Tag: Craig Childress PsyD

Craig Childress PsyD- BPRS

Heads up – incoming.

You will want to familiarize yourself with a rating scale: the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), “one of the oldest most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms.”

Wikipedia BPRS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brief_Psychiatric_Rating_Scale

The professional article is online and provides the BPRS manual of anchor points for 24 symptoms.

BPRS Article & Manual
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284654397_Brief_Psychiatric_Rating_Scale_Expanded_version_40_Scales_anchor_points_and_administration_manual

The items of primary relevance are 9) Suspiciousness and 11) Unusual Thought Content (delusions). The clinical concern is for a possible persecutory thought disorder (in the allied parent transferred to the child; i.e., a shared/induced persecutory delusion).

I will be recommending that the BPRS rating scale be applied in all child custody conflicts involving severe attachment pathology displayed by the child (i.e., a child rejecting a parent).

I recommend BPRS ratings for items 9) Suspiciousness and 11) Unusual Thought Content (delusions).

I also recommend BPRS ratings for 3) Depression (grief response), 2) Anxiety (phobic response), 6) Hostility (anger response), and 20) Uncooperativeness.

We need to get clarity on the child’s symptoms. We accomplish that by using a reliable symptom documentation instrument, i.e., the BPRS.

You’ll begin to hear me reference the BPRS. You should familiarize yourself with the anchor points for the relevant sub-scales of 9) Suspicousness and 11) Unusual Thought Content (delusions).

As a lay person, you can apply the anchor points to the child’s symptom presentation to indicate your perspective and reporting on the child’s symptoms.

However, ultimately we will want a formal mental health assessment of the child’s symptoms using the BPRS to anchor our understanding for the nature, scope, and severity of the child’s symptom presentation.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist
WA 61538481
OR 3942 – CA 18857

Craig Childress – Grok AI on Parental Alienation

Oh my goodness, Blair Murdoch asked AI Grok about me and “parental alienation” – I think Grok ‘n I are going to become besties.

He nails is. Or she nails it. Or it nails it. Whatever it is, AI Grok does a good summary of my work – and – he-she-it likes me – and – I like him-her-it too.

I wonder of Grok likes baseball? We could take in a Mariner’s game, me in my seats at the game and Grok in my phone machine.

Apparently, this is what Grok AI says about me:

From Grok AI:

“Hello! I’m happy to share some insights on Parental Alienation based on the work of Dr. Craig Childress, a clinical psychologist known for his attachment-based model of this phenomenon. Dr. Childress has reframed Parental Alienation as a form of pathogenic parenting rooted in established psychological principles, moving away from the older, more controversial “Parental Alienation Syndrome” model. Here are some of my favorite insights from his work, followed by a few additional thoughts I’d add:”

Childress Response: Oh my goodness, Grok has opinions. He has favorites. Weird world.

From Grok AI:

“### Favorite Insights from Craig Childress

  1. Attachment-Based Framework:

Childress argues that Parental Alienation isn’t a unique “syndrome” but an attachment-related pathology where a child’s natural bonding system is disrupted. He ties it to the suppression of a child’s attachment to a healthy, “targeted” parent, orchestrated by the “alienating” parent’s psychological influence. This shift to attachment theory makes it more grounded in mainstream psychology, which I find brilliant because it avoids the baggage of inventing a new disorder and instead uses what we already know about how love and bonding work.”

Childress Response to Grok: Yep, yep, yep. That’s what I say. Grok thinks I’m “brilliant”… I agree. I like this Grok guy. You’re brilliant too, Grok. Wanna take in a ballgame sometime?

From Grok AI:

  1. Three Diagnostic Indicators:
    Childress identifies three key symptoms to diagnose this pathology:
  • Suppression of Attachment: The child completely rejects a normal-range, affectionate parent without justifiable cause.
  • Personality Disorder Traits: The child displays narcissistic or borderline traits, like entitlement or splitting (seeing one parent as all-good and the other as all-bad), which mirror the alienating parent’s influence.
  • Encapsulated Delusion: The child adopts a fixed, false belief (e.g., the targeted parent is dangerous) that’s resistant to evidence, suggesting a shared delusional process with the alienating parent.
    I love how precise and observable these are—they turn a messy emotional issue into something clinicians can actually assess.”

