I’ve educated the general public. In knowledge is power.

The parents are now more educated than the psychologists. That’s immensely dangerous to incompetent doctors. Doctors have obligations.

I’ve educated parents about the ethical violations and failure in duty to protect of the forensic psychologists, to empower consumers of the mental health services to file complaints with their licensing boards as appropriate for violations of Standard 2.04 and Standard 2.01 of the APA ethics code, and to file malpractice lawsuits for the failure of the psychologists in their duty to protect the child from child abuse and the targeted parent from spousal abuse using the child as the spousal abuse weapon.

Now, let me educate everyone about additional APA ethical Standards – Standards 1.04 and 1.05. These Standards apply to me, not to them. These Standards direct my – required – actions when I believe there “may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist.”

To be clear in your educational instruction, the APA ethics code is mandatory for psychologists. Ethical practice is not optional, it’s required. All APA ethical Standards define required actions in their respective domains of concern.

Some deal with Informed Consent. Some deal with Advertising. Some cover Research. Some cover Treatment. Standards 1.04 and 1.05 cover learning about unethical practice by another psychologist.

There are reasons for ethical Standards. There are reasons that ethical Standards are mandatory-required. There are reasons for Standards 1.04 & 1.05. I understand these reasons.

I’ve taught the Law & Ethics course at the graduate level. If you teach a course at a graduate level, you understand the material. I also had an excellent Law & Ethics mentor at Pepperdine University, Dr. Louis Jenkins.

With that preface, let me begin your education regarding the mandatory obligation of all psychologists under Standards 1.04 & 1.05 when we believe there may have been an ethical violation – may have been – by another psychologist.

Section 1: Resolving Ethical Issues

The first thing to note is that Section 1 of the APA ethics code (the very first thing they discuss) is dedicated to the topic of Resolving Ethical Issues. The APA gave an entire Section to Resolving Ethical Issues because it is that important. Ethical violations by other psychologists are to be taken seriously and action is required.

Compliance with ethical Standards is mandatory because unethical practice hurts people. Ethical violations by other psychologists are to be taken very seriously – and we must do things in response.

What things? Those instructions are contained within two separate Standards requiring an escalating response, because it is that important. The APA did not provide the information in ONE statute separated into two sections (as they do other times). They created TWO separate Standards to cover instructions to psychologists when we believe there may have been a violation of ethical Standards by another psychologist – Standards 1.04 & 1.05.

Standard 1.04

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.

The first thing to note is how low the threshold criteria for action is – “believe” (a professionally anchored personal belief) – that there “may have been” (not necessarily proven at this point).

A concern – when we are concerned that there may have been an ethical violation, that’s the threshold to activate the action of Standard 1.04. What action is required – mandatory?

Informal notification. Make the person aware of the concern. Don’t rush straight to a licensing board to file a complaint – handle correction informally if that’s appropriate. Talk to the psychologist and make them aware of your concerns and their obligations under the APA ethics code. Provide them with an opportunity for self-correction.

We are required to bring our concerns “to the attention of the individual” – mandatory – required.

But what happens if that does not resolve the issue, or if the concern is not appropriate for informal resolution? That activates the mandatory-required actions of Standard 1.05.

Standard 1.05

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.

If the issue is “not properly resolved” by informal notification then the psychologist must “take further action appropriate to the situation.” We are not allowed to let the matter drop.

If there is concern for possible ethical violations by another psychologist that are not properly resolved by informal notification, we are not allowed to let it drop, and we are instead instructed to “take further action” (to do something) appropriate to the situation.

What would be examples of possible appropriate action to take in that situation? We are given guidance on possible options – referral to professional ethics committees (APA Ethics Committee) – reporting to a licensing board – and reporting to an institutional authority (such as appropriate authority within a university setting).

As I have previously indicated, my ethical concern as a clinical psychologist is possible (“may have been”) ethical violations by forensic psychologists in the family courts of Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence and Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments, and I believe their ethical violations have caused, and will continue to cause, substantial harm to the children and parents in the family courts.

Since my concern involves a group of psychologists, it is not appropriate for informal resolution and my mandatory obligations under Standard 1.05 are triggered.

Who is the appropriate “institutional authority” governing all the forensic psychologists when their actions are approved of by the “institutional authority”?

A curious question. I’ll defer the answer.

