I received word that I have a licensing board complaint against me… from Bill Bernet and Demosthenes Lorandos for criticizing them.

Is this bad or good news? I’ll let you decide. It’s annoying certainly. It’s going to take time and effort to respond to and deal with – that’s time and effort away from you and away from solving things.

That’s the over-line on the movement.

Do you see an under-line that’s unseen? I can’t say much now because I have a formal defense to make from here on out. My formal focus is there on my formal defense, but… I can defend my professional positions… and I will.

There are larger issues of professional standards of practice that need… discussion and resolution.

At the very least, I can use the licensing board complaint against me from Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos regarding my criticisms of their professional practices to teach you what happens on the receiving end of a board complaint.

First, I’ll need to lawyer-up now through my insurance carrier. Then I’ll present a formal response – then wait – then see what happens.

I went through the same thing when Jean Mercer filed a CA Board of Psychology complaint against me for the same reason – “unprofessional conduct” because I said she was not a “real psychologist” because she’s never been licensed, and in CA the term “psychologist” is a “protected term” meaning that you have to be licensed to call yourself a psychologist – she’s called a professor of psychology.

Jean testified in a case in CA I was involved in providing misinformation about diagnosis and treatment (I have the transcripts). She held herself out as a (clinical) psychologist who is educated and trained in diagnosis and treatment – when she’s not – she’s never been educated for that, no training for that, no license for that…ever. So I said she shouldn’t have done that because she’s not a “real psychologist” to alert other litigants that she’s misrepresenting her knowledge and degree-status, and she filed a licensing board complaint against me for “unprofessional conduct”.

Once the CA Board heard my response regarding Mercer’s allegations, they dropped the matter without sanction or fine to me. But Jean still tried to use her complaint against me in her future testimony to sully my reputation to the Court (I have the transcripts).

This time it’s the other side seeking to gain advantage in the family courts for their “side” against Dr. Childress by sullying my reputation to the court with a licensing board complaint. Interestingly, Dr. Mercer hates “parental alienation” and Drs. Bernet and Lorandos are lovers of the PAS thing – so they hate each other… and both of them apparently hate me.

Perfect.

I’m not seeing a downside in that, are you? Considering who’s involved and what “parental alienation” is… the fact that both sides have filed board complaints against me for my criticism of them is kind of telling… and appropriate to what I’m doing.

I’m improving the quality of mental health services received by children, their parents, and the courts surrounding litigated child custody conflict. The problematic professionals aren’t going to like that.

I’ve had board complaints from the anti-PAS side, from Jean Mercer, for criticizing her absence of competence and ethical compliance. I’ve had a board complaint from the forensic custody evaluators because one of my reports resulted in a licensing board complaint being filed by a dad against the involved forensic psychologist.

Now I have the trifecta of professional danger, a board complaint from the self-proclaimed Gardnerian PAS “experts” for criticizing their absence of professional standards – 2.01 – 2.04 – failure to apply the DSM-5 to diagnosis – failure in duty to protect obligations – and spreading medical-psychiatric-psychological misinformation to the general public online and in their writings.

The Mirror – it’ll be an educational opportunity for parents – and professionals – about what it’s like working in the family courts. That’s what I’m here for – I am the Mirror to what’s here.

See yourselves reflected. I’m a clinical psychologist, that’s what I do. I show you… you.

Dr. Childress, who is trying to raise the standards of practice to simply basic levels – use the DSM-5 for diagnosis – is being attacked with board complaints by the other doctors he’s criticizing for not using the DSM-5 for diagnosis.

I’m not allowed to criticize the professional practices and decision-making of Dr. Bernet (a retired psychiatrist) and Dr. Lorandos (a psychologist) it would seem – they are exempt from criticism and are entitled to do whatever they want – and it’s unethical practice on my part to criticize their professional standards of practice, or so it seems… at least in their understanding.

Are the forensic psychologists next to attack me? Yes, if they can, they will harm me to the extent they can. I know that. The forensic psychologists own you and they don’t want to leave the family courts… but they have to go away to solve things.

Where are the licensing boards? Why am I doing their work for them? Pull that string.

I’m pulling strings… do you see how I’m pulling strings? Dance. I call them lines. When you pluck strings… it makes music, frequencies, ripples in the waveform, perturbations in the field. Oh look, a new particle – the child abuse boson – just arose from the collision of science and anti-science.

