Childress on Child Abuse

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 and involvement with their child as possible.

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

Is there child abuse? Let’s get a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse.

Either,

1) child abuse by the targeted parent accounting for the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent,

Or.

2) child psychological abuse by the allied parent, i.e., a shared persecutory delusion created by the collapse of a narcissistic-borderline personality parent surrounding divorce.

One way or the other, we’re looking at a likely child abuse diagnosis. We need a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse.

From Walters & Friedlander: “In some RRD families [resist-refuse dynamic], a parent’s underlying encapsulated delusion about the other parent is at the root of the intractability (cf. Johnston & Campbell, 1988, p. 53ff; Childress, 2013). An encapsulated delusion is a fixed, circumscribed belief that persists over time and is not altered by evidence of the inaccuracy of the belief.” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)

From Walters & Friedlander: “When alienation is the predominant factor in the RRD [resist-refuse dynamic}, the theme of the favored parent’s fixed delusion often is that the rejected parent is sexually, physically, and/or emotionally abusing the child. The child may come to share the parent’s encapsulated delusion and to regard the beliefs as his/her own (cf. Childress, 2013).” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)

Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.

What is the diagnosis? Is there a shared persecutory delusion? We need an answer to that question.

If the mental health person cannot answer that question – is there a shared persecutory delusion? – then they are pointless to the situation because we need an answer to that question.

IT… IS… SIMPLE. Is there a shared persecutory delusion? Yes? No?

How do they know if they don’t even look to see? Do the child’s symptoms meet diagnostic criteria for a persecutory delusion? How about we use Item 11 on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Unusual Thought Content (delusions), “one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms,” to rate the delusional quality of the belief.

Or you can write the answer on a napkin. Tell us by smoke signals for all I care… we just need an answer, is there a shared persecutory delusion – a fixed and false belief in supposed “victimization”?

The treatment for cancer is different than the treatment for diabetes. Diagnosis guides treatment. If we treat cancer with insulin then the patient dies from the misdiagnosed cancer.

What is the diagnosis?

“I don’t diagnose, I don’t like to pathologize” Then you’re a pretty worthless person to the situation because we need a diagnosis.

Is there child abuse? V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse? Why are we not routinely getting an answer to that question for court-involved family conflict?

They deserve to lose their license. Look at all they’re putting you through because they won’t diagnose Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51) when it’s warranted. They have duty to protect obligations, and they are not protecting your child.

Knowledge is power. Planning is power. The pathogen is now-reactive. Plan ahead, move step-by-step on a linear path to the goal. You want a written treatment plan to fix things please.

Google mental health treatment plans and read the first two returns – one of those please.

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

Alienated Parent Wins

What about the kids?

A win for a parent that has been alienated from his children!
My friend went to court on his divorce/custody case this morning. He has been alienated from his children since he made the choice to divorce a few months ago. Told the children did not want to see him and all of the usual tactics used against him. He was just asking for joint custody. She (the mother) only came to court to fight over the child support. She also brought the kids with her saying they would tell the judge they did not want to see him. Long story short- he saved all the messages and documentation, the judge spoke to the kids alone. The result was him getting full custody and her with zero visitation and she has to pay for counseling for the kids in addition to child support. The judge said it was one of the worst cases of parental alienation AND manipulation he had ever seen. So to all those going through something similar- hang in there, document everything- the truth will eventually come out.

Childress on persecution delusion ie parental alienation /ChildAbuse

From Bernet (2020): “A good generic definition for PA is the following: a mental condition in which…”

According to Dr. Bernet, his “parental alienation” construct is a “mental condition” that exists within a person.

It is not a relational process in the family, it is “mental condition” someone has – you have “parental alienation” like you would have Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder, you have a “mental condition” of “parental alienation”.

According to Dr. Bernet, “parental alienation” is not a parent-child relationship process, it is a thing someone has – you have a mental condition of “parental alienation”, it is not a relational process between two people according to this definition.

According to Dr. Bernet, “parental alienation” exists only within one person, it is the “mental condition” of that person. Which person has the “mental condition” of “parental alienation”, the parent or the child?

Does the parent start with the mental condition of “parental alienation” and then give this “mental condition” to the child, or does the child independently develop the “mental condition” of “parental alienation”?

The parent is clearly transmitting the “mental condition” to the child, to form a shared “mental condition.”

What is that shared “mental condition”? It is a fixed and false belief in supposed “victimization”, i.e., it is a shared delusional disorder.

