge required for professional competence, attachment trauma pathology, personality pathology, family systems pathology. The actual areas are less important than the change to the position statement establishing these families as a “special population” requiring specialized professional knowledge and expertise.

How can the APA possibly argue that professional ignorance is acceptable?   They have to relent on this. Then immediately we have achieved the goal of banishing professional incompetence. And it’s all high-profile, so all mental health professionals know that the pathology of “parental alienation” has been formally recognized (I don’t care what they call it) and that it requires specialized professional training and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat.

So who does this training? Hey, I know. How about you Karen? You know this pathology extremely well. Hey, how about the other PAS experts who know this pathology from years of experience. Hey, why don’t we have some conferences to put together the training curriculum required for professional competence?

This is not an accident. I know exactly what I’m doing. And there’s more. Much more.

Then I’ll go back to writing my ADHD book and then I’ll die, leaving all of you with this gift.

But all of this – all of this – requires a switch from the Gardnerian PAS model to the attachment-based model. If we go to the APA and ask them to acknowledge that Gardnerian PAS exists and that Gardnerian PAS warrants the designation as a special population, none of this is possible.  Their position statement is already about Gardnerian PAS, and you see how well that worked out.  We can only seek a change to the position statement using an attachment-based reformulation of the pathology.  That’s why I did it.

The Gardnerian PAS models does not give us a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed and the Gardnerian PAS model does not give us a change to the APA position statement.

All of this – all of this – requires a paradigm shift from the Gardnerian PAS description of the pathology to an attachment-based description of the pathology. And there’s more I haven’t discussed.

So all of the Gardnerian PAS experts, including yourself, who continue to hold onto the Gardnerian PAS model and it’s eight diagnostic indicators have now become part of the problem. We must enact a paradigm shift to an attachment-based model to achieve a solution to “parental alienation.”

This needs to happen.  I know you don’t see it.  But it needs to happen.

I know I’m an “outsider” and I’m not part of the “club” of parental alienation experts who have been fighting this fight for so long and with such determination. I know it’s hard to have this “outsider” come in and tell you that you have to give up your beloved PAS model and adopt his new model. I know it’s hard. But it needs to happen.

There is a terrific World War II movie with Alec Guinness and William Holden, The Bridge on the River Kwai. In the movie, the Alec Guinness character is a British officer who is a prisoner of war, and he develops an esprit de corps in his troops surrounding their building a quality bridge for their Japanese captors. At the end of the movie there’s a wonderful scene where the Alec Guinness character tries to prevent the bridge that he built for the Japanese from being blown up by British commandos because he has become so psychologically attached to the bridge that he has lost sight of the overall context of the war.

I am the William Holden character sent to blow up the bridge. Sorry. I am encouraging all PAS experts to recognize the overall context of the war we are fighting. We must blow up the bridge of Gardnerian PAS to achieve the victory in our war with the pathology of “parental alienation.” The longer we hold onto the Gardnerian PAS model and its eight symptom identifiers, the longer the solution is delayed.

I purposefully and carefully crafted an attachment-based model of the pathology across seven years for specifically this purpose, to solve the broken mental health system response to the pathology of “parental alienation.” From this solution, ripples will emerge that will spread into the legal system and to the mental health systems in other countries. Your challenge in the UK will not be solved by another 10 or 20 years of direct fighting. The U.S. may be more advanced than the UK in our response to the pathology, but it’s still an absolute mess over here in the U.S. Everything is broken. Everything.

But when the APA in the U.S. changes its position statement on “The Family Pathology of Parental Alienation” a major tectonic shift will occur that will ripple through all mental health systems in all countries. The pathology formally exists, the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of the pathology will require specialized training and expertise, and the pathology will receive a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

You are a beloved leader within the “parental alienation” community. Your support or lack of support will speed up or slow down the pace by which we achieve this solution. Dr. Childress and his commandos are going to blow up the bridge. If you try to save the bridge, you become part of the problem.

I don’t care one whit for professional sandboxes. The only thing I care about is bringing an end to this pathology as quickly as humanly possible.  If you become part of the problem then you’re in the line of fire.  Watch the ending to The Bridge on the River Kwai.  We are going to blow up the bridge, we need to blow up the bridge of Gardnerian PAS in order to create the systems changes needed to enact the solution.

If you don’t see that, well… with you or without you we will blow up the bridge.

If you try to hold onto the Gardnerian PAS model, you will become part of the problem that will need to be overcome. If you work with us to create the paradigm shift, then you greatly speed up the pace by which we achieve a solution.

I’m 60 years old.  I want to go back to writing my ADHD and parenting books.  I’m trying to give you and all targeted parents a gift of a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology of “parental alienation” and formal recognition of the pathology by the APA, along with their formal recognition that the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of the pathology requires specialized training, knowledge and expertise. Why are you looking a gift horse in the mouth?  You can wait until after I’m dead to adopt the model and enact the solution, but if you do it while I’m still around I can be of much more use to targeted parents and their children.  Up to you.

The Gardnerian PAS model offers no solution whatsoever.  Any solution that it even potentially offers is only available by proving “parental alienation” in court.  That is no solution whatsoever.

The solution must come out of changes to the mental health system. The solution requires a paradigm shift to an attachment-based model.  That is exactly why I worked out every detail of this model across seven years of formulation.  It is no coincidence that I began to shift the terminology to “pathogenic” and that the DSM-IV refers to “pathogenic care” with regarding to a disorder in the attachment system.  Every detail.  If you think things are fine, then keep on with what your doing.  But otherwise, let me solve this pathology. 

The solution REQUIRES a shift from the Gardnerian PAS model to an attachment-based model.  We need the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model to replace the eight diagnostic indicators of the Gardnerian PAS model. This needs to happen.  Otherwise, everything stays just the same for the next 30 years.

If you continue to advocate for maintenance of the Gardnerian PAS model you become part of the problem that we will need to overcome.  If you support the paradigm shift you can speed up the process immeasurably.  I am going to blow up the bridge. That is a fact.  Because it needs to happen to win the war.

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

The Gardnerian PAS experts who are advocating that we hold onto the status quo of the failed Gardnerian PAS model are not your allies, they have become part of the problem.

In their rigid insistence that establishment mental health must accept a “new syndrome” which is unique in all of mental health they are provoking and maintaining the unproductive and unnecessary division in mental health that is failing to provide an appropriate diagnosis and appropriate resolution to the pathology being expressed in your families.

They live in an echo-chamber of their own self-creation which is out of touch with the broader field of establishment mental health – just look to the APA’s position statement on the “so called” Parental Alienation Syndrome – and they are therefore refusing to accept the constructive criticism being offered to them by establishment mental health that the Gardnerian PAS proposal of a “new syndrome” that is unique in all of mental health, with its eight equally unique symptom identifiers, is NOT at a professionally acceptable standard of theoretical rigor.  And, as a clinical psychologist, I actually agree with this assessment of the Gardnerian PAS model.

I teach graduate level courses in Diagnosis and Psychopathology.  If a student submitted the Gardnerian PAS model to me as a definition for the pathology of “parental alienation” I’d give it a D.

Stop it. 

This inflexible insistence that professional psychology must accept a “new syndrome” which is unique in all of mental health and which is defined by an equally unique set of eight symptom identifiers as a condition to solving the pathology of “parental alienation” is NOT serving the needs of targeted parents and their children.  We need to apply the professional rigor necessary to define the pathology of “parental alienation” from entirely – entirely – within standard and established psychological constructs and principles.  No “new syndrome” proposals.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy is not a recognized pathology, battered women’s syndrome is not a recognized pathology, Stockholm syndrome is not a recognized pathology, and Parental Alienation Syndrome is not a recognized pathology. Establishment mental health does not accept “new syndrome” proposals.  If a student submits a “new syndrome” proposal for defining a pathology, it’s going to get a D.  “New syndrome” proposals are intellectually lazy.  Do the work.  Define the pathology from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs.

Thirty years. Thirty years this has been going on.  Einstein offered a classic definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Gardnerians put on a full-court press with the DSM-5.  The result?  Complete rejection.  Nada.  Zip.  Nothing.  Thirty years this has been going on and they have achieved EXACTLY the situation we have right now. What we have right now is the direct product of a Gardnerian PAS model.

And yet Karen Woodall contends that to switch away from the completely failed Gardnerian PAS model would represent an “unnecessary diversion.”  An unnecessary diversion from what? Another 30 years of absolutely no solution?  And let me just say something that is 100% obvious to EVERY targeted parent… Any solution that requires that targeted parents prove “parental alienation” in court offers NO solution whatsoever.

So why are they holding on so hard to a Gardnerian PAS model when an attachment-based model is defined entirely from within standard and established, fully accepted, scientifically supported psychological constructs and principles and provides an immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed?  From where I sit, it appears as if they would rather continue the unnecessary and unproductive struggle of the “heroic rebel alliance” against the “evil empire” of establishment mental health, than bring this struggle to an end.  They seemingly want to maintain the status quo of a failed Gardnerian PAS model.  Why? 

I’m a clinical psychologist, I know why.  But I suspect it may be becoming increasingly obvious to everyone else. Why are they fighting so hard to maintain the status quo of the Gardnerian PAS model?

An attachment-based model of the pathology offers you and your families an immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed based on the presence in the child’s symptom display of three definitive diagnostic indicators that are defined entirely by standard forms of existing and fully accepted symptomatology. And the Gardnerian PAS experts are saying, “No thank you. We don’t want a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for this pathology.”

Wow. Really? You’re being offered a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, made by ALL mental health professionals when the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology are present in the child’s symptom display, and you’re turning this down. Wow.

Let me turn to you, the targeted parents who are suffering from this extremely severe and tragic family pathology… will you accept a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse regarding the parenting practices of your narcissistic/(borderline) ex- made by ALL mental health providers when the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology are present?

If so, then it looks like we’re going to have to go get it on our own, because your allies in the Gardnerian PAS contingent of mental health professionals are turning down this diagnosis.

We will have to fight for it. The ignorance and incompetence of the mental health system is profound. But we can achieve it.  But apparently you will see no allies coming from the Gardnerian PAS experts. They appear to be abandoning you to fight this coming battle on your own.

It appears that the Gardnerian PAS experts don’t want a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for this pathology if it means giving up the Gardnerian PAS model of the pathology that has provided NO SOLUTION to the pathology in over 30 years since it was first proposed. The Gardnerian PAS model has given us exactly the situation we have right now… and the Gardnerian PAS experts want to continue with this model of the pathology. Why?

Why aren’t they jubilant that we finally have a model of the pathology that provides a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse made by ALL mental health professionals when the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology are evident in the child’s symptom display?  Why aren’t they bringing their banners onto the battlefield to join us in enacting this solution?  Why are they abandoning you to fight this battle on your own?

If we continue with the Gardnerian PAS model, everything stays just the way it is.  If we switch to an attachment-based model of the pathology this provides an immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.  But apparently for Ms. Woodall, obtaining an immediately actualized DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed for the pathology of “parental alienation” represents an “unnecessary diversion.” 

Uhhh, okay…  So you continue on with what’s working for you.  The rest of us are going to go get the DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology of “parental alienation” that’s offered by a switch to an attachment-based model.

Read the critique of Drs. Bernet and Reay of Foundations

Old Wine in Old Skins

According to Drs. Bernet and Reay, an attachment-based model of the pathology is nothing new, it’s just Gardnerian PAS with new words.

But these “new words” provide the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed made by ALL mental health professionals when the three diagnostic indicators provided by these “new words” are present in the child’s symptom display.

But they would rather maintain the status quo.  Nothing new.  No changes. And no DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse for the pathology. Let’s keep everything just the way it is.

Read the critique of Foundations by Karen Woodall,

An Unnecessary Diversion for the UK

An attachment-based model for the pathology is giving you and your allies in mental health a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse made by ALL mental health providers when the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology are present, and Karen Woodall is calling this an “unnecessary diversion.”  She would rather continue with things just the way they are.  Uhhhh, okay then.

I am astounded. And disappointed. But it is what it is. It appears you must fight this fight alone. Your allies among the experts in Gardnerian PAS have apparently abandoned you on this battlefield, seemingly because they would rather maintain the Gardernian PAS model than achieve a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as Child Psychological Abuse made by ALL mental health professionals when the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model are present in the child’s symptom display. They are turning down a DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed because they expressly want things to remain exactly as they are because, and I’m not quite sure what their thinking is on this because they’re not telling us, they somehow envision that a Gardnerian PAS model is going to provide some solution.  What solution?  Lay it out for us.  Help us understand what the solution is that you envision from a Gardnerian PAS model.

For my part, I will stand with targeted parents and your children squarely in the center of this battlefield, and I will fight with you for your children.  The pathology of “parental alienation” is not a child custody issue, it is a child protection issue.

The Critiques of Foundations

The attacks on Foundations by the Gardnerian experts are weak and essentially nonsensical.

The attack of Drs. Bernet and Reay was that there is nothing new in an attachment-based model, it’s simply Gardnerian PAS with different words.

My Response: Three diagnostic indicators that yield a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse. That’s new.