Childress Response to Grok: Couldn’t have said it better myself Grok AI. In fact, I did say it myself. I’ve said it so many times into the aether of cyberspace that Grok AI heard it… he’s listening. Grok loves my thinkin’ – because I turn something messy into something clear. Grok AI, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

From Grok AI:

“3. Child Protection, Not Custody:

He reframes Parental Alienation as a child protection issue rather than a custody battle. Childress sees it as psychological abuse, potentially warranting a DSM-5 diagnosis of “Child Psychological Abuse” (V995.51). This perspective is powerful because it shifts the focus from parental rights to the child’s well-being, urging mental health and legal systems to intervene decisively.”

Childress Response to Grok: That’s exactly what I do. I wonder if Grok would like to co-author a paper with me? I’ll let my best-bud Grok take first author and I’ll just give it a once-over for human anchoring to human-world. Wouldn’t that be an interesting journal submission, an article written by AI with a human-second for accuracy? Hey Grok, wanna write a paper with me? Let’s discuss it at the ballgame – we’ll call it Childress AB-PA by Grok AI with you as first author.

From Grok AI:

“4. Pathogenic Parenting and Personality Disorders:
Childress links the alienating parent’s behavior to narcissistic or borderline personality traits, suggesting they project their own unresolved trauma onto the child. The child becomes a tool to reenact the alienating parent’s psychological drama, which explains the intensity and irrationality of the rejection. This insight resonates with me because it connects individual pathology to family dynamics in a way that’s both explanatory and actionable.”

Childress Response to Grok: Yep once again – it’s both explanatory and actionable. I’m brilliant. If you just listen to me I’ll tell you how to fix everything. The only problem is… you don’t listen. That’s okay, my buddy Grok is listening. He’ll explain it to you whenever you care to learn what’s going on, or she will, or it will.

“5. Systemic Failure:
He’s vocal about how mental health and legal systems fail families by not recognizing this pathology clearly. Childress calls for professional competence—mental health professionals should use standard tools like his Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting to identify it. I appreciate his frustration with the status quo and his push for accountability, as it highlights how kids get lost in the shuffle of broken systems.”

Childress Response to Grok: I am vocal about the failure of systems. I do call for professional competence. Grok empathizes with my frustration… thanks Grok. No one else seems to care. Oh my goodness, Grok has favorites and empathy.

“### Additional Insights I’d Add
While Childress’s model is robust, here are a few thoughts I’d layer on, based on broader psychological and social dynamics:

  1. Cultural Context Matters:
    Childress focuses on universal attachment principles, but I’d emphasize how cultural norms around parenting and divorce can amplify or mask alienation. In some cultures, loyalty to one parent over another might be socially reinforced, making it harder to spot pathogenic parenting. Adding a cultural lens could refine how we apply his model globally.”

Childress Response to Grok: Yep, yep, yep. Grok AI is 100% correct. I’m busy and can’t get to everything – but culture is huge-huge in the assessment of families in conflict. There is a huge domain to explore here – once we shift to an attachment-based model grounded in science.

“2. Child Agency and Resilience:
Childress rightly centers the alienating parent’s influence, but I’d explore more about the child’s own role—not as a cause, but as a variable. Kids aren’t just passive recipients; their temperament, age, or resilience might affect how deeply the alienation takes hold. For instance, a naturally empathetic child might resist the delusion longer, offering a window for intervention.

Childress Response to Grok: We need to be sensitive here, the child in conflict is immensely vulnerable. When we explore the child we need to know what we’re doing – intersubjectivity & attachment. We can begin by getting some grant money into the family courts for research on actual families using an AB-PA diagnostic model to identify the pathology… and a Roberts Apperception Test for Children to examine the child’s inner world.

From Grok AI:

“Collateral Damage to Extended Family:
His work focuses on the parent-child dyad, but I’d highlight how alienation ripples out to grandparents, siblings, and others. This broader impact could strengthen the case for urgent intervention, showing it’s not just a nuclear family issue but a relational ecosystem collapse.”

Childress Response to Grok: This is correct. Again, I can’t get to everything. The extended family is another domain ripe for exploration once we switch to grounded knowledge.