The “mental condition” is called a persecutory delusion. When the parent induces the persecutory delusion in the child, it becomes a shared delusional disorder.

There is no such thing as “parental alienation” – it is an encapsulated shared persecutory delusion (Childress, 2015). Dr. Bernet is simply an abysmal diagnostician.

I’m barely into my line-by-line review of his “five-factor” model and already it’s just PAS with lipstick, and he’s just identified the shared persecutory delusion – “parental alienation” is a mental condition (not a relational process).

Therefore, “parental alienation” exists in the person as a mental condition. What is that mental condition? A fixed and false belief that the child is being malevolently treated in some way by the targeted parent.

That is a persecutory delusion.

From the APS: “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.

That is the “mental condition” of a persecutory delusion. That is the “mental condition” of the parent, that is the “mental condition” of the child. The pathology is a shared persecutory delusion (Childress, 2015), as described in the journal Family Court Review by Walters and Friedlander (2016),

From Walters & Friedlander: “In some RRD families [resist-refuse dynamic], a parent’s underlying encapsulated delusion about the other parent is at the root of the intractability (cf. Johnston & Campbell, 1988, p. 53ff; Childress, 2013). An encapsulated delusion is a fixed, circumscribed belief that persists over time and is not altered by evidence of the inaccuracy of the belief.” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)

From Walters & Friedlander: “When alienation is the predominant factor in the RRD [resist-refuse dynamic}, the theme of the favored parent’s fixed delusion often is that the rejected parent is sexually, physically, and/or emotionally abusing the child. The child may come to share the parent’s encapsulated delusion and to regard the beliefs as his/her own (cf. Childress, 2013).” (Walters & Friedlander, 2016, p. 426)

Walters, M. G., & Friedlander, S. (2016). When a child rejects a parent: Working with the intractable resist/refuse dynamic. Family Court Review, 54(3), 424–445.

There is no such thing as “parental alienation” and the use of that construct in a professional capacity is substantially beneath professional standards of practice and is in violation of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments of the APA ethics code.

The pathology is an encapsulated shared persecutory delusion. The assessment for delusional thought disorder pathology is a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception.

That is the mental healthcare information that Dr. Bernet should be dispensing to the public – not psychiatric misinformation based on rejected models of diagnosis and pathology.

Dr. Bernet rejects the diagnostic guidance of the American Psychiatric Association. He thinks he knows more than they do. He thinks he’s right and the American Psychiatric Association is wrong.

No… Dr. Bernet is wrong and the American Psychiatric Association is right – there is no such diagnostic pathology as “parental alienation” – the pathology in the family courts is a shared persecutory delusion (Childress, 2015; Walters & Friedlander, 2016).

Dr. Bernet rejects the ethical guidance of the American Psychological Association, he thinks standards of ethical practice don’t apply to him.

No, he’s wrong. Ethical standards of practice are not optional, and no doctors are exempt from their ethical obligations to their patients to provide the most accurate healthcare information possible to their patients.

Healthcare information from the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline. The “mental condition” is an shared persecutory delusion (Childress, 2015; Walters & Friedlander, 2016).

Line… by… line…

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

Craig Childress ; Reality Check

I first encountered the “five-factor” model of PAS this past year in a forensic child custody report. The forensic evaluator cited the “five-factor” model of PAS to assert that there was NO “parental alienation” because the child did not meet criteria for the “five-factor” model of PAS.

By all indications of the symptom reporting, however, the child did meet diagnostic criteria for AB-PA. So now I must review and critique the “five-factor model” of PAS proposed by Dr. Bernet in order to protect the child from continuing child psychological abuse by the pathogenic parent.

I want everyone to let that fully sink in. The forensic evaluator cited the five-factor model of Dr. Bernet as the reason there was NO “parental alienation” and the child should therefore be left in the sole-custody care of the pathological and psychologically abusive parent.

I am simply second-opinion review on that matter. I am simply telling you the current status of the field.

The reason I put the term “five-factors” in quotes is because I have yet to see the factor analysis that supports that there are five factors to PAS. If there is no factor analysis, then to claim there is a five-factor model is professionally deceptive.

The assumption in research is that the term “factors” applies to a factor analysis conducted on a data set. While the term “factor” has a more loosely defined meaning in the general population, professional reporting in the journal literature is expected to be more precise in its use of research-related language.