The attack of Karen Woodall was that an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” does not address cases of non-alienation when the targeted parent shares responsibility for the alienation (“hybrid cases”).

My Response: I’m only addressing cases of “parental alienation.” If the targeted parent is responsible for the child’s hostility and rejection, then this isn’t “parental alienation.”

But there are also several subtexts in Karen Woodall’s critique that I find disturbing:

1. “Hybrid” Cases:  I am deeply concerned by Karen Woodall’s assertion that in a majority of cases targeted parents share in the responsibility for their alienation, and I suspect that this assertion by Karen Woodall sends a chill down targeted parents.

It appears as if she is blaming you for your alienation and is criticizing Foundations because it is not also placing the blame on you for your child’s extremely distorted response to you (i.e., that Foundations does not address the supposed majority of “hybrid cases” when the targeted parent is also to blame for the child’s rejection and is only addressing the allegedly small percentage of cases in which the targeted parent is not also to blame for the alienation).

If the targeted parent is responsible for the child’s rejection, then this is not “parental alienation.” If, on the other hand, the targeted parent is not responsible for the child’s rejection (i.e., the rejection is “unwarranted”), then this is “parental alienation.”  I am only addressing cases of “parental alienation.”

2. No Protective Separation:  I am also deeply concerned that Karen Woodall advocates that we leave the child with the psychologically abusive narcissistic/borderline parent. I am in strong disagreement with this. In all cases of child abuse, physical child abuse, sexual child abuse, and psychological child abuse, our overriding concern should be ensuring the child’s protection from the abusive parent. We DO NOT leave the child in the care of an actively abusive parent. Ever.

We do not abandon the child to a physically abusive parent. We do not abandon the child to a sexually abusive parent. We do not abandon the child to a psychologically abusive parent. We do not abandon the child. Ever.

3. Advocacy:  Karen Woodall complains that targeted parents have become empowered to self-advocacy and now she is having to convince them not to fight for their children. If we as mental health professionals don’t fight for these children, then we leave the targeted parents with no choice but to fight themselves for their children. If you don’t want targeted parents to fight for their children, then I suggest you pick up your sword and spear and that you go to battle for them with the incompetent mental health professionals, because abandoning children to psychological child abuse is no longer an option.

The battle is here. You’re either on the battlefield with us, or we go it alone without you. But the only option that is NOT acceptable is the continued abandonment of children to psychological child abuse.

These are the arguments offered by the Gardnerian PAS experts as to why they are turning down a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse for your children and families when the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology are present (Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting).  There is no substance to their position.

The Gardnerian PAS model offers us more of the same.

More of the same is unacceptable.

What is the solution you’re proposing?  How long are you asking targeted parents to wait for your solution?  Another 10 years, 20 years?  It’s already been thirty years of the Gardnerian PAS model without a solution.  How much longer are you asking targeted parents to wait? And wait for what?  What specifically do you see as the solution?  Do you think establishment mental health is suddenly going to just go, “Oh. We’ve changed our mind and a unique new syndrome unrelated to any other pathology in all of mental health and defined by an equally unique set of diagnostic indicators that are also not associated with any other pathology in mental health, that’s now okay with us.”  Lay it out for us.  What’s your plan for the solution?

Because if you have no plan – and you don’t, because if you do, tell us what it is – then I suggest we go for a DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed which is provided immediately by a switch to an attachment-based definition of the pathology. 

But I guess we can expect no help in this from Drs. Bernet or Reay, because they don’t see the difference between an attachment-based model of the pathology and a Gardnerian PAS model, or from Karen Woodall because she’s too busy with whatever solution she has going, and obtaining an immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological  Abuse, Confirmed from ALL mental health professionals would divert her attention from whatever solution she’s working on, or from any of the other Gardnerian PAS experts who are essentially ignoring that an attachment-based description of the pathology even exists,

So if targeted parents are to achieve an accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of this pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed then I guess it’s going to be up to us to create this change on our own, because apparently your allies among the Gardnerian PAS experts will hold to the Gardnerian PAS model which will give us nothing but more of the same. Your allies in the Gardnerian PAS contingent are apparently turning down an immediately available confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse regarding the parenting practices of your ex- which is being offered to them by a switch to an attachment-based model of the pathology because it’s an “unnecessary diversion” from… something, I don’t know what.  No one’s laid out an alternative plan except just more of the same.

I’m astounded.  But it is what it is.

Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed

Here’s the plan offered by an attachment-based model of the pathology

Assessment:

All mental health professionals are required by professional practice standards to provide an assessment “sufficient to substantiate” their diagnostic findings (Standard 9.01a APA Ethics Code)

Symptom Checklist:

When addressing possible “parental alienation” pathology, ALL mental health professionals must at least assess for the pathogenic parenting of a narcissistic/borderline parent (as described and detailed in Foundations) by assessing for the presence of the associated clinical pathology indicative of pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/borderline parent (i.e., the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting).

Diagnosis:

If the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting are present in the child’s symptom display, then ALL mental health professionals must give the appropriate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed based on the presence in the child’s symptom display of severe developmental psychopathology (Diagnostic Indicator 1), personality disorder pathology (Diagnostic Indicator 2), and delusional psychiatric psychopathology (Diagnostic Indicator 3) that can only be the product of pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/(borderline) personality parent.

Hammer:

If the mental health professional refuses to conduct an appropriate assessment of the child’s attachment system display, of potential personality disorder traits in the child’s symptom display, and of the potential presence of a delusional belief evidenced in the child’s symptom display, then the mental health professional must explain why he or she declined to assess for specific domains of accepted psychopathology as part of his or her diagnostic assessment (this would be analogous to bringing a child in for an assessment of ADHD but the clinician refuses to assess for hyperactivity or attention problems).

If the three diagnostic indicators of pathogenic parenting (notice I didn’t use the words “parental alienation”) are present in the child’s symptom display and the mental health professional does NOT give the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, then the mental health professional must explain why inducing severe developmental pathology (Diagnostic Indicator 1), personality disorder pathology (Diagnostic Indicator 2), and psychiatric psychopathology (a delusional belief) in a child in order to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent does NOT represent child psychological abuse which would activate a “duty to protect” the child from the pathogenic parenting practices of the narcissistic/borderline parent.

There’s my plan. An immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse by ALL mental health professionals when the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology are present in the child’s symptom display.  Tag.  You’re it.  What’s your plan that you’re being diverted from?  How long do you think it will take to enact your plan that you’re being diverted from?  A year?  Five years?  Ten years?  How long are you asking targeted parents to wait for your solution?

Self-Advocacy

Note the nature of Karen Woodall’s criticism of targeted parents who advocate for an appropriate and legitimate diagnosis of the pathology.  You’re being criticized for being too strident, too assertive. Keep this in mind. This will be the criticism that you’ll receive when you begin trying to obtain professional competence.

In advocating one direction you will create a backlash in the other.

Watch the YouTube video on arguing:

Why internet arguments are useless and how to start winning arguments

(And while you’re at it, you may want to watch the Monty Python sketch on the Argument Clinic just to make you smile. Think of this sketch when you’re arguing with mental health professionals.)

Be kind. Use the suggestion of the Winning Arguments YouTube to ask the mental health professional to explain in detail why inducing pathology in a child is NOT psychological child abuse. Try not to be argumentative and assertive. Instead try to be relentlessly curious and inquisitive.

I’m sorry that you have to do all this. I’m sorry that you have to be smarter than the mental health professionals in order to educate them about things they should already know. And I’m sorry that the mental health professionals aren’t more mature and psychologically healthy themselves so you wouldn’t have to work so hard to take care of their egos.  But it is what it is.

Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus. Why can’t Blacks just know their place? Why do they have to be so “uppity” and so angry all the time? Why can’t they just be satisfied with their own segregated schools, separate but equal. Why can’t they just accept their place?

Why can’t women just accept their role as mothers? Why do they want to have an education and career as well? There are basic gender differences between men and women. Women are supposed to be mothers, why can’t they just accept that? A woman’s place is in the home.

Why do gays and lesbians need to make such a big deal about their sexuality? Why do they have to push their sexual orientation on us all the time? Do I go around telling people I’m heterosexual? Why can’t they just keep it to themselves, I don’t want to know about it.

Ignorance is ignorance. It’s tough. I’m sorry professional mental health is so ignorant.

Why do you have to keep harping on this “parental alienation” thing? Why can’t you just accept that you’re a bad parent and that the child doesn’t want to have anything to do with you. You need to just take responsibility for your own bad parenting and stop blaming the other wonderful parent who the child clearly loves.

Sigh.

For those of you assaulting the citadel of the APA, shame them that you have to educate mental health professionals who should already be educated. Shame them that you have to know more than the mental health professionals. Shame them that you are treated with disrespect and contempt by ignorant mental health professionals when all you’re seeking is professionally competent assessment and treatment. Shame the APA.

There is NO WAY that you should ever be treated so disrespectfully by ANY mental health professional. It is completely 100% inappropriate professional conduct. You should ALWAYS be treated with respect as a collaborative partner by ALL mental health professionals.  Always. 100% of the time.

Even with an authentically problematic parent, the mental health professional should show empathy and patience in explaining exactly how and why the problematic parenting is producing exactly the child response seen. I do this all the time with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and family problems.

Always – always – parents should be treated with respect as collaborative co-partners in their children’s therapy.  Always.  This is an expectation of professional practice.

For those targeted parents who are dealing directly with mental health professionals, I’m asking you to be more. More patient, more empathetic, more mature, more knowledgeable, more respectful, and kinder than the mental health professional. Do it for your children. Don’t indulge in venting your anger and frustration. Let me be the one who carries that for you. Venting your anger and frustration will never do you or your children any good. Use this family tragedy as an opportunity to grow in miraculous ways.

Be kind. Be respectful. Be self-reflective. Consider the opinions of others. The hallmark of a narcissistic personality is to externalize blame and responsibility. It’s always other people’s fault. They never accept personal responsibility. Don’t be narcissistic.

We reveal who we are by our actions, not our words.

Child:  “You never listen to me.”

Parent:  “Yes I do.”

Dr. Childress:  No you don’t. You didn’t listen just then.

Child:  “You never listen to me.”

Parent:  “Really, you think I don’t listen to you?  What do you want me to listen to?  What is it that you want me to know?”

Dr. Childress:  The child is wrong. The parent does listen to the child.

Show the mental health professional by your actions that you are not a narcissistic parent who is simply trying to externalize blame and responsibility for your own “bad parenting.” Be curious about receiving productive criticism regarding your approach to parenting. I know the child is delusional and your parenting is entirely normal-range. I know the child’s attitude is hostile and contemptuous for no reason because of the child’s narcissistic/(borderline) personality traits acquired from the other parent. I know all this. I get it.

But the current mental health professional doesn’t. Be kind. Be empathic. Be flexible and cooperative with the therapist. Show who you are by what you do, not by what you say.

In offering to educate the mental health professional you WILL absolutely produce backlash. That’s just the way of things (there’s actually a therapeutic intervention that uses this backlash effect, it’s called a “paradoxical intervention.” When the therapist wants the patient to do X the therapist tells the patient, “Whatever you do, don’t do X.” The patient then pushes back and does X. We’re tricky sometimes, us therapists).

When you say Foundations, the therapist WILL say, “No.” Expect it.

Remember the videos, (both the one on Backlash and the Monty Python Argument Clinic one).

Parent:  It’s “parental alienation”

Therapist:  No it isn’t.

Parent:  Yes it is.

Therapist:  No it isn’t.

Parent:  Look, this isn’t helpful.

Therapist:  Yes it is.

Parent:  No it isn’t

Therapist:  Oh, are you here for the 10 minute argument or for the full one hour argument?

The research on persuasion indicates that presenting people with rational arguments or with emotional arguments BOTH produce a backlash of strengthening the other person’s position. That’s just the way it is. Expect it. What can you do? Ask the other person to explain in detail their position. I’ll bet if targeted parents worked together, you could come up with various sorts of scripts for asking therapists to explain:

Parent:  So do you see my child’s behavior as oppositional and defiant or as a response to something problematic in my parenting?

Therapist:  Well, the child is saying that you’re too controlling.

Parent:  So is that what’s causing this? That I’m somehow trying to over-control my child?

Therapist:  Yes, it seems to be.

Parent:  In what way am I being over-controlling?

Therapist:  Well the child is saying that he/she doesn’t want to go on visitations with you and you’re forcing the child to do this.

Parent:  So wanting to see my child is being “over-controlling?”  But I love my child so much. I want to spend time with my child. Is that unusual? For a parent to love their child and want to spend time with the child?

Therapist:  No, that’s not unusual.

Parent:  Then how is loving my child and wanting to spend time with my child being too “controlling?”

Therapist:  Uhhh, I don’t know

Remember the Backlash video on arguing. We don’t understand things nearly as well as we initially think we do. If you can draw out the mental health professionals into explaining to your sincere curiosity, then you may be able to help them begin to question their incorrect beliefs.

Again, I’m sorry you have to do this. It shouldn’t be your job to educate mental health professionals. But it is what it is.

