GreatCosmicMothersUnite

He’s Pisces ,

Totally in alignment with my need 🎁💯😘

This is Universal Law that rocks far and above Human Kind

as we witness in all aspects of present , which evokes the

tower moments of purification , that our New Earth

servers in balance and harmony as was the intent .

©️🔥✔️☮️🌎♥️🎁👁😘🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

The pathogen seeks to split and divide, to isolate its victim from support. The pathogen seeks to create conflict, in order to divide. It doesn’t want a united voice.

Targeted parents are split from each other, rejected fathers are split from rejected mothers. The pathogen wants this division.

The pathology is nearly identical across genders – there tends to be a more narcissistic-style that has stronger IPV components of spousal abuse, and there is more a borderline-style that has stronger anxiety features and false allegations associated with it.

These pathology differences may have some gender associations (narcissistic ex-husbands with IPV spousal abuse and borderline ex-mothers with false allegations), but these are merely variants of an underlying core trauma pathogen.

The source of the pathology is the same, the trans-generational transmission of attachment trauma through the formation of a cross-generational coalition of the allied parent with the child against the targeted parent. (I wish I had a simpler label for this form of pathology, let’s call it AP-PA for discussion purposes).

Rejected mothers tend to face a more narcissistic-style ex-husband with stronger IPV components, rejected fathers tend to face a more borderline-style ex-wife with an activated trauma history. The pathology style is simply a variant of the pathogen.

I would urge (supposedly) rejected parents to come together to support each other (I say “supposedly” rejected because the child isn’t authentic, it’s not real, the rejection is not authentic). In healthy families, moms support dads and dads support moms. That’s what we should be doing, intentionally, to bring unity and end division.

I’m a dad, so I’ll speak to dads. I know there is a “dad’s rights” movement in child custody and visitation. I fully understand the origins for this. Our historical prejudice of from the 1940s and 50s meant that in the early days of divorce, beginning in the 70s and 80s, we favored mothers in child custody decisions.

Father’s love their kids too. “Hey, I love my kids just as much as their mother does,” said fathers. Society and the courts agreed, and shifts began to take place. That was the origin of the father’s rights movement, “Hey, I love my kids too.” Entirely reasonable and completely understandable.

What was unfortunate is that elevating the role of fathers created an artificial conflict with mothers, it polarized the debate and dialogue into conflict. It’s not about mothers versus fathers – each is entirely and completely important.

In healthy families, moms support dads and dads support moms. In divorce we’ve fallen into a family pathology of conflict. We need to bring that to an end. Moms are important. Dads are important. Equally important.

I want the “father’s rights” movement to consider adjusting their position statements to include additional statements supporting the rights of mothers relative to child-rejection and the pathology of “parental alienation” following divorce. I think fathers making a statement of support for rejected-mothers of this “alienation” pathology would be extremely valuable in ending the rift. Dads support moms.

It would make a profound statement of healthy fathers.

And moms should do the same for rejected fathers. Moms support dads. The National Organization of Women and domestic violence organizations should speak up for fathers who are simply seeking to love their children, but can’t because of the pathology of their ex-spouse. And moms, you should be advocating with these organizations for women for the “alienated” dads of post-divorce pathology. Moms support dads.

Fathers loving children is a good thing. Women and mothers should provide their full support for this. Moms support dads.

This pathology is dominated by splitting – a polarized perception and locked-in frozen rigidity. Solutions that escape the pathology will need to bring integration of polarities. You can start that – you parents. Dads, make a point to speak for the role and importance of mothers – and moms, make a point to speak to the importance of dads in the life of the child… and moms, advocate with your organizations for the visitation rights of dads. Dads, do the same. Support moms who are simply seeking to love their children.

This post-divorce family conflict pathology is caused by the pathology of the ex-spouse, it’s not a division between mothers and fathers. It’s the activation of pathology surrounding divorce.

The pathogen seeks to divide and isolate. It wants to create conflict. Consider your role in bringing conflict and division to an end. We support each other, moms and dads both. Your shared commonality is that you just want to love your children – and – your ex-spouse has unresolved trauma history from their childhood that’s making an absolute mess of everything.

The pathogen lies. Have I mentioned that? It lies all the time. How do you know when the pathogen is lying? It’s lips are moving.

It wants to divide mothers from fathers. Don’t let it. Moms are important, dads are important. Healthy parents understand this, so dads support moms and moms support dads. That’s what healthy moms and dads do.

We are bringing solutions… and normal-range sanity… to post-divorce family conflict. This is not a battle between mothers and fathers, it is shared advocating for moms and dads who love their kids – and who are struggling with the pathology of their ex-spouse which was activated by the spousal rejection inherent to divorce.

