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

I am not speaking to targeted parents, I am speaking only to my professional colleagues in mental health.

Let me extend this request to all of my professional colleagues on this side of the “parental alienation” debate within mental health, whether you like me or not, whether you support me or not.  Let’s stop using the term “professional” to refer to our mental health colleagues on the other side who are evidencing such profound professional ignorance and incompetence in their response to this pathology. Let’s start calling them “mental health persons.”

I’m asking for a professional boycott on our use of the word “professional” in referring to our professional colleagues who are colluding with the expression of this savage and brutal psychopathology.  If you choose to join me in this boycott, you can do so openly as I’m doing through the strikeout, or you can simply subtly replace the word “professional” with “person.”

I know for myself, I’m not going to use the term again in reference to them until they begin to act like “professionals.” I’m done calling them professionals. To me, they are mental health persons until they start behaving at a level commensurate with a professional.

We can’t get to this boycott through Gardnerian PAS. If we try to use Gardnerian PAS to start boycotting the use of the term “professional” then we just look petulant.

But I’m using personality disorder pathology. I’m done with Gardnerian PAS. I am acting from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs. I want either professional competence or I want the professional licenses of incompetent mental health professions revoked.

I know licensing boards won’t revoke their license… yet.  But I want these ignorant and incompetent mental health professionals persons to know that I’m trying with all my knowledge, skill, and determination to revoke their license to practice. And they underestimate me at their peril.

Core Issue

The core issue is the savage and brutal covert anger dyscontrol of a narcissistic or borderline personality spouse and parent being expressed into the surrounding family context, and the collusion with and abetting of this covert anger dyscontrol pathology by the professional ignorance and incompetence of the mental health professional person.

Core Principle

The core principle guiding my actions is Standard 1.04 of the APA ethics code that states,

1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations
When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved.

The ethical violation by these mental health professionals persons is of Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code regarding practice beyond the boundaries of their professional competence, and the area of professional competence is in the manifestation of narcissistic and borderline personality pathology into a family context surrounding divorce (rejection by the attachment figure of the former spouse).

The core feature of this pathology’s expression is of the savage and brutal covert anger dyscontrol expressed by the narcissistic or borderline personality spouse and parent, and the manipulative and exploitative use of the child by the narcissistic and borderline spouse and parent as a means for the covert expression of psychologically violent anger dyscontrol.

Notice I’m not using the term “parental alienation” anywhere. All standard and well-established psychological principles and constructs.

These mental health persons are not recognizing and not responding appropriately to personality disorder pathology. Personality disorder pathology exists. I’m not a Gardnerian PAS advocate. I’ve distanced myself from Gardnerian PAS. I’m a standard and established mental health guy. And from entirely within standard and established psychological principles and constructs, I am personally boycotting the term “professional” when referring to mental health professionals persons who are practicing beyond the boundaries of their competence, and so who are, as a result, colluding with and abetting the savage and brutal covert expression of anger dyscontrol by a narcissistic or borderline personality spouse and parent toward the targeted parent.

I am asking my professional colleagues to consider joining me in this boycott, as a matter of personal conscience and in a personal expression of solidarity with the victims of this savage and brutal covert expression of anger dyscontrol by a narcissistic or borderline personality spouse and parent.

This pathology must stop.

Through their ignorance and incompetence regarding the expression of narcissistic and borderline personality pathology into and within a family context, these mental health professionals persons are colluding with and abetting in the psychological brutalization of the ex-spouse.

The narcissistic or borderline spouse and parent is manipulating and exploiting the children (fully consistent with the interpersonal processes characteristic of narcissistic and borderline psychopathology) to be used as weapons for inflicting suffering onto the ex-spouse. The desire to produce suffering in the ex-spouse is a manifestation of the anger dyscontrol associated with the narcissistic and borderline personality psychopathology.

The manipulation and exploitation of the children in this pathology represents a manifestation of the characteristic interpersonal style and approach of narcissistic and borderline personalities. The anger dyscontrol of the narcissistic or borderline spouse and parent is being covertly manifested through the manipulation and exploitation of the children as vehicles for the expression of this anger dyscontrol.

If mental health professionals are going to assess, diagnose, and treat – in any way – the impact created in the family from narcissistic and borderline personality pathology surrounding a divorce, then they MUST possess a high level of professional expertise in the overt and the covert manifestations of the pathology of narcissistic and borderline personalities.

The propensity for both overt and covert expressions of anger dyscontrol by a narcissistic or borderline personality, particularly arising from the interpersonal rejection inherent to divorce (rejection by the attachment figure), places the ex-spouse at a high risk of being targeted for the anger dyscontrol of the narcissistic or borderline personality spouse and parent. Intense anger is associated with both the narcissistic and borderline forms of personality pathology, and intense anger is also associated with interpersonal violence and brutalization. Mental health professionals treating this form of psychopathology in the family must therefore be highly alert and sensitized to recognizing both overt and covert expressions of interpersonal psychological violence and the brutalization of the ex-spouse by the pathology of the narcissistic or borderline personality spouse and parent.

Failure to possess the required professional competence regarding the overt and covert manifestations of narcissistic and borderline psychopathology with a family context represents practice beyond the boundaries of professional competence in violation of Standard 2.01 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

When there is an ethical violation by our colleagues, we are required by Standard 1.04 of the APA ethics code to “resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual,” In my decision to personally boycott referring to these ignorant, stupid, and incompetent mental health professionals persons as professionals, I am exercising my professional obligation to “resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual” consistent with my ethical responsibilities under Standard 1.04 of the ethics code.