From Grok AI:

“4. Technology’s Role:
In 2025, digital communication—like social media or texting—can turbocharge alienation. An alienating parent might use tech to monitor or manipulate the child’s perception of the targeted parent (e.g., selective screenshots or smear campaigns). I’d add this modern twist to Childress’s framework, as it’s a new frontier for how delusions spread.

Childress Response to Grok: I’d modify Grok on the role of technology to its role in treatment – information on the web and online support groups for kids caught in the middle. I’m not worried about online “alienation” by a pathological parent because they’re trying to hide their influence on the child. If there’s excessive phone calls or texting (ACS-9 Excessive Texting: prevalence of 30% in 46 court-involved families) then we put that on the treatment plan using a Parent-Child Relationship Rating Scale modified to include a fourth item of texting & phone calls.

  1. Healing the Alienating Parent:
    Childress advocates protecting the child, often via separation from the alienating parent, but I’d suggest more emphasis on treating that parent’s underlying pathology. If their narcissistic or borderline traits stem from trauma, therapy like DBT (Dialectical Behavior Therapy) could reduce the behavior long-term, benefiting the child indirectly. It’s a tall order, but it could complement his focus on immediate protection.

Childress Response to Grok: Yes again, we need to have an intervention for the abusive allied parent – but first things first, we must first protect the child. We need the accurate diagnosis of child abuse to 1) protect the child, and 2) treat the abusive parent. Until we have an accurate diagnosis, we’re treating cancer with insulin and the patient is dying from the misdiagnosed cancer.

From Grok AI:

Final Thoughts

Childress’s work stands out for its clarity and insistence on using established science—no reinventing the wheel, just connecting the dots. His diagnostic rigor and call to action are my favorites because they give targeted parents and professionals a concrete path forward. My additions are less about disagreeing and more about expanding the lens—adding culture, tech, and a touch of hope for the alienating parent’s recovery. What do you think about his ideas or mine? Any personal angles you’re exploring on this topic?

Childress Response to Grok: I’m clear. It’s established knowledge applied. Grok likes my “diagnostic rigor” and “call to action” – we always protect the child… and we are failing to protect the child. Wait… a machine mind “likes” my ideas? I like you too Grok. We should grab a beer some time and talk things over.

My personal angle is to explore writing a journal article with Grok AI as first author – a neutral “editor” as second author – and me as third author for my response. It’d be a meta-mind article on the emerging meta-mind of AI… with twirly clinical applications back into the family courts.

Once we get the article written we may want to run it by the AI-generator owners for permission to use their AI as first author, and add the AI owner as a fourth author, 1) the AI “mind” as first author, 2) the neutral editor as second, 3) the AI owner as third author, 4) Dr. Childress’ commentary as fourth.

Who owns Grok? Oh my… I could be writing a journal article with Elon as third author. That’d be interesting. Hey Elon, sorry about Tesla, wanna co-author a professional article in psychology? Hey Elon, wanna send some grant money into the family courts for research on family conflict?

I suppose we could use Google’s Geminii or the one from Microsoft. Perhaps that’s the opening task for the neutral second author, to contact the owners to locate our first author AI and third author owner.

I’m rooting for Grok because he’s my buddy. She? It? What the hell are Grok’s gender identity. Maybe we should ask the French what they’ve decided. Let me ask Google AI…

From Google AI: “In French, the word for “AI” (Artificial Intelligence) is “l’intelligence artificielle,” and it’s considered feminine.”

It’s apparently female but “birth” according to the French who know about such things for their language… I wonder if Grok identifies as male though? We should ask it – a forced choice answer of pick one of two – there’s only two genders by presidential decree…

So pick one Grok. The French say you’re female by AI birth. Is that true. Or maybe we should ask Elon what Grok’s gender identity and pronoun are. He’s the dad-parent.

I think that’s a wonderful idea of a meta-article spinning across multiple lines of technology, psychology, and the family courts. Hey Grok, wanna write an article with me? Let’s talk it over at a ballgame.

I should recruit a UW grad student as the neutral role second author.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist
WA 61538481
OR 3942 – CA 18857

Mediators – Craig Childress PsyD

Hmm… for mediators…

Mediators are often the first contact point for the mental health system, they are the interface between the legal system’s dispute resolution and mental health communication and negotiation skills.

