I’m testifying today. That’s always stressful.

I don’t like it but I think I’ve gotten pretty good at it. I’ve had a lot of experience now, I’ve been testifying in courts in a variety of jurisdictions for years now. I’ve even testified once in Sweden and once in South Africa – remotely. I don’t travel.

I’ve been through a lot of cross-examinations.

I can watch where the pathogen is as it snakes around me trying to find a vulnerabilty to strike. Cross-examination keeps me apprised on the current movement of the pathogen. It’s an interesting critter, once you see its movements… you see it move.

It doesn’t know what to do with me. The opposing counsel wants to attack on the “parental alienation” line – but can’t. The pathogen wants to attack on the forensic custody line – but can’t – I’m a clinical psychologist. Some opposing counsels try the slander line, I don’t think that works with the judges – judges know the games of the courtroom.

For me, testifying is easy. I turn off my thinking mind and remain only my information mind. I listen to the question. I answer the question, then I stop and wait for the next question.

It’s like a test in graduate school. I apply the knowledge of clinical psychology to the question I’m asked. That’s it.

I don’t have an opinion. I do, I like the color blue. So what? My opinion is not relevant. I apply the established scientific and professional knowledge from clinical psychology to the information I review as the bases for my professional judgments.

As I am required to do by Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code. I remain contained within my role. I’m a clinical psychologist – treatment not custody – diagnosis guides treatment.

There is an attorney in the matter who believes that the application of the established knowledge of clinical psychology to a set of information will assist the Court in its decision-making. So this attorney qualifies me and introduces my testimony to the judge for consideration.

I’m not an advocate. The legal system has advocates, they’re called attorneys. I’m evidence. I understand my role. I’m the applied knowledge of clinical psychology to a set of information. That’s it.

I listen to the question. I answer the question, then I stop and wait for the next question. I apply knowledge, I don’t create it.

I then face cross-examination by opposing counsel. This allows for a full presentation of the information for the Court – the information that supports one side, and the information that supports the other. I understand this and I understand its value to the Court.

Oftentimes, there’s little professional-level information to support one side, and a lot to support the other, which can be frustrating to opposing counsel – they have a job to do and its hard when the evidence is against you.

I don’t fight with opposing counsel, they have a job to do. It’s the judge’s call to decide – I know where I am and I understand my role.

I’m evidence. I listen to the question. I answer the question, then I wait for the next question. I allow the attorney to present the evidence of applied professional information from clinical psychology to the Court.

Opposing counsel has a job to do. Their role is to discredit my testimony that damages their side as much as they can. I understand that.

I don’t think the slander approach works for them. It might have early on, but I’m becoming an increasingly known entity in the courts – I’m on the Internet with a Consulting Website – I pop up on Google searches, judges can google me the same as any one else can, and I’ve been saying exactly the same thing for a decade.

I’m not a surprise, although I am a surpisal (Friston), an unexpected bit of information. I’m an open book. Apply knowledge. Comply with the APA ethics code.

The knowledge to apply is attachment – family systems – personality disorders – complex trauma – child development – self psychology – the DSM-5 diagnostic system.

When the opposing counsels adopt an effort to slander, I correct the record for the judge, but I don’t fight with attorneys. My credibility is fair – so let’s settle it.

Look at my vitae. Look at my writings. Look at what I say. Am I credible or not? Let’s decide and settle that question so we can move on, because it’s relevant to every case I testify in. Am I credible, is what I’m saying the application of established knowledge?

Yes.

Judges understand the various legal games played by attorneys in the courtroom, and if there’s some issue that arises during cross-examination relevant to the substantive arguments being made, then the attorney who brought me into the matter can correct the record on re-direct.

I let the attorneys do what they do. They seem to enjoy it. Oh my goodness, do they like to argue. Are you here for the 5-minute argument, or do you want the full hour?

My role is easy. I listen to the question. I answer the question, then I wait for the next question. That’s easy.

But it’s stressful because every answer I give must be precise in its word-choice and sentence structure. If I make a mistake on this test of knowledge, my license is at risk. This pathogen is immensely dangerous and retaliatory.

There are a lot of people who want to hurt me because I’m helping you to protect the child.

I need to be precise and accurate in every word choice I select… for hours-and-hours of questioning about anything and everything psychological.

That’s okay. I’m senior staff. Have you ever presented a case at a case-staffing meeting of six psychologists, four interns, and two post-docs? I’m senior staff. No worries.

I know where I am. I understand my role and obligations. I must be precise and accurate because… that’s the information the Court needs. The Court needs accurate information fully understood. Accurate information is my testimony, fully understood is the cross-examination.

The best questions are when the judges ask me a question. The questions from the Court are always on target to the issue and are perceptive. The judge is seeking a specific piece of professional-level information that will help in the decision. I answer as fully and accurately as I can.

I don’t make the decision. That’s the judge’s call. I’m information, I’m evidence. I allow the attorneys to present the evidence. That’s my role, I’m the information, the extraction of the information is through the attorneys.

What is it that you want to know?

What many opposing counsels don’t yet understand is that I don’t have a opinion – I do, I like the color blue – that’s not relevant. I apply knowledge to information. You provide the information, I provide the knowledge.

My value is my knowledge, not my opinion – I like the color blue. I have extensive knowledge of clinical psychology because I’m an old clinical psychologist – it’s the old part. I’m not from the family courts, I’m from everywhere else – attachment – family systems – complex trauma and child abuse, everywhere but here, and also here.

I apply knowledge, I don’t create it.