The Mirror – to reveal that which is hidden. It’s not a pleasant archetype to go through, its purpose is to lead to greater self-reflective insight… that’s needed for the next step after that.

The Cauldron – ugh.

Here’s from the email to me from the CA Board of Psychology:

Complaint: “The complaint states that you have made several posts on social media and your personal website regarding Dr. William Bernet and Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos that are unprofessional, false, and defamatory. In these posts, you have made statements, including but not limited to, calling these doctors child abusers, ignorant, unethical, bottom-feeding scum, obstructionists, allies of the pathology of parental alienation, irresponsible, lacking in linear and logical reasoning, failed diagnosticians, reckless, and arrogant. These posts are unethical and violate the APA Code of Ethics.

Now that this is being formally looked into by the CA Board of Psychology, I’ll need to restrain my remarks here – to a degree. With this pathology – and with what I’m doing – everything is out in the open – no secrets – not with this pathogen.

Understand… I’m the Mirror. That’s my role.

The Board has asked for my defense – my “response” to their allegations that:

1) Collusion with Child Abuse

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are colluding with child abuse by using euphemisms of made-up pathology labels that hide the child abuse (DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse; a shared persecutory delusion and FDIA) from view, that hide the child abuse from the Court’s understanding, and that prevent effective intervention for the… child abuse.

The use of made-up pathology labels degrades the quality of mental health services received by parents and children in the family courts, and prevents effective intervention by the legal system for the child abuse in the family by hiding the child abuse behind euphemisms of made-up pathology labels.

Doctors advocating for the use of the made-up and rejected construct of “parental alienation” are spreading medical-psychiatric-psychological misinformation to the general public, to the substantial harm of parents and children in the family courts.

Standard 2.04 requires that they apply the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” as the bases for professional judgments – first – before applying any made-up pathology proposals. The established knowledge to be applied – first – includes 1) the DSM-5 diagnostic system, 2) attachment (Bowlby & others), 3) personality pathology and delusional thought disorders (Beck & others), 4) family systems (Minuchin & others), 5) child abuse and complex trauma (van der Kolk and others) – first – as the bases for their professional judgments.

I have obligations under Standard 1.05 to take “further action appropriate to the situation” when I believe there has been an ethical violation (Standards 2.04 & 2.01) by another psychologist (and psychiatrist working in tandem to promote their failed and rejected made-up pathology label).

In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association conducted a complete review of the construct of “parental alienation” and they said – no – there is no such pathology as “parental alienation”. That should be the end of discussion for all responsible professional doctors who make diagnoses.

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos think they know more about diagnosis of pathology than the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Bernet and Dr Lorandos think the American Psychiatric Association is wrong and that they are right. Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos think they are discovering a unique new form of pathology and they’ve created a pathology label for it… since the 1980s… that has been fully rejected as a diagnostic construct because it does not meet professional standards… and there is no new pathology,

Dr. Childress thinks the American Psychiatric Association is correct and that Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are wrong – there is no such pathology as “parental alienation” – that’s an awful-awful made-up pathology label without scientific or research support.

Is it in the DSM-5? No. It is without sufficient professional support to be an established diagnosis. A persecutory delusion IS in the DSM-5 – that IS an actual diagnosis. Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another IS in the DSM-5 – that IS an actual diagnosis. Child Psychological Abuse IS in the DSM-5 – that is an actual diagnosis.

Apply the DSM-5 – first – before making new made-up pathology proposals… that have been fully reviewed and fully rejected as a diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association.

I agree with the American Psychiatric Association, and I comply with Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments of the APA ethics code. Dr. Bernet and Dr, Lorandos believe they know more than the American Psychiatric Association about diagnosis – and – they are withholding discussing the DSM-5 diagnostic considerations with the general public and court for their own financial and career status gains as “experts” in their made-up pathology label.

There is a substantial conflict of interest in Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos evaluating their new unique made-up pathology label since they stand to benefit financially and in their careers as the (self-proclaimed) “experts” in this new pathology they are supposedly discovering (since the 1980s). The American Psychiatric Association said – no – there is no pathology called “parental alienation.”

There are delusional disorders, there a factitious disorders, there are child abuse diagnoses in the DSM-5. All doctors should apply the DSM-5 – first – as the bases for their diagnostic judgments.

