This page contains information on CA BoP case #6002022000419 regarding Drs. Bernet & Lorandos toward Dr. Childress:
Settlement Counter Offer by Dr. Childress
This 28-page document presents the mitigating factors surrounding the actions of Dr. Childress relative to Drs. Bernet & Lorandos, and a settlement counter-offer from Dr. Childress to the CA BoP
CA BoP Dr. Childress Settlement Counter Offer – document only
Appendices:
These are the supporting appendices to the mitigating factors and settlement counter-proposal from Dr. Childress to the CA Board of Psychology.
1: Vita of Dr. Childress
Dr Childress Vita
2: AI Analysis of Forensic Custody Evaluations & Institutional Liability
These two documents represent dialogues between Dr. Childress and Open AI ChatGPT4 regarding forensic custody evaluations, and between Dr. Childress and Google Gemini regarding institutional responsibility and liability
Direct Examination of ChatGPT – Forensic Custody Evaluations
Direct Examination of Gemini – Licensing Board Inaction & Institutional Liability
3-5: Emails from 2011/2013 – Dr. Bernet Regarding DSM
This is the email from Dr. Childress in 2011 seeking membership in the Parental Alienation Study Group created by Dr. Bernet. In this email, Dr. Childress directly informs Dr. Bernet of the DSM-IV TR diagnosis of a Shared Psychotic Disorder for the pathology in the family courts.
From the APA (DSM-IV TR): “Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)
From the APA (DSM-IV TR): “Usually the primary case in Shared Psychotic Disorder is dominant in the relationship and gradually imposes the delusional system on the more passive and initially healthy second person… Although most commonly seen in relationships of only two people, Shared Psychotic Disorder can occur in larger number of individuals, especially in family situations in which the parent is the primary case and the children, sometimes to varying degrees, adopt the parent’s delusional beliefs.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)
2011 Dr. Childress to Dr. Bernet Email – Membership in PASG
This is the email from Dr. Bernet in 2013 to the PASG prior to the publication of the DSM-5 indicating that the American Psychiatric Association had rejected the construct of “parental alienation” as a legitimate pathology and diagnostic construct. In this email, Dr. Bernet indicates that he hopes the APA will include the construct by mention somewhere in the DSM-5
2013 Email from Dr. Bernet to PASG – DSM-5 Update
This is the email from Dr. Bernet in 2013 to the PASG following the publication of the DSM-5 indicating that the American Psychiatric Association had not included the construct of “parental alienation” even by mention. In this email, Dr. Bernet notes that the DSM-5 diagnoses of a delusional thought disorder and factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA) are relevant DSM-5 diagnoses.
2013 Email from Dr. Bernet to PASG – DSM-5 Publication
6-9: Blog Posts by Dr. Childress
These are related blog posts by Dr. Childress regarding PAS and efforts to collaborate with Dr. Bernet.
Childress Blog: PAS is a Bad Model for Pathology (12/10/16)
Childress Blog: The Rubicon (12/11/16)
Childress Blog: Dr. Bernet, join me
Childress Blog: Gardner PAS “experts” Are No Longer Relevant
10: Old Wine & Elephants
This is a set of disputing posts to PASG from Drs. Bernet & Reay with Dr. Childress responding
Old Wine/Old Skins & Elephants: Response to Foundations (2015)
11: AFCC Convention (2017) Competence Slides
This is a section of the PowerPoint slides (full set) presented at the 2017 national convention of the AFCC that directly inform the AFCC membership of the competence concerns (Standard 2.01).
AFCC Competence Slides
12: Petition to the APA (2018)
This is a copy of the Petition to the APA hand-delivered to the corporate offices of the American Psychological Association by Dr. Childress, Rod McCall, and Wendy Perry (2018) signed by 19,000 parents.
Petition to the APA – Submission in 2018
Change.org Petition to the APA
Amazon.com Petition to the APA:
Website w/ Day Counter for APA Response
Rod McCall: For Love of Eryk
13: PASG BoD Questions for 2024 Membership Application
This is an email from Dr. Bernet and PASG Board of Directors regarding 2024 membership application by Dr. Childress for PASG.
Membership Questions from PASG for 2024 Membership Application
14: Dr. Childress Response to PASG Membership Questions
This is the response of Dr. Childress to the questions asked by Dr. Bernet and PASG Board of Directors regarding 2024 membership application by Dr. Childress for PASG.
Dr. Childress Response to PASG Membership Application Questions
15: 1.04 Letter Sent to Six Forensic Psychology Instructors
This is the letter template for a letter sent to six forensic psychologist instructors for an 8-module, 4-day AFCC sponsored course: Advanced Issues in Family Law: Parent-Child Contact Problems, pursuant to Standard 1.04 obligations.
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.
Standard 1.04 Letter to Six Forensic Psychologist Instructors
16: Response of Instructors to 1.04 Letter
This is the response of the instructors of an 8-module, 4-day AFCC sponsored course: Advanced Issues in Family Law: Parent-Child Contact Problems, to the 1.04 letter.
Response of Instructors to Standard 1-04 Letter
17: Notice to the APA Ethics Committee Regarding Instructors
This is the notice to the APA Ethics Committee (a national committee on professional ethics) regarding the six instructors of an 8-module, 4-day AFCC sponsored course: Advanced Issues in Family Law: Parent-Child Contact Problems, pursuant to Standard 1.05 obligations.
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.
