Does the family in high conflict need a Guardian ad Litem, a GAL? No.
Does the family in high conflict need a minor's counsel? No. No. No. No. No.
If you want to place an attorney in a review-and-protective role for the child's rights, appoint an amicus attorney to represent the Court's interests in the child's treatment, to work collaboratively with the family therapist for enacting a written treatment plan that's been reviewed by the Court.
If you appoint a legal professional and the pathology is a shared delusion - they are a legal professional - with no training whatsoever in psychopathology... what do you think will happen with a diagnosis of a shared delusion?
They will believe the shared delusion. The child is saying the other parent is "bad" and is "emotionally abuse" (the "victimized child" role in the shared delusional disorder). The allied parent will confirm the "bad" parenting of the other parent.
Well then, clearly the diagnosis is a bad parent. Right?
No. It's a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the primary case. The legal profession misdiagnosed the pathology - because they have absolutely zero training in making a diagnosis of psychopathology in a family.
I don't come into your courtroom practicing law, lawyers should not make diagnoses of psychopathology. They will get it wrong. And when they do...
If you believe the shared delusion, you are PART of the shared delusion, you are part of the pathology. When the shared delusion is child abuse, you are part of the child abuse - you the GAL and minor's counsel... are the child abuser.
Allow that to sink in.
You are colluding with the devastating psychological abuse of the child, and you are colluding with the brutal and savage emotional abuse of the ex-spouse using the child as the weapon.
You are the IPV spousal abuser, you are the child abuser, you, the GAL and minor's counsel - you are the child abuser.
oops. Guess you didn't know, did you.
I know you don't know. That is a problem.
It happened because you are practicing beyond the boundaries of your competence as a lawyer representing your client - because you made a psychological diagnosis when you don't know how or what you're doing - and it is a misdiagnosis.
You, the lawyer, misdiagnosed psychopathology in the child and family. As an attorney, in law school, what training and education did you receive in diagnosis of child and family psychopathology? None.
Yet... you made a diagnosis.
Lawyer: "No I didn't, I didn't make a diagnosis."
Yes you did. You believed the shared persecutory delusion, you made the diagnosis that the delusion was actually true and that the other parent was a "bad" parent.
You just made an ignorant and wrong diagnosis. Google ignorance: lack of knowledge and information Do you have knowledge and information about clinical psychology and diagnosis? No. oops.
Do you know how to identify (diagnose) a delusion? It's called the Mental Status Exam of thought and perception. Google Mental Status Exam and read the NCBI entry. Scroll down to the Thought and Perceptions section.
See that? Look specifically at paragraph three;
From Clinical Methods: "Of all portions of the mental status examination, the evaluation of a potential thought disorder is one of the most difficult and requires considerable experience. The primary-care physician will frequently desire formal psychiatric consultation in patients exhibiting such disorders."
Did you, the lawyer, conduct an MSE of thought and perception? Do you even know how? See how it is "one of the most difficult and requires considerable training," do you know anything about it?
Where were you, the attorney, trained in the MSE of thought and perception? You weren't. Notice even medical doctors will "frequently desire formal psychiatric consultation" for an MSE of thought and perception surrounding possible thought disorder pathology.
Did you, the attorney, seek any "formal psychiatric consultation" on possible thought disorder pathology in the family - i.e., a possible shared persecutory delusion between the child and the allied parent - with the allied parent as the "primary case," also called the "inducer" (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 333)?
No. oops. That's a failure in your professional obligations to your client, don't you think? I do. I wonder what the Bar Association will think. Let's ask them. Google ignorance: lack of knowledge and information oops. You the GAL, you the minor’s counsel, you the lawyer – misdiagnosed the pathology.
If you believe a shared delusion, you become part of the shared delusion. When the shared delusion is child abuse – you – the attorney – become part of the child abuse - you, the attorney, are the child abuser.
Is that allowed by your Bar guidelines for your role? To make diagnoses of psychiatric pathology in the child and family? How about colluding with child psychological abuse because of your negligence in fulfilling your professional role with your client.
Is that allowed? I don't know. How about we find out?
Works for me, does that work for you GAL and minor's counsels? I'll document up my concerns to you in a letter, and then we'll ask your Bar Association for a decision for "clarity and guidance" on your role as a GAL and lawyer representing your client.
You believed the shared delusion – without seeking consultation and diagnosis from professional psychology for a possible shared persecutory delusion in the child.
oops.
Lawyer: “But the involved mental health people…” Dr. Childress interrupts - they do what they do, they have a different role and obligation - they failed their role and will be facing their own administrative review - we're talking about your role as the involved attorney.
Do you see the part where it says that the MSE of thought and perception is “one of the most difficult” of the MSE exams? See that? These mental health people are not anticipating a thought disorder (did you?) and they have misdiagnosed the shared delusion (you did) because of their ignorance; their “lack of knowledge and information.”
In your role as guardian for the child, as legal counsel for the child, you need to protect your child-client. Before doing anything, you need confirmation on the diagnosis. Is there a shared persecutory delusion? THAT is your first obligation to your client-child, make sure you have an accurate diagnosis for decision-making surrounding the child.
Did you do that? No. Google negligence: failure to take proper care in doing something. Law: failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. Lawyer: “But the mental health people…” Dr. Childress interrupts again - the mental health people are the mental health people, they do what they do. Your job is to protect the interests of your client. First thing… ensure the accuracy of the diagnosis.