I don’t care if they recognize that they are assessing, diagnosing, or treating narcissistic or borderline personality pathology within the family – because you know what? That’s their job to recognize that they’re treating personality disorder pathology.

To the stupid and incompetent mental health person:

You are not a plumber. You are not an engineer. You are a mental health professional, and unless you act like a mental health professional you don’t deserve to be called a mental health professional.

So from here are out, to me, you are not a professional. You are a plumber who is doing mental health work. You are an engineer. You are simply a person. You are not a mental health professional. You are simply an incompetent and stupid person who is doing mental health related work. I don’t care what letters you have after your name or what job you may hold. You are an incompetent and stupid person until you start acting with the knowledge and competence of a professional.

The core of this pathology is narcissistic and borderline personality pathology. That’s what needs to be recognized and understood within the mental health system. This isn’t “parental alienation.” This is a manifestation of narcissistic and borderline personality pathology surrounding divorce. This is the core of the issue that I want to drive into and throughout the mental health system. Narcissistic and borderline personality pathology exists. It is activated by divorce. It is prone to anger dyscontrol that can be both savage and brutal. You know it. I know it. And they know it.

Both the narcissistic and borderline personality pathologies are referenced and operationally defined in the DSM-5. Narcissistic and borderline personalities have also been extensively described in the works the preeminent theorists Otto Kernberg, Theodore Millon, and Arron Beck. This is established and existing, fully recognized and fully accepted psychopathology. I want to drive this pathology into the mental health system’s understanding regarding the pathology that we typically describe as “parental alienation.”

We can talk about all the variations and nuances of the “parental alienation” pathology later, once we bring this pathology to an end. But first, I want to stop the evil of a narcissistic or borderline personality ex-spouse seeking revenge on the abandoning attachment figure of the targeted parent by killing the targeted parent’s children (“Now aren’t you sorry you rejected me. You don’t have your children anymore. I’ve killed your beautiful, wonderful children.” – evil, pure evil).

Mental health professionals persons who collude with the pathology and abet in the enactment of this evil do not deserve the appellation of “professional,” and from here on out, I’m not going to give it to them.

I’m going to try as hard as I can, as a mental health professional, to overtly and publicly shame my professional colleagues for their professional ignorance and incompetence.

To all my professional colleagues on this side of understanding, who know the reality of “parental alienation,” I’m not going to nit-pick and get diverted by all the different shades and variations of this pathology. I know they exist. There will be time enough for that once we bring this pathology to an end. But I want to drive home to the core of our professional colleagues on the other side that this isn’t some esoteric fictional pathology, this is an all too real and existing, severe and savage pathology that they are colluding with and that they are abetting because of their professional ignorance and stupidity.

Professional Decorum

To the incompetent and stupid mental health professionals persons:

If you don’t like me calling you ignorant and stupid. Then stop being ignorant and stupid.

“Dr. Childress, you need to act with greater professional decorum toward your professional colleagues.”

You’re absolutely right. I agree 100%. And the moment they begin to act like professionals is the moment I will treat them with appropriate professional respect.

Why are you talking to me about professional decorum, and giving a complete pass to their profound professional ignorance and stupidity that is colluding with and abetting the severe and savage psychological brutality of narcissistic and borderline personality psychopathology that is being expressed within the family.

If a narcissistic and brutally violent husband beat his ex-wife so that she lay in a crumpled mass on the floor, bloody, swollen, and bruised, would you just walk away – no wait – would you actually hand this narcissistic husband a stick, a rod, a staff, so that he could beat her all the more savagely, breaking her ribs and injuring her even more severely?

Because that is EXACTLY what is happening. Only the beating and the club are psychological, not physical. And you are colluding with and abetting in the covert psychological brutalization of the ex-spouse by the narcissistic or borderline pathology of the supposedly “favored” parent, who is manipulating and exploiting the child – fully consistent with the pathology of the narcissistic or borderline parent and spouse.

You should be ashamed of yourself, for both your ignorance and for you abject professional incompetence.

If you don’t like me calling you ignorant and incompetent, then don’t be ignorant and incompetent.

So APA, what would you say about a mental health professional person who not only didn’t step in to stop the savage and brutal beating of the ex-spouse, but who actually handed the violent narcissistic spouse the rod to more fully beat his ex-spouse with even greater savagery? Why are you chastising me for my lack of professional decorum in pointing out the savage psychological brutalization of the ex-spouse, and you are not at all addressing the ignorant stupidity and incompetence of the mental health professional person who gives the man the staff to more savagely beat his ex-wife?

If you want me to be quiet, if you want me to act with professional decorum toward my professional colleagues, then DO SOMETHING about the beating. Make it stop, and I’ll shut up. Make it stop, and I’ll be nice and polite. But make it stop.

If you stand by and do nothing, then I will call you stupid and ignorant and incompetent. Because you are stupid and ignorant and incompetent. If you don’t like me calling you these things then stop being these things.

Standard 2.01: Don’t be incompetent

Standard 1.04: Call attention to their incompetence

Anger Dsycontrol

Central to the pathology of both the narcissistic and the borderline personality is their immense vulnerability to anger dyscontrol. Overt anger dyscontrol is readily apparent. Yelling rageful displays. But this pathology involves a covert expression of anger dyscontrol, just as savage and just as brutal psychologically, but just not as overtly displayed.

To all of my professional colleagues, you and I both know that anger dyscontrol is a central vulnerability and key feature of both the narcissistic and borderline personalities. You know it – and I know you know it.

