I was blessed to find Childress , in 2012/13. Just after Dad exited ,
as the family structure disintegrated beyond repair , his final
gift 🎁 was that I had done enough, been abused and used
enough, with threats of death , altering his wishes , participating
in hastening his death …goodbye brothers .
In the aftermath , I was kinda allowed to know the
success of our granddaughter’s being , and my determination
to successfully conclude the old business . Clarity , in most
failures and negatives being associated with me..
It’s with a much lighter heart , after 7 years of having the
verification , my heart healing , and reeling as this epidemic
of child abuse escalates , many and mighty WE stand , and
say no more .
You’re all delusional.
Yes you are, don’t try to deny it. All of you. Still.
When I first came over here in 2010-ish, you all thought you had to “prove something” to someone. Most of you thought you had to prove this “parental alienation” pathology to a judge.
But it was broader than that – it was this driving need belief that you had to prove something to someone, you had to prove PAS to the American Psychiatric Association so’d they accept it. You had to prove the pathology to a judge so the judge would accept it.
Can you hear the pathogen’s voice in that? I do.
That’s not true. You just need a diagnosis. If your uncle Bob has schizophrenia and you need to put him on a conservatorship, how do you prove to a judge that your uncle Bob has schizophrenia?
You take uncle Bob to a psychologist and get a diagnosis of schizophrenia. You then take that diagnosis of schizophrenia to the judge as proof that uncle Bob has schizophrenia.
Judges don’t diagnose pathology, psychologists do. License… that’s that the license means… we are licensed – authorized – by the state to diagnose pathology. Us. Psychologists. Not judges. Judges are not licensed to diagnose pathology.
If you want to prove that uncle Bob has schizophrenia, you go to a psychologist, not a judge. if you want a conservatorship for uncle Bob, go to the judge. The judge will ask you to prove uncle Bob has schizophrenia, so then you take Uncle Bob to a psychologist and get a diagnosis.
Seriously people, you do not have to prove a pathology to a judge…. they are legal professionals… go to a psychologist and get a diagnosis.
Now… do you have to prove a diagnosis to a psychologist? No. Why not?
Because that’s not how you get a diagnosis.
You don’t prove to me your child has ADHD. You don’t prove to me that your child has autism. You don’t prove a diagnosis, you’re given a diagnosis.
You come to me as a clinical psychologist. You tell me the symptoms, I’ll tell you what the diagnosis is, and I’ll tell you what the treatment is.
If you think I’ve misdiagnosed the pathology, get a second opinion. That’s how it works.
A parent doesn’t “prove” to me the child has autism, or “prove” to me why Billy has problems in reading. i examine the pattern of symptoms, I collect information about that pattern of symptoms, and I match that pattern of symptoms to diagnostic patterns, and I make a diagnosis, I assign a diagnosis, I give a diagnosis.
You don’t “prove” a diagnosis to me.
See. Here you thought you had to prove something to someone. No. A psychologist will give the diagnosis… a gift to you of the truth – and you take this diagnosis to the judge as proof that uncle Bob has schizophrenia.
You don’t have to prove anything. The psychologist sees the pathology, makes a diagnosis, and tells the court that uncle Bob has schizophrenia. You then ask the court for a conservatorship of uncle Bob because he has schizophrenia.
What about the DSM-5? The pathology of “parental alienation” isn’t in the DSM-5, it’s not real, we have to prove it’s real.
No you don’t. It’s not in the DSM-5. So? Look what is in the DSM-5, on page 719, V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse. Okay, that works.
Creating a delusional belief in the child is a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. There. Happy now? You have a DSM-5 diagnosis.
And, personally, I think that’s a more accurate diagnosis than that “parental alienation” thing of Gardner’s, that was a mess. Good idea, something’s there, bad execution, he skipped diagnosis. Shouldn’t do that.
So see. You don’t even have to prove anything to get a DSM-5 diagnosis for the pathology, you’ve already got that.
So… what do you have to prove?
Oh… you have to educate your mental health person about the diagnosis.
No you don’t. See. There you go, being all delusional again, “We have to prove something, we have to prove something.”
If you’re concerned about autism for your child, so you want that assessed and diagnosed… do you have to also educate the assessing mental health professional about autism?
Are you simultaneously educating your mental health person about what autism is at the same time that they are assessing your child for autism? Is that the way it works? No.
If you’re worried about cancer, so you go to your doctor and say, can you check me out for cancer, I’m worried. Do you then have to educate your doctor about what cancer is so that you can be assessed for it? No.
So why do you now have to educate your mental health people about a pathology in order to have it assessed?
Differential diagnosis, are you an abusive parent or is there a shared persecutory delusion with the other parent as the “primary case”? – the “inducer” (American Psychiatric Association) of the persecutory delusion in the child, “the more passive and initially healthy second person”?
A persecutory delusion, a fixed and false belief in supposed “victimization.”
From the American Psychiatric Association: “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom he person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.”
…or someone to whom the person is close – i.e., the child – is being malevolently treated in some way.
That’s the American Psychiatric Association.
Standard 2.04 of the ethical code of the American Psychological Association states,
2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.
The DSM-5 and ICD-10 are the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.
You do not have to educate your mental health person. They should ALREADY be educated. You don’t “prove” a diagnosis, you are given a diagnosis.
If they do not know how to give a diagnosis of autism, if they don’t know what autism is… they are not competent. By definition, they are not competent.
Ask them for the diagnosis. If they go, “What?” Then that means they are not competent. By definition, they do not know what they are doing.
See. You’re all still delusional. You think it’s your job to now educate the mental health professional so you can prove something to a judge.
No. None of that is true. It is a false problem created by the pathogen’s lie that you believe… prove it.
Don’t you just hear the smug sneer of the pathogen, prove it. Prove your not a bad parent, prove I am. Go ahead… try. I’ll lie, I’ll manipulate, I’ll delay and obstruct… prove it.
I’ll surround you with ignorance and incompetence, no one will see my manipulations, my control of the child. Prove it.
No, stupid pathogen. Diagnosis. I see you, I diagnose you. A shared persecutory delusion, ICD-10 F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder, DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse. Given… a gift. We give a diagnosis, that’s my gift to you pathogen, my diagnosis.
The problem is not you, it’s them. Reorient. You don’t have to prove anything, you don’t have to educate them.
You do need to be an informed consumer, because these mental health people surrounding you are stone-cold stupid, ignorant, arrogant, incompetent, slothful, lazy, and unethical.
Google stupid: having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
Google ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Google arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.
Google incompetent: not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.
Google slothful: reluctance to work or make an effort; laziness.
Google lazy: unwilling to work or use energy.
Google unethical: not morally correct.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857