Karen Woodall, stop trying to co-opt my work as present it as your own.
In your most recent blog (Taken at the Flood) you state:
Dr Childress’s recent blog called The Structure of the Pathology, I sat down with my mouth open, because in this blog is the description of exactly that which I discussed at the first meeting of the European Association of Parental Alienation Practitioners in Prague.
Karen Woodall, stop trying to co-opt my work and present it as if it was your own. Within exactly the same sentence that you reference my work you claim it as your own.
Cite for me where you structurally linked the family systems pathology to the personality disorder pathology to the attachment system pathology.
Cite for me where you described the structural underbelly of the pathogen and the three defensive structures, and the inhibition of the executive function system, the identity system, and the memory system.
Karen Woodall, stop trying to co-opt MY work and present it as if it was your own.
It is professionally unseemly, it is professionally inappropriate, and it is professionally disrespectful to try to co-opt the work of another as if it was your own. Stop it.
I don’t care what you spoke about in Prague, it is not “exactly” like what I presented in my blog. I am outraged that you would try to co-opt my work as if it was your own.
Just because you present a pretty picture of objects on desk does not mean that you have worked out the structure of the pathogen. My work is not “exactly” what you may have spoken about it Prague. Stop trying to co-opt my work and present it as if it was your own.
This is analogous to what Dr. Bernet initially tried to do in his Old Wine in Old Skins commentary on Foundations and AB-PA, by claiming that AB-PA was nothing new, just the same old stuff everybody was talking about.
Dr. Bernet’s assertion was complete and utter nonsense. An attachment-based model of “parental alieantion” (AB-PA) as put forth in Foundations is not simply Gardnernian PAS using “a new set of terms.” Words convey meaning. New “terms” create new meaning. The “new terms” of AB-PA do NOT convey the same meaning as the old terms used in Gardnerian PAS. Words having meaning.
You and Dr. Bernet want to pretend that AB-PA doesn’t exist, that it’s “nothing new” – because you are desperately trying to hold on to your status as “experts” in a mythical “new form of pathology” called “parental alienation.”
I, on the other hand, am trying to take us back to the path of established professional psychology – established professional constructs and principles – real and actual forms of psychological pathology. NO “new forms of pathology” unique in all of mental health that require an equally new and unique set of symptom identifiers developed uniquely and specifially for this supposedly new form of pathology.
No. The pathology we are dealing with is a manifestation of standard and fully established forms of pathology that are extensively and fully described in the professional literature. It’s NOT a “new form of pathology.” No.
We must return to the path of established professional psychology. No mythical “new forms of pathology.” ONLY – ONLY – real and established – actual forms of pathology that are fully defined and fully accepted within professional psychology.
AB-PA accomplishes this. AB-PA defines the attachment-related family pathology people are calling “parental alienation” entirely – entirely – from within the standard and established forms of pathology within professional psychology, without having to rely on a wild proposal for the existence of some entirely new form of pathology that is unique in all of mental health.
There is no such thing as “parental alienation.” It is a mythical form of pathology; unicorns and mermaids.
There is attachment-related pathology.
There is personality disorder pathology.
There is family systems pathology.
There are a lot of real pathologies. But there is no such thing as a new and entirely unique form of pathology called “parental alienation.” The pathology people are calling “parental alienation” is a manifestation of standard and fully established forms of existing pathology. The term “parental alienation” is a popular culture term used to describe an attachment-related clinical pathology (called pathogenic parenting and pathological mourning in the professional literature).
Being an “Expert”
But the moment we return to the path of professionally established constructs and principles, the moment we stop proposing an entirely “new form of pathology,” then you and Dr. Bernet and all the other Gardnerian PAS “experts” cease to be “experts,” because you are only experts in unicorns and mermaids. You need to hold on to mythical forms of new pathology – to the existence of unicorns and mermaids – because then you can hold on to your status as an “expert.”
Don’t believe me? Answer me this one simple question… what is the path to a solution using Gardnerian PAS? Lay it out for us. Tell us, what is the path to a solution that you envision using Gardnerian PAS?
I’ve described, in detail, the path to a solution using AB-PA on multiple occasions (Ex: Dominoes Part 1: Paradigm Shift; Dominoes Falling: The Sequence)
I’m asking you a really simple and direct question. Tell us the path to a solution using a Gardnerian PAS model. Targeted parents deserve an answer to this question. What is the path you propose to a solution using a Gardnerian PAS model?
Because if you have NO solution, if Gardnerian PAS offers NO solution except 30 more years of the same, then why are you still holding on to it? AB-PA offers an immediate solution the moment the paradigm shifts.
So please – please – answer me that simple-simple question, what is the path to a solution that you envision using Gardnerian PAS? Lay it out for us.
Because if you don’t answer that question yet you continue to hold on to Gardnerian PAS as a model for the pathology, then I’m going to call you out as being a false ally who only wants to remain an “expert” rather than achieve an actual solution.