Central to the pathology of both the narcissistic and borderline pathology is an interpersonal style of extensive manipulation and exploitation. The child is being manipulated and exploited by the pathology of the narcissistic and borderline personality parent as a vehicle for the covert expression of the savage and psychologically violent anger dyscontrol of the narcissistic or borderline personality parent.

To all of my professional colleagues, you and I both know that manipulation and exploitation are central and key features of the narcissistic and borderline personalities. You know it – and I know you know it.

To not recognize, diagnose, and respond to the savage and psychologically brutal covert expression of anger dyscontrol within a family context by a narcissistic or borderline personality represents profoundly destructive professional incompetence, in violation of Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code.

When these mental health professionals people start acting like professionals, with the necessary level of professional knowledge and expertise required to stop the savage psychopathology of the narcissistic or borderline spouse and parent, then I will start treating them with the respect deserved by a professional. Until then, they are stupid and ignorant plumbers and engineers, but they are NOT mental health professionals.

From this point on, I am personally boycotting the application of the term “professional” to refer to all incompetent and ignorantly stupid mental health professionals persons who, through their ignorance, stupidity, and incompetence collude with and abet the covert enactment of the savage and brutal anger dyscontrol of a narcissistic or borderline spouse or ex-spouse within in a family context.

I am personally boycotting from this point forward the use of the term “professional” to refer to all incompetent and ignorantly stupid mental health professionals persons who, through their ignorance, stupidity, and incompetence collude with and abet in the manipulation and exploitation of children by a narcissistic or borderline spouse or ex-spouse as a means for the covert expression of savage and brutal anger dyscontrol within a family context.

I believe this personal boycott is required by my ethical and moral obligations to the children and parents who are the recipients of the savage and brutal covert anger dyscontrol being expressed toward them by a narcissistic or borderline personality spouse and parent, which is receiving an entirely inadequate and inappropriate response from the mental health professional person because of this professional’s person’s professional ignorance and incompetence, in violation of Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code requiring professional competence.

My personal boycott of the term “professional” when referring to these mental health professionals persons in all of my future writing is consistent with my professional obligations under Standard 1.04 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations
When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved.

I will maintain this personal boycott until the children and families who are the recipients of the savage and brutal covert anger dyscontrol by a narcissistic or borderline personalty spouse or parent are designated a “special population” of children and families who warrant specialized professional knowledge and expertise to competently assess, diagnose, and treat, and until these children and families receive just and fair coverage by Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code requiring professional competence.

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

This isn’t about us professionals.

This is the most horrible pathology I have ever come across. This evil pathology must stop. I am passionate because there is no way we should be tolerating this pathology for a single day.  It is unconscionable that this pathology is tolerated within mental health.

Early on, when I was working with one family the exact nature of the pathology suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks.

Oh my God – one day the targeted parent has a child, and the next day they don’t. It’s as if someone killed their child.  The alienating parent is so angry that they are killing – they are murdering – the other person’s children.

“I’m so angry at you for leaving me, I’m going to kill your children.”

Oh my God. That’s the most horrible thing I’ve ever heard. To be so angry at someone that you kill their children to get revenge. That is the most horrible thing I’ve ever heard.

But not only that, the alienating parent is getting the child to be the murderer of the other person’s children. Oh my God, I don’t know which is more horrible, to turn your own child into the murderer of the other person’s children, or to turn the other person’s child into the murderer of the other person’s children.

And then, the alienating parent is also getting the child to kill his or her own mother or father.  That’s so incredibly horrible. To get a child to kill his or her own mother. That’s such a horrible-horrible thing to do. To get a child to kill his or her own father. Oh, my God.

This is THE most horrible thing ever. This is evil. Pure evil.

So while I was reading up about personality disorders and attachment trauma, and all that “professional” stuff, I was also reading up about evil. Pure evil. Because this pathology is on the same line as core, fundamental evil.

So as I was reading Kernberg and Millon, I was also reading up about evil, and the research and science surrounding evil:

Baumeister, R.F. (1996). Evil: Inside human cruelty and violence. New York: Freeman/Times/Henry Hold.

One of the interesting things is that evil never sees itself as evil. It actually thinks the other is evil, that the victim is evil. The Nazi’s didn’t see themselves as evil. They thought it was the Jews who were evil.

The alienating parent thinks it’s the targeted parent who is evil.

And then there’s the link between the absence of empathy and evil:

Baron-Cohen, Simon (2011). The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty. New York: Basic Books.

And the link between developmental trauma and the absence of parental empathy.

Moor, A. and Silvern, L. (2006). Identifying pathways linking child abuse to psychological outcome: The mediating role of perceived parental failure of empathy. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6, 91-112.

“Only insofar as parents fail in their capacity for empathic attunement and responsiveness can they objectify their children, consider them narcissistic extensions of themselves, and abuse them. It is the parents’ view of their children as vehicles for satisfaction of their own needs, accompanied by the simultaneous disregard for those of the child, that make the victimization possible.”

The absence of parental empathy is the origin of inflicting psychological trauma on the child. And inflicting psychological trauma on the child destroys the child’s capacity for empathy. And the absence of empathy is the origin of human cruelty. And the absence of empathy is the origin of evil.

The attachment system is the neurological brain system governing all things love-and-bonding. Empathy is critical in love and bonding, and the absence of empathy is the source of human cruelty and evil. Trauma to the attachment system destroys the capacity for empathy within the attachment system. The origins of evil are in psychological trauma to the attachment system.

