PACT

04/10/2024

Family courts aim to resolve familial disputes fairly but can cause significant physical and psychological harm when adversarial practices prevail. Chronic stress from court involvement can lead to…

19/09/2024

https://youtu.be/S8UdDYGT0bk?feature=shared

💖 Celebrate the joy of shared moments! Engage in playful activities with your kids to create lasting memories. Stronger bonds lead to brighter futures. Disc...

17/12/2023

14/11/2023

Trauma damages brain networks. The damaged brain networks affect parenting.

If it's death-trauma, that leads to high-anxious parents that then create anxious-insecure children. The attachment system is a predator-driven system - it is exquisitely sensitive to parental displays of anxiety (i.e., there's a predator in the environment).

Complex trauma is relationship-based trauma - like s*x abuse or physical abuse by a parent. That damages attachment networks. The attachment networks will prominently direct future parenting. Damaged attachment networks will create aberrant parenting.

The damaged parenting created by unresolved complex trauma will show the imprint of the trauma that created the damage. Physical abuse ripples different damage-patterns than Neglect abuse (alcoholic parent for example), which will ripple a different damage-pattern from s*x abuse.

What we have in the family courts is a ripple of s*x abuse because the damage-pattern characteristics of s*x abuse are in the symptom features of the pathology in the family courts.

In the first generation iteration - the active s*x abuse time - the constellation of patterns will be coherent, like a ball surrounding the child and parent. In the next generational iteration of the damage through the distorted parenting the damage creates, the damage-patterns will begin to disperse into others - different people and locations will display the symptom features characteristic of the s*x abuse trauma that's rippling.

In the next generational iteration, the damage-patterns become even more dispersed. If you know the pathology and its patterns, it's possible to estimate when the trauma entered the family by how coherent or de-coherent the damage-patterns are in the symptom features.

For the borderline-mom variant, I'd suspect the mother may have been s*xually abused. This creates the "dangerous man" pattern in the ripple.

For the narcissistic-dad variant, I'd suspect the mother of the narcissistic-dad may have been s*xually abused and her distorted parenting creates the "bad-mommy" theme of the narcissistic-dad.

Traumas, however, can travel in groups. When one bad thing is present, other bad things are also more likely. We may have overlays of alcoholism (neglect) and physical abuse from other generational ripples - and we have traumas rippling on both sides of the family.

14/11/2023

Check out our latest article that provides some helpful tips on how to prepare for family court.

To read please check the link below:

https://www.papaorg.co.uk/post/how-to-survive-family-court

06/10/2023

The only possible cause of severe attachment pathology (i.e., a child rejecting a parent) is child abuse range parenting by one parent or the other.

• Targeted Parent Abusive: Either the targeted parent is abusing the child in some way, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent (a 2-person attribution of causality),

• Allied Parent Abusive: Or the allied parent is psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared (induced) persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for secondary gain to the allied parent of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the pathological parent’s own emotional and psychological needs (a 3-person triangle attribution of causality).

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

03/10/2023

Risk Assessment

All mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations. A proper risk assessment is required whenever a mental health professional encounters any of three types of dangerous pathology, su***de, homicide, or abuse (child, spousal, or elder abuse). The type of risk assessment depends on the type of danger involved, such as a su***de risk assessment when the client expresses suicidal thoughts (i.e., an assessment of prior history, current plan, recent loss, means, etc.), or a risk assessment for possible spousal abuse when that is the concern.

There are four diagnoses of child abuse in the Child Maltreatment section of the DSM-5, each of these child abuse diagnoses warrants a proper risk assessment; Child Physical Abuse (V995.54), Child Sexual Abuse (V995.53), Child Neglect (V995.52), Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51). All of these child abuse diagnoses are equally severe in the damage they cause to the child, they differ only in the type of damage done, not in the severity of damage done to the child. Psychological child abuse destroys the child from the inside out.

Based on the symptom reporting, a proper risk assessment to the appropriate differential diagnoses for each parent should have been conducted by the involved mental health professionals and by Dr. XYZ. Based on reporting, however, a proper risk assessment has not been conducted, and prominent professional concerns exist based on the symptoms reported that the pathology in the ABC family has been substantially misdiagnosed.

In addition, prominent professional concerns exist based on the symptom reporting and pattern-matching to relevant diagnostic criteria that the involved mental health professionals and Dr. XYZ may be unknowingly colluding with and participating in the psychological abuse of the children (and psychological spousal abuse of the father using the children as weapons) because of their misdiagnosis.

A professional question then emerges as to whether the potential misdiagnosis by the involved mental health professionals represents negligent professional practice.

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

By all indications from the reporting, Dr. XYZ (and the involved mental health professionals) failed to conduct a proper risk assessment for possible child abuse to the appropriate differential diagnoses for each parent when the reported symptoms would warrant and require that a proper risk assessment be conducted. This potentially represents a failure in the duty to protect obligations of Dr. XYZ and the involved mental health professionals.

Cornell Law School Definition of Negligence: Negligence is the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. Either a person’s actions or omissions of actions can be found negligent. The omission of actions is considered negligent only when the person had a duty to act (e.g., a duty to help someone because of one’s own previous conduct).

The relevant failure for Dr. XYZ and the involved mental health professionals is a failure in their duty to protect obligations, their duty to protect the child from possible psychological abuse by the mother’s potentially pathogenic parenting, and their duty to protect the father from potential spousal emotional and psychological abuse by the mother using the children’s (induced) pathology as the weapon.

Based on the reported symptoms and the application of the established scientific and professional knowledge from clinical psychology (attachment, family systems, child abuse and trauma, the DSM-5 diagnostic system), a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted with the ABC family to the appropriate differential diagnosis for each parent.