First thing to note – before anything – is that Dr. Bernet has yet to demonstrate that there is a pathology called “parental alienation” with one-, two-, three-, four-, or eleven proposed components to PAS. There is no PAS – so – there are no factors, however many, to a non-existent thing.

He starts with an assumption that there is a thing PAS. That is not a valid assumption. He needs to prove this assumption that there IS a PAS before he can begin to describe the features for PAS.

If Dr. Bernet proposes that his recent “five-factor” model of PAS proves there is a pathology of PAS, he is wrong. A DSM-5 diagnosis for PAS proves there is a pathology of PAS. Once he proves there IS a PAS, then he can begin to describe its features.

PAS was completely and fully rejected as a diagnostic construct by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013. PAS is NOT a diagnostic pathology. Yet Dr. Bernet has difficulty adjusting to that reality. He believes he knows more about pathology and its diagnosis than the American Psychiatric Association, and he continues to believe he is ‘discovering’ a new pathology when the American Psychiatric Association has said that is not true.

Note that these articles from 2020-2022 are relatively recent. The ripples have yet to ripple. Fist comes the rock, then the splash, then the ripples.

From Bernet (2020): “Although the phenomenon that we know as parental alienation (PA) had been described in the mental health and legal literature for many years, it was eventually given a name-parental alienation syndrome (PAS)-by Richard Gardner in 1985 (Gardner, 1985). As time went on, most writers abandoned the use of the word syndrome and simply referred to this mental condition as parental alienation. For purposes of this article, PAS and PA are synonymous.”

He simply acts as if everyone now simply accepts the pathology of “parental alienation” as described by Gardner’s PAS model. Dr. Bernet fully and completely disregards that PAS was fully and completely rejected as a diagnostic pathology by the American Psychiatric Association 2013.

Denial is a symptom of thought disorder.

Dr. Bernet went into a time-portal in 1985 and has failed to come out. He remains in 1985. In 2022 he is still making the exact same proposal for Gardner’s PAS. This “five-factor” model is not a new thing – it is PAS from 1985.

Just so everyone is clear – there is NOTHING new in a “five-factor” model of Parental Alienation Syndrome. That construct has been fully and completely rejected by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013 after a full and complete review.

Dr. Bernet has yet to demonstrate there is even a construct of “parental alienation” that has one factor. I will await his presentation of the data set for the factor analysis that identified five factors to the non-existent pathology of PAS.

Dr. Bernet is fully and completely stuck in a time-warp to 1985. Time has not advanced beyond that point for him, and he cannot comprehend or integrate that the construct of PAS has been rejected… and is entirely unnecessary.

To be clear… who is Dr. Bernet? A retired MD psychiatrist. That is it. Just one person, a retired MD psychiatrist who’s obsessed with Gardner’s PAS and cannot let go.

To be clear… who is Richard Gardner? One MD psychiatrist in the 1980s working in the family courts. That’s it. Gardner skipped the step of diagnosis, and instead he led everyone astray by making a new-pathology proposal.

Gardner was wrong. There is no new pathology. Gardner was just a poor diagnostician.

The pathology in the family courts is entirely – entirely – solvable without the construct of “parental alienation” – and, in fact, the solution requires an end to the use of that construct and a return to the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline, and poof, everything is solved immediately.

We can only achieve competence by establishing standards of practice. We cannot establish standards of practice requiring everyone to apply the five-factor model of PAS proposed by Bernet.

But that is Dr. Bernet’s expectation, that everyone do what Dr. Bernet tells them to do – not what the American Psychiatric Association says. Not what the ethical Standards of the American Psychological Association says.

Don’t apply Bowlby, don’t apply Minuchin, don’t apply Beck, don’t apply van der Kolk, don’t apply Tronick, don’t apply van der Kolk, don’t apply Kohut, don’t apply the DSM-5 – INSTEAD – apply Bernet.

That’s Dr. Bernet’s expectation in proposing a “five-factor” model of PAS. That was his life’s work. He is a retired MD psychiatrist leading a “movement” for Gardner’s PAS. He was crushed when the American Psychiatric Association said no.

He can’t let go. It’s is legacy. He must fight for his legacy, he can’t fade away into irrelevance. So he simply disregards the decisions of the American Psychiatric Association – they’re wrong – Bill’s right.

He needs to be right. He must be right.

So just for starters, I’m not even off of page 1 in my line-by-line peer-review of the “five-factor” model of PAS proposed by Dr. Bernet and the PAS “experts” and it is clear there is nothing new in their proposal – it’s just Gardner’s PAS… one more time.

