The forensic psychologists are withholding a diagnosis from the courts and from the litigant parents.
As a result, the courts don’t have the necessary information for decision-making surrounding the child, and one of the litigants (the targeted parent) does not have the necessary information to fully make their case to the court for a child protection response.
Court-involved psychologists should NOT be withholding highly relevant diagnostic information from the courts and the litigant parents.
The doctors need to be doctors, they need to formally diagnose the problem (pathology) using the DSM-5 & ICD-11 diagnostic systems, and then tell the court and the litigant parents what that diagnosis is.
This allows each litigant to present their case to the court and to challenge a clearly made diagnosis if they choose. The appellate system for a disputed diagnosis is second opinion.
I recommend that we get that second (and third) opinion throuigh telehealth right at the initial assessment point, thereby giving the court clear mental health information on which to base its decisions – and for a treatment plan to fix the diagnosed problem.
The legal system lands on the wrong end-point, the custody decision of the court. Healthcare lands on the proper end-point, treatment, we need to fix the problem.
Throughout healthcare, diagnosis guides treatment. What is the DSM-5/ICD-11 diagnosis for the pathology (problem)?
They won’t tell you. The forensic psychologists in the family courts won’t tell you what the DSM-5 diagnosis is. They refuse. They are intentionally withholding relevant evidence – the DSM-5 diagnosis – from the court and from the litigant parents.
That’s exactly the problem. The forensic psychologists are breaking the system… for their own financial and career status gain.
The moment the psychologists start returning DSM-5 diagnoses of Child Psychological Abuse (a shared persecutory delusion & FDIA), that will indicate the previous failure of the forensic psychologists to protect the child and targeted parent.
The forensic psychologists are highly motivated now to NOT diagnose the Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51), Delusional Disorder (shared/induced); persecutory type (DSM-5 297.1), and FDIA (DSM-5 300.19) because it will expose their prior failure – throughout their career.
The forensic psychologists in the family courts are intentionally – intentionally – disabling the mental health system’s response to child psychological abuse (DSM-5 V995.51) in the family courts for their personal financial and career-status gain.
Debate: Are Forensic Psychologists Intentionally Disabling the Mental Health System Response to Child Abuse?
Yes: Dr. Childress
No: Pick one. Anyone. How about Dr. Saini, he’s President of the AFCC. How about him? Or anyone. Surly there’s a forensic psychologist who will argue that they are NOT intentionally disabling the mental health system response to child abuse?
Crickets. Watch.
I’m encountering them. They’re encountering me. Howdy, I’m Dr. Childress, pleased to meet you. Are you aware of Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code?
Are you aware that the DSM-5 & ICD-11 diagnostic systems are among the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” required – mandatory – for application as the bases for professional judgments?
So? What’s your DSM-5 diagnosis for the child and family problem?
You’re a doctor. That’s your job. Tell the court and the parents what your DSM-5 diagnosis is… and why. Cite to the symptoms, cite to the diagnostic criteria.
Does the child have a fixed and false belief maintained despite contrary evidence (i.e., a delusion) that the child is being malevolently treated in some way by the normal-range parenting of the targeted parent (i.e., a persecutory delusion)?
A litigant parent – the targeted parent – needs an answer to that question for their arguments made to the court. You’re the court-involved psychologist, that’s your “field” of practice – so – answer the diagnostic question for the litigant parent and court.
They won’t answer the question. They are intentionally withholding the diagnostic information – they’re covering up their prior failure. Oh my.
We’re in the active cover-up phase now – which will expand into a larger conflict of interest.
To fix the broken mental health system response to the pathology in the family courts, we need to acknowledge that the experimental quasi-judicial role of forensic custody evaluators failed, and that we need to return to established healthcare of diagnosis and treatment.
But the moment we eliminate forensic custody evaluations and return to clinical diagnostic assessments… they lose their jobs. They are a failed model. Bye-bye, no one needs a “forensic custody evaluation” anymore.
There is currently a tremendous conflict of interest with forensic psychologist in positions of authority and influence. To change means to acknowledge their failure – and they will need to exit the family courts.
They misdiagnosed child abuse their entire careers and were responsible for disabling the mental health system response to child abuse that irrevocably destroyed the lives of thousands of children and their parent.
They experimented on human subjects, the parents and children in the family courts, with their made-up “quasi-judicial” role for doctors. Their experiment on children and parents was a complete and total failure.
They need to go away. They don’t want to go away because this is their career. We’re in the cover-up phase now – entering the conflict of interest phase.
It will get worse for them, and worse, and worse. Reality is what reality is. The DSM-5 diagnosis is V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 297.1 Delusional Disorder; DSM-5 300.19 FDIA).
Howdy. I’ve been retained in this matter to review your work. It’s a pleasure to meet you.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist
WA 61538481
OR 3942 – CA 18857
GreatCosmicMothersUnite 