It’s a simple question. We have a right to know. What is the solution you envision using a Gardnerian PAS model? Lay it out for us.
As a clinical psychologist, I notice little things about a person’s self-expression. Sometimes these little things tell us a lot.
I’m struck by the difference in the sub-headings for my blog and yours.
The sub-heading on my blog reads: Attachment-Based Parental Alienation (AB-PA). A Scientifically Based Model of “Parental Alienation”
I’d call your attention to several things about this sub-heading. First, I emphasize the model for the pathology. Second, I reference establishing a scientifically based foundation for the model. Third, I put the term “Parental Alienation” in quotes because it is not a real form of pathology – the term “parental alienation” is a term used in the popular culture to refer to an attachment-related pathology (called pathological mourning; Bowlby, 1980).
Now let’s look at the sub-heading for your blog. It reads: Parental Alienation Expert.
Hmmm. Note the difference. To a clinical psychologist, your sub-heading seems to suggest an ego-investment in being an “expert” – it’s all about you – you’re an “expert.”
But then that will create a problem when we return to standard and established professional constructs and principles to define and diagnose the pathology. The moment we return to the standard and established constructs of professional psychology, the moment we leave the realm of mythical “new forms of pathology” – you’ll cease to be an “expert.” Uh oh.
That’s the problem – the dilemma – you face. The path to the solution requires a return to the standard and established constructs and principles of professional psychology. But in returning to the path of established professional psychology, you’ll cease to be an “expert.” What are you going to do? That is the question you face.
Do you want to directly face that question? Here is your dilemma in a nutshell:
Q: Describe the path to a solution that you envision using a Gardnerian PAS model.
That answer – or lack of answer – to THAT question is at the heart of your dilemma.
What are you going to do? Remain an “expert” or enact the solution?
AB-PA gives an immediate DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed. But only if you use the three diagnostic indicators of AB-PA, and the three diagnostic indicators are only available to you if you switch to an AB-PA model of the pathology. The 8 Gardnerian PAS symptoms do not lead to a DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse. You know it, and I know it.
What are you going to do? Remain an “expert” or enact the solution?
Actually, you don’t have a choice. Because the solution is coming, it’s already underway, and your “expertise” in unicorns and mermaids is going to become irrelevant. You and the other Gardnerian PAS experts are currently living in a echo chamber of self-aggrandizement – “we’re experts” – “let’s define what experts are, and we’ll be them.”
What will happen when you cease to be an “expert”? What will happen when mental health professionals all across Great Britain and Europe are accurately diagnosing the attachment-related pathology using an AB-PA model as being a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse. What happens to “parental alienation” experts when the pathology is solved?
I can totally understand why you and the other Gardnerian PAS “experts” want to hold on to the mythical “new form of pathology” – you’ve been “experts” in this mythical new form of pathology for so long it’s become a part of the very fabric of your professional identity. I imagine it’s very disorienting to watch your “expertise” in this “new form of pathology” disappears as we return to the standard and established path of professional psychology, and as we achieve the solution – all done, solved – to the attachment-related pathology that you’re calling “parental alienation.”
But while you seek to be an “expert” in unicorns and mermaids, I am an expert in real forms of pathology.
You know what being an expert in real forms of pathology is called? — it’s called being a clinical psychologist. That’s it. I’m just a clinical psychologist.
And being a clinical psychologist means that I an an expert in real forms of psychopathology, from autism to ADHD, from attachment-related pathology to personality pathology. That’s what being a clinical psychologist means.
Real Pathology
So if you want to believe in unicorns and mermaids so that you can be an “expert” in unicorns and mermaids, that’s up to you. The rest of us are going to be experts in real forms of pathology, attachment-related pathology, personality pathology, family systems pathology.
But even if you’re an “expert” in unicorns and mermaids, that still does NOT release you – and all of the other Gardnerian PAS “experts” – from your professional obligation – your professional obligation – to ALSO know, assess, diagnose, and treat actual real forms of pathology.
If you are assessing, diagnosing, and treating attachment-related pathology without a professional-level of knowledge regarding the functioning and characteristic dysfunctioning of the attachment system, then you are practicing beyond the boundaries of professional competence with REAL forms of pathology.
If you are assessing, diagnosing, and treating personality disorder pathology without a professional-level of knowledge regarding the origins, functioning, and characteristic dysfunctioning of personality disorder pathology as expressed within the family, then you are practicing beyond the boundaries of professional competence with REAL forms of pathology.
If you are assessing, diagnosing, and treating family pathology without a professional-level of knowledge regarding the fundamental constructs and principles of family systems and family system therapy, then you are practicing beyond the boundaries of professional competence with REAL forms of pathology.
That means that you must – as a real mental health professional – assess for and document the symptoms associated with these real forms of pathology.
The easiest way to do this for attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce (notice I did not use the term “parental alienation”: I’m talking about real forms of pathology) is to use the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting. If the three diagnostic indicators are present, the DSM-5 diagnosis is V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed.
