Skip to content
  • 850 W. Hind Drive, Suite 203 Honolulu, Hawaii 96821-1845
  • info@website.com
  • (808) 373-3880

Concepts, Assessment, & Treatment of Children Who Refuse Visitation

Children who refuse visitation of parents during and after divorce
disputes pose serious challenges to the parents, attorneys, courts,
and parents.  This presentation reviews the best thinking in child
alienation case…

Children Who Refuse Visitation:

Working with Estranged and Alienated Children and their Families

—

New Laws & Legal Trends in Custody and Divorce

—

Hawaii State Bar Association

July 24, 2008

Honolulu, Hawaii

—

Marvin W. Acklin, PhD, ABPP

Clinical & Forensic Psychologist

—

Source: Kelly, JB, and Johnston, JR (2001). THE ALIENATED CHILD: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome. FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 39 No. 3, July 2001 249-266.

PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME: Gardner (1987, 1992) coined the label parental alienation syndrome (PAS) to describe a diagnosable disorder in the child occurring in the context of a custody dispute, and it is this entity that has generated both enthusiastic acceptance and strong negative response. Gardner (1998) described PAS as a child’s campaign of denigration against a parent that has no justification and that results from the combination of two contributing factors: the programming or brainwashing by one parent and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. He notes that the indoctrinating parent is usually the mother and that false allegations of sexual abuse are common.

THE ALIENATED CHILD: A NEW FORMULATION: This formulation proposes to focus on the alienated child rather than on parental alienation. An alienated child is defined here as one who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection, and/or fear) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent. From this viewpoint, the pernicious behaviors of a “programming” parent are no longer the starting point. Rather, the problem of the alienated child begins with a primary focus on the child, his or her observable behaviors, and parent-child relationships. This objective and neutral focus enables the professionals involved in the custody dispute to consider whether the child fits the definition of an alienated child and, if so, to use a more inclusive framework for assessing why the child is now rejecting a parent and refusing contact.

DISTINGUISHING ALIENATED CHILDREN FROM OTHER CHILDREN WHO RESIST VISITATION: There are multiple reasons that children resist visitation, and only in very specific circumstances does this behavior qualify as alienation. These reasons include resistance rooted in normal developmental processes (e.g., normal separation anxieties in the very young child), resistance rooted primarily in the high-conflict marriage and divorce (e.g., fear or inability to cope with the high-conflict transition), resistance in response to a parent’s parenting style (e.g., rigidity, anger, or insensitivity to the child), resistance arising from the child’s concern about an emotionally fragile custodial parent (e.g., fear of leaving this parent alone), and resistance arising from the remarriage of a parent (e.g., behaviors of the parent or stepparent that alter willingness to visit). (See Johnston, 1993; Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980.)

A CONTINUUM OF CHILD-PARENT RELATIONSHIPS AFTER SEPARATION AND DIVORCE

SYSTEMIC PROCESSES THAT POTENTIATE CHILD ALIENATION

COMMON BEHAVIORS AND ORGANIZING BELIEFS OF THE ALIGNED PARENT

A range of alienating behaviors on the part of the aligned parent have long been recognized

as contributing to a child’s alienated stance (Clawar & Rivlin, 1991; Gardner, 1987; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Extremely negative views of the rejected parent may be freely, angrily, and repeatedly expressed to the child by the aligned parent: “She never wanted you,” “I was your real parent,” “You call me if your dad touches you anywhere,” “I’m sure he’ll be late as usual.” The effect of the continued drumbeat of negative evaluation of the parent is to erode the child’s confidence in and love for the rejected parent and to create intolerable confusion.

These evaluations might also be expressed indirectly, covertly, or unconsciously and

might include innuendoes of sexual or child abuse or implications that the parent is dangerous

in other ways. Whether such parents are aware of the negative impact on the child, these behaviors of the aligned parent (and his or her supporters) constitute emotional abuse of the child.