To Mental Health Allies

To all authentic mental health allies of targeted parents who are joining us on this battlefield to reclaim the mental health system from its ignorance, if we abandon these parents to professional incompetence then these parents must advocate for themselves. We must be the ones, those of us who are the mental health allies of these parents, we must be the ones to carry the advocacy to our colleagues – professional to professional. If we advocate, if we assert, if we push our colleagues for professional competence, then targeted parents won’t have to.

In this interim transition period in the paradigm shift, I can definitely see a role for authentic mental health allies of targeted parents to step-up and actively and assertively advocate for professionally competent practice and the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. If there were one to two mental health consultants available to these targeted parents in every major city who targeted parents could turn to and hire as consultants who would meet with the involved therapists and advocate for an attachment-based assessment of the parental alienation pathology, professional to professional, and for the proper DSM-5 diagnosis when the three diagnostic indicators are present in the child’s symptom display, then targeted parents wouldn’t need to self-advocate. They need allies in mental health who will carry the burden of advocating with the other mental health professionals in their specific case.

To targeted parents:  If you had a mental health professional available in your area who was knowledgeable in Foundations and an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” who you could hire as a professional consultant to meet with the current therapists involved in your family, would you hire this mental health consultant? 

You could meet with this consultant two or three times to explain your situation, and then the consultant could schedule meetings with the involved therapists (no release of information is necessary because we’re not asking the therapist to disclose information, the information is already disclosed to the consultant by the targeted parent). The consultant could then meet with you again to explain the outcome of these meetings. Would that be helpful to you?  Would you hire such a mental health consultant for your family?

If there are any mental health professionals who are knowledgeable about Foundations and an attachment-based model and are willing to serve targeted parents in the role of “mental health consultant” feel free to email me at drcraigchildress@gmail.com and I will post your names to my Facebook page and on my website. Targeted parents need authentic allies in mental health who are willing to advocate for them to obtain the legitimate and proper diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

And if any mental health professional agrees to serve as a consultant to a targeted parent, I am also available to provide secondary consultation as needed to this boots-on-the-ground consultant regarding an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.” If desired, I could even set up a periodic online GoToMeeting supervision group with these mental health consultants to talk about consultation experiences.

It’s not up to targeted parents to educate their mental health providers. That should be our job. Targeted parents need allies in mental health. Feel free to contact me if you’re willing to be such an ally.

The Gardnerian Response

I have heard anecdotally from targeted parents that the response of several Gardnerian PAS experts to an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” is “no comment,” and that these Gardnerian PAS experts see my work and position as being “divisive.”

To the extent that the motivation of these Gardnerian PAS experts is to maintain the status quo, they are 100% correct, I am being divisive because my motivation is to create change.

The status quo is unacceptable to me.

But from my perspective, I could equally argue that they are being divisive by not joining us in working for change, in not working for a DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology as V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, and by instead doing everything they can to maintain the status quo of Gardnerian PAS which provides no solution whatsoever.

So the perception of who’s being “divisive” is, I guess, just a matter of opinion. But from my perspective, I would tend to say that the person standing with the targeted parents is on the right path and that the one standing apart from targeted parents and who is advocating for the status quo that provides no solution is most likely on the wrong path. But that’s just me.

I find it intriguing that not a single Gardnerian PAS expert has broken ranks and advocated for a paradigm shift to an attachment-based model. Maybe they’re hoping that if they all hang together they can suppress this upstart attachment-based model from gaining acceptance.  I dunno.  It’s just intriguing.

From the initial critiques coming from the Gardnerian contingent of professionals there seem to be a couple of themes. The most prominent theme is that I’m not acknowledging the contribution of other “experts.” This is essentially an inter-professional argument that says I’m not allowing the other kids to play in the sandbox (“Who does that ol’ Dr. Childress think he is. This is our sandbox.”) 

My response: who cares.

The sandbox is going to become an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” because an attachment-based model provides targeted parents with a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse and will bring establishment mental health on board into a single voice, whereas a Gardnerian PAS model divides mental health into controversy and endless argument and it provides no DSM-5 diagnosis and no solution for the pathology.

The sandbox is going to become an attachment-based model.

Besides, the sand in the Gardnerian PAS sandbox has all sorts of cat poop in it. Just look at Gardner’s statements on pedophilia and incest (see The Shadow Side of PAS). And the sand in the Gardnerian sandbox is more like mud. The Gardnerian “new syndrome” proposal is not based in any established form of accepted and defined mental health pathology.

I don’t want to contaminate the sand in the attachment-based sandbox with the sand from the Gardnerian PAS sandbox. If you want to continue to play in the sandbox of Gardnerian PAS, more power to you. But I’m not going to play in that sandbox.

If mental health professionals want to be part of the solution to “parental alienation” that I describe throughout my blogs and in my most recent response to Karen Woodall, then they will need to join us in the attachment-based sandbox. We have lots of toys for everyone in this sandbox. The three diagnostic indicators offer a wonderful and much improved operational definition of the pathology for research purposes, and all of the associated clinical signs offer wonderful opportunities for correlational research in identifying the different variants of the pathology.  In terms of diagnosis, wouldn’t you love to get your hands on those 12 associated clinical signs of the pathology, things like the Exclusion Demand, the use of the word “forced” to describe being with the targeted parent, the Unforgiveable Event, or advocating for the child’s testimony in court.  Those juicy associated clinical signs are just waiting for you to switch to an attachment-based model, and I can explain each of them at a specific level, why they occur, from within an attachment-based model.

But a Gardnerian PAS model doesn’t give you a single one of those 12 associated clinical signs.  Pity.  Do you really think it’s in the best interests of targeted parents and their children to continue to hold onto a failed Gardnerian PAS model.  Really?

And an attachment-based model offers oodles of opportunities when it comes time for the DSM-5.1 revision in a few years.  I’ve already laid the seed for this effort with the “attachment-trauma reenactment pathology” label for the pathology.  With an attachment-based model of the pathology we have established constituencies with the DSM committees, particularly the Trauma and Stress Related Disorders committee with an argument for the trans-generational transmission of developmental trauma mediated by the personality disorder pathology of the parent. A much-much stronger case than a “new syndrome” unique in all of mental health effort – yet again.  And the diagnosis for this new trauma-related diagnosis uses the previously accepted DSM-IV criteria of a Shared Delusional Disorder. We just move this previously accepted DSM-IV diagnosis (and currently available ICD-10 diagnosis F24) from the Psychotic committee of the DSM to the Trauma committee.

There’s all sorts of toys for everyone over in this attachment-based sandbox. Come and play with us.

But I’m not going to play in that stinky ol’ Gardnerian PAS sandbox. It’s all full of cat poop and the sand is more like mud than sand.  If you want to play with us, you’ll need to play in the fresh sand of an attachment-based model of the pathology that gives us a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.

But as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care one whit for inter-professional arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The only thing I care about is creating a solution to the deep family tragedy of “parental alienation” as quickly as is humanly possible. We sure could use all the help we can get with this.

The DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed for the pathogenic parenting practices evidenced in the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” are available today.  Right now. This instant.

Not only that, it’s also the correct and accurate clinical diagnosis.

The only thing that is stopping this solution from being actualized right now, today, this instant, is the generalized ignorance within mental health that an attachment-based model exists.

My estimate is that with the active advocacy of our boots-on-the-ground infantry of targeted parents and our flanking cavalry assaulting the citadel of the APA, we can achieve a solution to the pathology of “parental alienation” by Christmas of 2016. That’s my goal, that by Christmas of 2016 this will all be over. My goal is to have all the current children of currently active alienation back in the arms of their authentic parents by Christmas of 2016.  Then we set about recovering the adult children of childhood alienation.

Could we achieve the solution sooner?  Possibly.  It sure would help if we had the active support of the Gardnerians to create this change.  But it is what it is.  During the first round of education there will be backlash.  But we are relentless.  We are fighting for your children.  Join together.  Become a tsunami.  Become an unstoppable force.

I offer an open call to all mental health professionals who understand the family tragedy of “parental alienation” and want to bring it to an end to join us in our effort to acquire the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed for the three diagnostic indicators created by the pathogenic parenting of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent surrounding divorce.

I will fight ferociously for the authentically protective parents who are targeted by this extreme and malicious pathology, and for their children. My adversaries in this battle are all mental health professionals, on any side, who seek to prevent the actualization of a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed for the pathogenic parenting evidenced in the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation.”

We must bring the division in mental health into a “synthesis” of both sides of the issue and bring to an end this decades long unproductive and unnecessary debate. An attachment-based model of “parental alienation” offers both sides this synthesis.

It addresses the needs of establishment mental health to define the pathology entirely from within standard and established psychological principles and constructs and does not demand that establishment mental health accept any form of “new syndrome” proposal for the pathology as being unique in all of mental health.

It addresses the needs of targeted parents and children to obtain an accurate diagnosis of the pathology from all mental health professionals as Child Psychological Abuse by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

An attachment-based model of the pathology of “parental alienation” offers synthesis. It offers the solution.

The only thing it waits on is enacting this solution. I am calling on all targeted parents, your family and friends, and on all mental health professionals to join us in creating this solution. The battle to reclaim mental health as the ally of targeted parents and their children is here. We are on the battlefield. The time is now. Join us.

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

There is a group of professionals, of which I am a member, called the Parental Alienation Study Group which is led by Dr. William Bernet. 

The purpose of this group is to share knowledge and information regarding the pathology of “parental alienation” with the goal of resolving the “parental alienation” pathology.  In the November newsletter of the Parental Alienation Study Group, Dr. Karen Woodall offered her critique of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.”

Unlike the prior critique offered by Drs. Bernet and Reay within PASG, I was not offered a prior opportunity to respond to Dr. Woodall’s critique, so the first I saw this critique was in the November Newsletter.  I wish to take this opportunity to respond to Dr. Woodall’s critique of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.”

I have posted Dr. Woodall’s critique of an attachment-based model of parental alienation from the PASG Newsletter to my website for general reference regarding my response:

Karen Woodall: Parental Alienation and Paradigm Shifts: An unnecessary diversion for the UK

When I read Dr. Woodall’s critique in the Newsletter of PASG, I submitted the following response to the PASG Newsletter. I am also posting this response to my website for general reference:

Response to Karen Woodall’s Critique of Foundations

In my next blog post, I will have more to say regarding Dr. Woodall’s critique of Foundations and the response of Gardnerian PAS experts generally to an attachment-based model of parental alienation.  But prior to this upcoming post, I think it is important to read my Response to Karen Woodall’s Critique of Foundations for an understanding of how an attachment-based model is going to create a solution to the pathology of “parental alienation.”

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

Not everything is “parental alienation.”

Our goal is to bring the unproductive and damaging debate surrounding the construct of “parental alienation” to an end.

On one side of this debate are those persons who are concerned about authentic sexual abuse, physical abuse, and domestic violence.

On the other side of this debate are those persons who are concerned about the psychological abuse inflicted on a child by the pathology of a narcissistic/borderline parent.

We are all on the same side. Protecting children from child abuse. We all want to protect all children from sexual abuse, physical abuse, domestic violence, and psychological abuse by a parent. There is no debate.

So how did this false divide within mental health occur? We must bring it to an end. We are all on the same side of protecting 100% of children 100% of the time from all forms of child abuse.

I want all targeted parents to go to a website page hosted by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence regarding:

Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner’s Opinions on Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse

Read the expressed views of Gardner on pedophilia and incest. This is the dark underside of Gardnerian PAS. The views of Richard Gardner on pedophilia and incest are vile and repugnant. There is NOTHING normative about pedophillia.  NOTHING.  And a child NEVER seeks sexualized contact with a parent. The suggestion that a child ever seduces a parent into incest is vile and reprehensible. The views of Richard Gardner regarding the normalcy of pedophilia and incest are as repugnant as they are false. There is nothing normative about pedophilia and incest.

Within this context of Gardner’s views on pedophilia and incest, when he proposed that children’s allegations of sexual abuse against a parent could be discounted because of a “new syndrome” that he had just discovered, a new syndrome that is unique in all of psychology with no established linkages to any other form of established and existing psychopathology in all of mental health, responsible mental health professionals who were rightfully and authentically concerned about child sexual abuse and domestic violence were justifiably concerned that this supposedly “new syndrome” would be used as a dodge by sexually abusive parents (fathers) and the violent ex-spouses of domestic violence (fathers) to deny and avoid responsibility for their sexual abuse of their children and for the consequences of domestic violence. The concern was – and remains – that by discounting the expressed reports of children, this “new syndrome” of “parental alienation” proposed by Gardner will result in re-exposing children to their abusers.

But why is the focus on fathers as the abusive parent?  Because Gardner proposed that this “new syndrome” was primarily used by mothers who made false allegations of sexual abuse against fathers.  In his initial proposal for a “new syndrome,” Richard Gardner introduced a gender bias in this supposedly “new syndrome.”

But the proposal by Gardner of a “new syndrome” and a gender bias are both wrong. The pathology of “parental alienation” is not a new syndrome unique in all of mental health – it is a manifestation of well-established and well-accepted forms of existing psychopathology in mental health – and the pathology of “parental alienation” is equally evidenced by both genders.

