Dr. Kurt Michaels damaged my daughters for life.
All I ever wanted was for him to contact me so we could protect my children. Kurt Refused to EVER RESPOND TO ME, in spite of me REACHING OUT many many times..
The concern for my children was a potential DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (pathogenic parenting; mother).
Pathogenic parenting is a construct from attachment pathology (children rejecting a parent is an attachment bonding pathology). The concern is that the mother is creating significant pathology in the children through aberrant and distorted parenting practices.
patho=pathology; genic=genesis, creation; pathogenic parenting is creating pathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices.
The pathology she appears to be creating in the children is an encapsulated persecutory delusion relative to their father. The mother very likely shares this delusional belief, and so she would be the "primary case" (APA) for this shared delusional belief.
The ICD-10 diagnosis (World Health Organization diagnostic system) for a shared delusional belief is F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder. Here is the description of a Shared Psychotic 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... 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.” (p. 333)
The American Psychiatric Association even provides guidance on the treatment for a Shared Psychotic Disorder:
From the APA: “If the relationship with the primary case is interrupted, the delusional beliefs of the other individual usually diminish or disappear.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 333)
From the APA: "Course Without intervention, the course is usually chronic, because this disorder most commonly occurs in relationships that are long-standing and resistant to change. With separation from the primary case, the individual’s delusional beliefs disappear, sometimes quickly and sometimes quite slowly.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 333)
Of concern is that the mother is creating a persecutory delusion in the children relative to their father, because the mother shares this delusion and is the "primary case" for a shared psychotic disorder, and that she then "gradually imposes the delusional system on the more passive and initially healthy" child.
Diagnosis of the Persecutory Delusion
The children present as being "victimized" by a parent. Is that a true or false belief?
If true, then it is a child abuse diagnosis for the father.
If false, how false?
A false belief in "victimization" is a persecutory belief. The diagnostic question becomes, is it a persecutory delusion? (a psychotic-level pathology)
The anchoring for the symptom rating should be done with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Here is the description of the BPRS from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia: "The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) is a rating scale which a clinician or researcher may use to measure psychiatric symptoms such as depression, anxiety, hallucinations and unusual behaviour. Each symptom is rated 1-7 and depending on the version between a total of 18-24 symptoms are scored. The scale is one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms and was first published in 1962."
Item 11 in the BPRS Unusual Thought Content is the delusion rating item. The rating of a delusion will depend on the symptom feature of "full conviction."
Notice the BPRS instructions for Item 11 direct, "Consider the individual to have full conviction if he/she has acted as though the delusional belief was true." Have the children acted as if the father is "victimizing" them? By all reports, yes.
Then the children have "full conviction" in the false persecutory belief.
Notice now, that the rating of 3 requires, "without full conviction." If the children have "acted as through the delusional belief was true," then the rating for the children's symptoms is higher than a 3. The rating of 4 or higher is the cut-off for a delusion.
Note now, the rating of 4 requires that there be "no preoccupation or functional impairment." Do the children have impaired functioning because of their false belief in supposed "victimization" by their father? By all reports, yes, they re refusing contact with the father. There is functional impairment to their family relationships (bonding with father) because of the persecutory delusion, the rating is higher than a 4.
The rating for a 5 indicates, "some preoccupation or some areas of functioning are disrupted" - the reported symptoms for the children will be at least a 5, possibly higher if there is "much preoccupation" or "may areas of functioning are disrupted."
Based on the reported symptoms of the children, the children will likely meet BPRS criteria for a 5 Moderately Severe encapsulated persecutory delusion (encapsulated means limited-scope, affecting only some areas of functioning; e.g. a specific family relationship of the father-child bond).
If the children have a Moderately Severe persecutory delusion toward their father, there is only ONE possible explanatory cause, the mother has created this false belief in the children. It is impossible for a normal-range parent to create a persecutory delusion in the child - it is relatively easy for a pathological parent to create a persecutory delusion in the child about the other parent. Confirmation of the shared persecutory delusion can be made in direct clinical interview with the mother.
Here is the definition of a persecutory delusion from the American Psychiatric Association:
From the APA: "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)
If confirmed by diagnostic interview, the allied parent (the mother in this family) is the primary case of a persecutory delusion, and she is "gradually imposing the delusional system on the more passive and initially healthy" child. Creating psychotic-delusional pathology in the child would warrant a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.
There are four DSM-5 diagnoses of child abuse in the child maltreatment section of the DSM-5:
V995.54 Child Physical Abuse
V995.53 Child Sexual Abuse
V995.52 Child Neglect
V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse
All of these DSM-5 child abuse diagnoses are of equal severity. Based on the guidance from the American Psychiatric Association regarding treatment of a Shared Psychotic Disorder (the shared persecutory delusion), and professional standards of practice and duty to protect obligations, the treatment for a shared delusional pathology and DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse would be a protective separation of the children from the abusive parent. We then treat and recover the children's healthy normal-range development, and then we restore contact with the formerly abusive parent with enough safeguards to ensure that the child abuse does not resume once contact with the abusive parent is restored.