The MOST disturbing child symptom is not the suppression of the attachment system, it’s not the delusional disorder, it’s not the haughty and arrogant contempt and scorn. The most disturbing child symptom is the absence of empathy that allows the child to kill this other person’s children.

To the pathological parent:  For you to kill another person’s children because you are angry with them is the worst thing I have ever heard. To get a child to exhibit that level of cruelty is beyond the psychological abuse of the child, it is evil.

And then there is the grief of the targeted parent. To have someone kill your children is the worst possible thing ever. The grief bores to the very marrow of one’s being. Oh my God, the grief is so profound and so deep. How can it possibly be endured.

This is the most awful and horrible thing I have ever come across. This is pure evil.

This must stop. Immediately.

I was on my way to writing marvelous books solving parenting and ADHD, but there’s no way I could continue on that path. This evil must stop. Today.

To the pathological parent:  You are not allowed to kill someone’s children because you’re angry with them.

But we can’t stop it because… because why?… why can’t we stop this, why doesn’t anyone see it?  Stupid, stupid, stupid, these mental health professionals are so incredibly stupid. Don’t they see it? Why don’t they see it? They are colluding with this astounding evil.

That stops. Any mental health professional who colludes with this profound evil does not deserve to be a mental health professional. They do not deserve their license to practice.

How do we pull that stupid, stupid, so incredibly stupid mental health professional’s license? If they are going to collude with this evil, I want to pull their license. They do not deserve to have a license to be a mental health professional.

“I’m angry with you because you rejected me. So I’m going to kill your children.”

And the mental health professional – and I use that term extremely loosely in reference to these people – is colluding in this murder of someone’s children. I want their license revoked.

Can I do that with Gardnerian PAS?  No.  Okay, then we need something else. Because I want their license revoked if they are going to collude with this astonishingly cruel, this cavalierly cruel murder of someone’s children. If the mental health professional is that incredibly stupid, then they don’t deserve a license to practice in the field of professional psychology. Go be a plumber. Go be a computer technician. Go be an engineer. Go be anything else – but DON’T practice professional psychology. Stay away – stay far, far away from working with children and families.

So what do I need to do to pull their license to practice psychology? We need to able to hold these stupid and incompetent mental health “professionals” ACOUNTABLE. I need to activate professional standards of practice to be able to get their licenses revoked if they are going to be that incredibly incompetent.

Can we revoke their license based on Gardnerian PAS. If we can, I’m totally fine with that. I’d be the biggest fan of Gardnerian PAS ever. If we can’t, then we need to do something else, because I want their license revoked.

“I’m so angry with you because you rejected me, I’m going to murder your children.”

Abhorrent. Evil. Just plain evil. And the mental health “professional” (I might just start putting the word “professional” in quotes regarding these people) is so incredibly stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that they are colluding with the murder of this person’s children, and they are colluding with the profound degree of child abuse that empties the child of human empathy and allows the child to perform such an abhorrent act of human cruelty.

I am disgusted. Viscerally disgusted by these stupid, stupid mental health… people. How do we get their license revoked, these stupid….

If it takes defining this pathology totally within standard and established constructs so we can activate professional standards of practice to revoke their licenses, then let’s do it.

Can we revoke their license – today – not in five years, not in ten years – today – can we revoke their license to practice today?  No. Then let’s do something different, because we need to revoke these stupid mental health… people’s licenses today.

You know what… I think I might just stop calling them “professionals” and start calling them “mental health people,” because they don’t deserve the title of being a professional.

So I’m sorry if I’m abrasive. I’m sorry if I’m arrogant. I don’t really care. I don’t want this to continue a single day – a single minute longer than absolutely necessary. I will push, and prod, and drive this as fast as I possibly can. Working late into the evening. Working weekends. Working every spare moment of my time. I want these mental health people’s licenses revoked. Today. Now. They do not deserve a professional license.

And now we’re finally here. Once I got Foundations published, I can now hold them accountable. I’m trying my best to give them fair warning –

I’m coming for your professional license to practice. I’m going to do EVERYTHING in my power to get your professional license revoked.

That is my sole mission, to get your license to practice professional psychology revoked. And I may not be able to do it today, or tomorrow, but I am not going to stop until I get your license to practice revoked – or until you stop colluding with this evil, with this profound human cruelty; with the induced evacuation of the child’s capacity for normal-range empathy that makes them a collaborator to their pathological parent’s astounding act of human cruelty.

I may not be able to get your license revoked today.  You may escape me today.  But I will not rest until you either stop colluding with this human cruelty, this evil, or I get your license to practice revoked.

So I have no patience for professional discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or what makes for a “bona fide” expert. The ONLY thing I want is to revoke the professional license of these stupid, stupid mental health… persons – or for them to stop colluding with this evil; with this immense human cruelty.

I’m sorry if I’m a “problem child.” I just want the professional license of these stupid mental health persons revoked, and by God I’m going to do everything in my power to accomplish that. Every ounce of my knowledge, every ounce of my skill, is directed toward one goal – to get their licenses revoked or else for them to stop colluding with this evil.

If we can do it with Gardnerian PAS, I’ll be the biggest fan ever. But we can’t. Then I’ve developed an approach that will allow me to go after them. And I am absolutely going after their licenses. Join me, don’t join me. I don’t care. I am going after their licenses to practice. If you join me and we can end this one day sooner, then I hope you join me. If me being a pigheaded pain-in-the-butt moves this one day faster to getting their licenses to practice revoked, or for them to no longer collude with this cruelty, then I’m going to be a pigheaded pain-in-the-butt.