I did not immediately trigger into my mandatory 1.05 obligations, and instead, in the spirit of Standard 1.04, I sought an informal resolution of the ethical concerns through informal notification – I made them aware – I brought the concerns to their attention.

In 2017 I presented to the national convention of the AFCC a seminar in which I made them aware of my concerns – in four specific slides – the Presentation Powerpoint from 2017 is on my Archival purple-trees website.

The issues were not properly resolved by “informal” notification of the forensic psychologists of the ethical concerns through the AFCC and their national convention. Standard 1.05 is again triggered.

Standard 1.05 is active having been triggered twice. Who represents the appropriate “institutional authority”? The APA – however – the APA has produced “Guidelines” for how to conduct a forensic custody evaluation – so the APA is also colluding with the forensic psychologists in their violation of the ethical Standards by not providing proper oversight and guidance.

Who then is the appropriate oversight of the APA? I’ll defer my answer again.

Again, in the spirit of Standard 1.04 for informal notification, in 2018 I wrote a Petition to the APA describing the ethical violations of concern, 20,000 parents signed the Petition to the APA. and I then personally hand-delivered the Petition to the APA signed by 20,000 parents to the corporate offices of the APA in Washington, DC accompanied by two parent-advocates in June 2018.

• Petition to the APA

The issue was not properly resolved by informal notification of the APA regarding ethical violations within all of forensic psychology. Standard 1.05 is once again triggered for a third time.

I am now in the AFCC. I have joined as a member. I will now be encountering individual psychologists and my required actions under Standard 1.04 for informal notification will once again be active when I “believe” that there “may have been” an ethical violation by another psychologist.

Clarity

Am I clear? I want to be entirely clear. Compliance with all Standards of the APA ethics code is mandatory-required for all psychologists. Standards 1.04 & 1.05 direct my actions when I “believe there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist.”

I believe the forensic psychologists in the family courts are in violation of Standard 2.01 Boundaries of Competence and Standard 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.

I am also concerned that they may be in violation of Standard 9.01 Bases of Assessment, Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm, and Principle D Justice regarding failing to provide equal quality and equal access.

Principle D: Justice
Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists. Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of their competence, and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices.

I believe the forensic psychologists in the family courts are not competent in the following domains of necessary knowledge, 1) attachment pathology (and false attachment pathology – FDIA), 2) the diagnostic assessment of delusional thought disorders, 3) child abuse and complex trauma, and 4) family systems constructs and principles.

I believe this lack of knowledge and information in required domains of established knowledge has caused substantial harm to children and parents in the family courts, and will continue to cause substantial harm.

I believe that the forensic psychologists are in violation of Standard 2.04 requiring that they apply the scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for their professional judgments.

The established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline required for application as the bases for professional judgments includes:

• The DSM-5 diagnostic system – American Psychiatric Association

• Attachment – Bowlby & others

• Family Systems – Minuchin & others

• Child Abuse & Trauma – van der Kolk & others

• Personality Disorders – Beck & others

I believe that as a result of their failure to apply the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for their professional judgments, their opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, diagnostic and evaluative statements, including their forensic testimony, are NOT based on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings, in violation of Standard 9.01 Bases for Assessment of the APA ethics code.

9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

I believe the forensic psychologists in the family courts have NOT taken reasonable steps to protect the public generally and their clients specifically from foreseeable and avoidable harm, and that they have failed in their duty to protect the child from child abuse, and the targeted parent from spousal abuse by the allied parent using the child as the weapon because they failed to conduct a proper risk assessment to the appropriate differential diagnoses of clinical concern, in violation of Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm of the APA ethics code.

3.04 Avoiding Harm
(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

I believe there may have been ethical violations by another psychologist – a group of psychologists – that is causing substantial harm, and will continue to cause substantial harm to children and parents in the family courts.

I have informally notified both the AFCC and APA in the spirit of Standard 1.04 to allow for self-correction. The issues were not properly resolved in that fashion. I am required by Standard 1.05 to take “further action appropriate to the situation.”

I am striving to be clear. Ethical practice is NOT optional – it is required – mandatory – for all psychologists. The APA ethics code says what it says, and it requires what it requires.

There are reasons for each ethical Standard. There are reasons that all ethical Standards are mandatory-required for all psychologists. There is a reason that Standards 2.01 & 2.04 are required. There are reasons that Standards 1.04 & 1.05 are mandatory-required. I understand those reasons – and I comply with all ethical Standards of the APA.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist
WA 61538481
OR 4392
CA 18857