2) Ignorance

Google ignorance: lack of knowledge or information

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are ignorant because they don’t know (lack of knowledge or information) about attachment pathology (when a child rejecting a parent is an attachment pathology), they don’t know about delusional thought disorders (when the pathology in the family courts is a persecutory delusion), they don’t know about family systems (when it is a family conflict), they don’t know about personality disorders (when it is a parental narcissistic-borderline-dark personality in the family), and they don’t know about child abuse and complex trauma (when the pathology is child abuse).

Note: If you need to be educated about what the pathology is, you lack knowledge or information by your demonstrated need to be educated.

They are ignorant – about attachment – about delusional thought disorders – about family systems – about personality disorders – about child abuse and complex trauma. They lack so much knowledge (they are so ignorant), that they have to make-up new forms of pathology because they don’t comprehend what is actually going on.

If you need to be educated, you lack knowledge or information… that means you are ignorant by definition of the English language.. That’s called linear and logical reasoning from the fact – lack of knowledge or information – to the conclusion – ignorant.

3) Unethical

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are unethical for violations to Standards 2.01 Boundaries of Competence and 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.

A child rejecting a parent is an attachment pathology. Regarding Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence, neither Dr. Bernet nor Dr. Lorandos are competent in attachment pathology based on their education, training, and experience.

Attachment competence comes from Early Childhood Mental Health. Where on their vitae does it demonstrate their competence in the attachment system and the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of attachment pathology based on their education, training, and experience?

I’ll show you where this is demonstrated on my vita for comparison regarding professional-level expectations.

I will further challenge the competence of Dr. Lorandos in the diagnostic assessment of delusional thought disorders. Where on his vita does it demonstrate his education, training, and the “considerable experience” (Martin, 1990) needed to conduct a Mental Status Exam of thought and perception (which is the assessment for a possible delusional thought disorder)?

I’ll show you where this is demonstrated on my vita for comparison regarding professional-level expectations.

For Dr. Bernet, I will further challenge his competence in family systems (Minuchin, Bowen, Madanes, Haley, Satir) when the pathology is a family conflict.

Standard 2.01 Competence Dr. Lorandos: Attachment and delusional thought disorders.

Standard 2.01 Competence Dr. Bernet: Attachment and family systems.

Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgements: both of them use the construct of “parental alienation” that lacks scientific support (DSM-5) and was rejected as a diagnostic entity by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-5, on the other hand, represents the “established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” that should be applied as the bases for diagnostic judgments.

I stand by my criticisms, 1) by using euphemisms of made-up pathology labels, Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos collude in hiding the child abuse from view, from the Court’s understanding, and from effective intervention for the… child abuse, 2) that they are ignorant (lack knowledge or information) about attachment pathology, delusional thought disorders, family systems, and complex trauma, 3) and that they are in violation of Standards 2.01 and 2.04 of the APA ethics code.

But rather than self-reflecting on this constructive criticism to return to the DSM-5 for diagnostic decisions, they file a licensing board complaint against me for my criticism of their professional standards of practice.

I’m willing to Debate these issues in a professional public forum at any time with Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos.

Debate: Are the Self-Proclaimed PAS “experts” Colluding with Child Abuse in the Family Courts?

Yes: Dr. Childress – 1) by hiding the child abuse from view, 2) by hiding the child abuse from the Court’s understanding, 3) by preventing effective intervention for the child abuse, and 4) by degrading the quality of mental health services provided to children, their parents, and the courts.

No: Dr. Bernet & Dr. Lorandos

Debate: Are the Self-Proclaimed PAS “experts” Using Made-Up Pathology Labels to Hide Ignorance?

Yes: Dr. Childress – they don’t know 1) the attachment system and attachment pathology, 2) personality pathology and delusional thought disorders, 3) family systems constructs and principle, 4) complex trauma and child abuse – and so they must make up supposedly new forms of pathology they believe they’re discovering.

No: Dr. Bernet & Dr. Lorandos

Debate: Are the Self-Proclaimed PAS “experts” Unethical and in Violation of Standards 2.01 and 2.04 of the APA Ethics Code?

Yes: Dr. Childress – Dr. Bernet is practicing beyond the boundaries of competence with attachment pathology and family systems pathology, and Dr. Lorandos is practicing beyond the boundaries of competence with attachment pathology and delusional thought disorders, in violation of Standard 2.01, and both Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are in violation of Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments by making-up new pathology labels instead of applying the DSM-5 diagnostic system of the American Psychiatric Association as the bases for their professional judgments.