Easy-peasy.
Documenting the presence of the 12 Associated Clinical Signs is also recommended as confirming data.
If you are NOT using the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting in your standard assessment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce, why not?
Why aren’t you using the Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting that can immediately give you a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed?
You can still go ahead and be an “expert” in unicorns and mermaids too, if you want. Personally, being a clinical psychologist is enough for me; an expert in real forms of pathology – from autism to ADHD, from attachment-related pathology to personality disorder pathology. But if it’s important for you to also be an “expert” in unicorns and mermaids, whatever floats your boat.
But you must ALSO be competent in real forms of pathology as well. That is your professional obligation.
Origins of “Protective Separation”
While I’m here, Karen, I would appreciate the professional courtesy of your providing me with professional citation when you use the construct of a “protective separation.” I am the one who introduced that construct into the professional dialogue. It’s considered professionally courteous and respectful to acknowledge the contributions of other mental health professionals.
Let me explain the origin of the term “protective separation” – my conscious and intentional decision to introduce that construct into the meme-space (Dawkins, 1989) of the professional discussion.
In my initial analysis of the various meme-structures of the pathogen, a central core meme-structure is the effort by the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent to adopt and then conspicuously display the false trauma reenactment role as the “protective parent.”
When I set about constructing the anti-pathogen meme-structure, I formulated the linkage of the pathology (pathogenic parenting) to a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse. I then formulated the link from a formal DSM diagnosis of child abuse to the treatment-related response of separating the child from the abusive parent.
But as I selected my words, I intentionally added the word “protective” to the word “separation” to actively challenge the false meme-structure being propagated by the pathogen that it was the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent who was “protecting the child.” No. We are the ones protecting the child. We are going to fight for that role of protecting the child.
WE are the ones protecting the child. That’s what the meme-structure of the “protective separation” is specifically – and intentionally – designed to address.
I also knew, from my analyses of the pathogen’s meme-structures as they are propagated within its allies, that the counter meme-structure that the pathogen would offer is that separating the child from the supposedly “favored” parent would be “traumatic” for the child. By adding the word “protective” to the construct of a protective separation, I was introducing a meme-structure to counter the “traumatic” argument that would be offered by the pathogen – it is NOT “traumatic” to “protect” a child from child abuse.
Notice too in all my writings I have added the word “supposedly” to the phrase “favored parent” – and will often put the word “favored” in quotes – thereby creating the phrase: supposedly “favored” parent. We are even going to fight the pathogen’s meme-structure that the allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent is the “favored” parent. No. That relationship is actually an insecure attachment. The secure attachment is to the targeted parent.
So, while the meme-structure of the “supposedly ‘favored’ parent” is somewhat cumbersome, I’m not going to give an inch to the pathogen. We are going to fight every single pathogenic construct.
So in creating and introducing the meme-structure of “protective separation,” I had two fully conscious and fully intentional clinical psychology reasons for adding the word protective to the construct of separation, and you’ll see this term from the very start of all my writings five or six years ago.
If you don’t think I know exactly what I’m doing, you’re wrong.
So when you use the term “protective separation,” Karen, you are referencing a construct that I specifically developed and that I intentionally introduced into the meme-space (Dawkins, 1989) of the professional discussion. When you use the term “protective separation” I would appreciate the common professional courtesy and display of professional respect of citing me as the originator for this construct, rather than ignoring my contribution and co-opting the construct without proper citation as if you were the orginator of it.
The professional reference citation I would prefer would be to Foundations. So when you use the term, at least the first time in each document, the citation to me as the originator for the construct would look like this:
“…words-words-words protective separation (Childress, 2015) words-words-words…”
With a citation to Foundations in your References:
Childress, C.A. (2015). An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Foundations. Claremont, CA: Oaksong Press.
Or you can simply eschew from adding the word protective to the construct of separation, and simply refer to the child’s separation from the allied parent, in which case you won’t need to cite me as a the originator for the construct of a “protective separation.”
That’s called professional courtesy and respect.
If you choose not to reference me as the originator for the construct of a “protective separation,” as you have been doing up to this point, and you instead try to co-opt my work as if it was original to you, there’s nothing I can do about that. But it’s considered a matter of professional courtesy and respect to cite the originator for ideas and constructs (for example, my citation of Dawkins relative to the construct of memes).
Structure of the Pathogen
But for you to claim that my work on defining and describing the structure of the pathogen is “exactly” what you’ve already done goes way-way too far. It is outrageous and insulting.
Cite for me where you structurally linked the family systems pathology to the personality disorder pathology to the attachment system pathology.
Cite for me where you described the structural underbelly of the pathogen and the three defensive structures, and the inhibition of the executive function system, the identity system, and the memory system.
Stop trying to co-opt my work and pass my ideas and my work off as your own. It is outrageous and insulting.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857
Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