The child is being used as a weapon of spousal emotional abuse by the allied parent against the targeted parent for the failed marriage and divorce. This isn’t a mom-issue or a dad-issue, it’s an unresolved trauma pathology in the ex-spouse issue, unresolved trauma that is being activated by divorce.

The pathogen seeks to divide and isolate its victims. Don’t let it. Moms support dads, and dads support moms. That’s healthy mom-ing and dad-ing.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

I have a tremendous respect for the legal system. An independent justice system operating under the rule of law is a foundational pillar of democracy and human rights.

Any “system” will be inhabited by people, and people are fallible. Our justice system, independent and operating on principles of fairness and the rule of law, represents a significant advance in human rights.

It doesn’t always work, and I would cite Dred Scott to end debate on that. Courts sometimes make flawed decisions.

Our system of justice does correct itself, and that is key to understanding a free system of justice governed by the rule of law, it grows and changes.

It grows through the laws it receives from our legislatures elected by the people, and it grows in its increasing discernment of the core principles it applies.

Separating children from parents is never a good thing, we need to fix things in parent-child relationships, not sever them.

Magistrates intruding into the family to separate children from parents should be limited to child protection factors. Differing cultural values in parenting, personal values in parenting, and religious values in parenting should all be respected by the court.

If parenting practices are not dangerous to the child, then there is no legal justification for separating children from parents. Courts should not be in the role of evaluating which parents “deserve” to be parents.

Imagine in 1930s Germany if the courts had separated children from Jewish parents because the court determined that being raised by Aryan parents was in the “best interests” of the child. Or if courts decided that in mixed-race families, it was in the “best interests” of the child to be raised by White parents because a European cultural experience was in the “best interests” for the child. We do not intrude on the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit – within the limits of child abuse.

Parenting practices that are dangerous to the child, and which require court intervention to protect the child, should receive a corresponding DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Abuse made by a mental health professional (V995.54 Child Physical Abuse, V995.53 Child Sexual Abuse, V995.52 Child Neglect, V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse). Courts act on evidence, not allegations.

The child is making allegations of being “victimized” by the problematic parenting of the targeted parent. Haven’t we been through this “child allegation” phase in the Salem witch trials? Haven’t we learned about the importance of evidence in the courts? If there are allegations of “abusive” parenting practices, we should have the allegation assessed and a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse made by a mental health professional. That is the evidence of child abuse – the DSM-5 diagnosis made by a mental health professional.

Without a corresponding DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse, there is no justification for separating a child from a parent.

We do not separate children from parents because a parent took the child’s iPhone away as a discipline practice, or because the parent became angry at the child for child disrespect. We intrude into the family and the rights of parents to establish their cultural, religious, and personal values with their children ONLY to protect children from child abuse.

If there is child abuse, then the court’s action to protect children should be accompanied by a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse.

V995.54 Child Physical Abuse (p. 717)

V995.53 Child Sexual Abuse (p. 718)

V995.52 Child Neglect (p. 718)

V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (p. 719)

There are two primary post-divorce custody visitation schedules, 1) equal shared parenting (50-50%), and 2) every-other weekend to one parent and primary weekday time to the other parent. A variety of factors can impact the selection between these two primary custody visitation schedules. These are the two basic schedules for post-divorce visitation.

Any restriction on parent-child time that restricts parenting below the every-other-weekend schedule would need justification for restricting a parent’s access to and involvement with the child and would involve child protection concerns. Child protection concerns should be accompanied by a corresponding DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse – the evidence to support the court’s decision that the child requires protection from a parent.

For the legal system, allegations are allegations until they are proven. If there are allegations of child protection concerns, then these allegations should receive a proper professional assessment that will provide the evidence to make decisions. If there is a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse, then action by the court to protect the child is warranted. If there is no DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse, the family conflict is a treatment-related issue that does not require the court to alter custody and visitation schedules.

“We need to listen to the child” – Salem witch trials.

The court acts on evidence, not allegations. If there are allegations of child protection concerns, then these allegations need to be confirmed by a DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse made by a mental health professional. The court acts on evidence, not allegations.

Children’s reporting of symptoms and their interpretation of situations is not always accurate, and can be influenced – Salem witch trials – the psychological control of children (Barber).

That’s why we have the DSM-5 diagnostic system. That’s why we have a legal system based on evidence and the rule of law. Allegations are not evidence. Allegations should be properly assessed, and if child protection concerns exist then there should be a corresponding DSM-5 diagnosis of child abuse.

Without child protection concerns, there is no justification to restrict parental access to, and parenting with, their child consistent with the parents cultural values, personal values, and religious values.

Courts should not determine which parents “deserve” to be parents based on vague criteria and vague allegations.

Magistrates and judges should not be separating children from parents except in cases of child abuse. Separating children from parents is never a good thing.

If there is conflict, we fix it. That’s a therapy issue, not a legal issue.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857