From Bernet (2020): “For purposes of this article, PAS and PA are synonymous.”

See. It’s just PAS with lipstick.

I look forward to a more complete presentation of the factor analysis that supports a “five-factor” model of Carrot Rejection Syndrome.

This could have been avoided, but the pathogen is self-destructive. It wants to be seen. It wants us to see and heal it, but it cannot reveal its inadequacy, because once we see how damaged and inadequate they are we’ll reject them.

And their fears are true. Once we see the inadequacy of PAS, we’ll reject it.

I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We need to protect these children and their parents – today – and “parental alienation” will never do that.

This is not personal. It is professional. This pathology has a social distribution feature – it is the only shared pathology. The Garnderian PAS “experts” are a symptom.

Gardnerian PAS was created by the pathogen as bait to lure the targeted parents into endless unproductive fighting in the courts rather than getting an accurate diagnosis and treatment plan from healthcare.

They are a symptom feature. Some things can only be seen looking the other direction in time, from the future to the past. Are we ever going to return to 1985 to adopt PAS as the solution?

No.

It’s time to move on from one retired MD psychiatrist struggling to hold onto meaning in a failed career. History is written by the victors. That won’t be PAS.

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

Power Greed $oney : Not in the best interest of the child ” Family Court “

One Mother’s Story

It’s been 7 long agonizing months since I’ve seen my daughter after our traumatic experience. Her court ordered therapist claims to be a kidnapping victim expert using psuedoscience polyvagal theory invented by Dr. Steven Porges. Isn’t that ironic? I was accused of kidnapping my daughter because I protected her, but Dad and the Family court are the real kidnappers, and this fake kidnapping expert is participating in it. So sick and twisted.

It completely mystifies me that my daughter’s therapist claims she can heal trauma by keeping my daughter away from her mother and not ask me for any information about the history of what she’s been through. Only believing the false narratives of Dad. How do I press back on this? Who holds this quack accountable? I have no belief complaints to the California owned Psych board will do anything. Something popped up on FB about Stephen Porges trauma recovery and this really pricked me.

This kind of stuff puts me out of my mind. I still don’t know what happened to my daughter when she was wrongfully locked up in a mental ward for not wanting to go with her dad. It seems to me the child I knew “died” that day that we were attacked, and this other version, the brainwashed child, is someone different. The heartbreak is unbearable.

When I try to imagine what it will be like to be re-united or see her again, at this stage of my own trauma, I won’t know who she is. They are messing with her head and memories of me. That part is so unbearable.

I had a talk with my pastor’s wife and argued with her that I can’t hold on and be expected to wait for my daughter to grow up and then reform our bonds. She yelled and screamed at me and I screamed back “you don’t understand what I feel”. And I told her, I have not seen or met a Mother who has survived this. I have not seen or met a Mother who can tell me what it was like to be reunited with their stolen child after so many years gone by.

Is anyone her able to comment on that?

My pastor’s wife told me that I would have to be the one to tell that story. This made me more angry with frustration. I want MY child back.

Childress on Writing Journal Articles

Writing Journal Articles

I’ve finished the first draft of my first article to submit for journal publication. It’s directed toward an Ethics journal. That’s where I’ll start.

I plan to write articles for submission to an Ethics journal, a Clinical Journal, and a Cultural psychology journal. Then I’ll come back to the Forensic journals after that, maybe.

Notice I haven’t written any journal articles yet. There’s a reason. Now it’s time. There will be about an 18-month lag time from my writing to their appearance in a peer-reviewed journal. I work ahead. In about a year or two, the arrival of these articles will be useful.

It’s not my job to educate them, they should already know – Standards 2.01 and 2.03 of the APA ethics code. They weren’t motivated to solve anything. We’ll see what we can do about that.

I’m coming for the licenses, I want their licenses revoked for being child abusers.

As a clinical psychologist, I am acting pursuant to my ethical obligations under Standard 1.05. The Standards of the APA ethics code are mandatory for all psychologists – ethical practice is not optional, it’s required.

Standard 1.05: “If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations , or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation.”

The conditional clauses of Standard 1.05 are met. What “further action” is appropriate to this situation? I will be providing parents with the information they need for their malpractice lawsuits against forensic psychologists for violations to Standards 2.04 and 9.01 of the APA ethics code, and for failure in their duty to protect obligations.

