I have just read Dr Childress’s second response to my critique of Foundations.
I only really have three things to say to in response.
1. I do not consider myself a Gardenarian and do not really know what that means.
2. Hybrid cases are not the same as pure and it is disengenous to suggest that hybrid cases do not exist because they do.
3. I have never said, here or anywhere else that children living with pure alienators should be left with them. In those circumstances we fight hard to have the child removed. It is a wholly wrong assertion by Dr Childress to suggest otherwise.
And that’s it. I am still not fighting with him, I still stand by everything I said, I still do not believe that he has THE answer and I still believe that in the UK his approach is risky and that taking up arms in the way he advocates IS risking relationships with children because of professional inability to understand the concepts he is advocating. I cannot support the idea that children’s lives should be sacrificed in order to somehow force through a change that he is advocating. This is not a civil rights issue, it is a child protection issue and the lives of children must be protected first, last and always. As I see it, calling for target parents to behave in this manner is seeing those families as collatoral damage for a greater social change. I am not able to support that, not now, not ever because every child’s life matters to me. The rest of what he has to say is, in my view, not for me to respond to. We do what we do and I know that in doing it we are successfully helping families in this country.
I still admire Dr Childress’s work immensely and hope that he can see the value of debate to the professional community and the parents who depend upon them for help and support.
There are enough people attacking those of us who work in this field without us falling out with each other.