Craig Childress PsyD -APA

Oh boy, the APA has proposed new Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings.

They are inviting “public comment” on a website they set up, I’ve got some comments.

They’re only allowing five comments in their five little boxes before they ratify the Guidelines and pass them.

Five’s not enough, there’s way more things wrong than just five. So I’ll be providing them with their five little box-comments, and then I’m doing a line-by-line analysis I’ll be posting to my website.

That’s going to be my first Comment – “See my line-by-line Commentary posted to my website.” Then I’ll give them my four most important critiques:

2) Violation to Principle D Justice

3) Violation to Standards 2.04 and 9.01 and failure in their duty to protect.

4) No inter-rater reliability, so they are not valid assessments of anything.

5) Harm to the client parent and child

If I’m the APA, I’d be worried about a class-action lawsuit with these Guidelines being the smoking gun for their collusion with and cover-up of unethical and negligent malpractice in the industry and practice of child custody evaluations.

And holy cow, if any child custody evaluator follows the Guidelines, they will become immensely vulnerable to a malpractice lawsuit on multiple counts. So that’s going to be kind of a problem for them.

I’m obviously available to testify in a malpractice or class-action lawsuit. I’m not a lawyer, I’m a psychologist, the lawyers need to do what lawyers do. My line-by-line Commentary on the proposed Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings is likely to be helpful with that.

In the next day or two, I’ll be posting my little box-comments here on my Public Facebook page. Feel free to use any or all of my comments as your own in your comments to the APA.

Here we go, cowabunga baby.

There is a reason for the APA ethics code. Because unethical practice hurts people, like here.

If you believe the shared delusion, you are part of the shared delusion, you are part of the pathology. When that pathology is child abuse, you, the mental health person are part of the child abuse – you, the mental health person are the child abuser.

If you are a mental health person who is colluding with the psychological abuse of the child, you need to lose your license to practice.

Google ignorance: lack of information or knowledge

Google incompetence: inability to do something successfully; ineptitude.

Google negligence: failure to take proper care in doing something. Law: failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.

It’s not my license on the line.

Listen to this from the Guidelines: “These guidelines endeavor to provide aspirational direction to those psychologists who are asked to perform child custody evaluations.”

“endeavor” – you either provide or you don’t… they try.

“aspirational direction” – absolutely nothing – these Guidelines provide absolutely nothing – wait – they endeavor to provide absolutely nothing. That’s their goal, we’ll see if they achieve providing “aspirational direction” to child custody evaluators who don’t know what they’re doing; i.e., are incompetent by definition of the English language.

From the Guidelines: “Many training programs offer at least limited forensic exposure to family law, and psychologists are asked to perform child custody evaluations with varying levels of supervised experience in this area.”

Oh good, that’s probably so reassuring to parents, your child custody evaluator may have at least limited training exposure to what they’re doing, with varying levels of supervised experience actually conducting assessments of family conflict.

So for all the child custody evaluators who are incompetent and don’t know what you’re doing, good news. A secret “Working Group” of forensic psychologists are providing you with “aspirational direction.”

Whew. Boy, I’m sure glad these child custody evaluators with at least some limited training and experience in assessing family conflict now have “aspirational direction” in conducting assessments they only have minimal training to conduct.

Oh my goodness, and what about all the child custody evaluators who do NOT have at least limited exposure to assessing court-involved family conflict? I guess the “aspirational direction” provided by the APA for their ignorance and incompetence will help tremendously.

Thanks APA for your endeavor to provide “aspirational direction” (absolutely nothing) for ignorant child custody evaluators in the conduct of child custody evaluations.

From the Guidelines: “These Guidelines provide general recommendations for psychologists who seek to increase their awareness, knowledge, and skills in performing child custody evaluations.”

Are the Guidelines providing “general recommendations” or aspirational direction? Why would competent child custody evaluators need “general recommendations.”

General recommendations: 1) do the right thing, make accurate decisions, don’t be biased. There, all solved. Things are so much better now. I guess that child custody evaluators just start doing evaluations without these aspirational directions, so they get lost and confused about what they’re doing.

It’s so useful to have these aspirational general recommendations for the ignorant child custody evaluators who only have limited (or no) training and experience in assessing family conflict.

Stay tuned – the Dr. Childress Five Comments to the Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings are on their way here to my Public Facebook page – share to your heart’s content.

Followed by a line-by-line Commentary from Dr. Childress posted to my website.

It’s time.