In his initial proposal of the PAS pathology, Gardner incorrectly introduced a gender bias in the pathology which he proposed was typically enacted by women toward fathers following divorce, and often contained false allegations of sexual abuse supposedly perpetrated by the fathers. Within the context of the false and repugnant views of Richard Gardner regarding pedophilia and incest, a maelstrom of controversy was created that has divided mental health ever since.

It is important to understand the context in which this division emerged.  According to this one man, Richard Gardner, who held such vile and reprehensible views on pedophilia and child incest, a “new syndrome” exists which he supposedly just “discovered” which permitted mental health professionals and the court to disregard allegations of child sexual abuse made by children against fathers because the mothers in these cases were supposedly inducing the child into making these false allegations. And the only basis for disregarding the child’s allegations of being sexually abused was because of this “new syndrome” – a “new syndrome” which is a unique form of pathology in all of mental health and which has no association with any other existing and accepted form of psychopathology.  Child allegations of being sexually abused can be discounted based solely on this new and unique form of pathology which was supposedly discovered by this one man based on his own assertion of its existence, and who had such exceedingly aberrant and reprehensible views regarding child sexual abuse as being a normal-range expression of adult sexuality.  

What was especially terrifying to responsible mental health professionals was that this supposedly “new syndrome” – a pathology unique in all of mental health – which was discovered and defined by a single individual out of thin air without any linkage to any other form of established pathology and without any scientifically supported evidence for its existence – could be used in court cases to discount authentic child protection concerns and would instead return the child to the sexually abusive or violent parent.

What? No way. No, no, no. We cannot re-expose children to the abusive parent based on such a flimsy, unsubstantiated, and ill-formed conceptual model. If this were 1985 – I’m on the side of the anti-Gardnerians. Where is the scientific evidence for this supposedly “new syndrome”? What are the diagnostic indicators for this alleged “new syndrome”? Wait a minute, you’re just making up these diagnostic indicators. They have no association with any other type of pathology in all of mental health. If this were 1985, I’m fighting AGAINST a Gardernian PAS model.

A campaign of denigration? – The child is saying they hate their father because the father sexually abused the child; or the child is saying they hate their father because of the domestic violence the child witnessed from the father. How do we differentiate a “campaign of denigration” from a child who authentically dislikes an abusive parent?

For weak and frivolous reasons? – By whose determination is a reason considered “weak and frivolous?” Yours, Richard Gardner? The child is saying they were sexually abused, and Richard Gardner is saying, “Look, sexual abuse and pedophilia are normal-range adult sexual activities. It’s not so bad, and we shouldn’t overreact” (read the quotes by Richard Gardner). Is that who we’re allowing to decide what represents a “weak and frivolous reason?” How are we deciding what is considered a “weak and frivolous reason?” – (“Your dad used to hit your mom and scream at you in fits of rage? Well that’s no reason for you to be afraid of him. You need to just get over it.”)

Borrowed scenarios? – Of course the child and favored parent are saying the same thing about the abusive parent, because they were both abused and victimized by this spouse and parent. It’s not a “borrowed scenario,” it’s the truth of their shared experience.

Independent thinker phenomenon? – So if the child asserts the reality of his or her experience this will simply be discounted as the “independent thinker phenomenon” – an entirely new form of proposed pathology by the way. This is a circular no-win symptom. If the child doesn’t disclose the abuse then you say there’s no evidence of abuse. If the child discloses the abuse then you say this is just the “independent thinker phenomenon” in which the child believes what the child is asserting. Of course the child believes abuse occurred when the abuse occurred – (“No, you didn’t really experience abuse, you’re just saying that you did because of the “independent thinker phenomenon”),

An authentically abused child will say the abusive parent is a bad person – but this authenticity in reporting of abuse is being twisted by Gardnerian PAS into a symptom as a “campaign of denigration” – and who’s defining what is a “weak and frivolous reason” or a “borrowed scenario,” and based on what decisional criteria? Are we going to rely on the belief and assertion of single man, a man who holds such aberrant and repugnant views on pedophilia and child incest? Is that our expert to make these decisions about what is a “weak and frivolous” reason? This is who we are relying on to unilaterally decide what represents a “campaign of denigration” as opposed to an authentic parent-child conflict caused by an abusive parent; for what represents a “weak and frivolous reason” rather than the child’s justified estrangement from an abusive parent; for what represents a “borrowed scenario” rather than the mutual experience of a protective parent and child of an abusive ex-spouse and parent?

And so the debate and controversy begins. I’ll bet that already many Gardnerians want to begin arguing with me about my criticisms.  A polarized debate begins between those seeking to protect children from authentic sexual abuse and domestic violence and those seeking to protect the child from the psychological abuse of “parental alienation.”

The supporters of the Gardnerian PAS model then began to address the concerns of the skeptical – and I would say rationally skeptical – critics of the proposed “new syndrome” of “parental alienation.”

The supporters of Gardnerian PAS respond that “parental alienation” does not exist if there is authentic child abuse.

The supporters of Gardnerian PAS repudiate Richard Gardner’s views on pedophilia and incest (yet the construct of PAS remains forever tainted by these vile and repugnant views).

The Gardnerian PAS supporters try to define that “weak and frivolous reasons” means this-and-that type of situation (Dr. Childress Comment: I still haven’t seen a clear operational definition for this construct within Gardnerian PAS).

The Gardnerian PAS supporters try to define that “borrowed scenarios” refers to this-and-that type of situation (Dr. Childress Comment: I still haven’t seen a clear operational definition for what constitutes a “borrowed scenario” according to Gardnerian PAS).

The Gardnerian PAS supporters try to define that the “independent thinker phenomenon” refers to this-and-that type of situation (Dr. Childress Comment: I still haven’t seen a clear operational definition of the independent thinker phenomenon).

And so it goes, the back-and-forth in this endless and needless debate. Sides are established. Professional mental health is split into two camps in which those who are advocating for a recognition of the “parental alienation” pathology are pitted against those who are trying to protect children from the authenticity of child sexual abuse and domestic violence.

But all of this has been an entirely unnecessary and extremely damaging division in professional psychology that has paralyzed the response of the mental health system to the very real pathology of “parental alienation.” There are no sides. We are all on the same side. We all seek to protect children 100% of the time from all forms of child abuse.

But a false division was created by Gardner’s proposal that the pathology of “parental alienation” represented a unique “new syndrome” in all of mental health, unlike any other form of recognized and existing pathology, and that this unique “new syndrome” which was defined by a similarly unique set of 8 vaguely defined diagnostic indicators which were simply made up by Gardner specifically for this supposedly “new syndrome,” then allows mental health professionals and the court to disregard child allegations of sexual abuse and domestic violence, based solely on a poorly defined set of anecdotal symptom identifiers created specifically for this supposedly “new syndrome” by a man who espoused that pedophilia and incest were normative expressions of adult sexuality and that children would seduce their fathers into sexual encounters because of the children’s sexual desires for the parent (ideas that are as abhorrent and repulsive as they are grossly irresponsible and flat out wrong).

Ending the Division

The pathology of “parental alienation” exists. It is not a “new syndrome.” It is a manifestation of well-established and fully accepted forms of pathology (personality disorder pathology; family systems pathology; attachment trauma pathology) as described in Foundations.

The pathology of “parental alienation” can be reliably identified and reliably differentiated from other forms of pathology by a set of 3 Diagnostic Indicators that are firmly anchored in established and accepted forms of pathology.

An attachment-based model of “parental alienation” will in no way, under any circumstances, re-expose a child to an authentically abusive parent. No way. Not under any circumstances.

Our goal is to protect 100% of children 100% of the time from all forms of child abuse; physical, sexual, and psychological. This goal can be accomplished.

There are no sides. We are all on the same side of protecting all children from all forms of child abuse.

In order to bring mental health together again and end this totally unnecessary and extremely destructive division within professional psychology, we must acknowledge the reasonable concerns of the other side regarding an ill-conceived Gardnerian PAS proposal of a “new syndrome” which is unique in all of mental health and which is identifiable by a similarly unique set of vague symptom identifiers that are simply made up specifically for this supposedly unique new form of pathology and that have no linkage or association to any other form of established or existing pathology in all of mental health.

In order to bring mental health together, we must recognize that what the critics of the Gardnerian model of PAS have steadfastly asserted for over thirty years is correct: that the Gardnerian model of PAS represents an inadequate professional model for describing the pathology. This is constructive criticism from reasonable and responsible mental health professionals.

But just because the Gardnerian description of the pathology is professionally flawed and inadequate, does not mean that the pathology of “parental alienation” doesn’t exist. It very much exists. It’s simply that Gardner’s description of it is flawed.

The pathology of “parental alienation” is NOT a new syndrome. It is a manifestation of well-established and fully accepted forms of existing psychopathology within mental health.

Family Systems Level of Analysis:

The pathology of “parental alienation” represents the cross-generational coalition of the child with a narcissistic/borderline in which the addition of the parent’s splitting pathology to the cross-generational coalition transforms the already pathological coalition into a particularly malignant and virulent form that seeks to entirely terminate the other parent’s relationship with the child; i.e., to make the ex-husband an ex-father, the ex-wife an ex-mother, consistent with the polarization of the splitting pathology.

Attachment System Level of Analysis:

The pathology of “parental alienation” represents the reenactment of attachment trauma patterns from the childhood of the narcissistic/borderline parent into the current family relationships.  The reenactment of the childhood trauma is in the trauma pattern of “abusive parent”/”victimized child”/”protective parent” – mediated by the narcissistic and borderline personality pathology of the allied parent.

Personality Disorder Level of Analysis:

The pathology of “parental alienation” represents the role-reversal use of the child by the pathology of the narcissistic/borderline parent as an external regulatory object to stabilize the pathology of the narcissistic/borderline parent which is collapsing in response to the rejection and abandonment inherent to the divorce (the loss of the attachment figure of the other spouse).

Take your pick of the descriptive level of analysis.  All of them are simultaneously true, it’s just a matter of which level of analysis one wishes to use to describe the pathology.

But the pathology of “parental alienation” is NOT a new syndrome that is unique in all of mental health. It is a manifestation of well-established and fully accepted forms of existing psychopathology within mental health that can be reliably identified through standard and established forms of accepted symptomatology.

Using an attachment-based model for identifying the pathology of “parental alienation” will in no way, under any circumstances, result in re-exposing any child to an abusive parent. No way. Not under any circumstances. The three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based reformulation of the “parental alienation” pathology can reliably, 100% of the time, differentiate child symptoms resulting from authentic child abuse from child symptoms resulting from the pathology of a trauma reenactment narrative created by the psychological decompensation of narcissistic/borderline parental pathology as described in Foundations.

The Gardnerian 8 symptoms of “parental alienation” are not relevant to the diagnosis of this pathology, and are NOT to be used in identifying the pathology. To the extent that the 8 symptoms of Gardnerian PAS essentially represent the entirety of the Gardnerian model of PAS, then the Gardnerian model of PAS is not relevant to identifying the pathology.

For Wikipedia consideration:

In the view of Dr. Childress, the Gardnerian PAS model represents an historical curiosity which for thirty years, from 1985 to 2015, polarized the discussion surrounding “parental alienation” pathology, and which created an unnecessary and damaging internal division within mental health that paralyzed the mental health response to this form of interpersonal pathology. In its 30 years as the dominant paradigm for describing the pathology of “parental alienation,” the Gardnerian PAS model was never accepted by establishment mental health as a valid diagnostic description of the “parental alienation” pathology (with its most recent rejection in 2013 with the publication of the DSM-5).

In 2015, the Gardnerian model of PAS was supplanted by a more theoretically grounded attachment-based reformulation for the pathology (Childress, 2015). An attachment-based model describes the family pathology of “parental alienation” as representing the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma from the childhood of a narcissistic/borderline personality parent to the current family relationships, mediated by the narcissistic and borderline personality pathology of the parent. In this attachment-based reformulation for the pathology of “parental alienation,” the child’s induced (manipulated) rejection of the targeted parent is being used (exploited) by the narcissistic/borderline parent to stabilize the decompensating psychological state of the narcissistic/borderline parent following divorce (i.e., the loss of the spousal attachment figure which represents both a narcissistic injury and abandonment by the attachment figure).

Childress, C.A. (2015). An attachment-based model of parental alienation: Foundations. Claremont, CA: Oaksong Press.

In order to end the unnecessary and extremely damaging division within mental health, the paradigm by which we define the pathology of “parental alienation” needs to change.

In order to re-unite mental health into a single voice in which we are all seeking to protect all children from all forms of child abuse – 100% of children 100% of the time – and bring to a close the unnecessary and extremely damaging division within mental health created by the Gardnerian model of PAS and Gardner’s extremely aberrant and morally repugnant views regarding the supposed normalcy of child sexual abuse, we must relinquish the Gardnerian PAS model.

There will be NO Gardnerian banner on this battlefield. The coming battle to reunite mental health into a single force to protect all children from all forms of child abuse will be fought entirely under the battle flag of Foundations.

Foundations and an attachment-based model for the construct of “parental alienation” represent a full and complete, 100% break with the Gardnerian formulation for this pathology. I will in no way defend a Gardnerian PAS model for the pathology.