I want them to STOP colluding with this human cruelty and evil, or I want their license to practice professional psychology revoked, and I will not relent until either one or the other is accomplished.

This immense human cruelty stops. This evil stops. And every ounce of my will is directed toward this purpose.

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

At the request of some targeted parents, I just reviewed the blog post by Amy Baker on what qualifications are supposedly required for a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation.”

How to Find a Parental Alienation Expert

Oh my goodness everyone, I’m sorry, I don’t seem to qualify as a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation.” My apologies. I guess you should all just disregard what I’ve been talking about. Oops, sorry, my mistake. Nevermind. Just go back to what you’re doing, and I’ll just go away.

And Amy Baker is right, I’m not a qualified expert in “parental alienation.”

So far, I’ve been qualified as an expert witness in ten court cases involving the pathology traditionally called “parental alienation,” in fact I just testified in a case this morning as an expert witness, and in not a single case was I “qualified” by the court as an expert witness in “parental alienation.” Not one. And in fact, I don’t think I’ve ever even used the term “parental alienation” in any of my testimony in those ten cases.

Truth be told, in the handout that I send to parents and attorneys who are considering engaging me for expert consultation and testimony, I specifically say:

“My professional expertise is in clinical psychology, child and family therapy, diagnosis and psychopathology, parent-child conflict, and child development, not in “parental alienation,” since I approach what has traditionally been referred to as “parental alienation” from within standard mental health constructs and principles, particularly centering around the normal-range development and expression of the “attachment system” during childhood.

“In my professional view, the term “parental alienation” is a general common-culture label rather than a professional term, which is used in common parlance to quickly refer to a complex set of family process involving the induced suppression of the normal-range functioning of the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward one parent (i.e., the “targeted parent”) as a result of the pathogenic influence on the child of the other parent’s personality disordered psychopathology (i.e., the “alienating parent”). The correct clinical term for the pathology generally described as “parental alienation” is pathogenic parenting (patho=pathology; genic=genesis, creation). Pathogenic parenting is the creation of significant pathology in the child as a result of aberrant and distorted parenting practices.”

“In my professional work, I describe the parent-child and family psychological and interpersonal processes from within standard and accepted psychological principles, with a particular focus on the development of child symptomatology in response to a parent’s personality disorder processes. I typically do not use the term “parental alienation” in my expert work and testimony, and my expertise for Court purposes is in:

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

Handout: “Dr. Childress Expert Consultation and Testimony” (2015)

According to Amy Baker, the qualifications that have been developed (uhhh, by who?  Oh, right, by the “bona fide” experts. Okay.) which are apparently necessary to become a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation,” disqualify me as a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation.”  My professional qualifications as a licensed clinical psychologist aren’t sufficient to qualify me as a “bona fide” expert. Dang. Well, nevermind everyone, disregard what I’ve been telling you. According to Amy Baker and the “bona fide” experts listed on her blog, I’m not a “bona fide” expert in this pathology. Sorry, I guess you should go to one of them. They’re the “bona fide” experts.  As for me? Well, I guess I don’t know what I’m talking about. Don’t listen to me.

Odd, though, that the list of required qualifications include:

“An advanced degree (masters or doctoral) from an accredited educational institution in a relevant discipline or field.”

Why wouldn’t they specifically say clinical psychology and marriage and family therapy?  Why did they extend it to the vaguely worded “relevant discipline or field?” Oh, that’s right, Amy Baker has a degree in Developmental Psychology. She’s not actually licensed to practice therapy or diagnose psychopathology, and she’s never actually diagnosed or treated any family for anything. Oooops. Sorry. Okay… I understand… a “relevant discipline or field.” Yeah, okay, got it.

Oh wait, this criteria also excludes Dorcy Pruter doesn’t it. Oh, now that’s a shame. Because Dorcy has the solution for this pathology in her hip pocket. I’ve seen it. She does. We have submissions pending for presentations at the 2016 national conventions for both the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and the American Psychological Association (hope they get accepted, I guarantee amazing).

Oh dang. So according to the criteria for being a “bona fide” expert Dorcy Pruter will be disqualified from solving your children’ pathology. That’s really unfortunate, because she can restore your kid’s normal-range functioning in a matter of days… days. So I guess you’ll just have to go to one of the “bona fide” experts listed. Oh, jeez, that’s too bad.

So, let’s see who’s listed… Oh, wait. Good news. Dr. Reay is listed. She has a treatment program she developed, the Family Reflections program I think its called. Oh, aren’t you lucky. Whew. Good thing a “bona fide” expert is available to solve your children’s pathology. Whew.  Sorry Dorcy… you can just go away now. We don’t need your High Road protocol that you’ve used with over 80 families and 100 children with 100% success. Don’t need it, because you’re not a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation.”

So, anyway, I apologize to everybody for my not being a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation.” You can stop listening to me. Nevermind. Don’t pay any attention to Dr. Childress, he’s not a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation.”

But hey, there’s always a bright side, maybe I can become a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation” someday. Let’s see what I’ll have to do…

So, what do I need to do to become a “bona fide” expert in the pathology of “parental alienation?” Because I want to become a “bona fide” expert just like them, since right now I’m only a licensed clinical psychologist who is qualified to treat every other form of child and family pathology EXCEPT this one mysterious pathology of “parental alienation.”

Let’s see… okay, I need to get some journal articles published.