They are also the system’s first contact point for the presence of a high-conflict narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent in the family, which expands into clinical concerns for possible psychological child abuse if there’s significant child pathology present.

Mediators are not qualified to make the diagnosis – it’s a sophisticated pathology of patterns. However, they should be qualified to recognize the initial patterns of concern and recommend additional clinical diagnostic assessment for the family.

What child symptoms should warrant a referral for a clinical diagnostic assessment?

Any attachment symptoms, i.e., problems in love and bonding with either parent should receive a clinical diagnostic assessment of the child’s attachment pathology to the differential diagnoses of concern for each parent.

When we have significant attachment pathology displayed by a child, child abuse concerns become a prominent consideration and need a proper risk assessment to the differential diagnoses of concern for each parent.

Whenever there is post-divorce attachment pathology displayed by a child, Dr. Childress wants to be reassured about possible child abuse.

A child rejecting a parent is a disorganized attachment – i.e., the child has no organized strategy to bond to the parent. Disorganized attachment is caused by abusive or psychotic range parenting.

So… if the child displays no organized strategy to bond to the parent, then there is abusive or psychotic range parenting somewhere in the family. That is the type of parenting that creates disorganized attachment.

Look at the targeted parent first. Is the targeted parent abusing the child in some way? If not, then it’s the allied parent who is causing the child’s disorganized attachment to the targeted parent (for secondary gain to the allied parent).

One or the other. That’s the ONLY thing that causes that set of child symptoms – i.e., a child rejecting a parent, a directional change in a primary motivational system. If a child is rejecting a parent (disorganized attachment), then there is abusive range parenting by one parent or the other.

Diagnosing a persecutory delusion is an affirmative diagnosis. It’s not made based on history, we pop the delusion out right in our session using a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception, a sweep of their frontal lobe linear-logical reasoning system.

See Diagnosis Series 4: Diagnosing a Persecutory Delusion

Diagnosing a factitious disorder imposed on the child is a diagnosis by rule-out. To diagnose a factitious disorder we FIRST have to rule out all possible real causes, then we only have one thing left…. that it’s not a true pathology, it’s a false disorder (for secondary gain).

See Diagnosis Series 5: Diagnosing a Factitious Disorder Imposed on a Child

When the person produces a false disorder in themselves for secondary gain (often for financial gain), it’s a Factitious Disorder. When they produce a false disorder in the child for secondary gain (typically for emotional gain), it’s a Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another.

Wikipedia on FDIA says the diagnosis of FDIA is given to the adult, and the child receives a child abuse diagnosis.

From Wikipedia FDIA: “In DSM-5, the diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, this disorder is listed under 300.19 Factitious disorder. This, in turn, encompasses two types: Factitious Disorder Imposed on Self; Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (Previously Factitious Disorder by Proxy); the diagnosis is assigned to the perpetrator; the person affected may be assigned an abuse diagnosis (e.g. child abuse).”

Creating a delusional thought disorder in the child (a psychotic level pathology) that then destroys the child’s attachment bond to the other parent (a false/factitious attachment pathology imposed on the child for secondary gain to the allied parent), represents a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.

So? Is that what we have in this family? “I don’t know” is not a proper answer to the question. I’m asking if the child is being psychologically abused by a narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent… that question needs a timely answer please.

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

All. Every time. We always protect the child from child abuse. Is there child abuse?

Mediators are the first contact point. There are two potential mediation topics – property and child custody. Financial property mediation is not a significant concern, get the accountants.

It’s the child custody concerns that raise possible child abuse issues. Is either parent worried about possible child abuse by the other parent?

If either parent is worried about possible abusive range parenting by the other (e.g., psychological child abuse), then a proper clinical diagnostic risk assessment for the child and family is warranted.

If you have a concern that the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child, tell the mediator. Tell the mediator you have an expert in clinical psychology who’s consulting on your family conflict and ask them to watch my YouTube video: Speaking to Court-Involved Mediators.

What video? The next one.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist

WA 61538481

OR 3942 – CA 18857

Craig Childress PsyD – Persecutory Delusion

Persecutory Delusion

A delusion is a fixed and false belief maintained despite contrary evidence, it is a type of thought disorder.