Most often, aligned parents’ behaviors reflect several organizing beliefs that might not be

consciously spiteful and vindictive but nevertheless are potentially very damaging to the child’s relationship with the other parent. As a consequence of their own deep psychological issues, the aligned parent can harbor deep distrust and fear of the ex-spouse and be absolutely convinced that he or she is at best irrelevant and at worst a pernicious influence on the child.

Consequently, a first major organizing belief is that their child does not need the other parent in their lives. Although aligned parents might insist that the child is free to visit, the rejected

parents’ attempts to visit or contact their child frequently are seen as harassment. Phone calls,

messages, andlor letters often are not passed on to the child. Information about school, medical,

athletic, or special events are not provided to the rejected parent, in effect completely

shutting that parent out of the child’s life. In the most extreme cases, all references to the

rejected parent are removed from the residence, including pictures (which might be tom apart in front of the child to exclude that parent). In such situations, most children quickly learn not to speak of the rejected parent. In response to requests for access by the rejected parent, the aligned parent strongly supports their angry child’s “right to make their own decision” about whether they will visit.

A related set of alienating behaviors of aligned parents confirm for the child that the other

parent is not worthy of the child’s attentions. The rejected parent is denigrated in many ways,

and the personality and parenting flaws of the rejected parent are exaggerated and discussed

frequently in the child‘s presence. Children receive a very sympathetic ear when they bring back to the aligned parent their own observations of the rejected parents’ failings in postvisit debriefing sessions and journal writing.

Second, the aligned parent often fervently believes that the rejected parent is dangerous to

the child in some way(s): violent, physically or sexually abusive, or neglectful. Therefore, the aligned parents’ behaviors are aimed at blocking access to the child. A campaign to protect the child from the presumed danger is mounted on multiple fronts, often involving attorneys, therapists, pediatricians, and school personnel. Behaviors include seeking restraining and supervised visitation orders, installing security equipment at the residence, and finding reasons to cancel visits when orders for contact exist. If the child does visit the rejected parent, the portrayal of the “dangerous” parent is reinforced by calling into the rejected parents’ home every hour during a visit to “check up” on the child’s well-being and by debriefing children after a visit to detect “negative” occurrences or feelings. Sometimes, earlier disciplinary interactions involving angry or confrontative (but not abusive) behaviors by the rejected parent are repackaged as confirmation of violence toward the child.

A third organizing belief of the aligned parent is that the rejected parent does not and has

never loved or cared about the child. Behaviors and strategies arising from this belief include

repeated stories to children of “evidence” supporting the belief that the parent was never involved (“he went bowling when you were sick”) or demonstrating the parent’s presumed lack of interest when, for example, he fails to appear for a school or special event (about which he had been given no notice).

Both empirical research and clinical observation indicate that there is often significant

pathology and anger in the parent encouraging the alienation of the child, including problems

with boundaries and differentiation from the child, severe separation anxieties, impaired reality testing, and projective identifications with the child (Dunne & Hedrick, 1994; Johnston, 1993;Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Lampel, 1996; Lund, 1995; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). It is not a normal parental strategy to encourage the complete rejection of the other parent. Even when there is history of child abuse, the other parent is mentally ill, or the child’s safety is endangered, the average parent will seek different avenues and more rational means of protecting the child. Furthermore, such parents often recognize that their child loves that parent despite the destructive behavior.

It should be noted that the divorce process and its professional participants often mobilize

and enable these aligned parents to present themselves in a coherent, organized manner. The

nature of the adversarial process encourages hostile, polarized, black-and-white thinking with little challenge, presents perceived truths as facts and fuels and channels rage in a scripted manner. The intensity and duration of the legal fight may also serve as an antidote to depression.

