The pathology in the family courts is child abuse. The professional use of euphemisms of made-up pathology labels hides the child abuse from the courts, and using euphemisms of made-up pathology labels prevents appropriate intervention for the child abuse (DSM-5 V 995.51 Child Psychological Abuse) in the family courts.

It is not “parental alienation” – it is child abuse.

Using euphemisms to hide the child abuse is participating in the child abuse by covering up the child abuse, and by preventing appropriate intervention for the child abuse.

By concealing the child abuse in the family courts through the use of made-up pathology labels, the Parental Alienation Study Group founded by William Bernet, MD is participating in the psychological abuse of children in the family courts by degrading the quality of mental health services received by the children, their parents, and the courts, and by hiding from the courts and the general public that the pathology in the family courts is child abuse (not “parental alienation”).

There is no defined pathology in clinical psychology called “parental alienation” and the use of made-up pathology labels in a professional capacity is substantially beneath professional standards of practice in clinical psychology, and is in violation of Standard 2.04 of the ethics code of the American Psychological Association.

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” required for application with court-involved custody conflict is:

• Attachment pathology – Bowlby & others
• Family systems therapy – Bowen & 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

It is the ethical obligation of all professionals to apply the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline – FIRST – before offering any new made-up pathology proposals.

My Duties & Ethical Obligations

I believe that there are ethical violations by a group of mental health professionals that have substantially harmed, and are likely to continue to substantially harm, children and their parents in the family courts, activating my mandatory ethical obligations under Standards 1.04 and 1.05 of the APA ethics Code, along with my duty to protect and duty to warn obligations to protect the general public, children, and parents in the family court from the likely harm caused by unethical professional practice by other mental health professionals (the PASG).

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 – informally – notified the PASG of my concerns for their apparent violation of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments of the APA ethics code. In doing so I have attempted to resolve the ethical concerns regarding their behavior by bringing these concerns to their attention, pursuant to my – mandatory – obligations under Standard 1.04 of the APA ethics code. Ethical practice is not optional, it is required.

The ethical concerns (surrounding Standards 2.04, 2.01, and 9.01 of the APA ethics code) were not properly resolved in that fashion.

• I believe there are ethical violations by a group of mental health professionals (Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments; Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence; Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment) that have substantially harmed and are likely to continue to substantially harm children and parents in the family courts.
• These concerns for apparent unethical practice were not properly resolved through informal notification.

My mandatory obligations under Standard 1.05 of the APA ethics code to “take further action appropriate to the situation” are active. Possible avenues for consideration are provided by Standard 1.05 and include “referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities.”

Duty to Protect & Warn

All mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations for their patients and for the broader general public, which includes duty to warn obligations in circumstances of an imminent risk to an identifiable victim.

From Wikipedia Duty to Protect: “In medical law and medical ethics, the duty to protect is the responsibility of a mental health professional to protect patients and others from foreseeable harm.”

From Wikipedia Duty to Protect: “A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so.”

The identifiable victims in this circumstance are the children and their parents in the family courts, and the imminent risk is the substantial danger posed by misdiagnosing child abuse because of ethical violations to Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments,  Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence, and Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment of the APA ethics code.

With this notification, I am formally discharging my duty to protect and duty to warn obligations regarding a foreseeable harm posed to children and parents in the family courts from the unethical practice by a group of mental health professionals who are using and promoting a made-up pathology label of their own devising rather than relying on the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for their professional judgments.

Fringe Professional Practice

Reject Diagnostic Guidance: The self-proclaimed “experts” in their made-up pathology called “parental alienation” are a fringe group of professionals who reject the diagnostic guidance of the American Psychiatric Association (because they believe they know more about diagnosis than the American Psychiatric Association).

Reject Ethical Guidance: These self-proclaimed “experts” in a made-up pathology called “parental alienation” reject the ethical guidance of the American Psychological Association (because they believe that ethical standards of practice do not apply to them).

 In 2013 with the publication of the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association was provided a full and complete opportunity to review the diagnostic construct proposal of “parental alienation” as being an authentic pathology, and they said “no” – there is no defined pathology called “parental alienation”.

There is, however, a shared/induced delusional disorder (DSM-5 297.1 Delusional Disorder, shared). There is a false/factitious attachment pathology imposed on the child for secondary gain to a pathological parent (DSM-5 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another).  There is psychological child abuse (DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse).

I offer that their continued reliance on made-up pathology labels as explanations for a pathology indicates their failure to know the necessary established scientific and professional knowledge needed for professional competence, and is an indication of their ignorance about real forms of pathology: (e.g., shared delusional disorders, attachment pathology, factitious disorders).

Google ignorance: lack of knowledge or information

If they know the established knowledge of professional psychology, then they are obligated to show their knowledge through application. I offer that their absence of applied professional level knowledge from established domains of professional psychology indicates their lack of knowledge and information (ignorance) about these necessary domains that are needed for professional competence with the pathology.