Okay, everybody. Just hold on for a couple of years because I have to take time out from my busy schedule to first write the articles, then submit them for publication, and then when they’re accepted for publication it will be for a journal issue nine months away. So this will probably take about a year and a half to two years to get something into publication – oooo and I have to condense all of Foundations into 20 pages. That’s going to be really tough. But if everyone can just hold on for two years, then maybe I can become a “bona fide” expert just like them.

You can wait a couple of years, can’t you?  Nothing pressing on your agenda is there?

Hey, whaddya know, look at that… Richard Sauber is one of the bona fide “experts” listed by Amy Baker, and he’s the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Family Therapy. Wow, what a stroke of good fortune. Maybe I can submit an article to them. And look, William Bernet is also on the editorial board. How lucky is that. And, look, there’s Douglas Darnall on the editorial board, and Demosthenes Lorandos, and Richard Warshak.  Wow, that editorial board is just chock full of parental alienation people. Surely they’ll publish an article I submit to them.

Oh wait, I already did submit an article to them. In 2013. What happened with that, anyway? Oh, that’s right, it was declined because I didn’t pay proper homage to Gardner and it made one of the reviewer’s brain hurt. Seriously, that’s what one of the reviewers said, it made his “brain hurt.” That made me laugh. The act of thinking made this person’s “brain hurt.” Oh, I’m sorry. Sorry for asking you to think about something. I’ll try not to do that in the future.

That’s too bad too, that they rejected it. Imagine how much further along we’d be right now if they had accepted that article from me two years ago. Oh, well. I guess they know what they’re doing, because I’m not really a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation” and they’re the “bona fide” experts.

Hey, but now that they’ve read Foundations they have a better understanding of what an attachment-based model is. What if they offered me four articles in a single issue of an upcoming American Journal of Family Therapy, one article on theory, one on diagnosis, one on therapy, and one on professional practice standards. Or even one of these articles across each of four consecutive issues. That would certainly get the attention of establishment mental health wouldn’t it?  We’d probably achieve the paradigm shift a whole lot easier, don’t ya think?  So, actually, they’re holding the solution to the paradigm shift right in their hands, right this moment. Wow, and you know what, they’ve been holding this solution in their hands all along. Sheesh, if only we had realized it sooner.  But at least we recognize it now.  What a stroke of good fortune that I’m not a “bona fide” expert because I don’t have any peer reviewed articles, because I’m sure with Richard Sauber as the editor-in-chief and all those “bona fide” parental alienation experts on the editorial board, I’m sure they’ll support publishing a series of articles on an attachment-based model, right?  How wonderful.

Do you think when this series of articles is published this would help end this scourge of “parental alienation” all the sooner for you and your families? Oh, but wait, that’ll never happen because I’m not really a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation. Why would they offer four articles in their journal to someone who is not a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation?” What could I possible add of relevance to the discussion? After all, an attachment-based model is just old wine in old wine skins. Nothing new. Nothing that other people haven’t already said before. Oh well.

So let’s see, what else do I need to do according to Amy Baker and the other “bona fide” experts to become a real “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation” just like them?

“Maintained collaborative communication with other experts in PA.”

Oh jeez, that’s going to be a problem isn’t it. I’m not part of the “inside club” of bona fide “parental alienation” experts. I wonder if “collaborative communication with other experts in PA” is code-speak for adopting the Gardnerian doctrine? Hmmm. That could be a problem. Sorry everyone. I guess I can’t become a “bona fide” expert because I don’t accept the Gardnerian PAS model, errr, I mean I don’t maintain “collaborative communication with other experts in PA.”  Oh well. I’ll just go away now because I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about. Everyone just go back to doing what you were doing, and just disregard everything I’ve said, because I’m afraid I’m not really a “bona fide” expert in “parental alienation,” I’m just a licensed clinical psychologist with a specialty in child and family pathology. Nevermind.

Stark Truth

I am a staunch ally of targeted parents. I will take on false “reunification therapists,” I will take on the voodoo assessment of child custody evaluations, I will take on the minions of the pathogen, I will take on the APA,… and I will take on any false allies you may have in mental health.

I’ll leave it up to you. You decide.

Am I a “bona fide” expert in the pathology of “parental alienation?”

If I am, then why are Amy Baker and the allies listed on her blog trying to nullify my credibility as an expert in this form of pathology?  I’m a clinical psychologist and I see things at levels deeper than most. That’s my job. So I know why they want to disqualify me as being a “bona fide” expert in this pathology. I’ve known for quite a while. But now I suspect it’s becoming increasingly obvious to you as well.

But I’m a big boy. I can take care of myself in this fight. What is really reprehensible now is that they’re also trying to disqualify Dorcy Pruter as a “bona fide” expert.

Let this sink in: The pathogen is also trying to disqualify Dorcy Pruter as a “bona fide” expert because she doesn’t have a college degree. So Amy Baker and all the “bona fide” experts are on the same side of this argument as the pathogen. Now that’s really interesting.

And look, they’re using the exactly same arguments that the pathogen is using, that Dorcy doesn’t have an advanced professional degree and that an attachment-based model has no peer reviewed research (all the while they control a journal, the American Journal of Family Therapy with Richard Sauber as the editor-in-chief and a slew of “parental alienation” experts on the editorial board – doesn’t that “peer-reviewed research” criticism start to smack of being sort of a disingenuous critique? So invite four articles from me, one on theory, one on diagnosis, one on therapy, and one on professional standards of practice).

