Using euphemisms for child abuse hides child abuse from view, from the Court’s understanding, and prevents effective intervention.

The use of made-up pathology labels – “parental alienation” – “resist-refuse dynamic” – “Parent-Child Contact Problems” – is dangerous and highly inappropriate professional and public practice.

When child abuse is the considered diagnosis, the use of euphemisms for the child abuse needs to be avoided.

It is not “inappropriate affection” – it’s child sexual abuse (V995.53).

It’s not “overly harsh discipline” – it’s child physical abuse (V995.54).

It’s not “lax supervision” – it’s child neglect (V995.52).

It’s not “parental alienation” – it’s not “resist-refuse dynamic” – it’s not a “Parent-Child Contact Problem”… it’s child psychological abuse (V995.51).

When child abuse is a considered diagnosis, we need to rely on the application of the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for professional judgments.

When child abuse is a considered diagnosis, we need to rely on the actual real diagnostic systems of the DSM-5 from the American Psychiatric Association and ICD-11 from the World Health Organization.

There is no defined pathology in clinical psychology called “parental alienation” or “resist-refuse dynamic”, or “Parent-Child Contact Problems”.

Those are all euphemisms of made-up pathology labels that hide the child abuse from view, from the Court’s understanding, and prevent effective intervention.

Duty to Protect

The failure to diagnose child abuse when a child abuse diagnosis is warranted by the symptoms and family context represents a failure in professional duty to protect obligations.

From Wikipedia: “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.”

Failure in professional duty to protect obligations by failing to diagnose child abuse when a diagnosis of child abuse is warranted by the symptoms and family context may represent negligent professional practice.

From Cornell Law School Definition of Negligence:

“Negligence is a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act.”

Failure to apply the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for professional judgments represents unethical professional practice in violation of Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code:

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 is:

• Attachment pathology – Bowlby & others
• Family systems – Minuchin & other
• Personality disorders – Beck & others
• Child abuse and complex trauma- van der Kolk & others
• Child development – Tronick & others
• Psychological control – Barber & others
• DSM-5 & ICD-11 diagnostic systems of the American Psychiatric Association and World Health Organization.

Using euphemisms of made-up pathology labels for child abuse is extremely problematic professional practice because it hides the child abuse from view, it hides the child abuse from the Court’s understanding, and it prevents effective intervention.

In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association had a full and complete opportunity to review the diagnostic construct of “parental alienation” with the publication of the DSM-5 and they decided there is no new pathology called “parental alienation”.  

The American Psychiatric Association was correct, there is no defined pathology called “parental alienation”.

There is, however, a shared (induced) persecutory delusion:

• DSM- 5 Delusional Disorder (shared); persecutory type (297.1)
• ICD-11 Delusional disorder, unspecified
  MB26.07 Persecutory delusion

There is also a Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another (a false attachment pathology imposed on the child for secondary gain to the pathological parent):

• DSM-5 300.19 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another
• ICD-11 6 D51 Factitious disorder imposed on another

There is psychological child abuse:

• DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse
• ICD-11 QE82.2 Personal history of psychological child abuse

The pathology of concern is not a “new” pathology – it’s child abuse.

The pathology is already in the DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic systems in multiple relevant diagnostic categories – including – child abuse.

Euphemisms Hide Child Abuse

Using euphemisms of made-up pathology labels (such as “parental alienation”, “resist-refuse dynamic”, and “Parent-Child Contact Problems”) is highly inappropriate professional practice surrounding child abuse pathology because it hides the child abuse from accurate diagnosis, from the Court’s understanding, and from effective intervention.

Euphemisms for child abuse should NEVER be used. When it’s child abuse – say so.

So we can protect the child.

All mental health professionals have duty to protect obligations, and all mental health professionals have ethical obligations to be competent in what they do.

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

They have obligations.

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