In all my writings I have never once advocated for adopting a Gardnerian PAS model of the pathology. I am an outsider to this “parental alienation” debate. I come from the fields of ADHD and early childhood mental health. An attachment-based model for the pathology of “parental alienation” represents an accurate clinical description of the pathology from entirely within standard and established forms of existing psychopathology in mental health.

I don’t care one whit for internecine professional debates and turf wars. The ONLY thing I care about is that we bring this pathology to an end as quickly as we possibly can for the sake of targeted parents and their children.

Compromise & Unity

We need to bring this unnecessary and damaging debate within professional psychology to a close, for the sake of targeted parents and their children. We are all on the same side. The advocates for recognition of the “parental alienation” pathology and the critics of the Gardnerian PAS model, we are all on the same side. We are all seeking to protect 100% of children 100% of the time from all forms of child abuse; physical, sexual, and psychological. We are all on the same side.

To bring us all together on the same side of protecting ALL children from ALL forms of child abuse, targeted parents and their supporters in professional mental health MUST relinquish their inflexible insistence that establishment mental health accept a “new syndrome” as defined by Richard Gardner.

In return, establishment mental health must acknowledge that the pathology of “parental alienation” exists, and that this pathology represents such a complex and interwoven network of attachment trauma pathology, family systems pathology, and personality disorder pathology that it REQUIRES a high level of professional expertise to competently assess, diagnose and treat, so that these children and families warrant the professional designation as a “special population” within mental health who require specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat.

Before entering private practice, I was the Clinical Director for a children’s assessment and treatment center dealing with children in the foster care system. I know what the psychological trauma of authentic child abuse is, and I know what it looks like, which is one of the reasons I find the views expressed by Richard Gardner on the normalcy of pedophilia and incest so highly disturbing and deeply repugnant.  

From my professional clinical experience with authentic child abuse, I know what authentic child sexual abuse looks like in the child’s attachment system and in the child’s symptom display, and from my professional clinical experience I also know what authentic physical abuse and domestic violence looks like in the child’s attachment system and in the child’s symptom display. Authentic parental violence and the sexual abuse of a child look very different in the attachment system and in the child’s symptom display than the role-reversal pathology of a child’s use (manipulation and exploitation) by a narcissistic/borderline parent as an external “regulatory object” for the parent’s own psychopathology. These are very different forms of psychopathology with very different manifestations in the child’s attachment system display and symptom features.

Capable and expert mental health professionals can reliably differentiate the two types of pathology 100% of the time. In order to reliably differentiate the differing pathologies, mental health professionals need to be expert in the manifestations of attachment trauma pathology, personality pathology, and family systems pathology. With this professional expertise, mental health professionals can reliably differentiate the two types of pathology 100% of the time.

Our goal is to protect 100% of children 100% of the time from all forms of child abuse.

All we are seeking from establishment mental health is:

1.)  Formal acknowledgement that the psychopathology of a narcissistic/borderline parent can have a substantially distorting influence on family relationships following divorce (i.e., that the pathology of an attachment-based model for the construct of “parental alienation” exists – as described in Foundations)

2.)  Formal recognition that the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of this type of complex and interwoven pathology requires a high level of professional expertise, which warrants the designation of these children and families as representing a “special population” within professional psychology requiring specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat.

That’s all we’re asking.

Formal acknowledgement that the pathology exists and formal recognition of these children and families as representing a “special population” requiring specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat.

The appropriate location for this formal acknowledgment is the official Position Statement of the American Psychological Association on the Family Pathology of Parental Alienation.

With the proper professional knowledge and expertise, we are absolutely able to differentiate a child’s symptoms created by authentic sexual abuse and parental violence from child symptoms that are the induced product of a role-reversal relationship with a narcissistic/borderline parent who is using (manipulatively creating and then exploiting) the child’s rejection of the other parent to stabilize the personality disorder pathology of the narcissistic/borderline parent.

False Allegations of “Parental Alienation”

Not everything is “parental alienation.”

In my private practice, approximately 20% of the cases that come to me alleging “parental alienation” actually turn out NOT to be “parental alienation.” In these cases, it often turns out that it is the supposedly targeted parent who is actually the narcissistic parent.

Narcissists externalize blame. In their grandiose narcissistic self-perception they perceive themselves as the ideal and “all-wonderful” person-and-parent, and they cannot recognize there being anything problematic with their parenting.

Yet the complete absence of empathy for the child by these narcissistic parents is emotionally and psychologically traumatic for the child. However, when the child tries to express this to the narcissistic parent, the narcissistic parent lacks the capacity for self-examination and instead externalizes blame onto the other parent (i.e., a false allegation of “parental alienation”).

In the mind of the narcissistic parent, the child cannot possibly have any problem with the ideal and “wonderfully perfect” person and parenting of the narcissistic parent. So in the mind of the narcissistic parent, the only possible reason for the child to be upset with the ideal and “wonderfully perfect” narcissistic parent is because of the negative influence of the other parent on the child.

Narcissistic Parent:  “I’m so wonderful and perfect as a person that the child cannot actually be upset with me. The only possible explanation is “parental alienation” by the other parent.”

In these cases, the child’s symptoms DO NOT evidence the 3 diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation.” These cases are easily identified. I’ll explain all this for mental health professionals in my upcoming book on Diagnosis.

In addition, in some of these cases BOTH parents are pathological. In these cases, the child is a prize to be won in a pitched battle between the parents. This type of pathology is also easily recognized by an attachment-based model of “parental alienation,” although it is nearly impossible to solve.

In false allegations of parental alienation and cases where both parents are pathological, the primary guiding issue remains one of child protection. Once parental pathology enters into the picture, the clinical psychology issues shift from child custody and visitation to prominent child protection considerations.

Not everything is “parental alienation.” Authentic child abuse exists (dogs exist). The role-reversal pathology of a narcissistic/borderline parent also exists (cats exist).  In addition, false allegations of “parental alienation” also exist (ducks exist) and both parents being pathological exists (alligators exist).  All sorts of pathology exist.

When we relinquish the construct of Gardnerian PAS and return to standard and established forms of existing psychopathology, we are on much more solid ground, solid foundations, for our diagnosis and treatment.

From a clinical psychology perspective, the issues are those of “pathogenic parenting” (parenting practices that are so aberrant and distorted that they are creating significant psychopathology in the child) and corresponding child protection concerns.

By remaining grounded in the solid professional foundations of well-established and existing forms of psychopathology, an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” pathology can reliably, 100% of the time, diagnose authentic trauma caused by child abuse from the role-reversal pathology of a narcissistic/borderline parent, and from false allegations of “parental alienation” made by a narcissistic parent.

Not everything is “parental alienation.”

An attachment-based model can reliably differentiate between all of the differing possible pathologies.

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

I recently noted the following comment from Marsha in the Facebook group seeking a deeper Appreciation of my work and writings, and she suggested I respond in a blog.  I’m listening, and here is the blog.  Marsha suggests that I misled by implying that the battle would be quick, and that the solution would be soon, and now she and others are disappointed.

Here is the Facebook post from Marsha:

OK. @Dr Craig Childress,

I’m mad at you. Side note, I’m not really mad at you, was meant to be an ice breaker.* I don’t know you to be mad at you.

You got parents thinking that Foundations will change their situations, (I mention to people that Rome wasn’t built in a day). However, your wording about Foundations when it came out, really made parents think things were going to change quickly. Now, there are parents that have the book, watch your videos and don’t have the $$$ to back any of this up.

What am I or others supposed to tell these parents?

They are learning the dynamics and feeling more helpless, instead of empowered.

You said we are going to change things now.

Would you be open to making a blog post that is like “I know this is going to take time, and I know that it’s going to take more time if you’re a broke parent, significant change will probably take, let’s be realistic, at the very least 5 years?

You can’t just write a book and disappear!! Where are you?
We are trying to get your book out there to professionals.
For free we are advocating for YOU.

Please tell me what to say to parents that don’t see a way to fix their situation after reading Foundations. They are feeling more helpless!
You need to know this! Put your empathetic shoes on and feel what a desperate parent with no more income feels.

Help!!!! (I feel like breaking down in tears)

First, let me thank you Marsha for your courage in offering this challenge.  It’s not easy to take a contrary position, but it is often just these sort of contrary positions that deepen dialogue and deepen understanding.  So thank you.  As I address the issues you raise, I encourage you to hold on to the bumpy ride until you reach the conclusion of this post in No Worries.

To my friends who rose to my defense, my thanks to you as well.  I agree with the issues you raise.  Remember that dialogue and discussion is a good thing, and if everyone thinks alike then this stifles the exploration of issues and life is boring.  Not only do dogs and cats exist, so do monkeys and lizards and birds.  The existence of any one does not nullify the existence of another. 

So, to address the concerns you raise, Marsha…

I know how desperate you and others feel. These are your children. They are the love and light of your world. They mean everything to you, and “parental alienation” has turned your entire world into a nightmare.

With the publication of Foundations, I said the world was changing.  And now four months later, things are still the same. So what’s up with that? Why did I get your hopes up that things would be different quickly.

But you’re mad at me because “parental alienation” isn’t solved yet?

What are you taking about? Of course it’s solved. It was solved the moment Foundations was published. It’s now just a matter of enacting the solution. It’s just a matter of time now. 

When I drop my keys I know they’re going to hit the floor because of gravity.  Done deal.  My keys are going to hit the floor, it’s just a matter of time.  Bang, yep. 

Same thing.

By defining the pathology of “parental alienation” from entirely within well-established and fully accepted forms of existing pathology, the solution to the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation” is now available. It just waits to be enacted.  How long before it’s enacted?  How long before my keys hit the floor?  By introducing licensing board complaints I’m providing a turbo-charged boost.  The publication of Foundations has created the gravity that will inexorably result in the solution.  The only thing holding back the solution is a paradigm shift from the old Gardnerian PAS model for defining the pathology to the new attachment-based model for defining the pathology  The exact moment this paradigm shift occurs, that’s the exact moment the solution becomes enacted. 

In Stark Reality I said,

“If you are going to rely on me for that, I would anticipate that this will take between 10 to 15 years for an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” to achieve professional acceptance.”

My current goal is by Christmas 2016. I’m applying all the pressure I can to the process.  Waking targeted parents from their induced slumber of victimization. Wake up!  Empowering targeted parents to cause great pain to my incompetent professional colleagues  (On Notice).  Defining the road map for enacting the solution (the Empowerment video series).  Challenging the Gardnerian PAS experts to bring their influence to bear (which I do again in this post).  

One of the biggest turbo-charging boosts is coming from the immense courage of my professional colleague and your children’s steadfast advocate, Dorcy Pruter.  Right now and into the near future, she is exposing herself to be viciously attacked by the pathogen.  What the pathogen doesn’t realize, however, is that if it doesn’t succeed in destroying her then all of the dark energy it is expending to destroy her is going to create the very paradigm shift to an attachment-based model that will allow us to enact the solution to “parental alienation.”  There is a significant battle looming, and Dorcy is going to be the lightening rod who draws the savagery of the pathogen out into the open.  I will stand shoulder to shoulder with her in the center of this battlefield, and in defending her professional knowledge and expertise in this area, I too will draw the pathogen’s secondary fire, not as intense as the fire Dorcy draws, but still intense and savage.  This is about to get nasty.  But this is it.  The time for battle is now.

Gardnerian PAS offers no solution whatsoever. Switching to an attachment-based model as defined in Foundations provides a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, it provides a set of 3 diagnostic indicators that definitively identify “parental alienation” as either present or absent, and it defines a set of domains for professional knowledge required for the competent assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of “parental alienation” to which ALL mental health professionals can be held ACCOUNTABLE.

The moment the paradigm shifts from a Gardnerian PAS model to an attachment-based model, the solution becomes available immediately, because it is already here, just waiting for the paradigm shift. The solution is sitting right there, right on the table in front of you. Oooooo, so close, and yet still not quite here.

The fact that this solution now exists is what allows targeted parents to begin holding mental health professionals accountable by filing licensing board complaints for possible violations of APA ethics code Standards 2.01 and 9.01 regarding boundaries of professional competence and for a possible violation of the mental health professional’s “duty to protect.” The Gardnerian PAS model doesn’t allow us to hold mental health professionals accountable for their ignorance and incompetence.  An attachment-based model does.  Gravity.  The keys are going to hit the floor.

The only reason that these APA ethical code Standards are now active for you and other targeted parents is because the solution is here, right now. If the solution was five years away then the applicability of these APA ethical code Standards wouldn’t be available for another five years. But that’s not the case. They are available to you today, right now, because the solution is available today, right now.  Targeted parents are beginning to enact the solution as we speak.

What you’re referring to as “no solution” is that establishment mental health doesn’t yet know that an attachment-based model even exists. That’s true. But that’s not because the solution doesn’t exist, that’s just an ignorance factor.  Do you think it will take us five years to educate establishment mental health that an attachment-based model for the pathology exists?  Really?  I suspect once targeted parents start filing licensing board complaints you’re going to get the attention of establishment mental health pretty quick.  One or two malpractice lawsuits, a RICO lawsuit.  I think we can get their attention pretty quick here.

