Misdiagnosis?
More from my line-by-line notes on a forensic custody evaluation. These questions need to be answered.
I can ask these exact same questions of all forensic custody evaluators – in fact, I do. They all say and do exactly the same ignorant and incompetent thing based on the application of NO established scientific and professional knowledge – in violation of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.
From line-by-line notes:
- Misdiagnosis of Persecutory Delusion (shared): Did Dr. Xyz misdiagnose a shared persecutory delusion created by the mother’s pathogenic parenting because he is practicing beyond the boundaries of his competence in violation of Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code? Yes – No.
- Misdiagnosis of False (factitious) Attachment Pathology: Did Dr. Xyz misdiagnose a factitious (artificially created) attachment pathology imposed on the child by the pathogenic parenting of the mother because he is practicing beyond the boundaries of his competence in violation of Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code? Yes – No.
Misdiagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse: Did Dr. Xyz misdiagnose Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51) because he is practicing beyond the boundaries of his competence in violation of Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code? Yes – No.
- Participant in Child Abuse: Did Dr. Xyz become a collusive participant in the psychological abuse of the child by the mother because he is practicing beyond the boundaries of his competence and believed a shared delusion as if it was true? Yes – No.
Honest to god, every sentence of theirs is ignorant and incompetent.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18857