I am required by Standard 1.05 of the mandatory APA ethics code to “take further action appropriate to the situation.” There is a reason for ethical Standards. This is it. Unethical practice is the problem, the ethical Standards of the APA are the solution.

The forensic psychologists currently control the licensing boards, they review themselves and they all do the same thing. We will need to take this into the courts as malpractice litigation.

I want their license to practice revoked for participating in the psychological abuse of the child.

The lion is a stalking hunter. I’ve always known we would get here. I hoped we wouldn’t. I had to give them every opportunity to correct their actions and protect the child. They’ve had their time.

The savanna belongs to the parents, to the lions protecting their cubs, not to the jackals and hyenas. We’ll see what we can do about that.

I have fulfilled my due-diligence obligations each step of the way. I told the AFCC directly in 2017. I told the APA directly in 2018. I told the Trust malpractice insurance carrier in 2020 that this would be going into the courts by necessity.

I am now actively working as the expert witness on possible malpractice cases involving forensic psychologists. I will be the expert for the prosecution at their malpractice trial. I’m not here to make friends. I’m here to protect the child.

Why are they here?

I don’t like moving dark energies. Sometimes it’s necessary.

I have developed lines of questions for the cross-examination of testimony from forensic psychologists. I provide these lines of questions to attornesy when appropriate to the situation. The lines of questions have the goal of leading the forensic psychologists into openly acknowledging their unethical malpractice in their testimony, under oath, with a court reporter present.

The subsequent malpractice lawsuits become so much easier when the forensic psychologist admits to the malpractice under oath with a court reporter present. That’s my goal. We’ll see how successful I can be, I’m just getting started, I’m just coming out of the gates.

Give me about a year or so… we’ll see where we are at that point.

I’m also involved in other ways on these court cases seeking a more directly current resolution of the family conflict, but I also have an obligation to my clients to provide them with the documentation support they need for accountability with the forensic psychology people once the matter of direct concern is settled.

Attacking the license of another psychologist is a serious-serious undertaking. I don’t like moving dark energies, but sometimes it’s necessary. I have performed my due-diligence obligations every step of the way.

It’s necessary.

I’m anticipating this is going to be a professional bloodbath, at least that’s my goal. I’m hoping that sometime next year there will be a peer-reviewed article in an Ethics journal parents can use to support their malpractice lawsuits.

In the meantime, while the malpractice lawsuits formulate and emerge, licensing board complaints should fall like rain when they are warranted for ethical violations to Standards 2.04 and 9.01, and for failure in their duty to protect.

The weather’s changing, looks like rain.

Licensing Board Complaints

Make the forensic psychologists on the licensing boards cover-up their negligent and unethical practice over-and-over again on exactly the same grounds every time – violations to Standards 2.04 Bases of Scientific and Professional Judgments and 9.01 Bases for Assessment, and for failure in their duty to protect.

Then follow-up with your state legilative representative, asking them to look into the corruption and cover-up of the licensing boards for the unethical malpractice in forensic psychology.

Come together and fight for each other and each other’s children. If they did it to you, then they did the same thing to the parent and child before you, and they will do the same thing to the parent and child who follows – unless you stop them.

Movement made by one is movement by all. You are not alone. It’s time to let them hear your roar. The savanna belongs to the parents, these are your children, not theirs.

In the absence of child abuse, parents have the right to parent according to their cultural values, their personal values, and their religious values.

The only question to answer is… is there child abuse? – V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, the creation of a shared persecutory delusion that then destroys the child’s attachment bond to the other parent.

Negligent Malpractice

I’m not from here. I’m not from this court-involved pathology world. Look at my vitae. I’m a trauma psychologist out of child abuse and foster care, I’m here to protect chidlren from child abusers.

Not from the other parent, they’re just pathological. It’s the child abusing forensic psychologists I’m after. The betrayers – the ones who should protect… and don’t. The ones who particpate in psychologically abusing the child because of their ignorance, incompetence, and unethical practice.

I want their license to practice revoked for participating in the psychological abuse of the child. That’s my goal. We’ll see how successful I can be in a couple of years. I’m just starting, Covid and chaos are ending and we are reemerging into the world in 2022, and I’m not going anywhere. By 2024, this should be interesting.

I’m on the savanna now, I’m in the courts as a testifying expert witness. I will meet them in the courts. I read their reports. I write my reports about their reports. I don’t think they’ll like being peer-reviewed by Dr. Childress. It’s likely to be a surprising event in their world, to have their report peer-reviewed by Dr. Childress.