BEHAVIORS OF THE REJECTED PARENT THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CHILD ALIENATION

DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE AND VULNERABILITIES OF THE CHILD TO ALIENATION

THE RESPONSE AND BEHAVIORS OF THE ALIENATED CHILD

One of the most common behaviors of alienated children is their strongly expressed resistance to visiting the rejected parent and, in more extreme cases, an absolute refusal to see the

parent in any setting, including a therapeutic one, and a desire to unilaterally terminate the

parent-child relationship. These children want only to talk to lawyers who represent their

viewpoint and to those custody evaluators and judges whom they believe will fully support

their efforts to terminate the parent-child relationship once they hear all the “facts.” To all,

they strongly advocate their right to choose whether they will see their parent.

Another feature of alienated children is the manner in which they present their stories.

Their allegations about the rejected parent are mostly replicas or slight variants of the aligned

parents’ allegations and stories. These scripted lines are repeated endlessly but most often are

hollow, without underlying substance, texture, or detail to support the allegations. They have

adopted the allegation(s) but, unlike children with histories of abusive treatment, do not have

compelling supporting information. Generally, alienated children sound very rehearsed, wooden, brittle, and frequently use adult words or phrases. They appear not to be guilty or ambivalent as the children denigrate, often viciously, the rejected parent. Sometimes, they appear to be enjoying themselves. There is no obvious regret.

One of the sobering aspects of these presentations is that alienated children have essentially

been given permission to be powerful and to be hostile and rude toward the rejected parent, grandparents, and other relatives. Furthermore, assisting in orchestrating the obliteration

of a parent does not bode well for their future social and emotional adjustment. Sadly, even previously cherished pets, now in the custody of the rejected parent, might be denigrated, and the children proudly describe the virtues of their new and extremely perfect replacements provided for them by aligned parents.

It is important to note that some alienated children-although they present as very angry,

distraught, and obsessively fixated on the hated parent in the therapist’s or evaluator’s office-appear to function adequately in other settings removed from the custody battle. They might retain their school performance, might continue to excel in musical or athletic activities, and at least superficially seem reasonably well adjusted. A closer look at their interpersonal relationships, however, often reveals difficulties. Alienated children’s black-and-white, often harshly strident views and feelings are usually reflected in dealings with their peers as well as those in authority. However, it is in the rejected parents’ home that the child’s behavior is severely problematic and disturbed. They might destroy property; act in obnoxious, even bizarre, ways; and treat these parents in public with obvious loathing, scorn, and verbal abuse. They prefer to be in contact constantly with their aligned parent by telephone, at which times, they whisper hostile observations about the rejected parent’s words, behaviors, meals, and personality. If they are resisting or refusing contact, all efforts of the rejected parents to communicate directly with their children are rebuffed, including demands that the parent never contact them again, stop harassing them with presents and letters (which often are discarded or unopened), and cease their useless legal efforts and court appearances.

Source: Sullivan, MJ, and Kelly, JB (2001). LEGAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF CASES WITH AN ALIENATED CHILD. FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 39 NO. 3, July 2001 299-315.

When cases enter the court system with allegations of child alienation, special legal and

clinical management is critical. Starting with initial intake into the family court, throughout

the custody evaluation phase, and after the final court decision, the use of certain principles

and interventions designed to deal with these difficult cases will enable the legal system and

family to function more effectively.

This article provides principles for conceptualizing and implementing interventions in

these cases, followed by interventions specific to early and interim management, evaluation,

and post-decree court-ordered management and treatment.

PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE INTERVENTIONS IN CHILD ALIENATION CASES

CONTINUITY IN CASE MANAGEMENT

The interpersonal alignments and polarized negative views that are present in these cases

are powerful forces that may lead to the termination not only of parent-child relationships but also of relationships among extended family, therapists, attorneys, and family court personnel. Individuals often become aligned with one of the parents and are quickly rejected by the parent who perceives them as disagreeing with their views. Thus, it is essential in these high-conflict cases that the legal and mental health professionals have their roles delineated and protected as part of an explicit court appointment, ensuring the continuity so essential to effective interventions.