The role played by outcome measures in treatment and to monitor possible relapse when contact with the abusive parent is restored. Possible outcome measure used, the Parent-Child Relationship Rating Scale (Childress, 2015). The three primary symptoms are Affection (Aff; attachment systems), Cooperation (Co; emotional regulation systems), and Social Involvement (SI; arousal and mood). The two additional items are ones used personally in therapy, the first to develop discussions in therapy surrounding parenting, and the second to stabilize excessive texting and phone intrusions when this is part of the symptom display.
Dr. Michaels, YOU were involved in assessing the family relationships. The diagnostic consideration of these possibilities would have been helpful from Dr. Michaels, you are a shit. Not only for mis-diagnosing my children but your continued refusal to even contact me when I am screaming child abuse.
Forget the fact you refused your consideration of an IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) spousal abuse (ex-spousal) diagnosis relative to the mother using both excessive litigation and the children's bonding to their father as weapons of emotional abuse directed toward the father.
Dr. Michaels, you are a piece of shit and have had more time with my daughters over the last 6 years than I have had.
Kenneth Gottfried
All I ever wanted was for him to contact me so we could protect my children. Kurt Refused to EVER RESPOND TO ME, in spite of me REACHING OUT many many times..
The concern for my children was a potential DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse (pathogenic parenting; mother).
Pathogenic parenting is a construct from attachment pathology (children rejecting a parent is an attachment bonding pathology). The concern is that the mother is creating significant pathology in the children through aberrant and distorted parenting practices.
patho=pathology; genic=genesis, creation; pathogenic parenting is creating pathology in the child through aberrant and distorted parenting practices.
The pathology she appears to be creating in the children is an encapsulated persecutory delusion relative to their father. The mother very likely shares this delusional belief, and so she would be the "primary case" (APA) for this shared delusional belief.
The ICD-10 diagnosis (World Health Organization diagnostic system) for a shared delusional belief is F24 Shared Psychotic Disorder. Here is the description of a Shared Psychotic 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... 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.” (p. 333)
The American Psychiatric Association even provides guidance on the treatment for a Shared Psychotic Disorder:
From the APA: “If the relationship with the primary case is interrupted, the delusional beliefs of the other individual usually diminish or disappear.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 333)
From the APA: "Course Without intervention, the course is usually chronic, because this disorder most commonly occurs in relationships that are long-standing and resistant to change. With separation from the primary case, the individual’s delusional beliefs disappear, sometimes quickly and sometimes quite slowly.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 333)
Of concern is that the mother is creating a persecutory delusion in the children relative to their father, because the mother shares this delusion and is the "primary case" for a shared psychotic disorder, and that she then "gradually imposes the delusional system on the more passive and initially healthy" child.
Diagnosis of the Persecutory Delusion
The children present as being "victimized" by a parent. Is that a true or false belief?
If true, then it is a child abuse diagnosis for the father.
If false, how false?
A false belief in "victimization" is a persecutory belief. The diagnostic question becomes, is it a persecutory delusion? (a psychotic-level pathology)
The anchoring for the symptom rating should be done with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Here is the description of the BPRS from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia: "The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) is a rating scale which a clinician or researcher may use to measure psychiatric symptoms such as depression, anxiety, hallucinations and unusual behaviour. Each symptom is rated 1-7 and depending on the version between a total of 18-24 symptoms are scored. The scale is one of the oldest, most widely used scales to measure psychotic symptoms and was first published in 1962."
Item 11 in the BPRS Unusual Thought Content is the delusion rating item. The rating of a delusion will depend on the symptom feature of "full conviction."
Notice the BPRS instructions for Item 11 direct, "Consider the individual to have full conviction if he/she has acted as though the delusional belief was true." Have the children acted as if the father is "victimizing" them? By all reports, yes.
Then the children have "full conviction" in the false persecutory belief.
Notice now, that the rating of 3 requires, "without full conviction." If the children have "acted as through the delusional belief was true," then the rating for the children's symptoms is higher than a 3. The rating of 4 or higher is the cut-off for a delusion.
Note now, the rating of 4 requires that there be "no preoccupation or functional impairment." Do the children have impaired functioning because of their false belief in supposed "victimization" by their father? By all reports, yes, they re refusing contact with the father. There is functional impairment to their family relationships (bonding with father) because of the persecutory delusion, the rating is higher than a 4.
The rating for a 5 indicates, "some preoccupation or some areas of functioning are disrupted" - the reported symptoms for the children will be at least a 5, possibly higher if there is "much preoccupation" or "may areas of functioning are disrupted."
