The “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” of professional psychology is:
Attachment – Bowlby and others
Family systems therapy – Minuchin and others
Personality disorders – Beck and others
Complex trauma – van der Kolk and others
Child development – Tronick and others
Self psychology – Kohut and others
ICD-10 & DSM-5 diagnostic systems
2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.
If the psychologist’s work is NOT based upon the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline, then they are in violation of Standard 2.04 Bases of Scientific and Professional Judgments – they are unethical psychologists.
Psychologists are required to know the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline based on their background education, training, and professional experience.
2.01 Boundaries of Competence
(a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience.
If the psychologist is providing services outside the boundaries of their competence based on their education, training, and experience, then they are unethical psychologists for violation to Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence.
Psychologists must base their opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings.
9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments .)
If the opinions of the psychologist as contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements is NOT based on information sufficient to substantiate their findings, then they are unethical psychologists in violation of Standard 9.01 Bases of Assessment.
Information: Bowlby – Minuchin – Beck – van der Kolk – Tronick – Kohut – ICD-10 & DSM-5 diagnostic systems
Techniques: Mental Status Exam of thought and perception
Parents have rights guaranteed to them by the ethics code of the American Psychological Association. Ethical practice is mandatory, not optional, for all psychologists.
The “forensic” psychologists control the licensing boards. All court-involved complaints made to licensing boards are given to “forensic” psychologists for review – and they exempt themselves from all ethical standards of practice… because they can.
We need to expose the corruption of the licensing boards. Make them cover-up their unethical practice… over-and-over again. You have rights – but only if you stand up and demand your rights.
They won’t give them to you – the licensing boards are not set up to protect the consumer from unethical practice by “forensic” psychologists – they are set up to protect the unethical “forensic” psychologists from accountability for their ignorant, incompetent, and unethical practice.
Google ignorant: lack of knowledge or information
They are ignorant by definition of the English language – and they are too lazy to learn what they’re doing.
2.03 Maintaining Competence
Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence.
Google incompetence: inability to do something successfully
Did they solve your child’s pathology? They are ignorant and incompetent. They solve nothing because their are ignorant, lazy, and unethical.
Google negligence: failure to take proper care in doing something. Law: failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.
Were their violations of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments, Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence, Standard 2.03 Maintaining Competence, and Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment, of the APA ethics code negligent professional practice?
The pathology of concern is a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the primary case – also called the “inducer” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The ICD-10 diagnosis for a shared persecutory delusion is F24.
From the journal, Family Court Review:
From Walters & Friedlander: “In some RRD families [resist-refuse dynamic], a parent’s underlying encapsulated delusion about the other parent is at the root of the intractability (cf. Johnston & Campbell, 1988, p. 53ff; Childress , 2013). An encapsulated delusion is a fixed, circumscribed belief that persists over time and is not altered by evidence of the inaccuracy of the belief.”
Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.
From the APA: “Shared Psychotic Disorder can occur in larger number of individuals, especially in family situations in which the parent is the primary case and the children, sometimes to varying degrees, adopt the parent’s delusional beliefs.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 333)
From the APA: “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)
Google malevolent: having or showing a wish to do evil to others.
Does the child have a fixed and false belief that is maintained despite contrary evidence that the targeted parent has a “wish to do evil” to the them? Does the allied parent share this fixed and false belief that the targeted parent has a “wish to do evil” to the child? – that would be a shared persecutory delusion.
If you – as the mental health professional, because of your negligence, ignorance, and unethical practice – believe the shared delusion, then you become PART of the shared delusion, you become PART of the pathology.
When that pathology is child abuse – you, the mental health person – become part of the child abuse – you become the child abuser. The “betrayer” – the one who should protect… but doesn’t.
You, the parents, are more powerful than you know, but only if you stand up for your rights – not beg to have someone recognize some made-up pathology – you have rights, but only if you ground yourselves in the “established scientific and professional knowledge” of professional psychology.
You’re the moms. You’re the dads. You just need support. You have support.
This is child abuse – DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.
This is spousal abuse using the child as the weapon – DSM-5 V995.82.
All psychologists have two legally obligating duties, the duty of care and the duty to protect.
The “forensic” psychologists are failing in their duty to protect the child from child abuse, and they are failing in their duty to protect the targeted parent from spousal emotional and psychological abuse using the child as the weapon.
This is child abuse. This is spousal emotional and psychological abuse using the child as the weapon.
It needs to stop. Now.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857