Here are two interview segments I did with the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law. The interviewer with HiiL is Tim Verheij. I found him to be very intelligent and perceptive, a pleasure to speak with.
This is not 60 Minutes. Doesn’t matter. It’s the information. This is the dialogue we need to open up in professional psychology. My solution, your solution, doesn’t matter. Scoreboard, though, on no solution.
HiiL Interview: Part 1
HiiL Interview: Part 2
We find solution through the application of scientifically established knowledge and through the scientific method of research. Single-case ABAB is available, as is a structured clinical assessment protocol, and a strategic family systems intervention of a contingent visitation schedule.
If you have solutions, bring them. Let’s discuss them. Let’s do research. Three programs. Try them, collect the data, see what works. That’s how science answers questions. Data. Evidence-based practice.
I would welcome an invitation from a law school student association to a panel discussion or moderated debate hosted at their law school.
Possible Topic – The Family Courts: The Role of Clinical and Forensic Psychology.
Possible Topic – Solutions in the Family Court: Reuniting Families
I’d prefer a moderated debate, but I don’t think they’ll find anyone to take a contrary view. So instead of a “debate” it could be broadened into a “panel discussion” – a more collegial tone. I think it would be wonderful if the law school student association collaborated with the student association in the doctoral psychology program at the same university to sponsor the panel forum.
If a registration fee is charged, that could cover the expenses of the conference and remaining money could provide funding support to the sponsoring student association programs. Stream the conference panel and extend the money coming to the student association programs. With the proper marketing, this could be a big event. Dr. C and whoever you want. Three or four. Or two. Whatever you want.
If the organizers want, each panel member could provide a brief 3 to 5-page write up of what their position is surrounding the top area – six weeks before the panel. That way, all these papers could be sent around to the discussants ahead of time. All the discussants and the moderator team then know what the general position statements of all the discussants are.
Then the panel is a two-hour moderated discussion on solutions in the family court. That is the type of higher order discussion and dialogue professional psychology and the legal profession need to engage.
Scoreboard. We know what doesn’t work. What we’re doing right now. Let’s figure out what to do. We need things to be different; let’s engage the professional-level discussion.
We need change. Grounding change in the scientific method provides stability in change. My recommendation is: Let’s develop three solution models and try them. I’ve got one. I could develop two more if you want. But I’m not greedy, I’ll just take one. Other people can take the other two of whatever you think is best.
Then let’s do them, collect the data, and make decisions regarding what approaches work.
In the HiiL interview, I discuss Dorcy’s work. Dorcy has solutions. They’re different from my solutions. Yay. I discuss the Law Society of Saskatchewan. They’re developing solutions. They’re different from my solutions. Yay. I don’t care, your solution, my solution, their solution – we just need solution.
I’ll start. I’m a clinical psychologist so I’ll offer a solution from clinical psychology. Other clinical psychologists? If you have ideas, come up with them, propose them, and bring them to the table.
We need to have the discussion. We need to do the research. What works. We need solution, and what we are currently doing is NOT a solution to anything – it’s the worst possible thing we can do – leave an un-repaired breach in the parent-child bond.
Ed Tronick calls relationships “the good, the bad, and the ugly” – and leaving the child in an un-repaired breach with a parent is what he calls the ugly. It is the worst possible thing we can do, and we’re doing it routinely in the family courts.
Still Face: Breach and Repair
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0
We need to bring the science of professional psychology to bear: attachment, family systems therapy, personality disorders, complex trauma. There is no excuse not to apply the knowledge of professional psychology.
We need to answer questions by employing the scientific method. In the scientific method, we develop solutions and we put them to the test. We gather data. We adjust, we decide, based on data.
Let’s begin with a panel forum discussion. Four discussants hosted by a law school and graduate psychology school programs at a university. Anywhere. Michigan. New York. Israel. Pennsylvania. Houston. Don’t care, doesn’t matter.
What is the leading law school in the country? Lead. Or internationally. Which university is the leading university on the planet? Lead.
If you are a leading law school or university, lead.
I would propose that each discussant prepares a 3- to 5-page topic paper for distribution to other panel panel members and moderator team. These papers (and perhaps optional 2-page response papers among the participants) could be organized into a pdf “booklet” for distribution to the registrants. When someone registers to attend they will receive this pdf “booklet” of discussant papers two weeks prior to the panel discussion.
Imagine how marvelous a student project for law school and doctoral psychology students, to organize these papers into the moderators line of questions. Fascinating. The moderator and line of topic area questions are entirely up to them. I think that would be a wonderful cross-disciplinary collaboration of law students and graduate psychology students.
Questions from registrants for the panel could be sent to the organizing committee in the two-weeks prior to the panel discussion. The panel discussion would be 90 minutes of moderated dialogue around topic points and 30 minutes of moderated questions-and-answers from pre-submitted questions.
You want a solution? There’s a solution. Start with that.
Or, we can just continue to go around and around in circles of endless debate. You heard my response to the question, “Why don’t we do that?” – My response: I don’t know. It would seem to make total sense to me.
It makes so much sense that it’s hard for me to believe that it won’t happen at some point. It may happen after I’m dead, which would be unfortunate, but my goodness gracious people, let’s sit down and figure this out. That’s Remedy 4 of the Petition to the APA; for them to host a conference of experts in attachment, family systems, personality disorders, complex trauma, IPV and domestic violence, cultural psychology, psychometrics, and ethics. Lot of people at the table on that one; complex family conflict is… complex.
I’m being interviewed by HiiL, a human rights law innovation organization in The Hague. While in the Netherlands, Dorcy and I met with representatives of the Dutch Ministry of Justice to discuss approaches to solution. Exactly what you see me discussing here.
Change is forming. Change – and solutions – are coming. Because they need to come.
Children should never be used as weapons of spousal revenge and retaliation in the divorce. If there are problems we fix them. We do not reject family. We fix problems by applying the scientifically established knowledge of professional psychology.
Let’s start with applying family systems therapy. Then we add attachment. Then complex trauma and personality disorder (complex trauma) knowledge. That would be the crux of my paper, and here is my audition tape for the panel discussion.
This is what I’ll say if you invite me. Let’s start having the professional discussion of solutions. It’s time.
The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law. Maybe they’ll want to co-sponsor the panel with the law school and graduate psychology programs. That would look good on the program packaging. An international scope for scientifically supported change in our approach to family law.
Invite a representative from the Law Society of Sask. They will be a strong contributor. I would suggest the judge who organized the conference I presented at, I think he would provide a strong voice for their approaches.
My solution, your solution, doesn’t matter. Just solution. It’s time to open a professional-level dialogue on solution.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857
GreatCosmicMothersUnite 