Bowlby creates knowledge through his research, Tronick creates the knowledge through his research, van der Kolk creates knowledge through his research, Minuchin creates knowledge through his clinical research with families – I apply the knowledge they discover – the established scientific and professional of the discipline.

I’m evidence, the application of knowledge in clinical psychology to a set of information to assist the Court in its decision-making surrounding the child. I have no opinion on custody.

In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values. In the absence of child abuse, each parent should have as much time with the child as possible.

In the absence of child abuse, to restrict either parent’s time and involvement with the child will damage the child’s attachment bond to that parent, thereby harming the child and harming that parent.

Is there child abuse?

That’s my only concern as a clinical psychologist – and the answer is yes – the ONLY cause of severe attachment pathology is child abuse by one parent or the other… the only question is, which parent?

In all cases of court-involved child custody conflict involving severe attachment pathology displayed by the child, a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.

The current crop of court-involved “forensic” psychologists are failing the Court, they are failing the child, and they are failing the parents.

Forensic psychology is a failed experiment in service deliver to a vulnerable population. Clinical psychology – treatment not custody – needs to return to court-involved child custody conflict – but they won’t come to the family courts because it’s too professionally dangerous for them here.

That’s my role. I’m the first to return. I’m a trauma psychologist out of foster care, look at my vitae. This is my pathology, child abuse, attachment pathology, and complex trauma. I am a court-involved clinical psychologist. I’m the first to return.

Notice a difference?

Where I come from, I’m not unique, I’m common. I’ll name Keith Nuechterlein and Jim Swanson right off the top. Keith knows everything there is to know about schizophrenia – everything – and he then reads (writes in) journals to remain current. Jim knows everything there is to know about ADHD and he then reads (writes in) journals to remain current.

That’s the standard for competence where I come from – clinical psychology. That was the standard for competence I was trained to at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles working on the treatment teams with their physicians. If you’re a doctor at a Children’s Hospital, you’re the. best, because that’s the expected standard.

There may be lots of others who are just as good, but none better. If someone knows more than you about the pathology – learn what they know.

We’re doctors. It’s our job to know the pathology we diagnose and treat.

Testimony is like taking a test. Ask me anything about psychology. Go ahead. I know a lot because I need to know a lot, the kids I worked with needed me to know a lot, so I do.

Go ahead, ask me a question.

Notice that on Facebook that I can always answer your questions with ease from the knowledge in my brain. I don’t have to refer to a book… because I’ve already read the books. It’s the old part of being an old clinical psychologist.

I know a lot, pretty much everything there is to know about the pathology. Do you know what that’s called where I come from? Competence, basic competence.

The value of my testimony is my knowledge, not my opinion. The downside is that the shelf-life on the acquired knowledge is brief. I suggest you use it while I’m here. Or go to the source – Bowlby – Minuchin – Beck – van der Kolk – Tronick – Kohut – DSM-5.

Attachment – family systems – personality disorders – child development – analytic self psychology – delusional thought disorders and FDIA.

Apply knowledge to solve pathology.

2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments
Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.

The American Psychiatric Association provides the definition of a persecutory delusion:

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).

I hate testimony. The stress is high so my adrenaline is high for hours. Once I finish hours of testimony, I need a day to recover my inner-chemistry, it’s exhausting – easy but exhausting.

Like taking the SAT or GRE tests, or the licensing board exam. We study months and months for the licensing exam, recapturing everything we ever learned about every aspect of psychology, the licensing exam can ask any question from anything you’ve ever learned about psychology.

Testimony is like that.

I’m used to it. I have testified a lot. With experience comes a degree of familiarity and comfort. But I can never relax on the stand, not yet. Not until we bring the fighting surrounding these children to an end.

All doctors should be using the same scientifically established knowledge to reach the same conclusions and recommendations. That’s true with cancer, it’s true with diabetes, it’s true with attachment pathology.

I’m a court-involved clinical psychologist. Notice a difference? They’ll be returning once its safe for them to return. I’m just the first to return to the family courts – I’m establishing the path of safety for clinical psychologists to follow.

Walk where I walk, step where I step to avoid the landmines for clinical psychologists in the family courts.

Treatment not custody. Diagnosis guides treatment.

Apply knowledge to solve pathology – abide by the APA ethics code Standards 2.01, 2.03, 2.04, 9.01, and 3.04. When child abuse or spousal abuse are considered diagnoses, all mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations that must be appropriately discharged.

Diagnose the pathology and tell the Court. When the pathology is Child Psychological Abuse, diagnose it (V995.51) and inform the Court of your diagnosis.

We have duty to protect obligations. They are failing.

We need change. We need to do things differently. Randomly different? No. We need stability as we change, we need to remain grounded and change at the same time. We need to return to the application of established scientific and professional knowledge as the bases for our professional judgments, and clinical psychology needs to return to court-involved custody conflict.

The change involves applying actual knowledge – for a change.

We need Standards. Let’s start with the ethical Standards of the American Psychological Association which are currently mandatory – required – of all psychologists.

Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence

Standard 2.03 Maintaining Competence

Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments

Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment

Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm

All mental health professionals have a legally obligating duty to protect the child from child abuse and to protect the parent from spousal emotional and psychological abuse by the other parent using the child as the weapon.

DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse

DSM-5 V995.82 Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological

I always say the same thing. I apply established knowledge, I don’t create it. I don’t have an opinion – I have obligations – I’m a doctor, we have obligations.

If you don’t want the obligations – don’t be a doctor. If you’re in the family courts – know where you are – know what the pathology is.

In all cases of child abuse, we protect the child.

Is there child abuse? When there is severe attachment pathology (a child rejecting a parent), the answer is yes. The only question is, which parent?

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857