But how long this takes is not a me issue, it’s a you issue. These are your children. This is your fight. I have given you the tools and weapons you need to protect your children. But I am not your warrior, it’s you who are your children’s warrior. Stop waiting for someone to rescue you, because your children are waiting for you to rescue them.

Many targeted parents have been lulled into inaction by their powerlessness. Wake up.  Act.  Fight back.  “But you promised the solution would be here today.”  It is.  It’s sitting right there on the table in front of you.  It’s a sword you can use to fight for your children.

I also know that many targeted parents are exhausted by their traumatization.  I get it.  No worries.  This is a battle for ALL the children.  If you need to sit this out because of your trauma, no problem.  We’ll be fighting for your children as well.  One voice is quiet. Ten voices is heard.  A hundred voices is a movement, and thousand voices is an unstoppable force.  Become an unstoppable force.  Become a tsunami.  In Foundations you have a solid theoretical foundation on which to stand and fight.

There’s a story about a flood that comes to a small town. The townsfolk are told to evacuate to higher ground, but a devoutly religious man decides to remain at home because he has faith that God will protect him.

As the flood waters rise, a group of neighbors drive by and say, “Get in the car and come with us.” But the man says, “No thank you, I have faith that God will save me.” As the flood waters rise a canoe paddles by and the people in the canoe say, “Get on board and come with us.” And the man says, “No thank you, I have faith that God will save me.” The flood waters keep rising and the man climbs onto his roof. Soon a motorboat comes by and the rescuers say, “Get on board.” But the man says, “No thank you, I have faith that God will save me.” Soon the flood waters begin to lap around the man’s legs, and a helicopter comes and lowers a rope ladder, and the man is told to climb the ladder. “No thank you,” says the man, “I have faith that God will save me.” Finally the flood waters sweep the man off the roof and he drowns.

When the man gets to the gates of Heaven, Saint Peter is standing there and the man asks Saint Peter, “I kept believing in God, and I kept waiting and waiting for God to rescue me. Why didn’t God rescue me?” Saint Peter replied, “What are you talking about? First we sent you a car, then a canoe, then a motorboat, and we even sent a helicopter to rescue you.”

Dr. Childress, why haven’t you solved “parental alienation?” What are you talking about? First I gave you a solid theoretical foundation that defines the pathology as a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. Then I gave you a set of video instructions on exactly how to enact the solution. Then I gave you a booklet for an ABAB assessment and remedy protocol to provide to the court to seek a protective separation and remedy for the child’s “parental alienation” pathology.  Then I gave you a Professional Consultation booklet to give to your therapist to alert the therapist to the nature of the pathology.

Plus, the solution is available. Right now. This instant. The only thing that’s preventing the enactment of the solution is that we’re still operating under the old paradigm of Gardnerian PAS to define the pathology. The moment the paradigm shifts to an attachment-based model, the solution of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed becomes available immediately.  It’s already available.  If a child comes into my practice with the three diagnostic indicators, I’m making the diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed and I’m filing a suspected child abuse report with the Department of Children and Family Services.  Other mental health professionals can too.  Today.  Right now.  Based on the theoretical model provided by Foundations.  The keys are falling, they just haven’t quite hit the floor yet.

Why are You Working for Delay?

So if the only thing standing in the way of the solution is the change in paradigms from a Gardnerian PAS model to an attachment-based model, why are you mad at me when I’m the only one giving you all these various tools and weapons to fight for your children, but then you’re giving a free pass to all the Gardnerian experts who are continuing to work to actually maintain the old Gardnerian PAS model, which will only SLOW DOWN the pace by which the solution becomes available? Why are they doing that? I don’t know. Why don’t you ask them?

Why are Amy Baker, and William Bernet, and Linda Gottlieb, and all the Gardnerian PAS experts continuing to maintain their support for the Gardnerian PAS model, when in doing so they actually slow down the pace by which targeted parents acquire a solution? What solution does the Gardnerian PAS model offer?  None. In 30 years as the dominant paradigm defining the construct of “parental alienation” the Gardnerian PAS model has given you exactly what you have right now, which is no solution whatsoever. Meanwhile, a paradigm shift to an attachment-based model gives you an immediate solution, led by the DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

The “new syndrome” model of Gardnerian PAS requires the approval and acceptance of establishment mental health, which has been consistently and steadfastly denied for 30 years. But because an attachment-based model defines the construct of “parental alienation” from entirely within established and already accepted forms of existing pathology, there is nothing for establishment mental health to accept or reject. That’s why the solution already exists. Right now. This instant. The only thing standing in the way of enacting this solution is the paradigm shift from the Gardnerian PAS model to an attachment-based model.

So why are your Gardnerian allies withholding their active support to enact the paradigm shift? And in fact they’re actually acting to maintain the existing Gardnerian PAS model. Why are they doing that? Don’t they recognize that slowing down the paradigm shift to an attachment-based model actually slows down the enactment of the solution?

In the Parental Alienation Study Group, William Bernet and Kathleen Reay actually coauthored an article arguing that an attachment-based model was just PAS using different words.

Commentary to Foundations and Response from Dr. Childress: PASG Newsletter

What?  Why are they trying to morph a completely different attachment-based description of the pathology that is incredibly elaborate into just a form of PAS?   Really?  You’re really going to argue that an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” is simply Gardnerian PAS using different words?  That’s just mind-boggling.

Let’s put that idea to the test.  I’ll ask targeted parents, is an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” as described in Foundations simply Gardner’s model of PAS using different words?  What do you think?

If all that’s standing in the way of the solution to the pathology of “parental alienation” is a paradigm shift from the Gardnerian PAS model to an attachment-based model, why aren’t the Gardnerian experts using the power of their professional standing and their professional contacts to speed up this paradigm shift?  Imagine if Amy Baker announced that she was switching from a Gardnerian PAS model to an attachment-based model. That would represent a tectonic shift that would immediately grab the attention of establishment mental health, alerting them that a new paradigm existed.  Imagine if she was actively using her professional standing to promote a paradigm shift.

This past summer, there was a high-profile “parental alienation” case in Michigan involving Judge Gorcyca. Amy Baker did a radio interview (WDET 101.9 FM) surrounding the Michigan case. This radio interview offered Dr. Baker a perfect media opportunity to lend her support to a paradigm shift, to talk about a new attachment-based model that identifies the pathology as psychological child abuse with three definitive diagnostic indicators.  But she didn’t take this media opportunity to foster the paradigm shift.  Instead, she discussed the 8 symptom indicators of a Gardnerian PAS model. She continues to actively work to maintain the old Gardnerian PAS model that offers no solution whatsoever rather than working to foster a paradigm shift to an attachment-based model that provides an immediate solution to the pathology.  Why would she do that?  Why is she continuing to advocate for the Gardnerian PAS model when that model offers targeted parents and their children no solution whatsoever?  I don’t know.  Why don’t you ask her?

My goal is to have the solution enacted by Christmas of 2016. Imagine how much faster this could be achieved with the active support of Amy Baker, and William Bernet, and Linda Gottlieb. But not only are they withholding their active support, they are actually working to slow down the pace by which the paradigm shift occurs in establishment mental health. It’s almost like they’d wish an attachment-based model just disappear, even though an attachment-based model provides targeted parents with an immediate solution.

Oh well, I guess they have their reasons for sitting out this fight to recover your children. So I guess we’ll just have to go it alone.

“It is better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand.”
– Tamerlane

Battlefields

But my goodness, Marsha, don’t you realize that a major battle is coming? In your chastisement of me, you state,

“However, your wording about Foundations when it came out, really made parents think things were going to change quickly.”

That’s correct. The solution is now available. All it waits on is the paradigm shift. Read the Dominoes post. Right now establishment mental health doesn’t even know that an attachment-based model exists. Even though an attachment-based model provides an immediate solution, if no one knows it exists then how do you imagine that the solution is going to be enacted? It almost sounds like you’re in a bit of a fantasy world, that you’re not fully grasping the situation. So let me explain some things about the upcoming battle.

There is a pretty nasty battle that still awaits us. The pathogen isn’t just going to relinquish your children. Battlefields are bloody, and chaotic, and dangerous. People get hurt, sometimes substantially hurt. Battlefields are not a nice place to be. And I’m going to be standing square in the center of this battlefield.

I have empowered targeted parents to harm my professional colleagues by threatening the livelihoods of my professional colleagues. By filing licensing board complaints against these mental health professionals, targeted parents will be threatening the ability of my professional colleagues to financially provide for their children and families. Stop and think about the implications of that for a moment; I am empowering you to threaten the ability of my professional colleagues to financially provide for their children and families. How do you think my professional colleagues are going to respond to that? Do you think I’ll be making any friends within my professional colleagues? Doubt it.

If you think you became an outsider in the Appreciation Group when you expressed a divergent opinion, imagine what I’m going to face from my professional colleagues when licensing board complaints begin to be filed against them at my urging and with my support.

Battlefields are bloody and chaotic, and not at all pleasant places to be. We still have a battle ahead of us.

In my recent post, Psychopathology and Custody Evaluations, I expose the financial racket of child custody evaluations.  How do you think my professional colleagues in Forensic psychology are going to respond to my calling their work, their profession, a financial racket and shell game?  Conducting child custody evaluations is their career, it’s their livelihood, it’s how they support their children and families, and I’m threatening all of that.  How do you think they’re going to respond to me threatening their livelihood? 

Battles are bloody, dangerous, and chaotic. Battlefields are not at all nice places to be. People get hurt, sometimes substantially hurt. And I am taking a position right square in the middle of this battlefield, shield and battleaxe in hand, preparing to take on all comers. Am I doing this for me?  No.  Am I doing this for you?  No.  I’m doing it for your children. I am fighting for your children. I am exposing myself to all the dangers of this coming battle because I am fighting for your kids.

And let me offer one more insight on the coming battle, I’m not the only one who’s going to be hit. The one who is going to be most exposed is going to be Dorcy Pruter.  Why?  Because she has the solution to resolving the pathology in your children and for restoring their normal-range development within a matter of days. Because of this, she represents a tremendous threat to the pathogen. The attack leveled by the pathogen against her is going to be savage and exceedingly vicious. It’s already begun, and it’s going to get worse.

But in the High Road to Family Reunification protocol of Dorcy’s is the resolution of your children’s pathological rejection of you and the return of their authenticity. I have personally reviewed the High Road protocol. I understand exactly how it works to achieve the resolution of the children’s pathology within a matter of days.

About two years ago when I first met with Dorcy surrounding her protocol, I was working on a model of reunification therapy (the initial essay is up on my website). When Dorcy showed me what she had in the High Road protocol, I stopped work on a model of reunification therapy.  No point.  She’s got it nailed. Reunification therapy will take at least six to nine months of struggle. The High Road protocol can resolve the child’s symptoms and restore normal-range development within a matter of days. She has the solution in her hip pocket. That makes her incredibly dangerous to the pathogen. It is going to attack her with everything it has in an effort to destroy her.

So when it attacks, I am going to stand shoulder to shoulder with her in the center of this battlefield. This means that the pathogen will then attack me with the same viciousness. Look at one of the attacks already on the Internet,

“Should I be scandalised by the fact that Craig Childress endorses her [Dorcy Pruter]?  Not really, his own program calls his credentials and professional ethics into question, so why should he not endorse a quack, taking great pains to explain that Dorcy’s Program is “not therapy” but an “educational intervention”. (by the way, Dorcy Pruter has no credentials in education either).”

Just pure malevolence. Notice how the pathogen doesn’t attack substance, it attacks my “credibility” and “professional ethics.”   So not only have I riled up my professional colleagues by empowering you to file licensing board complaints and by calling out the financial racket of child custody evaluations, the pathogen is also going to attack me with sneering malevolence because I stand in its way of destroying Dorcy. This battle is going to be nasty.  Oh, did I mention I have no friends within the Gardnerian PAS ranks either?

Dorcy knows full well the vicious malevolence that is coming for her, and I know full well the vicious attacks that are coming for me. But we will not waver in our fight for your children. We will stand squarely in the center of this battlefield and engage the fight for your children with equal determination. But Marsha, you act like you don’t even know this battle is coming. Where’s the solution, you ask? You expected the pathogen just to relinquish your children without a fight? Didn’t you hear me calling you to battle? Or didn’t you want to hear that part? For goodness sake, Marsha, steel your heart, pick up your sword and shield and join us on this battlefield. But trust me, battles are exhausting, sweaty, bloody, dangerous, chaotic, and not at all nice places to be.

But let me also say that I understand that many of you are emotionally and psychologically drained by the years of trauma and victimization.  I get it. No worries.  If you need to sit this one out, not a problem.  We’ll be fighting for your kids too, because this is a fight for ALL the children

In the coming days, you’ll see Dorcy and I standing squarely in the center of this melee. The job of targeted parents will be to keep your focus on the citadel of establishment mental health. Demand that the APA acknowledge that the pathology (as described in Foundations) exists . Break the pathogen’s veil of concealment. Expose it. And demand that your children and families be formally recognized as a “special population” requiring specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat. Demand professional competence.