No: Dr. Bernet & Dr. Lorandos

I maintain my positions, and I will formally Debate these allegations in an online moderated Debate. I’m in – send me the date and time and log-in information.

Additional Charges

I think we can start to handle the further charges against me rather quickly now that a basic understanding of my professional concerns has been achieved regarding 1) their collusion with child abuse by using made-up pathology labels that hide the child abuse from view and prevent effective intervention, 2) their ignorance by definition of the English language, and 3) their unethical practice in violation of Standards 2.01 and 2.04 of the APA ethics code.

4) Lacking in Moral Character

Opining on the moral character demonstrated by Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos as bottom-feeding scum in terms of professional standards (not competent, not open to feedback about ethical concerns, disregarding ethical obligations to become competent to the – knowingly – substantial harm of children and parents) is more of a conclusion based on everything they do rather than a starting opinion.

I’ll reserve further comment on a description of their moral character – as an example of professional standards in the family courts – until after all my evidence for professional wrongdoing is presented. I use colorful language to capture attention to the moral-ethical failures of the professionals involved. Once you hear all the evidence, you can decide for yourself on the caliber – or lack thereof – of their moral character surrounding… child abuse protection obligations.

Personally and professionally, based on their actions, I question the moral character of Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos. I believe their decision making surrounding their professional obligations have been substantially flawed – from an ethical perspective – from a professional perspective – from a moral character perspective.

These are professional issues in the family courts. The quality of professional services provided to parents, the children, and the courts is exceedingly low – exceedingly low. The moral character, the ethical practices, and failure in professional duty to protect obligations are all valid professional topics for discussion.

Debate: Do the Self-Proclaimed PAS “experts” Lack Moral Character?

Yes: Dr. Childress – for knowingly – knowingly – sacrificing children for years to the failed efforts from made-up pathology labels of their own devising – rather than leading children and families into a proper DSM-5 diagnosis that would result in a proper child protection and spousal protection response from the mental health system.

No: Dr. Bernet & Dr. Lorandos – making up new pathology and not applying the DSM-5 to diagnose child abuse… for years… and working to prevent the application of the DSM-5 diagnostic system to diagnoses in the family courts… and NOT protecting children from child abuse is the morally right thing to do.

These are a professional issues to be addressed by the American Psychological Association and by the Association of State and Provincial Licensing Boards. In the meantime, I’m doing what I can under my mandatory obligations pursuant to Standard 1.05 to take further action appropriate to the situation when I believe there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist and psychiatrist working in tandem for their own financial and career status benefit as self-proclaimed “experts” in a made-up pathology they are creating.

My question is, why do the parents, children, and courts, have such exceedingly poor quality of doctors who practice below professional standards (DSM-5), below ethical standards (2.01 & 2.04), and below moral standards for knowingly failing in their duty to protect obligations by knowingly spreading medical-psychiatric-psychological misinformation to the general public – to the substantial harm of the children and their parents?

5) Obstructing the Application of Knowledge

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are obstructing the solution available to children, their parents, and the courts that is available from the application of the DSM-5 to diagnosis. All doctors, including Drs. Bernet and Lorandos, should apply the DSM-5 (ICD-11) diagnostic system as the bases for professional diagnostic judgments.

6) Allies of the Pathological Parent

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are allies of the pathological parent by acting to hide the child abuse from view, by hiding the child abuse from the court’s understanding, by preventing intervention for the child abuse, by degrading the quality of mental health services received by the children, their parents, and the courts, and by disabling the mental health system response to the pathology in endless professional conflict and legal fighting to prove “parental alienation” (a made-up pathology) to a judge… instead of getting a DSM-5 diagnosis and effective treatment for that diagnosis that would solve the situation.

7) Irresponsible

Google irresponsible: (of a person, attitude, or action) not showing a proper sense of responsibility.

Google responsible: having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one’s job or role.

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are irresponsible – they have a responsibility as doctors to apply the DSM-5 diagnostic system to their diagnoses – they have duty to protect obligations to identify (diagnose) child abuse when child abuse is present (not made-up pathologies of their own devising) – they have a responsibility as doctors to provide accurate medical-psychiatric-psychological information to their patients, to the general public, and to the courts for decision-making surrounding the children.

8) Linear-Logical Reasoning

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos lack linear and logical reasoning.

Example 1: the pathology cannot – cannot – be both an established pathology in the DSM-5 and a new form of pathology they are just discovering which requires a whole new pathology label unique to this new pathology.

