There is far too much exploitation of this vulnerable population, the parents who are involved in litigation simply so they can be mom and dad in their child’s life.
Professional psychology needs to designate these parents as a “special population” because of their special vulnerability, they are immensely vulnerable to the court’s decisions regarding their role and involvement with their children.
From the vantage point of professional psychology, their special vulnerability arises from the immense influence that the court’s decision-making will have regarding their role as mother or father and their involvement in parenting their children.
This special vulnerability incurs special obligations from professional psychology to provide the highest caliber of excellence in professional practice.
People’s lives hang in the balance of the court’s decision. These children, their parents, and the court require the highest standards of professional practice in the application of knowledge, not the lowest.
Until we reach that level of understanding from professional psychology surrounding the immense vulnerability of these parents, emanating from the court’s involvement into the most basic aspects of their humanity, their role as mother and father, the potential for the exploitation of these parents in their vulnerability becomes of high professional concern.
I serve as a consultant in clinical psychology to attorneys and their parent-clients. In that capacity, I am often asked to review the reports of involved mental health professionals and provide an opinion from the vantage of clinical psychology.
I read their reports. I am deeply concerned that the vulnerability of these parents is being substantially exploited by the surrounding mental health professionals.
I am also aware of “treatment programs” being developed and offered by various level of professional that are of equal concern for their effectiveness, and similarly raise concerns for the exploitation of the vulnerability of these parents as a consequence of the court’s power over their lives.
During this upcoming 2020 to 2022 period, I will be taking a more active voice in “peer-review” of my professional colleagues.
I am a clinical psychologist with substantial professional background, cite my vitae, I am qualified to review my peers in this area of pathology and professional practice. Truth resonates with truth. Qualified professional practice welcomes review and scrutiny.
Does someone want to peer-review Dr. Childress and AB-PA? Please, have at it. I welcome peer-review from my professional colleagues. Foundations, my blog, lots of essays on my website, my Australian Amicus Submission. Peer-review to your heart’s content.
So… your turn. I’d like a formal professional description of what you’re doing please. Thank you.
At the same time, my opinion is just my opinion. I’m not the thought-police, I’m a clinical psychologist with professional background with this complex trauma pathology, I’m concerned about potential exploitation of this “vulnerable population” and I am requesting peer-review of your protocol, thank you.
When there is solid, I acknowledge solid. Just ask Dorcy. She’s a coach, has nothing to do with me. High Road and HPP are solid, I acknowledge solid. The only thing I care about is achieving a solution as fast as is humanly possible.
I have recently opened dialogue with Lawyer Leslie in this Alliance group after she and a parent posted here referencing YouTube videos of her support for pro se parents.
Parents here are not a feeding resource for professional practice. I reviewed the YouTubes, and as a clinical psychologist I have zero problem with anything Lawyer Leslie is discussing, and I will defer to the legal professional for her greater expertise in procedure and the law.
I have invited professional-to-professional public discussion with her – as I do with all professionals. I think such professional-level public discussion can help parents. I think it will also help us provide solutions.
Pro se representation will always be necessary, and the solution we achieve must integrate pro se representation into its fabric. Yet it will be from the attorneys that the path to court-involved solutions will be forged.
I encourage professional-to-professional discussion in a public forum. I believe this would be of benefit to other professionals listening, and to parents who must navigate both the mental health system and the legal system independently, and in interface with each other.
Lawyer Leslie is an attorney, that means she sells her time and knowledge. I am a clinical psychologist, that means I sell my time and knowledge. If you contact either of us, I’m confident you will receive strong consultation support… and it will cost you for our time and knowledge.
To the extent that professionals can engage in public professional-level discussions, parents may benefit at lesser financial cost.
The time and knowledge of attorneys will be necessary to achieving a solution, as will be the time and knowledge from clinical psychology. The path we forge for solutions in the family courts can then be followed by pro se litigants.
Additional legal and mental health professionals are welcome to join in dialogue. Always a nice entry into discussion is a question.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857