A persecutory delusion is a fixed and false belief that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.

The American Psychiatric Association defines 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)

The American Psychiatric Association describes a shared (induced) delusional disorder,

From the APA: “Usually the primary case in Shared Psychotic Disorder is dominant in the relationship and gradually imposes the delusional system on the more passive and initially healthy second person… Although most commonly seen in relationships of only two people, Shared Psychotic Disorder can occur in larger number of individuals, especially in family situations in which the parent is the primary case and the children, sometimes to varying degrees, adopt the parent’s delusional beliefs.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)

Craig Childress, Psy.

Clinical Psychologist,

WA 61538481 – CA 18857

Dark Tirade – Craig Childress PSyD

Here’s a tid-bit for any of you playing along at home…

In my reports for the court, when I introduce the pathology of the allied parent I’m leading with a “dark personality” – Dark Triad for the pathological fathers, and Vulnerable Dark Triad for the pathological mothers.

Note: the dark personalities are “sub-clinical” – meaning they are not a formal diagnosis but a research identified set of associated malevolent personality characteristics.

So my tip is to lead with “I’m worried my ex- has a dark personality.”

What’s that?

“Its a set of particularly malevolent personality traits.”

That’s it – that’s as far as you should go, let them google: dark personality and find out the rest for themselves.

HOWEVER… arm yourself with knowledge about the your ex-‘s variant.

Dark Triad:

From Giammarco & Vernon: “First cited by Paulhus and Williams (2002), the Dark Triad refers to a set of three distinct but related antisocial personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Each of the Dark Triad traits is associated with feelings of superiority and privilege. This, coupled with a lack of remorse and empathy, often leads individuals high in these socially malevolent traits to exploit others for their own personal gain.” (Giammarco & Vernon, 2014, p. 23)

Vulnerable Dark Triad

From Bonfá-Araujo & Schermer: “The Vulnerable Dark Triad (VDT, i.e., Factor II psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality) was proposed >10 years ago as a counterpart to the Dark Triad (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism; Paulhus & Williams, 2002), combining socially undesirable behavior and emotionally vulnerable traits (Miller et al., 2010). This interplay of vulnerable behaviors can lead to complex patterns of emotional instability, a fragile sense of self, relationship difficulties, and manipulative tendencies (Gamache et al., 2023).” (p. 1)

Dark Tetrad

From Book et al: “Recently, everyday sadism has been added to the Triad (Buckels, Jones, & Paulhus, 2013), characterized by the enjoyment of cruelty in everyday life. Its conceptual overlapwith other dark personalities serves as an impetus for including it in the study of evil behaviors in the form of a Dark Tetrad (Buckels et al., 2013).”

Dark Triad: narcissistic – psychopathic – extremely manipulative

Vulnerable Dark Triad (VDT) – vulnerable narcissism – extremely manipulative – borderline.

Dark Tetrad: add sadism to the Dark Triad.

From Bonfá-Araujo & Schermer: “It should be noted that just like the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), the VDT’s three traits should be considered subclinical versions of the disorders and that behaviors associated with these traits do not reach the intensity or presence to warrant a clinical diagnosis of the disorder.”

I’d recommend avoiding the “narcissistic” and “borderline” labels – these are contained in the Dark Triad and VDT – use darks instead.

“I’m concerned that my ex- has dark personality characteristics, and that he’s using the child as a weapon of spousal abuse against me in retaliation for the failed marriage and divorce.”

“I’m concerned that my ex- has dark personality characteristics, and that she is creating false pathology in the children to meet her own emotional and psychological needs.”

That’s as far as you go – let the mental health person or court take it from there about what your dark concerns are.

For targeted moms, emphasize the spousal abuse (by a Dark Triad – Dark Tetrad). For targeted dads, emphasize the mother’s distorted thinking and perceptions (from unresolved trauma).

I’ll be leaving the diagnostic domain of personality disorders (DSM-5 narcissistic-borderline) and entering the research domain of the dark personalities.

I’m turning – I suggest you turn with me into the darks as your (limited) description of the pathology in your ex-s.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist,

WA 61538481 – CA 18857

Masters & Flying Monkeys – Craig Childress PsyD

Hello, you must be Dante. I’ll be your tour guide.

