It is not easy to find something with which there can be disagreement in the article. Most of what Schimdt suggests would be accepted by child psychologists and is present in the idea of providing for the needs of patients who are children. If there could be one idea in which debate might be present, it would be with the idea of how therapy is rooted in the notion of social justice. The "commitment to social justice" could be debated. Issues such as social justice are expansive and encompassing. They take many factors into account, and the emphasis on social justice might take away from the practioner's commitment to focusing on the needs of the patient.
Certainly, few would deny that child psychology and social work geared towards helping patients are examples of social justice. Yet, in seeking to emphasize the idea of social justice, practitioners might lose sight of their primary focus for helping their patients. The needs and demands of social justice are separate from helping those individual patients who need assistance and intervention from the social work domains. Social justice is more political, and this might be something debated as it could detract from the aim of clinical psychology. Once again, I think that there is very close connection between both. Yet, if we were finding areas of potential disagreement, perhaps one point might be in how the article links the two as almost causal realities of one another.