Either – it’s already in the DSM-5, it’s not a new pathology they are discovering – OR – they are discovering a new pathology that’s not in the DSM-5. Both things cannot be simultaneously true.

The pathology is… DSM-5 297.1 Delusional Disorder (shared); persecutory type; DSM-5 300.10 Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another; DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse; DSM-5 V995.82 Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological.

That is four DSM-5 diagnoses provided that fully explain – identify – the pathology involved. There is no new pathology present, Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are simply ignorant – lack knowledge of information – about real forms of pathology in the DSM-5 – and Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos simply don’t apply the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline, the DSM-5, to their diagnoses and as the bases for their professional judgments… in violation of Standard 2.04 of the APA ethics code.

Example 2: If you need to be educated about the pathology, then you lack knowledge or information about the pathology – you are ignorant by definition of the English language and the demonstrated need to be educated – linear – logical – reasoning.

9) Failed Diagnosticians

That Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are failed diagnosticians is easily demonstrated – is “parental alienation” in the DSM-5? No.

Is a persecutory delusion in the DSM-5? Yes. Do they make the diagnosis of a persecutory delusion – no – they “diagnose” a made-up thing of their own supposed discovery.

Is FDIA in the DSM-5? Yes. Do they make the diagnosis of a FDIA – no – they “diagnose” a made-up thing of their own supposed discovery.

Is a Child Psychological Abuse in the DSM-5? Yes. Do they make the diagnosis of a Child Psychological Abuse – no – they “diagnose” a made-up thing of their own supposed discovery – and – in doing so they fail in their duty to protect obligations.

The ONLY cause of a child seeking to flee a parent – a child rejecting a parent – is child abuse range parenting by one parent or the other – that’s attachment pathology competence understanding. If I need to educate you WHY a child seeking to flee a parent is ONLY caused by abusive-range parenting by one parent or the other… you are ignorant (lack knowledge or information) by definition of the English language and demonstrated need to be educated… i.e., you lack knowledge or information.

10) Reckless

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are reckless in their continued reliance and advocacy of made-up pathology labels instead of fulfilling ethical and professional obligations for applying the established knowledge of the discipline as the bases for their professional judgments – which is the DSM-5 – attachment pathology – family systems – personality disorders – child abuse and complex trauma. Their reckless professional judgment in NOT applying the DSM-5  to their diagnostic judgments has caused, and will continue to cause, substantial harm to the children and parents in the family courts.

11) Arrogant

Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are arrogant – and grandiose. They believe they are discovering a new unique form of pathology, and that they possess a special knowledge superior to that of the American Psychiatric Association who said there is no such pathology as “parental alienation”. The self-proclaimed “experts” in a pathology they simply make-up have an exaggerated sense of their own importance and abilities.

Google arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.

Ignorant is a descriptive term used to describe the lack of knowledge or information. Arrogant is a descriptive term used to describe an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance and abilities.

The adjectives of “ignorant” and “arrogant” are descriptive based on the definition of these words in the English language.

Rather than attacking the messenger of professional standards of practice… I’d suggest Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos could benefit from additional self-reflection regarding their standards of professional practice relative to:

1) Compliance with Standard 2.01

2) Compliance with Standard 2.04

3) Compliance with duty to protect obligations

4) Reliance on the DSM-5 for diagnostic decision-making

5) Communicating accurate and full professional information in public statements and professional-level writings.

Hey… I have an idea. If Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos are upset with my descriptions of their professional standards of practice and believe my statements are false – prove me wrong – Debate – an online moderated Debate.

I’m in.

Debate: Are Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos Colluding with Child Abuse by Using Factitious Pathology Labels that Hide Child Abuse?

Debate: Are Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos Ignorant About Real Forms of Pathology?

Debate: Are Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos Unethical?

Debate: Are Dr. Bernet and Dr. Lorandos Degrading the Quality of Mental Health Services in the Family Courts?

Yes: Dr. Childress

No: Drs. Bernet & Lorandos

Let’s Debate the issues… they refuse. I wonder why? If it’s false, then expose the lies. But if it’s true… it’s true.

The pathogen has three defenses, 1) it hides – it hides extremely well, 2) it seeks allies, 3) it attacks threats of exposure to put the target on the defensive – and take scrutiny away from itself.

I know that.

The pathogen hides extremely well… but is exposed on attack. I know that too.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist, CA PSY 18847