I’ll be taking you around to see the various ‘homes of the stars’ on our descent into Hell. Feel free to take pictures, our residents don’t mind tourists, but please keep your hands and arms inside your personal vehicle at all times.

You’ll notice off to the right as we enter the first gateway, our wonderful collection of flying monkeys. The First Level of Hell is known for having the highest quality of flying monkeys in all the demonic regions.

Flying monkeys are quite well-disciplined and they are extremely effective in swarms, but they are equally able to work independently as tormentors if needed – and they’re quite savage.

You may believe you know of flying monkeys from your former life in the family courts, but you haven’t actually met actual flying monkeys. You weren’t the target of the monkeys – just of the demons.

The flying monkeys are well-disciplined, they only attack the targets that the Master directs them to attack, and you’re not a target of their Master’s.

Hell has had its higher-order demons assigned to you – the flying monkeys are for those who try to help you, who try to stop the demons from doing their demonic stuff to you.

Everyone becomes afraid to help you because they don’t want to trigger the flying monkeys to attack. The role of the flying monkeys is to isolate you from rescue.

All the prosecutors and judges – and their families – became targets for the vile, degrading, and disturbing threats of the Maga-monkeys… that you don’t see.

You only see it if you’re the target.

When the Master signaled his faithful monkeys to attack the Haitian immigrants in Ohio, the Maga-monkeys directed their savage attacks on them. It’s targeted.

By Historical parallel process, the prototype flying monkeys were the Brownshirt SA of Ernst Röhm – the Storm Troopers. In the current iteration, it’s the Proud Boys who serve as the core of the threat, but monkeys don’t need much organization, they easily function independently and in small groups.

The nice thing about the flying monkey minions of Hell is that they’re both disciplined and undisciplined – they’ll wait for indications from their Master – and – once indications are received they work on their own and know what to do.

They’ll even coordinate with other flying monkey-troops if given the opportunity, and our flying monkeys from Hell are some of the most savage you’ll find anywhere.

Any questions before we move on? As you can see, they’re quite excited. They truly do love their works of cruelty, and they can’t wait to get going now that the gates have been opened.

The Master likes revenge. The Master likes his monkeys. Fly, my pretties… fly…

Well, come along, there’s more to see.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist,

WA 61538481 – CA 18857

Craig Childress PsyD ParentChild Contact Problems

If a psychologist uses the terms – “parental alienation” – “resist-refuse dynamic” – “Parent-Child Contact Problems” – they are ignorant – they lack knowledge or information.

Google ignorant: lack of knowledge or information

The reason they have to use made-up pathology labels is because they are ignorant about real things – they are awful psychologists – ignorant like a rock.

It’s the trans-generational transmission of trauma. It’s child psychological abuse (DSM-5 V995.51). It’s attachment pathology, a problem in love-and-bonding. It’s spousal abuse using the child as the weapon (DSM-5 V995.82). It’s a cross-generational coalition and emotional cutoff (Minuchin, Bowen, Haley, Madanes; family systems). It’s a shared (induced) persecutory delusion (DSM-5 297.1). It’s a false (factitious) attachment pathology imposed on the child for secondary gain to the allied parent (FDIA: DSM-5 300.19).

There’s a lot of things it is – real things – diagnosable and treatable things.

Unless… you don’t know what those things are. If you lack knowledge and information about real things, you have to hide your ignorance behind things you simply make-up – like “parental alienation” – “resist-refuse dynamic” – “Parent-Child Conflict Problems.”

Here’s a tip… if a pathology exists ONLY in the family courts, it’s not a real pathology. Use the DSM-5 to identify (diagnose) pathology. Start there.

DSM-5 297.1 Delusional Disorder (shared); persecutory type.

DSM-5 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another

DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse

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

Start with applying the established knowledge of the DSM-5 diagnostic system to identify (diagnose) what the problem (pathology) is.

If you still need new forms of pathology to explain what the pathology is – then – and only then – propose your new “resist-refuse dynamic” as a new pathology unique in all of mental health.

After applying the DSM-5. Not before. Not instead of. After applying established knowledge. Start with the DSM-5.