I read my reports about their reports. I don’t think they’ll like my reports. I’m not here to make friends. I’m here to protect the child from the child abusers.

Do you hear that rustling in the grasses? They don’t. When you see the lion, the hunt is already over.

So that’s what I’ll be doing to round out my professional career.

I’m peer-review from clinical psychology of their professional practices. The standards of practice in forensic psychology are substantially beneath those of clinical psychology. I suspect they’re in for a surprise.

In a year or so I’m anticipating I’ll be standing on hill made from their bones, at least that’s my goal. We’ll see how successful I can be.

Child Abuse

In clinical psychology, we abide by the Standards of the APA ethics code… but forensic psychologists do something different. They don’t abide by the ethical Standards of practice mandated by the APA.

They’ll even testify that forensic psychology is different. That’s their downfall but they don’t comprehend that yet. They will.

Clinical psychologists comply with the ethical Standards of the APA ethics code. Forensic psychologists do something different, they don’t comply with the ethical Standards of the APA.

Clinical psychologists diagnose child abuse and fulfill their duty to protect obligations. Clinical psychologists protect children from child abuse.

Forensic psychologists do something different. They don’t diagnose child abuse and they don’t protect the child. Instead, forensic psychologists particpate in the psychological abuse of the child. That represents a prominent failure in their duty to protect obligations.

Google negligence: failure to take proper care in doing something.

Did they conduct a proper risk assessment for possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51)? Did they conduct a proper assesment for a possible delusional thought disorder in the parent imposed on the child, a shared persecutory delusion?

I am stone-cold serious, look at me. I’m not a happy psychologist. I am going after their license to practice for being a child abuser – the betrayer, the one who should protect… and doesn’t.

Dr. Childress becomes very unhappy when people abuse my children, and all children are my children. Dr. Childress becomes especially unhappy when the child abusers are other psychologists. That is not okay.

I’ve hired an assistant to help me get my articles into APA format and submitted to various journals, and then to track the submissions through journal rejections until we find its location.

That way I can remain focused on my task at-hand.

If they change, then they admit that I am right – about everything – including their current and prior unethical practice and their collusion with child abuse.

If they don’t change, then they await the malpractice lawsuits that are coming for violations to Standards 2.04 and 9,01 of the APA ethics code, and for their negligent failure in their duty to protect obligations.

It’s called a double-bind, either way they are in trouble. You parents are familar with double-binds, the no-win situations that surround you no matter which way you turn.

Double-binds are abundant surrounding you, it’s a feature of trauma pathology. I know. I’m a trauma psycyhologist. This is my pathology. I’m reorganizing things, shifting around a lot of things to their proper locations.

It’s what I do. I’m a clinical psycholgist. We do something different. We create change, and we know exactly how to do that.

YouTube

I’ll be turning to my YouTube channel next. It’s time to unload that Internet medium of communication. Everyone is currently using it to upload information. I’m not going to use it that way. I’m a clinical psychologist, I do something different.

It’s a communication medium. Can psychotherapeutic change agents be delivered using the Internet communcation medium of YouTube? I suspect they can. Not your typical change agents we use in our day-to-day face-to-face therapy work, but I think there’s change agents appropriate to this new medium of communication.

Let’s find out.

I’m planning to organize the information into various lines because I will be doing various things directed to various audiences. I’m anticipating that the structure of the information sets will gradually unfold as the lines take shape.

I’m an Internet psychologist. I’m the first. Wheee. No one’s ever done this before. How many other psychologists have solved everything about child custody conflict in the courts? No one. How may other psychologists have killed an entire field of psychology? No one.

I think I’m the goat of clinical psychologists. Now I’m going where no one has gone before – I’ll be exploring if the Internet commucation medium of YouTube can be used to deliver psychotherapeutic change-agents.

I need an outcome measure. How about we use the fall of forensic psychology? That sounds like a good outcome.

I’m going to start my YouTube channel by answering your questions. If you have a question for Dr. Childress, send it to question.for.drchildress@gmail.com. I don’t need your story, I know your story, what’s your question? I’ll know your story by your question.

A question ends with a ? thing. Your stories don’t.

If you have that question, so do a lot of other people, and once things are posted to YouTube they remain for everyone. The information sets build. Let’s get busy.

It’s time to take this Internet thing out for a spin and see what it can do. You just have to know your medium, don’t think flat-lander, the Intenet is way different – know the limitations and use the advantages.

The world is changing – because we are changing it – because it needs to change.

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