01/10/2023

Reposting this without permission.

Naming names. This is getting up-close and personal. That's the way of accountability.

The pathogen attacks to place the target on the defensive. I can do the same thing. The pathogen sets up double-binds. I can do the same thing. The pathogen is very dangerous. So am I.

It comes from my formative training in Gestalt therapy, I'm not afraid of making contact. I had a mentor in Humanistic psychotherapy say that therapy is a full-contact sport.

I read Stahl & Simon (2013) when I first got here, I wanted to find out what the forensic psychologists thought they were doing. Chapter 2 is as far as I got, Chapter 2 told me everything I needed to know.

I knew I'd be pulling the trigger on Stahl and Simon at some point, because they demonstrate the thought disorder and describe everything that's needed to understand exactly what went wrong.

They (proudly) left the field of clinical psychology. They do something different. Those statements will be immensely damaging for them now. They strenuously disagree with the "clinical mindset" and proudly assert the superiority of their "forensic mindset" that does something different.

THAT... is exactly the problem. They stopped being doctors and became mini-judges deciding who deserves to be a parent based on arbitrary criteria set by each evaluator. Doctors need to remain doctors, we diagnose and treat pathology.

They stopped being doctors. That was a very bad thing to do.

To justify their new (experimental) approach they set up a straw man for clinical psychology and they make subtly deceptive statements to justify their existence... they lied about clinical psychology and they over-promised for themselves.

They also describe a multitude of problems with their approach. They think they're talking to the converted of other forensic psychologists, they don't realize they are writing to the clinical psychologist mind of Dr. Childress.

I've been introducing their quotes into the meme-scape for the past couple of years. I've been cultivating the ports of entry into your minds for what's coming.

Simon & Stahl are a pivot point. A lot of information will be moving through that point. I wanted to prepare the meme-scape of your minds, I've been "priming" your neural circuits for incoming information.

I have an IQ question for you on pattern recognition, an assessment of your frontal lobe executive function system for linear-logical reasoning. What comes next in this series?

Forensic psychology is a problem. Forensic psychologists are bad people, ignorant, incompetent, and unethical. Simon and Stahl are forensic psychologists...

The system is broken. Who's responsible for the system? They need to be held accountable. They were lazy. They were negligent. They were irresponsible. They were apathetic. They were ignorant, incompetent, and unethical.

Why shouldn't that ignorant, incompetent, lazy, unethical, and negligently irresponsible person who caused damage to so many people lose their license? Somebody's going to have to explain that to me.

Because I think they should.

Especially the leadership, the ones who created the approach and taught it to others. Like Nuremberg, the leadership should be held to accountability. The others can take off their armbands and blend back into professional practice... but just NOT in the family courts.

What about Boards? Like Board Certified in Forensic Psychology, those kind of Boards. You may not be aware of them but I am, they're puffy-vitae things. When forensic psychology collapses in scandal, what about the Boards who gave them Certification as something special?

Once they APA arrives they'll have a lot to self-relfect on. It's a cover-up... will they try to cover-up that they covered-up the unethical malpractice?

They won't be able to. If you accept that what Dr. Childress says about the pathology is correct, then you also accept that what Dr. Childress says about the forensic psychologists is correct. I'm a package.

I understand that.

I'm the tippy-tip-tip of the spear. Where I am now, things will eventually be. I'm staking my position... I want licenses revoked.

Pick a forensic psychologist, any one, and explain to me why their license to practice should not be revoked for negligently unethical malpractice?

That's an uncomfortable professional idea. So is the destruction of children's lives in child abuse and their parent's lives in spousal abuse. What the forensic psychologists as individuals did was a very bad thing to do

Why didn't they stop? Why didn't they do what Dr. Childress did and apply knowledge? Why didn't they listen when Dr. Childress explained the pathology to them?

It's not my job to educate them, it's their job to already know. They deserve to lose their licenses - all of them do.

They degraded the quality of mental health services available to children and the courts, resulting in widespread ongoing child abuse and spousal abuse. They had duty to protect obligations and they failed on two counts - they failed to protect the child from child abuse and they failed to protect the targeted parent from spousal abuse using the child as the weapon.

Why shouldn't they lose their licenses for being contributing participants to the child abuse? Why shouldn't they lose their licenses for being contributing participants to spousal abuse?

If you believe a shared delusion, you become part of the pathology, you become part of the child abuse, you become part of the spousal abuse using the child as the weapon. A psychologist working with children should never BE the child abuser.

Explain to me why all these forensic custody evaluators shouldn't lose their license for unethical malpractice and participating in the abuse of the their patients?

Explain to me why not.

I think they should. If you're a mental health professional and you participate in the psychological abuse of your client-child, then you don't deserve to be a mental health professional and you should lose yor license.

I know one thing for certain, they should no longer work with the pathology in the family courts. The entire field of forensic custody evaluations needs to end, and all the forensic custody evaluators need to go to some other pathology - just not in the family courts.

It is going to become too professionally dangerous to work in the family courts, too dangerous for the forensic psychologists, too dangerous for the clinical psychologists, too dangerous for all mental health professionals.

Professional psychological services in the family courts are going to entirely collapse, it is going to be a mess. No one is going back to "parental alienation" - Bernet and the Gardnerian PAS experts are dead. Forensic psychology is collapsing and they will have no support. Clinical psychology won't come, especially into such chaos.

The APA has to come and see what's up. Once they look... I've described for them exactly the problem. I've described for them exactly the solution.

Wheeee...

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

13/09/2023

Courts will now need to consider a history of family violence, abuse and neglect when they determine a child’s best interests in divorce proceedings.