These self-proclaimed “experts” in “parental alienation” can reassure concerns regarding their competence and professional-level knowledge by offering a description of the pathology in the family courts using the DSM-5 and the additional constructs from attachment (Bowlby & others), family systems therapy (Minuchin & others), child abuse and complex trauma (van der Kolk & others), and child development (Tronick & others) – WITHOUT – relying on the made-up pathology label of “parental alienation”.

Conflict of Interest & Psychiatric Misinformation

I assert that the self-proclaimed “experts” in “parental alienation” are not actually experts in any real thing based on their vitae, but are instead seeking to promote a made-up pathology label of their own devising for their own financial and career-status gain.

I propose a review of their vitae for competence in the following domains: attachment pathology, delusional thought disorders, factitious disorders, family systems, child abuse and complex trauma.

I assert that the self-proclaimed “experts” in “parental alienation” are not actually experts in any real thing based on their vitae, but are ignorant and incompetent mental health persons who are exploiting the emotional crisis of a vulnerable population in the family courts for personal financial gain and their career-status benefits, rather than to any benefit provided to the children and their parents.

Leading parents into made-up pathology labels results in the failure of the mental health system and family courts to solve the pathology in the family – as opposed to obtaining an accurate DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51) and protecting the child from child abuse.

I am concerned that these self-proclaimed “experts” in “parental alienation” are spreading psychiatric/medical misinformation to the general public through the Internet, to the substantial harm of children and their parents in the family courts by 1) degrading the quality of mental health services received by children and parents in the family courts, 2) hiding the child abuse occurring in the family courts from the courts and preventing appropriate intervention, and 3) by fostering the negligent misdiagnosis of child abuse (not “parental alienation”) in the family courts.

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

The Pathology

The pathology in the family courts is a DSM 5 diagnosis of a shared/induced persecutory delusion (DSM 5297.1 Delusional Disorder, shared; persecutory type).

It is not “parental alienation” – it is child abuse.

The pathology in the family courts is a false/factitious attachment pathology imposed on the child for secondary gain to an allied narcissistic-borderline-dark personality parent (DSM-5 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another).

It is not “parental alienation” – it is child abuse.

The pathology in the family courts is child psychological abuse (DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse).

It is not “parental alienation” – it is child abuse.

Participation in Child Abuse

By continuing to use and promote their made-up pathology label of “parental alienation” that hides the psychological child abuse diagnosis (DSM-5 V995.51) from the court’s understanding, and from appropriate intervention, the Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG) becomes a colluding participant in the child abuse by assisting in its cover-up, and by undermining efforts to obtain an accurate diagnosis and effective treatment for the child abuse in the family courts (DSM-5 V995.51).

There are reasons for ethical standards of practice. There are consequences for violating ethical standards. Unethical practice hurts people – a lot.

There are reasons for ethical standards for competence, there are reasons why the application of established knowledge is – required.

By continuing to use and promote their euphemism of a made-up pathology label for the child abuse in the family courts, the Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG) is substantially harming the children, their parents, and the courts, who need accurate – real – DSM-5 diagnoses based on the application of the actual real established scientific and professional knowledge of the disciple: the DSM-5 diagnostic system; attachment pathology; personality disorders; family systems; factitious and delusional thought disorders; and child abuse.

Factitious Professional Organization Imposed on the Public

I offer that the Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG) is not an authentic professional organization, but instead represents a vanity group created by a psychiatrist, Dr. Bernet, and a small group of fringe professionals to advance their own financial interests and career status gain by spreading psychiatric-medical misinformation to the general public, to the substantial harm of children and their parents in the family courts.

I assert that the function of this group of fringe professionals within the pathology is to keep professional psychology forever locked-up in conflict and controversy without an effective solution.

I assert that the consequence of their unethical practice is to substantially degrade the quality of mental health services received by children, their parents, and the court, to the substantial harm of children and their parents.

Remedy for Critique

I understand that my critique is stern. If doctor Bernet or the PASG wishes to dispute my statements and assertions contained in this duty to protect notification delivered pursuant to my ethical obligations under Standards 1.04 and 1.05 of the APA ethics code, I propose the remedy of an online moderated debate on either of the two following topics:

Debate: Does Parental Alienation Exist?

• No: Dr. Childress
• Yes: Dr. Bernet or representative of PASG

Debate: Is Parental Alienation a Euphemism that Hides Child Abuse from Parents and the Courts?

• Yes: Dr. Childress
• No: Dr. Bernet or representative of PASG

It is not “parental alienation” – it is child abuse.

The use of euphemisms for child abuse of made-up pathology labels hides the child abuse from the courts, and prevents appropriate intervention for the child abuse.

Not “parental alienation” – child abuse.

• DSM 5297.1 Delusional Disorder, shared; persecutory type
• DSM-5 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another
• DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse

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