There is no such thing as “parental alienation”.

There is no defined construct in clinical psychology called “parental alienation” and the use of that construct in a professional capacity is substantially beneath professional standards of practice in clinical psychology, and is in violation of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association.

The use of the construct of “parental alienation” by a mental health professional is unethical – ignorant – and incompetent professional practice.

The self-proclaimed “experts” in a fabricated and made-up thing called “parental alienation” are a fringe group of professionals who reject the diagnostic guidance of the American Psychiatric Association, and who reject the ethical guidance of the American Psychological Association.

These self-proclaimed “experts” in “parental alienation” are charlatans and frauds.

They believe they know more about diagnosis than the American Psychiatric Association does – they are wrong – they have a fixed and false belief.

They believe that ethical standards of practice don’t apply to them – they are wrong – they have a fixed and false belief.

They believe they have special knowledge that no one else has – they are wrong – they have a fixed and false belief.

The continued used of “parental alienation” in a professional capacity substantially degrades the quality of mental health services in the family courts and has a corrosive effect on efforts to protect children from child psychological abuse by a narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent.

They use the construct of “parental alienation” to hide their ignorance about real things and real pathology. The self-proclaimed “experts” in the made-up thing of “parental alienation” are simply ignorant, indolent, and unethical people – practicing below a professional level.

Google ignorance: lack of knowledge or information.

Google indolence: avoidance of activity or exertion; laziness.

Reality

The pathology of concern in the family courts when severe attachment pathology is displayed by the child is child abuse by one parent or the other. Abusive-range parenting is the only thing that causes severe attachment pathology (a child rejecting a parent).

The only question is, which parent is abusing the child?

Differential Diagnosis:

• Targeted Parent Abusive: Is the targeted parent abusing the child in some way, thereby causing the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?

OR

• 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 of manipulating the court’s decisions regarding child custody, and to meet the parent’s own emotional and psychological needs?

In all cases of court-involved custody conflict involving severe attachment pathology displayed by the child (a child rejecting a parent) a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnoses for each parent.

All.

If there is any concern expressed by anyone for any reason regarding possible child abuse, a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted to the concern.

Custody Litigation

In child custody litigation, both litigant parents are making allegations of abuse (overtly or implied) against the other.

The child’s symptoms of rejection (and possibly the verbal statements of the child and allied parent) are indicating child abuse concerns regarding the targeted parent.

The targeted parent is alleging that these are false beliefs (a persecutory delusion) and that a false (factitious) attachment pathology is being imposed on the child by the pathology of the allied parent.

Both parent-litigants are making child abuse allegations against the other.

In all child custody cases involving severe attachment pathology displayed by the child (a child rejecting a parent), a proper risk assessment 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 causing the child’s attachment pathology toward that parent?
• Allied Parent Abusive: Is the allied parent psychologically abusing the child by creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for secondary gain to the parent?

Spousal & Child Abuse

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 protection obligations are active and a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted.

In the family courts surrounding severe attachment pathology (a child rejecting a parent), two potential dangerous pathologies are of clinical concern – possible child abuse and possible spousal abuse.

• DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse: a parent creating a shared persecutory delusion and false (factitious) attachment pathology in the child for secondary gain to the parent.
• DSM-5 V995.82 Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological of the targeted parent by the allied parent using the child’s induced pathology and the courts as the weapon.

Participating in Child Abuse

A prominent professional danger in misdiagnosing a shared persecutory delusion is that if the mental health professional and/or the Court misdiagnoses the pathology of a shared persecutory delusion and believes the shared delusion as if it was true, then the mental health professional and/or the Court become PART of the shared delusion, they become part of the pathology.

When that pathology is the psychological abuse of the child by a pathological parent, then the mental health professional and/or the Court become PART of the parent’s psychological abuse of the child.

When that pathology is also the psychological spousal abuse of the targeted parent by the allied parent using the child as the weapon, then the mental health professional and/or the Court become participants in the spousal psychological abuse of the targeted parent because of their misdiagnosis of the pathology in the family.

When possible child abuse is a considered diagnosis, our diagnosis needs to be accurate 100% of the time. The consequences of misdiagnosing child abuse are too devastating for the child.

In all – all – cases of court-involved custody conflict involving severe attachment pathology displayed by the child, a proper risk assessment needs to be conducted to the appropriate differential diagnoses for each parent to guide decision-making surrounding the child.

All.

Real Things

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 in clinical psychology.

There are persecutory delusions, these are real things. There are factitious disorders imposed on another (DSM-5 300.19), these are real things. There is Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51), this is a real thing. There is Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological, this is a real thing.

There are real things.

Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgements, of the APA ethics code requires – mandatory – that psychologists apply the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for their professional judgments.

2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments

Psychologists’ work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline.

The established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline is:

• Attachment pathology – Bowlby & others
• Family systems therapy – Minuchin & others
• Child abuse and complex trauma – van der Kolk & others
• Personality disorder pathology – Beck & others
• Child development – Tronick & others
• Psychological control – Barber & others
• DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association

The ethics code of the American Psychological Association is mandatory – required – for all American psychologists. Ethical practice is not optional, it is required.

Apply knowledge to solve pathology.

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