General Public Consultation
Dr. Childress provides general public consultation the first week of every month at his online office doxy.me/drchildress, scheduling is through the online Scheduling Calendar on this website. The fee for consultation appointments is $250/hr and is billed through the doxy.me platform at the start of the hour.
Licensure: Dr. Childress is licensed in California. To avoid jurisdictional issues, Dr. Childress limits his consultation to the general public who are outside the state of California to one (perhaps two) consultation sessions.
Professional-to-Professional Consultation: Dr. Childress can meet with the parents and their attorneys, or with the surrounding mental health professionals, without restriction. But general public consultation for people outside of California is limited to one (perhaps two) sessions to discuss whatever this issue is.
Dr. Childress is a full-scope clinical psychologist with multiple domains of specialized experience. Often family conflict issues are discussed, sometimes other issues.
- Note: I will not provide consultation to parents or attorneys in Oregon.
Parents may also wish to familiarize themselves with the materials in other areas on this Consultation Website regarding resources for the mental health professionals and attorneys.
Review of Materials & Report Writing
Dr. Childress provides review of materials and report writing consultation services to attorneys and their parent-clients in court-involved custody conflict.
Initial appointments for that attorney, the parent-client, and Dr. Childress to discuss the situation and possible involvement of Dr. Childress can be made through the Scheduling Calendar on this website.
Engaging the professional consultation of Dr. Childress in the review of materials and report writing is through establishing a scope-of-service agreement with the attorney and parent-client regarding the materials to be reviewed, the product to be returned, and the costs.
Dr. Childress can also provide consultation to attorneys on the cross-examination of mental health testimony.
More information about the potential involvement of Dr. Childress as a consultant in court-involved custody litigation is available on the Attorney Resource section of this website.
Handouts
Handout: Description of Pathology
This is a handout for parents that describes the pathology and a clinical psychology solution (treatment not custody).
Diagnostic Questions to be Answered
This is a letter for parents, attorneys, and mental health professionals that describes the diagnostic questions that need to be answered by the involved mental health professionals.
Handout: Risk Assessment
In all cases of high-intensity court-involved custody conflict, a proper risk assessment for possible dangerous pathology in the family needs to be conducted – including for possible Child Psychological Abuse (DSM-5 V995.51), i.e., a shared (induced) persecutory delusion that then destroys the child’s attachment bond to the targeted parent.
Handout: Telehealth Consultation
Dr. Childress can provide telehealth second opinion consultation on active assessments in a variety of formats that are described in this handout.
Handout: Psychological Control Quotes
These are quotes from the literature describing the construct of parental psychological control of the child.
Resources: Booklets
The Narcissistic Parent
The Narcissistic Parent is a 50-page booklet that uses quotes from the professional literature to highlight for legal professionals (judges, attorneys, GALs, Parenting Coordinators) the nature of the pathology involved with a narcissistic parent.
- The Narcissistic Parent: Guidebook for Legal Professionals Working with High-Conflict Divorce
The Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology
The Assessment of Attachment-Related Pathology is a 50-page booklet that describes a six-session assessment protocol for the assessment of attachment-related pathology surrounding divorce. This assessment protocol can be provided to involved mental health professionals and attorneys to indicate the type of assessment desired.
Contingent Visitation Schedule
The Contingent Visitation Schedule is a 50-page booklet that describes a treatment-oriented Strategic family systems intervention for the pathology involving variable custody time based on child symptoms.
Professional Consultation
The Professional Consultation booklet is a 50-page booklet written at a professional level that parents can provide to their involved mental health professional to describe the pathology and the surrounding professional obligations.
Foundations
Foundations is a 300-page book that describes the pathology across three levels of analysis, 1) family systems therapy, 2) personality disorder pathology, 3) the attachment system and attachment pathology.
Ethical Issues for Forensic Psychology
In January 2025 I took a four-day (8 Module) course from the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) entitled Advanced Issues in Family Law: Parent-Child Contact Problems. Based on the course curriculum and lecture content, I am concerned that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist – a group of psychologists – the instructors – of Standards 2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments and 2.01 Boundaries of Competence of the APA ethics code.
Course Instructors:
Robin Deutsch, Ph.D.
Leslie Drozd, Ph.D.
John A. Moran, Ph.D.
Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D.
Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D.
