Dit is geweldige munitie om de richtlijnen, handreikingen, (WODC) rapporten onderuit te halen.

Zolang deze club ‘onderzoekers’ niet in staat is enige diagnose te stellen bij gezinnen betrokken bij een complexe scheiding, zijn ze bewust handelingsonbekwaam en verplicht door te verwijzen naar professionals die wel ter zake kundig zijn.

 

Van: Craig Childress <Dit e-mailadres wordt beveiligd tegen spambots. JavaScript dient ingeschakeld te zijn om het te bekijken.>

Onderwerp: Antw.: new development in The Netherlands

Datum: 17 maart 2020 om 19:41:17 CET

Aan: Marieke van Woerkom <Dit e-mailadres wordt beveiligd tegen spambots. JavaScript dient ingeschakeld te zijn om het te bekijken.>

It is a one-symptom diagnosis - ICD-10 F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder, a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the primary case.  They can assess it however they want.  Diagnosis guides treatment - the treatment for cancer is different that the treatment for diabetes - we want an assessment for an ICD-10 diagnosis of F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder - they can do it however they want.

 

You can forward this email to them.  Dr. Childress has no "model" - no "new approach" - nothing at all "new" - thinking that I have something - anything - "new" is simply their profound ignorance showing.  It is an ICD-10 diagnosis (World Health Organization) F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder (a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the primary case). They can assess for it however they want.

 

Until it is assessed - then their diagnosis will be a "missed diagnosis" - a misdiagnosis.  Treating cancer with insulin is not recommended.  Diagnosis guides treatment. If they have "misdiagnosed" the pathology - then they will mistreat it.  If they have not even assessed for an ICD-10 diagnosis of F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder (a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the primary case) that is generally considered malpractice.

 

If they refuse to even assess for a possible ICD-10 diagnosis of F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder (World Health Organization), then what is their diagnosis and the support for their diagnosis, because we are going to say... "They have misdiagnosed the pathology, it is F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder (a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the  primary case" and we are going to want an assessment for a shared persecutory delusion because they are refusing to diagnose whether a shared delusion is present or not.

 

If it turns out that it is a shared persecutory delusion (ICD-10 F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder; World Health Organization) and they refused to even assess for this disorder when requested... then the next step will be a malpractice lawsuit for negligent - negligent - misdiagnosis of pathology.

 

They can assess for a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the primary case in whatever way they'd like.

 

Here is the description of a shared delusional disorder from the American Psychiatric Association:

 

From the APA: “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... If the relationship with the primary case is interrupted, the delusional beliefs of the other individual usually diminish or disappear. 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, p. 333)

 

The pathology of concern is ICD-10 F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder - a shared persecutory delusion with the allied parent as the primary case - World Health Organization.

 

Google negligence: failure to take proper care in doing something.

Google negligence (law): failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.

 

Refusing to even assess for an ICD-10 diagnosis when requested is a "failure to take proper care" in the exercise of their mental health duties my "missing" the diagnosis - a misdiagnosis - a negligent misdiagnosis... that results in "damage or injury" to the child (the lost attachment bond to the parent and delusional pathology imposed on the child) and "damage or injury" the the targeted parent ("targeted" for IPV spousal abuse using the child as the weapon) through the destruction of that parent's attachment bond to their child.

 

Google malpractice: improper, illegal, or negligent professional activity or treatment, especially by a medical practitioner, lawyer, or public official.

 

Feel free to forward this to whomever you want.

 

Craig Childress, Psy.D.

Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

 

Creating a persecutory delusion in the child that destroys the child's attachment bond to the other parent is a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse. Refusing to even assess for an ICD-10 diagnosis (World Health Organization) of F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder, a shared persecutory delusion with the parent as the "primary case," is "negligent professional activity and treatment" and is collusion with child abuse.

 

Then again, perhaps the Dutch don't protect their children from child abuse, perhaps they believe child abuse is acceptable. ICD-10 F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder - World Health Organization.