This could be a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent (ICD-10 F24). How do you know that? Because you’ve read Foundations, do your job – orient to the field – attachment and family systems therapy – and Dr. Childress is prominent in that.
I will be reviewing your work. And your work will be going before the Bar with a report-analysis from me. It is likely prudent on your part to be aware of emerging developments in professional psychology when you are abusing the child. Dr. Childress is on the savanna now. Dr. Childress protects children from child abusers - like you.
If you believe the shared delusion – you are part of the pathology. When the pathology is child abuse – you are part of the child abuse – you, the GAL, you the minor’s counsel – because of your professional ignorance and professional sloth and just generally lazy professional practice.
The differential diagnosis for this specific pathology – this court-involved family conflict – is a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the primary case (ICD-10 F24). The mental health assessment for delusional pathology is an MSE of thought and perception. First thing, did the involved mental health professionals conduct an MSE of thought and perception with the allied parent and child?
Did the involved mental health professionals conduct an adequate assessment of the potential differential diagnosis of a shared persecutory delusion relative to the family conflict surrounding your client that was “sufficient to substantiate their findings”? If not, then they are in violation of Standard 9.01(a) of the APA ethics code.
You will need another set of mental health professionals, ones who are competent and ethical.
You will need a second-opinion confirming diagnosis for the child and family. You will want a trauma-informed clinical psychology assessment of the child’s attachment pathology. You will want a risk assessment for child psychological abuse (DSM-5 V995.51, p. 719).
For this pathology, a risk-assessment for possible child psychological abuse, is an MSE of thought and perception for a possible thought disorder, shared, with the allied parent as the primary case, a shared persecutory delusion (ICD-10 F24).
Confirm the diagnosis – first thing – either from the mental health professionals involved, that they’ve done an assessment “sufficient to substantiate their findings,” or identify that they haven’t, in which case you will need to get the assessment for potential child psychological abuse conducted.
With this specific pathology – an accurate diagnosis is essential and critical to decision-making. If you believe a shared delusion, you become part of the shared delusion – you become part of the pathology. When the pathology is child abuse, you become part of the child abuse. You become the child abuser. You, the attorney, the “guardian,” the child’s “counsel,” become part of the child abuse.
You are an attorney. It’s not your role to diagnose pathology. You are failing in your role of protecting your client’s interests. You are practicing beyond the boundaries of your competence. Is it because you’ve got “mommy-issues” and “daddy-issues” too, that you're working through, and you like controlling families?
Is that why you choose to be a GAL and minor's counsel, because you like controlling families and punishing parents who "deserve" to lose their child?
So you are making the diagnosis on your own, that this is a “bad-mommy/daddy” so you can punish them for their badness. When the pathology is IPV spousal abuse (ex-spousal abuse) using the child as the weapon, if you believe the shared delusion you become part of the savage and brutal emotional abuse of the ex-spouse – you, the attorney, the GAL and minor’s counsel. You are the spousal abuser.
Why is that? Did you have a bad marriage and divorce? Ever get any therapy for the animosity toward your ex-spouse? Do your job. Your job it to serve the child, as guardian, as counsel, first – protect your client.
Ensure an accurate diagnosis for your decision-making, that is your first professional obligation to your child-client. Did you do that? No. Did you believe the shared delusion? Yes. I want your bar license revoked for being a child abuser, for colluding in the psychological abuse of your clients instead of doing your job – ensure the diagnosis first thing.
And then get a treatment plan. A written treatment plan. Google mental health treatment plan – you, the ignorant and lazy attorney – google mental health treatment plans and read the first two entries. Have you ensured that one of those is in place for your client? No.
I want your bar license revoked for your abject and complete failure in your professional obligations to your client.
I’m not an attorney. I’m a clinical psychologist. I’m here to protect children from child abuse – by you – you are the child abuser – you the GAL and minor’s counsels. I’m here to protect the children from you.
Dr. Childress is on the savanna now. Do you know what that means? You will.
I’m going off-line for a while. Actually, my focus is just shifting to a more personal focus. I have some follow-up psychologist-to-other-professional communications to attend to.
When matters are active, I don’t want my other concerns interfering with the direct considerations of the Court. We need clarity and solutions.
Once the matter passes direct decision. I will return to these other matters of concern surrounding the case – personally, professionally, as a licensed clinical psychologist with duty to protect obligations to my client – the parent, and the child.
The title of my book Foundations has many meanings. Foundations for the diagnosis, foundations for ethical violations and board complaints against the mental health people, foundations for malpractice lawsuits. Many meanings.
The parents are empowered, they have Dorcy for active support, their ally mental health professionals and attorneys will be supporting them as well. I’ve provided them, and will provide them, with everything they need.
My focus is shifting. That’s what I mean when I allude to a lion’s hunt. I want your license to practice revoked if you are colluding in the abuse of your client-child because of your abject professional ignorance, professional sloth, and professional failure to protect your client – I want your license to practice gone – you are the child abuser.
The first thing I’m going to do, is lay documentation on you. Here it comes. That will be the first wave. The second will come from the client to your state bar association.
Did you know my dad worked for the state bar of California? Yeah, after he retired from 30 years in the federal courts, he went to the state bar as a magistrate hearing cases of malpractice.
You’re an attorney, you're a smart person, you have an advanced degree. Start preparing your defense once you see my documentation arrive. You should be getting it by the end of the summer.
The lion is a stalking hunter, when you see the lion, the hunt is already over.
Do you see that rustling in grasses? Better attend to it, it might by the wind, or it might be a lion.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857