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

Craig on Delusional Disorder ie Pathogen

Oh my god, pathogen, I just had a great idea, you’ll love this… it’s a solution for our disagreement.
I say you have a thought disorder, a delusion, a shared persecutory delusion – I’m being very specific, an ICD-10 diagnosis of F24 – a real thing.
You say you don’t.  You say your thinking is just fine, you are rational and don’t have a delusion.
So how do we resolve this? I say you have a delusional disorder and you say you don’t.  I know, a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception – of frontal lobe executive function systems.
Google “mental status exam” and read the NCBI entry, better yet, here it is:
Mental Status Examhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK320/
Oh my gosh, we actually have a clinical diagnostic assessment procedure that will answer our question.  Isn’t that great?  We don’t have to argue about it, we’ll just get it diagnosed. See there where it says,
From NCBI: “Does the patient harbor realistic concerns, or are these concerns elevated to the level of irrational fear? Is the patient responding in exaggerated fashion to actual events, or is there no discernible basis in reality for the patient’s beliefs or behavior?”
Perfect assessment protocol, right? 
Oh, but it says it’s hard to do the MSE of thought and perception. See, it says,
From the NCBI: “Of all portions of the mental status examination, the evaluation of a potential thought disorder is one of the most difficult and requires considerable experience. The primary-care physician will frequently desire formal psychiatric consultation in patients exhibiting such disorders.”
Good news, pathogen.  I have that “considerable experience” in the Mental Status Exam of thought and perception (frontal lobe executive function systems) from 12 years of annual training at a UCLA project on schizophrenia in the MSE of thought and perception.
Holy cow, pathogen, I’m one of the most experienced professionals around at diagnosing delusional pathology.  Tell ya what, how ’bout a bonus… how about we rate how severe your delusion is?  Not just whether or not you are delusional… how about we tell you just how delusional you are on a 7-point scale?
The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale – look it up on Wikipedia – the BPRS, “one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms.”
Well waddya know.  For 12 years I was trained annually in the MSE of thought and perception, rating the severity of the delusions on the BPRS, “one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms.”
Is that just not the best news, pathogen.  Dr. Childress is one of THE most experienced psychologists in diagnosing delusional pathology… AND… there is a way to do it, the Mental Status Exam of thought and perception.
Yay.  Isn’t that great news?  So not only can we tell IF you are delusional… we can tell how severe it is on a 7-point scale.  With this court-involved shared delusional disorder of the child with the allied parent, I’d likely rate the child’s delusional beliefs as around a 5 Moderately Severe on the BPPS.  There’s full conviction and impairment to functioning.
For you Trump-mind cult people, you might be a 4, full conviction but encapsulated and no functional impairment, or you could go all the way to 7 Extremely Severe if you’re QAnon preoccupied with the delusional beliefs.
The BPRS, it has excellent psychometrics, that’s why it’s used so regularly in rating psychotic symptoms.  Or we could use the PANSS if you’d like, the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale. Up to you, it’s your assessment, which scale would you like to use?
My-oh-my, the Mental Status Exam of thought and perception.  Perfect.  They’re tricky, the frontal lobe executive functions are subtle and you have to know what you’re doing, the “evaluation of a potential thought disorder is one of the most difficult and requires considerable experience,” that is true.
And whoa, whaddya know, I have exactly that “considerable experience.”  Must be kismet, don’t ya think there pathogen buddy?  Such good news.
There’s actually a way to diagnose thought disorders.  Do you know why?  Because they’re not rational, they’re delusions, they don’t make sense.  What an MSE of thought an perception does is not look at the content… we look at the process – the way and how of the reasoning systems.
If it’s logical and rational, it doesn’t matter the content, the process of thinking is clean.  If there’s a delusion present, however, the process of thinking is all out-of-kilter… the process doesn’t make sense… it’s not coherent, it’s illogical and internally inconsistent.  It doesn’t make sense – not the content, the process.
It’s called a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception, of the frontal lobe executive function systems.  Useful thing to know when dealing with delusional pathology, how to diagnose it.
I thought you’d be thrilled to hear that pathogen, that Dr. Childress is one of the foremost clinical experts in the diagnosis of thought disorders and delusional pathology.
ICD-10 F24 – a real thing, a real diagnosis.  The MSE of thought and perception – a real thing, a real assessment for delusional beliefs. The BPRS – a real thing, a real rating scale for delusions.
Oh my goodness, well would you look at that… reality exists.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Craivghttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK320/

Fonagy & Tronick – Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based “Parental Alienation” (AB-PA)

I want to make a statement to my professional colleagues – clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals – regarding the knowledge needed for professional competence. In every clinical experience I’ve been in, the professional standard of practice expectation is that you know everything there is to know about the pathology, and then you read…
— Read on drcraigchildressblog.com/2019/06/17/fonagy-tronick/

The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services – Parental Rights

…heart-breaking stories of CPS corruption, including how children are being taken away unnecessarily and put in very abusive situations. Her conclusion is that “there is no responsibility and no accountability in Child Protective Services.”
— Read on parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/

The Legal Argument Package – Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based “Parental Alienation” (AB-PA)

Forensic psychology gives parents and the courts only one legal argument option, and it seeks its particular goal by marshaling a particular set of evidence to present to the court in favor of that goal. The goal of the legal argument package from forensic psychology is to obtain a court order for a reversal of…
— Read on drcraigchildressblog.com/2019/01/02/the-legal-argument-package/