Is the solution here?  Absolutely. But you need to fight to make it happen. You need to fight for your children. The pathogen isn’t simply going to give them up to you.

Where are You?

Marsha, you write,

“You can’t just write a book and disappear!! Where are you?
We are trying to get your book out there to professionals.
For free we are advocating for YOU.”

What?  Where am I?  Have you read any of my posts over the summer and fall?   I’m also writing the second companion book to Foundations, which is Diagnosis, and I’m writing the companion book to the ABAB design instructing mental health therapists in a structured six-session assessment of the pathology of “parental alienation” for the court.  Did I mention I have a private practice so everything I do on this is after my workday seeing patients and on the weekends.  Where am I?  I’m working my tail off for you and your children.

For free you are advocating for ME?  Well then stop it.  This isn’t about me. It’s about your children. I’m about to expose myself to vicious attacks and slander for you and your children. Enacting the paradigm shift is about solving the pathology of “parental alienation” for all of your children. If you don’t understand that, if you think you’re somehow doing this for me, then stop what you’re doing because you don’t get it.

“Please tell me what to say to parents that don’t see a way to fix their situation after reading Foundations. They are feeling more helpless!”

Tell them to stop being so narcissistic and thinking only of themselves. Tell them that we cannot solve “parental alienation” in any one specific family or with one specific set of children unless we first solve it for all families and all children. Tell them that the solution to “parental alienation” will come when targeted parents put aside their own individual self-interests and begin to work for each other. “What about me” is narcissistic. “What about you” is empathic. Don’t be narcissistic. The solution for narcissism is empathy. Tell them to steel their hearts, pick up their swords and shields, and prepare to engage in the coming battle for their children.

No Worries

No worries Marsha. I appreciate the courage it took to challenge me. I understand your deep grief and frustration, and your hopes that this nightmare will end. I’m out there leading, and you want me to make it end, “When will it end? Don’t tell me it’s today if it’s not today.” I get it. No worries. The tragedy and trauma of “parental alienation” that you and others have endured is profound.  Your frustration and helplessness is entirely understandable.  No worries on my end, Marsha.

But we’ve got a battle ahead of us. The solution is here, but we still need to wrest your children from the pathogenic grasp of the pathogen, who will not release them without a serious fight.

The Pathogen

I’ve seen occasional objections from the allies of the pathology regarding my use of the term “pathogen.” If you run into these objections, don’t worry, ignore them, I’ve got it covered.

The pathogen represents a characteristic set of distorted “information structures” in the attachment system of the narcissistic/borderline parent which were created by the childhood trauma of abuse (which then led to the formation of the narcissistic/borderline personality traits of this parent). This characteristic set of distorted “information structures” in the attachment system of the narcissistic/borderline parent is what is responsible for creating the child’s pathology. The term “pathogen” refers to an agent that creates pathology, like a virus. The pathogen creating the pathology of “parental alienation” is a characteristic set of distorted and damaged “information structures” in the attachment system of the narcissistic/borderline parent (like a computer virus) that is creating the narcissistic/borderline personality pathology of the parent and the “parental alienation” pathology in the child.

Attacks on Dorcy

Don’t worry about attacks on Dorcy either. That’s my job. But just for your information as you encounter these attacks, Dorcy and I have submitted a proposal to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) for a joint professional presentation at their 2016 convention regarding the assessment of an attachment-based model of parental alienation in a legal context and its remedy.  If this presentation proposal is accepted, then as part of this professional presentation we will be describing the structure of the High Road protocol and how it achieves its effectiveness. One of the primary attacks on Dorcy and the High Road protocol will be that she is unqualified. Our response will come in this professional presentation, if the presentation proposal is accepted.

We have also submitted a similar proposal to Division 41: American Psychology-Law Society of the American Psychological Association for their 2016 convention. If this proposal is accepted, we will similarly be explaining the structure of the High Road protocol and how it achieves its effectiveness in resolving the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation.” If either or both of these professional presentations are accepted, I guarantee talks that will knock your socks off. Guaranteed.

So you wanted a blog post from me, eh Marsha?  Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it <smile>.  Thanks again for your honesty and your challenge, I know it took great courage.  No worries on my end, and I hope this addresses your questions and concerns.

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

You want to hear something particularly disturbing? Child custody evaluators are actually instructed NOT to identify parental pathology in their reports. That’s right. They are specifically instructed by their Standards of Practice NOT to identify parental psychopathology in their reports.

Here is Standard 4.6c from the Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), the umbrella professional organization for family law attorneys and child custody evaluators:

(c) Evaluators recognize that the use of diagnostic labels can divert attention from the focus of the evaluation (namely, the functional abilities of the litigants whose disputes are before the court) and that such labels are often more prejudicial than probative. For these reasons, evaluators shall give careful consideration to the inclusion of diagnostic labels in their reports. In evaluating a litigant, where significant deficiencies are noted, evaluators shall specify the manner in which the noted deficiencies bear upon the issues before the court.

Now first, let me acknowledge that Standard 4.6c does not specifically say, “don’t identify parental pathology.” It doesn’t say exactly that. It refers to “diagnostic labels” (such as narcissistic and borderline personalities), and it only cautions that evaluators “shall give careful consideration to the inclusion of diagnostic labels in their reports” (a professionally temperate euphemistic statement for don’t do it) because “diagnostic labels can divert attention from the focus of the evaluation.”

Actually, I would strenuously disagree with the premise that “diagnostic labels can divert attention from the focus of the evaluation.”  I firmly believe that diagnostic nomenclature actually advances our understanding of the CENTRAL feature of the evaluation, maintaining the child’s healthy emotional and psychological development. But I’ll defer this particular discussion for a bit.

But the implication of Standard 4.6c is clear, don’t label a parent’s pathology as borderline or narcissistic.

Why not? Because, according to the AFCC, the effects could be more “prejudicial than probative.”

Definition of Prejudicial: harmful to someone or something; detrimental

Definition of Probative: having the quality or function of proving or demonstrating something; affording proof or evidence

So here are my questions:

Question 1. So what are the “harmful” effects of identifying a parent as having a prominent borderline or narcissistic pathology, and are there potential harmful effects of NOT identifying a parent’s borderline or narcissistic pathology?

Question 2: Are there benefits from identifying a parent’s borderline or narcissistic pathology and using a diagnostic nomenclature to capture the description of the pathology.

Diagnostic Labels

Diagnostic labels aren’t just words applied to people, they represent complex psychological constructs of extensive meaning. That’s why we use them. They are a short-hand professional description for a complex network of associated pathologies.

For example, when I use the term narcissistic personality, this has a network of complex pathologies associated with it:

Splitting:  There is very likely to be splitting pathology in which perceptions of other people are polarized into all-good and all-bad extremes.

Projection:  There is likely to be a prominent use of projection. This means that the accusations that this person makes toward other people, such as the other spouse, are likely to be an indication of the narcissistic personality’s own psychological processes.

Pathological Mourning:  This person will have prominent difficulty processing sadness, grief, and loss, and we are highly likely to find problematic terminations to relationships involving a complete cutoff of the other person when they fail to provide the narcissistic personality with ongoing “narcissistic supply.”

Delusional Beliefs:  The narcissistic personality readily decompensates into delusional belief systems, so the presence of an encapsulated delusional belief regarding the other spouse is highly likely.

Degradation of Others:  The narcissistic personality is highly judgmental and contemptuous of others, so a demeaning and dismissive attitude toward the ex-spouse is very likely, and is highly likely to be communicated by the narcissistic parent to the children.

Lack of Empathy:  The narcissistic personality completely lacks the capacity for empathy. This means that a narcissistic parent will be unable to empathically attune to the child’s needs. Instead, the narcissistic personality parent will engage the child in a role-reversal relationship in which the child’s authenticity is obliterated and the child is expected to reflect the attitudes and beliefs of the narcissistic parent (including the contemptuous disdain for the other parent).

Subjective Truth:  Truth and reality are subjectively and arbitrarily defined by the narcissistic personality, and can often bear little resemblance to actual truth and actual reality. The narcissist often inhabits a fantasy world of their own construction. They feel that the normal rules that govern the actions of other people do not apply to them, so they frequently disregard restrictions on their behavior and they frequently disregard the rights of others. This creates a nearly impossible co-parenting relationship.

Vengeful: Narcissistic personalities are highly retaliatory and vengeful, particularly toward those who have caused a “narcissistic injury” to them, such as by rejecting the self-perceived magnificence of their narcissist’s grandiosity.

etc.

So the moment any mental health professional uses the diagnostic identification of “narcissistic personality” a whole set of associated meanings also constellate around this term. That’s why we assign terms to designate specific patterns of pathology, so that we don’t have to individually identify all the component aspects each time we discuss the pathology.

The use of diagnostic nomenclature also provides insights into the pathology that may not yet be evident in the clinical interview. For example, if I see a haughty and arrogant attitude and an absence of empathy, then by recognizing these as potential diagnostic indicators of a narcissistic personality I might then look for projective processes and splitting. If these are present, I might become more skeptical regarding this person’s assertions of reality, meaning that I’ll need to verify this person’s interpersonal perceptions with additional information.

The same is true if I identify a pathology as representing the diagnostic construct of a borderline personality structure. Immediately, a whole set of associated clinical constructs become active, such as abandonment fears, splitting, potential childhood sexual abuse, presentation as the “victim,” etc.

The reason we use this diagnostic nomenclature is because it conveys a complex network of meaning. If we restrict ourselves from using this diagnostic nomenclature, then we are reduced to identifying each component of an organized pathology as if it was a separate psychological process. It’s not. It’s all part of a single organized psychological process, a single pathological organization.

For mental health professionals to intentionally withhold information about parental psychopathology is highly questionable and it sounds manipulative. Rather than sharing accurate mental health information regarding the parents, we are seeking to intentionally influence the recipient’s response to the pathology by not disclosing the nature of the pathology. We are essentially colluding with the pathology by attempting to hide the pathology.

In my view, Standard 4.6c should state:

“If parental pathology is evident, then the extent and implications of this pathology should be described and explained.”

That’s it. Period. If that includes providing the relevant diagnostic nomenclature to organize the description of the pathology, then that’s fine; identify the nomenclature and the implications of the pathology.

If the parent’s behavior would meet diagnostic criteria for Bipolar Disorder, then the custody report should say that the parent’s behavior meets diagnostic criteria for Bipolar Disorder.

If the parent’s behavior would meet diagnostic criteria for Schizophrenia, then the custody report should say that the parent’s behavior meets diagnostic criteria for Schizophrenia.

If the parent’s behavior displays prominent narcissistic or borderline personality traits, then the custody report should say the parent’s behavior evidences prominent narcissistic or borderline personality traits.

The truth is what it is. Intentionally withholding or trying to “soften” the truth to protect the pathological parent, particularly with regard to legal/family decisions of profound consequence to the child, is, in my view, highly inappropriate professional behavior.

The truth is what it is.   We should not withhold psychological nomenclature from the court in an effort to influence the court’s decision.  The court should have access to all the relevant psychological information, including relevant psychological nomenclature for parental pathology, and it is then up to the court to determine how to weigh that information.

Consideration of Question 1: Prejudicial Impact

Question 1. So what are the “harmful” effects of identifying a parent as having a prominent borderline or narcissistic pathology, and are there potential harmful effects of NOT identifying a parent’s borderline or narcissistic pathology?

Someone is going to have to answer this for me, because I don’t see the harmful effects of identifying a parent’s narcissistic or borderline pathology in a child custody evaluation. The identification of parental pathology will lead to a better decision in support of the child’s healthy emotional and psychological development.

Hmmm, harmful to whom?  To the child?  How would identifying parental pathology in a child custody report be harmful to the child?  Nope. Don’t see it.  Harmful to the targeted parent?  Nope. Don’t see how identifying the parental pathology of one parent is harmful to the other parent.  Harmful to the pathological parent?  That seems to be the implication.  Don’t identify parental pathology because doing so will be harmful to the pathological parent.

That seems an odd mandate, for the AFCC to suggest that custody evaluators intentionally act to protect the pathological parent. That appears to represent the intentional imposition of an inherent bias into the evaluation process in favor of the pathological parent. When there is significant parental pathology, shouldn’t our sole focus be on protecting the child from the pathology of the parent?  And wouldn’t overtly identifying the nature and severity of the parental pathology help us to protect the child?

The identification of parental narcissistic or borderline psychopathology may mean that the narcissistic/borderline parent does not obtain custody of the child, or that the contact of this parent with the child may be restricted in some way due to the impact of this parental psychopathology, and I suppose someone could say that the narcissistic/borderline parent was therefore “harmed” by the identification of their pathology – but I find that kind of rationale highly convoluted.

The pathology of the parent is what it is. We are considering the healthy development of the child. I am not willing to sacrifice the child’s healthy emotional and psychological development to collude with the psychopathology of the parent by hiding the nature and extent of the parent’s psychopathology. If the parent has prominent narcissistic/borderline personality traits then the parent has prominent narcissistic/borderline personality traits. The truth is the truth. If the child needs to be protected from the psychopathology of the narcissistic/borderline parent then child needs to be protected from the psychopathology of the narcissistic/borderline parent. The truth is the truth.

