Professional Vitae & Credibility
Have you ever seen a pack of lions once they’ve separated their prey from the herd? They kind of surround it. The prey is still very dangerous. No hurry, take your time, it’s not going anywhere now.
With cheetahs, there’s hurry, there’s chase. Dogs and humans chase their prey, we’re long-distance runners, we’re designed to outrun and outlast our prey.
Not lions. Lions stalk their prey, and when they burst from the grasses it’s to separate their prey from the rest, once it’s separated from the herd, it’s over.
The prey, however, the buffalo or hyena, is still dangerous prey, with horns, muscular size, and defenses of its own, it’s just prey now.
At that point, there’s no hurry, just deliberate stalking setting up the final kill, the pack of lions circle and surround, carefully setting up the opportunity.
Professional Challenges & Credibiity
We disagree. Dr. Childress and my professional colleagues, we disagree.
We disagree on what they do, I say it is unethical professional practice – they are silent in their response.
We disagree on diagnosis. I say they are misdiagnosing pathology because of their unethical professional practice – they are silent in their response.
I say their diagnosis, their recommendations, and their treatment are wrong, entirely wrong – they are silent in their response.
We will be testifying to the Courts in the same matters, with the same child and family. The court will need to evaluate our relative credibility – we disagree.
Credibility is vitae – what do you know – what is your background training, experience, and education? If you are a plumber, you know nothing about psychology, if you work with old people or autism, you know nothing about complex trauma in childhood. Vitae.
People assert – and people lie. Let’s see your vitae, let’s see what you know. That’s how we establish credibility in professional psychology – vitae – background training and experience.
We’re going into a period of professional wars within this court-involved pathology, my court testimony and theirs. Dr. Childress is testifying and writing reports for the Court. That has obligations, on my side and the Court’s.
My Obligations to the Court
It is my responsibility to understand my role in the Court’s decision-making. It is my responsibility to remain contained within my role. It is my responsibility to make available to the Court the scientifically and professional established knowledge of clinical child and family psychology for the court’s consideration in its decision-making.
To the extent that I am credible to the Court and am speaking on your behalf, and the child’s, my weight of credibility will bring for you a correct decision from the Court.
It is time for me to breathe into by vitae, to live now into my knowledge and background, and from my background to bring all the power I can bring to bear to your voice, and to the authentic voice of the child’s.
It is time to bring my full force of credibility before the Court on your behalf, and on behalf of your children.
The Court’s Responsibility
The Court’s responsibility is to consider the evidence provided from clinical child and family psychology through my reports and testimony, to weigh its credibility and relevance, and to incorporate this information into it’s decision-making as warranted by Court’s determination of both my credibility and the information’s relevance.
The more substantial my credibility, the stronger my voice becomes in the Court’s considerations. It is time for me to breathe into my authority, my vitae. I am who I am, I offer this background to support the credibility of what I say, your Honor.
This is not ego about who is the better “expert” – this is serious. The Court will be evaluating my credibility. Now, at the start, I will establish the boundaries of my professional competence for the Court’s consideration in its evaluation of the substance and credibility of my reports and testimony.
I understand my role, your Honor. I am applying professional information – evidenced on my vitae – to the matter under consideration, and these are the factors, and this is the path to resolution.
There will be times when I will be involved in matters where I will be reviewing assessment and treatment reports from other prominent forensic psychology people, and will be evaluating these professionals as potential referral resources for treating and resolving the child’s attachment pathology.
I will be testifying to the Court about my opinions about their reports, their recommendations, and them, as a referral source for treating attachment pathology and persecutory delusions in a child, and pathology created by the trauma-impacted allied parent.
I am quite likely to be in disagreement with many aspects of their professional practices, their conclusions and recommendations, and their appropriateness as a referral for treating attachment pathology in children. I will be providing information on my opinions to both my client and the Court.
My credibility relative to their’s will be a direct consideration for the Court.
This vitae-analysis is not personal, it’s not who’s the biggest “expert,” it’s serious. There will be differences in the recommendations offered to the Court coming from us, weighing our respective credibility is central to the Court’s role and function.
I will start by establishing myself for the Court. My vitae.
Dr. Childress Vitae
Something I will note as I enter into this review of background and credibility is that I have worked with two of the premier and recognized experts in their respective fields, Keith Nuechterlein at UCLA in schizophrenia and Jim Swanson, Ph.D. at UCI in ADHD.
I know what vitaes of professional substance look like. I’ve been in that level of professional practice.
Dr. Nuechterlein has a 40-year major NIMH longitudinal clinical research project on schizophrenia. I’ve seen his vitae – 20+ pages of major research in the top-tier publications, for decades.
He’s received major funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) for 40 years for a single clinical research project. He is the top expert in schizophrenia, few will match him, none exceed his vitae. I’ve seen Keith’s vitae. I know exactly what a vitae of substance looks like.
Jim Swanson, Ph.D. is the Child Development Center at the University of California, Irvine. He has a Ph.D. but his appointment is to the UCI Medical School, he’s that important – the MD doctors want him and welcome him. Jim Swanson’s UCI-CDC was one of the six sites in the MTA study of ADHD in the 90s, a lead site in the most comprehensive and best double-blind research ever conducted.
The six top sites for ADHD combined into a single study… led by Jim, and several others. The UCI-CDC was one of the organizing sites for the MTA study.
Jim Swanson and the UCI-CDC have produced nearly all of the research on school-based interventions for ADHD. Big-pharma also runs all their clinical trials though the UCI-CDC (hence Jim’s appointment to the UCI Medical School) because Jim’s ADHD treatment program is the best possible, so the effects of medication can be more clearly evaluated.
I’ve seen Jim’s vitae. Like Keith’s, 20+ pages of substantial research published in the top journals.
As we enter, two things… First, I know what a top-tier professional vitae looks like. Second, birds of a feather.
I worked with Keith for over 12 years, every year trained to clinical and research reliability in rating psychotic symptoms by the Diagnostic Unit at the Brentwood VA (they had a contract with UCLA as part of the multiple major grant funding to provide the diagnostic training and support for all research projects housed at UCLA).
I know what a persecutory delusion looks like. It looks like this.
I was recruited out of CHLA to work with Jim Swanson and the UCI-CDC (and I jumped at the chance) because of my clinical background in both early childhood mental health and ADHD (Jim was expanding into preschool-age children).
Of note is that I have not applied for a job on my vitae since my training at CHLA (except for the teaching positions, I like teaching so I sought that out).
I was recruited to join Jim’s project at the UCI-CDC. I was recruited to be the Clinical Director for a FEMA/DOJ project on developing a mental health assessment protocol for juvenile firesetting. I was recruited to be the Clinical Director for a three-university treatment center providing assessment, diagnostic, and treatment services for children ages 0-5 in the foster care system.
Why do people recruit me? Because they know my work.
I’m a clinical psychologist. My vitae isn’t research-strong like Keith’s and Jim’s. I’m recruited because I’m the clinical psychologist. I’m recruited to lead teams to develop a national model for the mental health assessment of juvenile firesetting, and to assess, diagnose, and treat childhood trauma in the foster care system because I am good at what I do, the clinical treatment. That’s my role. PsyD, not PhD.
I’ve seen solid professional vitaes, and birds of a feather.
I’m not from here.
First, let’s have a look at where I come from, what is the foundation for my credibility, and then let’s see what is the foundation for their’s? That is a decision that will be emerging for the Court as it evaluates the relative credibility of conflicting testimony.
I’ll start with mine, in support of your voice and that of your children, and then theirs.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Licensed Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857
GreatCosmicMothersUnite 