Based on the reported symptoms of the children, the children will likely meet BPRS criteria for a 5 Moderately Severe encapsulated persecutory delusion (encapsulated means limited-scope, affecting only some areas of functioning; e.g. a specific family relationship of the father-child bond).
If the children have a Moderately Severe persecutory delusion toward their father, there is only ONE possible explanatory cause, the mother has created this false belief in the children. It is impossible for a normal-range parent to create a persecutory delusion in the child - it is relatively easy for a pathological parent to create a persecutory delusion in the child about the other parent. Confirmation of the shared persecutory delusion can be made in direct clinical interview with the mother.
Here is the definition of a persecutory delusion from the American Psychiatric Association:
From the APA: "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)
If confirmed by diagnostic interview, the allied parent (the mother in this family) is the primary case of a persecutory delusion, and she is "gradually imposing the delusional system on the more passive and initially healthy" child. Creating psychotic-delusional pathology in the child would warrant a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse.
There are four DSM-5 diagnoses of child abuse in the child maltreatment section of the DSM-5:
V995.54 Child Physical Abuse
V995.53 Child Sexual Abuse
V995.52 Child Neglect
V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse
All of these DSM-5 child abuse diagnoses are of equal severity. Based on the guidance from the American Psychiatric Association regarding treatment of a Shared Psychotic Disorder (the shared persecutory delusion), and professional standards of practice and duty to protect obligations, the treatment for a shared delusional pathology and DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse would be a protective separation of the children from the abusive parent. We then treat and recover the children's healthy normal-range development, and then we restore contact with the formerly abusive parent with enough safeguards to ensure that the child abuse does not resume once contact with the abusive parent is restored.
The role played by outcome measures in treatment and to monitor possible relapse when contact with the abusive parent is restored. Possible outcome measure used, the Parent-Child Relationship Rating Scale (Childress, 2015). The three primary symptoms are Affection (Aff; attachment systems), Cooperation (Co; emotional regulation systems), and Social Involvement (SI; arousal and mood). The two additional items are ones used personally in therapy, the first to develop discussions in therapy surrounding parenting, and the second to stabilize excessive texting and phone intrusions when this is part of the symptom display.
Dr. Michaels, YOU were involved in assessing the family relationships. The diagnostic consideration of these possibilities would have been helpful from Dr. Michaels, you are a shit. Not only for mis-diagnosing my children but your continued refusal to even contact me when I am screaming child abuse.
Forget the fact you refused your consideration of an IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) spousal abuse (ex-spousal) diagnosis relative to the mother using both excessive litigation and the children's bonding to their father as weapons of emotional abuse directed toward the father.
Dr. Michaels, you are a piece of shit and have had more time with my daughters over the last 6 years than I have had.
Kenneth Gottfried
Dear Mrs Webb,
My last email was on June 22nd 2018 and is Confidential as it states on the bottom of these emails.
I have not received a response from you, but did receive a call from Andy Stevenson with the ASU police department.
He was extremely courteous and seemed very empathetic to the situation. He also did let me know that The Psychology department
made sure to introduce and emphasize Psychological Child Abuse DSM-5 V995.51 as it is described by Dr. Craig Childress, in his book Foundations with the
Bowlby-Beck-Minuchin model of Attachment-Based Parental-Alienation.
I was very happy about this, as my objective is to try and prevent this from ever happening to another child or parent again.
Unfortunately I have seen the devastation this particular abuse causes for the entire family unit, in both children and parents.
The last thing I want to see is another child or parents suicide.
Can you please let me know how the ASU psychology department has integrated this into their curriculum to help students and instructors in identifying
this this type of abuse, and the remedies to minimize it's effects.
Thank you in advance
Kenneth R. Gottfried
MemberPrinting.com
BuddhaStein.com
828-406-8760
My last email was on June 22nd 2018 and is Confidential as it states on the bottom of these emails.
I have not received a response from you, but did receive a call from Andy Stevenson with the ASU police department.
He was extremely courteous and seemed very empathetic to the situation. He also did let me know that The Psychology department
made sure to introduce and emphasize Psychological Child Abuse DSM-5 V995.51 as it is described by Dr. Craig Childress, in his book Foundations with the
Bowlby-Beck-Minuchin model of Attachment-Based Parental-Alienation.
I was very happy about this, as my objective is to try and prevent this from ever happening to another child or parent again.
Unfortunately I have seen the devastation this particular abuse causes for the entire family unit, in both children and parents.
The last thing I want to see is another child or parents suicide.
Can you please let me know how the ASU psychology department has integrated this into their curriculum to help students and instructors in identifying
this this type of abuse, and the remedies to minimize it's effects.
Thank you in advance
Kenneth R. Gottfried
MemberPrinting.com
BuddhaStein.com
828-406-8760