Would a parent deliberately and continuously trying to put children in harms way, be a form of this?Especially if that parent has a continous need for attention, or would that be leaning more towards Münchhausen ?.Im not talking about just being a neglectful parent ,rather towards effort put in make a crisis situation, which thankfully was thwarted on ever turn.
Fabrications of all sorts of things can be "factious" in nature. If the parent in question is continually calling the CAS and reporting emotional abuse and other factitious things and by proxy blaming the other parent it *could be* related to the person's need for attention. Constantly seeking out someone to "believe" the factitious (lies) statements against someone else in relation to the child (the false victim) *could* be a factitious disorder by proxy. The parent making the constant allegations may be expressing an emotional state where by their are not putting the child's "best interests" first and their "best interests" only.
This is often white-washed by many professionals as "over anxious" parenting but, when third party professionals (doctors, lawyers, social workers, CAS, courts, etc...) become involved... They *may* be attempting to gain attention by proxy through these third parties to create a distortion campaign against the other parent.
This is why, in my opinion, more research and study in Canada needs to go into better understanding FDP as a whole. The "tax" these possible people have on the medical/legal/law enforcement agencies is incredible. I have been searching to see what the public costs of someone exhibiting these patterns of behaviour cost public tax payers.
FDP in Canada generally requires the parent to try and induce an illness and the weighting is all based on the parent "inducing" the illness. For example, a parent who puts their child on a special diet for an allergy they don't have, goes to different clinician's "shopping" this illness etc... would be by general definition an "over anxious" parent. They may have even been told by these clinicians that the child does not have the condition but, maintain it publicly so they can feel like a "good parent". Even though they have exaggerated and even fabricated (lied about clinical diagnosis that don't exist) the expectation of clinicians generally (in Canada) is that they have to "induce" the illness. One would question if changing a child's diet, often seen as not "dangerous" is a pattern of "induction"?
This is also white washed as "over anxious" parenting when the person constantly logs the child's weight, records their movements (color, size, amount) and dietary intake. At what point does anxiety become a "belief" in light of medical advice contrary to what has been provided by clinicians become "induction"? The child is told they have an issue, they can't eat specific foods or it will harm them (even though it won't). This in my opinion, although not clinical, would be the induction of a mental health condition in the child.
PS: Due to the rash of parents who "believe" their child may have celiac spruce disease and the popularity of "gluten free" in the public media many health authorities are giving parents pamphlets which contain photographs of normal stool and rashes with their common diagnosis as it has been recognized that a gluten free diet, if not managed and monitored by a clinician (doctor/nurse/dietitian) can pose a danger if done improperly and for reasons that are not truly medical. (Health authority in the Greater Sudbury Region is now providing this to new parents.)
PPS: This *may* be driven by the fact that family doctors, who prior to 2005 never saw parents for "gluten intolerance" are now having loads of parents coming in and filling up their appointment books now. This *may* be done to assist in curbing the false information being propagated on the internet about "gluten sensitivity", for which no clinical definition exists.
Good Luck!
Tayken