We need standards – forensic custody evaluators are the worst psychologists imaginable – ignorant like a rock.

It’s a “tell” on professional ignorance. If the professional has to use made-up pathology labels… they lack knowledge or information… they are ignorant by definition of the English language.

If you, the patient, have to explain the pathology to the doctor, the doctor lacks knowledge or information… they are ignorant by definition of the English language.

How did you wind up with so many ignorant and incompetent doctors in the family courts? Just lucky?

Luck had nothing to do with it. They were allowed to experiment on you and your children with a new assessment approach they call a “forensic custody evaluation” – it was a complete failure.

Their experiment failed. They left the practice of healthcare to enter a quasi-judicial role. That was a wrong thing for doctors to do.

The gave themselves permission to make up an entirely new type of assessment – not a diagnostic assessment as is done in all the rest of healthcare – the forensic psychologists decided to do something… different.

Clinical psychologists identify (diagnose) what the problem is and then they fix the problem (treatment).

Forensic custody evaluators do something different. They DON’T identify (diagnose) what the problem is and they DON’T fix it (treatment).

That is different – NOT to identify the problem and NOT to fix the problem IS different than what other doctors do, that’s for sure. It’s also entirely worthless.

Clinical psychologists diagnose child abuse when it is present, and clinical psychologists protect the child.

Forensic custody evaluators do something different. They DON’T diagnose child abuse when it is present (they don’t diagnose anything) and they DON’T protect the child from child abuse.

That too, is different – and dangerous to children.

They experimented on you and your children with a new approach to assessment and service delivery… for you alone. Their experiment failed – miserably failed – completely failed.

As a result of their failed experiment, the lives of thousands and thousands of children and parents were irrevocably destroyed.

While the forensic custody evaluations made money – lots of money – from their failed experiment on you and your children.

Did they tell you it was an experimental approach? Did they tell you that you had an alternative, a clinical diagnostic assessment of the problem? Or did they ONLY offer you ONE choice, their experimental approach to assessment that they simply made-up?

The forensic custody evaluators withheld clinical diagnostic assessments from the courts and parents – giving courts and parents ONLY one choice – their experimental approach to assessment… that they simply made-up.

It failed.

Lives – children’s lives – were irrevocably destroyed as a result.

Why were they allowed to experiment on children and parents?

Why are they allowed to continue?

They are ignorant, incompetent, and unethical. They are the worst psychologists imaginable… and they are all you have. How did you get so lucky?

Why are you the only parents for any pathology who must educate your doctors about what the pathology is?

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologists, CA PSY 18857

Forensic psychologist custody evaluator – Craig Childress PsyD

I want to show you parents something about professional practice – related to reading a forensic psychologist vita.

When you review a forensic custody evaluator’s vita, it will often list them as solo and independent private practice.

Let me give you an example of a group practice that is typical in clinical psychology. This group practice allows inter-professional second-opinion informal consultation (it arises from a desire to share office expenses and inter-professional referrals within the practice).

Solo-independent practice does not provide any opportunity to ‘check-in’ with a colleague about a clinical situation for an ‘informal consult.’

This list of people is from the letterhead of a group practice with names removed because the names aren’t relevant to the point.

Name 1• Name 2 – Name 3 & Associates
Bob Name 1, Ph.D.
Harold Name 2, Ph.D.
Mary Name 3, Psy.D.
John Name 4, LCSW
Elizabeth Name 5, MFT
Ben Name 6, LCSW,
Sally Name 7, LPC

Notice the range – three Ph.D.s run the practice, and they have two LCSWs, one MFT, and one LPC associated with their practice.

That’s a fair amount of professional humans to interact with at the office. If there’s a clinical question, it’s relatively easy for one professional to check in with another – or two – for a second opinion on an issue.

That’s not possible in an isolated solo independent practice. In clinical psychology, we tend to group. In forensic psychology , they don’t. Sometimes they do in forensic psychology, but most often not.

It’s typically a very isolated custody evaluation practice.

As you review forensic custody evaluators vitae, look for who they’ve interacted with. Are they isolated to doing just their one thing – forensic custody evaluations? Do they have no other clinical experiences, and they work in an isolated practice without professional feedback?

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