Peggy Ward, Ph.D
I have mandatory (required) obligations under Standard 1.04 Resolving Ethical Issues of the APA ethics code when I believe there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist (in this case a group of psychologists). Compliance with the APA ethics code is not optional for psychologists, it is mandatory-required, including my compliance with Standard 1.04 when I believe there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist.
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.
I contacted each of the instructors individually to make them aware of the concerns. Based on their response and the scope of the issues, the ethical concerns were not properly resolved by informal notice provided to the instructors, and my required (mandatory) obligations under Standard 1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations were activated.
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.
Pursuant to my required obligations under Standard 1.05, I notified the APA Ethics Committee as representing a national committee on professional ethics regarding the potential violations to Standards 2.04 & 2.01 of the APA ethics code by the instructors of the AFCC course.
I followed-up this notice to the APA Ethics Committee (a national committee on professional ethics) with a notice to the AFCC Board of Directors representing the appropriate institutional authority providing the course.
Of prominent professional concern is that the forensic psychologists in the family courts are conducting an experiment on human subjects (the children and parents in the family courts) without proper oversight regarding a “quasi-judicial” role for doctors and an experimental assessment approach called forensic custody evaluations (parenting plans) for this experimental new quasi-judicial role for doctors, in apparent violation of the principles of the Belmont Report (1979) on conducting experiments with human subjects.
Healthcare & Legal System Solutions
The healthcare and legal systems are built on the same structure toward different purposes.
The problem surrounding child custody conflict is a pathology not a crime, the solution for the problem is from the healthcare system (diagnosis & treatment) not from the legal system.
The pathological allied parent (narcissistic-borderline-dark) drives the problem into the courts to put the targeted parent on “trial” for being a “bad parent”/(spouse). Don’t let that happen. This isn’t about custody, it’s about child abuse, it’s about treatment.
In healthcare, all of healthcare, including all of mental health care, diagnosis guides treatment.
The attachment pathology created by the pathological parent is severe and the DSM-5 diagnosis is Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51), i.e., the creation of a shared persecutory delusion in the child that then destroys the child’s attachment bond to the other parent.
In all cases of court-involved custody conflict:
- A proper risk assessment for possible psychological child abuse needs to be conducted – (DSM-5 V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse).
- A proper risk assessment for possible spousal emotional and psychological abuse of the targeted parent using the child as the weapon needs to be conducted – (DSM-5 V995.82 Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological).
- A proper assessment for possible delusional thought disorder pathology in the family needs to be conducted.
In healthcare, all of healthcare, including all of mental health care, diagnosis guides treatment.
- Is the diagnosis V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse?
- Is the diagnosis V995.82 Spouse or Partner Abuse, Psychological?
- Is the diagnosis a shared (induced) persecutory delusion?
Sunday Coffee w/ Dr. Childress:
Legal System Response: Causes & Solutions to Dysfunction
Forensic Psychology – A Failed Experiment on You (12/31/23)
Patterns of Pathology (1/14/24)
Utah Om’s Law Analysis (3/10/24)
Tid-Bits of Information w/ Dr. C
Four Parent-Child Bonds (Applied Self Psychology)
Various Submissions
These are submissions made by Dr. Childress to various organizations describing the needed changes and solutions.
Amicus Analysis of Denmark Parental Responsibility Act
Denmark’s legislature is considering a proposal to amend their Parenting Responsibilities Act. This is my Amicus Analysis of their proposed legislation:
-
- Do not use euphemisms for child abuse that hide the child abuse from view, hide the child abuse from the court’s understanding, and that prevent effective intervention for the child abuse.
- Rely on the established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline as the bases for professional judgments.
Offered Consultation to Family Justice Council (UK)
The Family Justice Council in the United Kingdom invited public consultation on their Draft Guidance on Responding to allegations of alienating behaviour. This is my consultation response submitted to the Family Justice Council.
- Childress Response to Family Justice Council Draft Guidelines -Part 1
- Childress Response to Family Justic Council Draft Guidelines -Part 2
Australian Amicus Brief
This is an amicus brief I offered in Australia surrounding pending legislation considerations that describes the pathology of concern in the family courts.
California SB-311 Amicus Letter
This is an amicus letter I sent regarding California state legislative bill SB-311.
Serbia Powerpoint Handout: Day 1
This is the Handout for Day 1 of my presentation in Serbia for the Center for Shared Parenting Conference held at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia on April 27 & 28, 2023.
Dr. Childress PASG Membership Application 2024
This is my Membership Application submission to the Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG)