But didn’t I just address that critique of “peer reviewed research” with the minion of Mercer?  And now exactly the same argument is being used by Amy Baker and the “bona fide” experts in “parental alienation.”  Do you find that unsettling?  I know I do.

Why are Amy Baker and the people listed on her blog trying to discredit and disqualify Dr. Childress and Dorcy Pruter?  I know why the pathogen is trying to disqualify us, because it doesn’t want us to solve the pathology.  It wants everything to stay just the way it is.  But why are Amy Baker and the listed “bona fied” experts also trying to disqualify Dr. Childress and Dorcy Pruter?”  That’s just so odd.

But I’m a big boy, I can take care of myself.  But to try to disqualify Dorcy Pruter when she holds the solution for your children in her hip pocket is reprehensible.

I have spoken truth to you every step of the way. I’ve had the courage to call out professional incompetence with blunt truth. You know that.

So listen to this statement:

The High Road to Family Reunification protocol of Dorcy Pruter will resolve your children’s pathology and restore the normal-range functioning of your children in a matter of days. Days. I’ve reviewed the protocol and I understand EXACTLY how it works. She has used it with over 80 families involving over 100 children, and has achieved 100% success. If anyone wants to apply it in a single-case ABAB research protocol, we’re more than happy to collaborate in any research protocol. We have proposals pending to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and to the American Psychological Association (APA) for presentations at their respective 2016 national conventions (if these proposals are accepted, I guarantee amazing).

And Amy Baker and these “bona fide” experts are apparently trying to deny you access to Dorcy Pruter and the High Road protocol. That is reprehensible. Think about this carefully and let this entirely sink in, in their attack on the “bona fide” expertise of Dr. Childress and Dorcy Pruter, these “bona fide” experts, your allies in mental health, are on the same side as the pathogen.

“We weren’t talking about anyone specifically, we were just presenting general guidelines.”

Yeah. Right. If they try to dodge responsibility for identifying who these sham “credentials” are directed toward disqualifying, shame on them. They should be direct.  If you want to say I’m not a “bona fied” expert say it, don’t hide behind a sham proposal of supposed “credentials.”

“No Dr. Childress, we didn’t mean you specifically.”

Right.

I am 100% proud that my name isn’t associated with that sham set of supposed “credentials” proposed by Amy Baker and the “bona fide” experts  If you want to read my recommendations for the required qualifications needed to address this pathology, they’re in Chapter 11 of Foundations, with specific citations to the relevant literature.  All of the required domains of professional competence are based in established and accepted domains of psychology and none of them have to do with a fictional disorder of “parental alienation.”  I wonder how much of the literature I cite in Chapter 11 these “bona fide” experts have read?  You don’t suppose this could be a tit-for-tat, do you?  They feel disqualified by my domains of professional competence so they’ll come up with their own qualifications for expertise, for the first time in 30 years – in 30 years – that just coincidentally disqualify me as an expert.  Do you think it’s really just a coincidence? Really?

But look at the two sets of proposed qualifications.  Mine are written for and directed to establishment mental health with the purpose of activating for you Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code. That’s what my domains of professional competence accomplish.  There’s a specific purpose. By defining the domains of competence within standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology, I activate Standard 2.01a of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association for you. We are USING my standards to file licensing board complaints against incompetent mental health professionals. 

But these “bona fide” experts don’t understand the PURPOSE of my standards – which is to activate Standard 2.01 of the ethics code of the APA.  In their tit-for-tat, they come up with their own standards that reestablish their status on the pecking order above me but that ACCOMPLISH nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

Can you file licensing board complaints against your current incompetent mental health professional based on Amy Baker’s proposed standards?  Not a chance. Is establishment mental health going to accept Amy Baker’s proposed standards? Not a chance. The Gardnerian PAS experts live in their own echo-chamber world of reciting their doctrinaire mantras to each other, but they are out of touch with establishment mental health and with what is needed to integrate our efforts within establishment mental health.

The difference between my standards of professional competence as defined in Chapter 11 of Foundations and the sham standards developed by the Gardnerian PAS experts is night-and-day, and it points up in stark contrast the differing models. One, an attachment-based model, is anchored entirely within the world of established psychological principles and constructs, and leads to directly relevant actions in the real world, and the other, theirs, is based entirely within their own echo-chamber fantasy world of self-congratulatory status, with no real world application. 

There it is in a nutshell. Chapter 11 of Foundations and Amy Baker’s supposed standards for professional expertise. Look at them both and you decide.

And note this, in attacking and trying to nullify the expertise of Dr. Childress and Dorcy Pruter, these “bona fide” experts place themselves on exactly the same side as the pathogen. The pathogen is trying to do exactly the same thing. That is the stark truth.

Come after me if you want. I’m a big boy. But to try to nullify Dorcy when she has the solution in her hip pocket is reprehensible. 

Let me be clear on this, you will nullify her expertise over my dead body.  She is a professional colleague in every sense of the word.  In my professional opinion, she is among the TOP experts in this pathology in the entire country.  If I get a case of “parental alienation” in my private practice my first referral is to Dorcy Pruter and the High Road protocol because it is my professional opinion that it would be unethical professional practice to do therapy that will stress the child for months when the child’s normal-range functioning can be restored in a matter of days using the High Road protocol. I was working on a model for reunification therapy until Dorcy showed me what she had.  When I saw the High Road protocol, I stopped working on a model for reunification therapy.  No point in doing reunification therapy because she has exactly the right solution nailed.

