The ethical Standards of the American Psychological Association are mandatory for all psychologists. Ethical practice is not optional, it is required.

I have mandatory ethical obligations under Standards 1.04 and 1.05 when I believe there may have been ethical violations by another psychologist.

1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations
When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved.

1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations
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. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities.

I believe there are violations to Standards 2.01, 2.04, and 9.01 of the APA ethics code by forensic psychologists and individual child therapists working in the family courts.

As a result of ethical violations to Standards 2.01 Boundaries of Competence, 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments, and 9.01 Bases for Assessment, I believe there has been substantial harm inflicted on children and parents in the family courts, and that this harm is likely to continue.

In 2017 I informed the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) of my concerns in a presentation to their national convention (discharging my obligations for “informal resolution” under Standard 1.04).

In 2018, I wrote and submitted to the American Psychological Association a Petition to the APA signed by 20,000 parents informing the APA of the ethical concerns (discharging my obligations under Standard 1.05).

The ethical violations were not properly resolved in that fashion. I am now taking”further action appropriate to the situation” to discharge my ethical obligations under Standard 1.05 and my duty to protect.

Duty to Protect

There are three dangerous pathologies, suicide, homicide, and abuse (child, spousal, and elder abuse). Whenever a mental health professional encounters a dangerous pathology (suicide, homicide, abuse), duty to protect obligations are active.

The pathology of concern in the family courts is child abuse by a pathological narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent, and possible spousal abuse of the targeted parent by the allied parent using the child as the weapon.

DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse

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

The duty to protect obligations for all court-involved mental health professionals are active relative to the parents and children in the family courts, and a proper risk assessment for child abuse needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnoses for each parent.

• Targeted Parent Abusive: Is the targeted parent abusing the child in some way, thereby creating the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?
• Allied Parent Abusive: Is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared (induced) persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for secondary gain to the parent?

Duty to Warn

Within my duty to protect obligations are duty to warn obligations when I believe there is an identifiable victim (parents and children in the family courts) and an imminent danger (forensic custody evaluations).

I believe that forensic custody evaluations pose a danger to children and parents and that the practice is harmful to children in the family courts, activating my duty to warn obligations.

An independent review of forensic custody evaluations by the New York Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations determined that forensic custody evaluations “lack scientific or legal value,” are “dangerous” and “harmful to children”

From NY Blue Ribbon Commission: “By an 11-9 margin, a majority of Commission members favor elimination of forensic custody evaluations entirely, arguing that these reports are biased and harmful to children and lack scientific or legal value. At worst, evaluations can be dangerous, particularly in situations of domestic violence or child abuse – there have been several cases of children in New York who were murdered by a parent who received custody following an evaluation. These members reached the conclusion that the practice is beyond reform and that no amount of training for courts, forensic evaluators and/or other court personnel will successfully fix the bias, inequity and conflict of interest issues that exist within the system.

As a consulting psychologist in the family courts I have reviewed many forensic custody evaluations. I agree with these conclusions from the New York Blue Ribbon on Forensic Custody Evaluations.

Remedy

As a clinical psychologist, I am informing consumers of mental health services in the family courts of my professional concerns, and notifying you of your rights to professionally competent services under Standards 2.01, 2.04, and 9.01 of the APA ethics code.

As a clinical psychologist with active duty to protect obligations, I am informing parents in the family courts, the consumers of mental health services in the family courts, of their rights relative to the duty to protect obligations of the mental health professionals to protect them from spousal abuse and their children from child abuse.

I am discharging my obligations for further action appropriate to the situation by informing the consumers of mental health services of their rights and issues surrounding potential licensing board complaints or malpractice lawsuits.

Professional Concerns

• Was the involved mental health professional practicing beyond the boundaries of their competence, in violation of Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence, in the diagnostic assessment of delusional thought disorders and factitious attachment pathology?
• Did the involved mental health professional fail to take proper (reasonable) care in conducting their assessment of the client?
• Did the involved mental health professional misdiagnose the pathology in the family due to their negligently incompetent assessment?
• Did the involved mental health professional fail in their duty to protect obligations because of their unethical (Standard 2.01) and negligently incompetent malpractice?

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