To suggest that we somehow bend or distort the truth is, in my view, highly unprofessional conduct. The truth is what it is. Yet the AFCC appears to be instructing child custody evaluators to consciously introduce bias in favor of the pathological parent into child custody reports by consciously withholding relevant information about the organized pattern of pathology evidenced by the parent.  What we should do is deal with the truth. Let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work. We don’t shut our eyes and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Diverting Attention?

The AFCC believes that:

“the use of diagnostic labels can divert attention from the focus of the evaluation”

I absolutely 100% disagree. The use of professionally sound diagnostic nomenclature to describe parental psychopathology can highlight the issues CENTRAL to the focus of the evaluation. The presence of profound parental psychopathology, such as narcissistic and borderline personality pathology is of CENTRAL importance to comprehending the pathology and conflict within the family and evaluating the healthy developmental needs of the child.

In my view, the AFCC is trying to protect the pathology of the narcissistic/borderline parent from exposure, and is doing so at the expense of the child. The truth is the truth.

If schizophrenic pathology is present in a parent, say so.  

If bipolar pathology is present in a parent, say so.

If obsessive-compulsive hoarding pathology is present in a parent, say so.

If narcissistic/borderline personality pathology is present in a parent, say so.

To attempt to manipulate the response of the court to the truth by withholding or distorting the information we provide to the court is, in my opinion, unprofessional conduct. And, in my opinion, it is reprehensible to protect exposing the pathology of the parent at the expense of the child’s healthy development.

In my view, Standard 4.6c of the AFCC is seeking to prevent the exposure of the narcissistic/borderline parent’s psychopathology at the expense of protecting the child’s healthy development.

Q: Are there potential harmful effects of NOT identifying a parent’s borderline or narcissistic pathology?

Yes, absolutely.  When we intentionally withhold relevant psychological information in an effort to influence the outcome of decisions, we foster and support ignorance in decision making.  From the ignorance we foster regarding the full nature of the pathology evidenced by the parent, ignorance which is created when we intentionally withhold relevant psychological information (the diagnostic nomenclature describing a coherent complex pattern of parental pathology), we increase the likelihood that an incorrect decision regarding the child’s well-being will be made. Because we have intentionally withheld relevant psychological information from the court, the court may not fully appreciate the nature and extent of the parental psychopathology or the need to protect the child from the distorting effects of the parental psychopathology.

Our professional obligation is to provide the court with the psychological facts. All the psychological facts. Our role is not to shade the facts in this way or that in an effort to influence the outcome in some way. We are serving as psychological consultants to the court. The court has THE RIGHT to the psychological facts… all of the psychological facts… including the psychological nomenclature describing the organized pattern of psychopathology evidenced by a parent.

In my view, the AFCC is 100% wrong in trying to manipulate an outcome in favor of the pathological parent by shading the facts presented to the court.  The truth is the truth, including the appropriate psychological nomenclature used in professional psychology to describe the organized pattern of pathology evidenced by the parent.

We should simply speak the whole truth.

FBI Analogy:  What if the policies and procedures of the FBI crime lab were to routinely not report on some category of ballistic evidence because it might have a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the trial. That’s not a decision for the FBI crime lab to make. They are to analyze the ballistic data and report on the findings… ALL of the findings.

Same for psychologists. The truth is what it is. We should provide the court with the full psychological truth. If this includes the psychological nomenclature for describing the pattern of pathology evidenced by a parent, then this includes the psychological nomenclature for the pattern of pathology evidenced by a parent.

I am both surprised and appalled that it is acceptable to the court that the information they receive from child custody evaluations is systematically distorted in favor of not identifying parental pathology, which introduces a systematic bias into child custody evaluations in favor of the pathological parent. And this is okay?

Apparently it is… at least for the present.

Question 2: Benefits to Disclosing Pathology

Question 2: Are there benefits from identifying a parent’s borderline or narcissistic pathology and using a diagnostic nomenclature to capture the description of the pathology.

I think there are. Recognizing standard and established forms of pathology grounds our assessment in standard and established psychological principles and constructs. 

The use of appropriate professional categories for identifying pathology organizes our assessment process and provides theoretical coherence to the interpretation of the clinical information. The use of appropriate professional nomenclature for pathology identifies the disparate aspects of parental psychopathology as representing an organized pattern of problematic parenting with predictable expressions and predictable consequences on family relationships.

The truth is the truth.  Recognizing and identifying the truth allows us to make better decisions than would otherwise occur through intentionally withholding relevant psychological information from the court.

The court has a right to know.  It is not up to us to decide what professional information to make available to the court and what information to withhold from the court in an effort to influence the decision the court makes.  Our professional obligation is to provide the court with the relevant psychological information.  What the court does with this information is the court’s responsibility.

RICO

Systematically distorting the reporting of parental pathology in an effort to hide the nature and severity of this parental pathology is only one of a number of highly problematic features associated with child custody evaluations.  My prediction is that within the next five years the AFCC, the APA, and child custody evaluators are going to be hit with a class action RICO lawsuit. The practice of child custody evaluations in the family law system is an organized racket for financial gain.

No Scientific Validity

There is no scientific evidence for the validity of the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations.  None.  There is no evidence of construct validity, no evidence of content validity, no evidence of predictive validity, no evidence of concurrent validity, no evidence of discriminant validity.  None.  There is no scientific evidence for the validity of the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations. NONE.

No Theoretical Foundation

While child custody evaluations involve extensive data collection (which, by the way, is what makes them so exceedingly expensive – it’s the data collection process not the quality of the findings that makes child custody reports so expensive), no established psychological models from professional psychology are applied to the interpretation of this data. No established psychoanalytic model, no established humanistic or existential model, no family systems model, no cognitive-behavioral model, no established model of professional psychology is applied to the interpretation of the collected data. Child custody evaluators simply make up whatever interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations they want without reference to any established psychological model, principles, or constructs (even the DSM-5 is prohibited by Standard 4.6c according to the AFCC).

The conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations are simply made up, with no inherent linkage to any of the data they collected earlier. I’m hoping that an attorney is beginning to see the RICO lawsuit.  It’s an organized racket.  Charge for extensive data collection, but then simply make up the findings and recommendations however you like.  There is NO linkage of the conclusions and recommendations to the extensive (and expensive) data collection phase, and there is no consistent or reliable application of established psychological principles or constructs to the interpretation of the collected data or the recommendations made by the evaluation.

No Key Definitions

There are no operational definitions for the two key constructs of child custody evaluations, “parental capacity” and the “best interests of the child.” Without operational definitions for these key constructs, these constructs are without defined meaning. This allows the custody evaluators to essentially make up whatever conclusions and recommendations they want, and then post hoc, after the fact, define these conclusions and recommendations as being in the “best interests of the child” (simply because the custody evaluator says so, and this is acceptable because there are no operational definitions for what these terms mean).

An Organized Racket

There is absolutely NO VALIDITY to the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations. Zero.

That’s a bold and assertive statement. There is a comment section to this post. I challenge anyone to cite me the research support for the construct validity, content validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity, or discriminant validity of the conclusions and recommendations made by child custody evaluations… <crickets>  There is none.

At $20,000 to $40,000 per single child custody evaluation, it is a very lucrative organized racket. By providing “standards” for child custody evaluations, the AFCC becomes the organized syndicate, and the evaluators are the capos.  The parents are “the marks” in a confidence scheme, a shell game.  I suspect a RICO lawsuit is coming in the next five years.

If an attorney wants to know exactly where to go to uncover the shell game, look to the interface between the two parts of the custody evaluation.  Part 1 is the data collection and report writing that documents the collected data. This is where all the money is made by conducting exceedingly extensive data collection without clear theoretical focus.  They substitute quantity of information collected for focused quality of information.  They do this because they don’t know what they’re looking for.  And in truth, it actually doesn’t matter what they’re looking for because they just make up Part 2, the interpretation and recommendations, anyway, so it doesn’t really matter what the data is.

The two parts to the child custody evaluation:

Part 1 – Data Collection and Reporting:

The first part is an exhaustive (and expensive) collection and reporting of data. This involves interviewing all the family members on multiple occasions, conducting home visits and observations, administering, scoring, and interpreting a variety of test instruments, interviewing collateral informants and reviewing collateral documents, and then there is the report writing in which they document all the information that was collected.

All of this time is billed at hundreds of dollars an hour. This would be fine if this data collection actually meant something, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t mean a damn thing, because of Part 2 – Data Interpretation and Recommendations.

Part 2 – Interpretation and Recommendations

There are absolutely NO guidelines for how the data collected in Part 1 is interpreted, nor are there any guidelines governing what recommendations should be made from this data. Child custody evaluators just make it up. Seriously. They just make this part up.

The Public: “Surely you’re exaggerating, Dr. Childress. They’re not just making up their interpretations and recommendations.”

Dr. Childress: No, actually I’m not exaggerating. They are entirely making up their interpretations of the data and their recommendations based on whatever whim moves them at moment.

I’ll explain this more fully in future posts. But the racketeering issue is what occurs between Part 1 (the billable hours part of data collection) and Part 2 (the make-it-up interpretation and recommendations part).

It’s a shell game. Watch the moving shells of data collection, interviews, testing, home observation, all to distract you from the key moment when the custody evaluation switches from data collection to data interpretation. At that moment the custody evaluator palms the pea.

So which shell is the pea under? Oooooo, so sorry. Better luck next time and thanks for playing. That will be $30,000 please. Next. Step right up. Try your luck at custody evaluation.

Parent: But what about the clearly evident psychopathology of the other parent?

I’m sorry, we don’t identify psychopathology. It might prejudice the case against the pathological parent. Don’t blame me, it’s the AFCC’s rules… don’t identify pathology, too prejudicial against the pathological parent if we identify their pathology.

RICO, RICO, RICO.

Think I’m wrong…

I challenge professional psychology, the APA or AFCC, to cite for me the research support for the construct validity, content validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity, or discriminant validity of the conclusions and recommendations of child custody evaluations.

I challenge professional psychology, the APA or AFCC, to provide me with the operational definitions for the key constructs of “parental capacity” and “best interests of the child” that are used in interpreting the data of child custody evaluations.

I challenge professional psychology, because they know I’m right.  They know that establishing the validity of an assessment procedure and operationally defining the key constructs used in the assessment are foundational to ALL assessment procedures.  Personality assessment, Intelligence assessment.  Achievement testing.  They know that.

I teach courses in Assessment and Psychometrics at the graduate level.  I know that establishment mental health knows that demonstrating validity and providing operational definitions for the key constructs of the assessment are foundational to the assessment process. Establishment psychology, you know that, and I know you know that. So why aren’t you doing what’s right? Why aren’t you demanding that your professional membership do scientifically sound and professional assessments.

“Because we don’t know what that is with regard to child custody.”

Exactly.  Once you admit that, then we can begin the process of building professionally sound and scientifically supported assessments.  We can do it.  We did it for the constructs of intelligence.  We did it for the constructs of personality.  We can do it for the constructs of parental capacity and the best interests of the child.  Is it hard?  Yep.  Is it complicated?  Yep.  So’s intelligence, so’s personality. 

We start by offering definitions for the constructs “parental capacity” and “best interests of the child.” Then someone disagrees and offers a counter definition.  Then five different groups offer five alternative definitions… and we set about the process of defining the constructs.

Then, once we have the constructs defined (even if we have yet to settle on a consensus definition) we set about developing the methods for how we assess for that operationally defined construct. And once we have developed our assessment procedures, we subject our assessments to reliability and validity studies.  We absolutely know how to do this.  So why aren’t we doing it?

Establishment mental health, you may not like what I’m saying in calling out the racket of child custody evaluations, and you may see me as your enemy, but I’m actually your best friend.  I’m actually on your side.  We know how to do the right thing, and the current practice of child custody evaluations is NOT it.  Intelligence testing is the right way.  Personality testing is the right way.  The Rorschach lacked scientific validity. So Exner fixed it.  We know what to do.  Do the right thing.  I know you know what that is.  The RICO lawsuit is on its way.  I’m just trying to alert you.  I’m your best friend.

If an assessment process lacks scientifically established validity and lacks operational definitions for its key constructs, then it is not professionally acceptable. Establishment psychology knows that, and I know they know it. So the question for establishment mental health becomes, what are you going to do about it?

It is directly analogous to the NFL and the issue of player concussions. The medical evidence of football-related concussions leading to long-term brain damage in NFL players was there for decades, but the NFL turned a blind eye because football was so financially lucrative. The NFL tried to suppress this medical information, and eventually it took a players’ lawsuit to bring the medical evidence to light and achieve an $870 million dollar settlement against the NFL.

The professional organizations in psychology now face a similar moment of truth. There is no scientific support for the practice of child custody evaluations. Zero. It is a shell game.  Watch the moving data collection while the pea is palmed in the interpretation and recommendations.

There’s no point attacking me.  I’m not the problem.  The lack of scientifically established validity and operational definitions for key constructs is the problem.  I’m just the kid on the side of the road saying, “Hey look mommy, the emperor has no clothes.”

I’m not the problem. If you want to be wearing some clothes, then go put some clothes on.

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