If you succeed in nullifying Dorcy Pruter, shame on you, five-fold shame upon you for a reprehensible act of petty professional jealousy and egoism. I’m a big boy. I can take care of myself.  But to use your “professional standing” to nullify Dorcy when she has the solution in her hip pocket is reprehensible. You need to go back to your proposal for what represents a “bona fide” expert and rethink the criteria or you and I are going to have serious problems.

Is that clear enough. To nullify her you will need to nullify me.  If that’s what you want to do. Bring it.

Three Things.

1. What plan do these “bona fide” experts offer for solving the pathology of “parental alienation” using Gardnerian PAS and its eight symptom identifiers?

I have told you in specific detail the plan using the attachment-based model and it’s three diagnostic indicators (I’ll Explain it Just Once). Tag. You’re it. Tell us your plan. Lay it out for us to see so we can compare the two plans and make a choice of our strategy. So far I’ve heard nothing but crickets.

2. On what page of the DSM-5 is the diagnosis of “parental alienation?”

Using an attachment-based model of the pathology that is fully and completely grounded in the established and accepted psychological principles and constructs of professional clinical psychology, the diagnosis of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” is on page 719 of the DSM-5: V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.

Consider this, if I’m disqualified as a “bona fide” expert with regard to this pathology, then your children and families don’t get access to this DSM-5 diagnosis which is ONLY provided to you by a paradigm shift to an attachment-based formulation for the pathology.

3. Read the official position statement of the American Psychological Association regarding Gardnerian Parental Alienation Syndrome – right there in the title – January 1, 2008 – “Statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome”

Is this what you want the official statement of the American Psychological Association to read regarding your children and your families?

An attachment-based model forces the APA to update their position statement to include an attachment-based model of “parental alienation.” The pathology exists, and your children and families represent a “special population” requiring specialized professional knowledge and expertise to assess, diagnose, and treat.

Stand Up and Be Counted

Targeted parents are going into battle for their children and families. It’s time to declare. It’s time to stand with them in their fight for their children, or you will be abandoning them to fight this battle on their own.

I will not abandon them. Dorcy Pruter will not abandon them. We will stand shoulder to shoulder in the center of this battlefield and take on the impending vicious onslaught of the pathogen. Dorcy is going to take the most savage attacks, because she represents a huge threat to the pathogen. She solves the pathology. The pathogen must nullify Dorcy and the threat she poses to it by any means necessary. The attacks against her are going to be personal and they are going to be savage.

The pathology seeks allies, “binding sites of ignorance,” to enact the pathology and to nullify threats to its being exposed. That’s the pattern.  That’s how it functions.

When these attacks come, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Dorcy in the center of this battlefield because she has the solution for you and your children. She has it. I would not say so if it wasn’t true.

If either or both of our professional presentations to the AFCC or to the APA are accepted, we will explain what the High Road protocol is and why it is effective. A professional convention is the proper venue for this presentation of her protocol to a professional audience, because I fully consider Dorcy Pruter to be a professional colleague.

If anyone can help us do a single-case ABAB research protocol for the High Road protocol, we would welcome the opportunity to provide research evidence of its effectiveness.

A DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed and the High Road protocol. We are holding the solution. We have a battle ahead of us, and apparently this battle may not only be with the pathogen, it may also be with the “bona fide” experts of “parental alienation.”

You will know where mental health professionals stand by which set of diagnostic indicators they choose, the eight symptom indicators of the failed and flawed Gardnerian PAS model, or the three diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model for “parental alienation.”

30 years. Scoreboard.

Four invited articles to the American Journal of Family Therapy: theory, diagnosis, therapy, professional competence. Imagine how much faster we could achieve an end to the pathology of “parental alienation” with their active support.

Every day that passes is one day too long.

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

P.S.  I consider Karen Woodall to be an authentic ally of yours.  If you are involved with her clinic, you should listen to her wise counsel. She is most definitely your ally and she has my deepest respect and admiration.

PPS: Amy Baker says, “Research and the clinical literature consistently report that abused children generally cling to and are protective of the abusive parent.  They want to repair the relationship and forgive the abuser, and they are likely to deny or minimize past abuse.”  

Citations please.  I’ve been searching for research on this and haven’t found much.  There’s van der Kolk’s statement that

“Increased imprinting to abusing objects has been demonstrated in birds (33), dogs (34), monkeys (35, 36), and human beings (7). Sackett et al. (37) found that monkeys raised by abusive mother cling to them more than average: The immediate consequence of maternal rejection is the accentuation of proximity seeking on the part of the infant. After similar experiments, Harlow and Harlow (35) concluded: “Instead of producing experimental neurosis we had achieved a technique for enhancing maternal attachment.” (p. 34)

van der Kolk, B.A. (1987). The separation cry and the trauma response: Developmental issues in the psychobiology of attachment and separation. In B.A. van der Kolk (Ed.) Psychological Trauma (31-62). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

And I’ve followed up with all of the references cited by van der Kolk.  I’ve also located:

Raineki, C., Moriceau, S., Sullivan, R.M. (2010). Developing a neurobehavioral animal model of infant attachment to an abusive caregiver. Biological Psychiatry, 67, 1137-1145.

But I have not located any research to support the statement made by Amy Baker.  I followed all the various links in her blog but none of them led to relevant research.  So citations please, that:

“Research and the clinical literature consistently report that abused children generally cling to and are protective of the abusive parent.  They want to repair the relationship and forgive the abuser, and they are likely to deny or minimize past abuse.” 

Many thanks.

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