Judicial officers. One judge should be assigned to these cases as they enter the court process

(direct calendering). This ensures continuity in decision making about early intervention, assessment, and later interventions, including treatment. As information emerges that clarifies what factors are contributing to the child’s alienation, the benefits of having the same judicial officer manage the case are enormous. After the case completes the normal family court process-including, if necessary, trial-the judicial case management function can be delegated to a mediator or arbitrator, if sufficient resources are available (Baris et al., 2001; Lee, 1995; Sullivan, 1998).

Custody evaluators. Evaluators can help to ensure continuity of the professionals who

will be working with the family. They can do this by recommending the specific types of

interventions that are needed, protocols for selecting professionals, and the conditions under

which professionals can be terminated from the case. To ensure a smooth transition between

evaluation and treatment phases, the evaluator needs to communicate his or her findings

directly to the professionals who will be intervening with the family. He or she needs to make

specific recommendations for how treating professionals should consult and coordinate with

one another on an ongoing basis. Without such precautions, it is likely that the alienation processes

will undermine the work of the professionals as interventions proceed.

CONTINUITY OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE REJECTED PARENT, AND TIMELY DECISION MAKING

There should be a presumption that parent-child contact will continue (or be initiated) if

alienation of a child is suspected. When there is no access between the child and rejected parent,

the child’s resistance to visit often becomes more entrenched. Delays in court hearings

and deferred judicial decisions contribute greatly to the problem.

PHASES OF CASE MANAGEMENT IN ALIENATION CASES

INITIAL AND PREVENTIVE INTERVENTIONS

The court can promote safe parent-child contact with a rejected parent while an evaluative

process is undertaken through effective early and potentially preventive interventions.

Sometimes, these firm but less intrusive initial interventions actually resolve the impasses

that led the child to reject the parent. In any case, the outcome of these interventions provides

useful information to evaluators and decision makers as the case proceeds.

The court can mandate therapeutically expedited contact sessions that initiate or maintain

access between the rejected parent and the child in a safe, observant framework. This concept

of facilitated contact is preferred to that of supervised visits in order not to stigmatize the

rejected parent. Labels such as supervisor or visit monitor reinforce the allegations of dangerousness

made against the rejected parent, unlike more neutral terms such as access facilitator.

The framing of this work must achieve a delicate holding of the family members such

that all are reassured that they will be protected: the rejected parent from false allegations, the

alienating parent from dismissal of legitimate concerns, and the child from any harm. Ideally,

these interventions begin by establishing contact in a facilitated session between rejected

parent and child, and negotiate a step-wise expansion of visits as appropriate until the visits

are independent of the sessions.

The access facilitator should be appointed by the court and expected to provide documentation and feedback to the court (or evaluator, if the case is proceeding to a custody evaluation). Although the nonconfidentiality of this structure has some negative aspects, the

accountability for both parents that occurs when they know that their conduct will be

reported to the court directly (or indirectly, through an evaluator) provides significant strategic

leverage. In addition, the observations of access facilitators as they attempt to intervene in

the family system are invaluable to the evaluator in making recommendations about child

custody issues for the court.

Sample court order: Neither parent will unilaterally initiate or terminate any mental health evaluation or treatment for the children. The parents shall have the special master assist in the selection of any mental health professional who works with the children. Any information regarding the children from that treatment shall be made available to both parents. Both parents will respect the confidentiality of child therapy and will contact the other parent to transport the children to their appointments in the event that they are unable to. The parents will optimize insurance benefits and share the uninsured cost of any treatment.

CASE MANAGEMENT OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS

Case management during an evaluation process should normally be provided by the judicial

officer or his or her designee to assure timeliness, comprehensive scope, and appropriate

carryover on interventions that follow evaluation (Lee & Olesen, 2001 [this issue]). The following

guidelines for case management address these issues.

First, assessments or evaluations should only be done by a court-ordered neutral evaluator,

who has clear authority and directives from the court. Two experts, hired by each parent,

normally further polarize the case.

Second, timeliness is critical when a child is alienated. The appointment of the evaluator

should include specific timelines for completion. Evaluations that take longer than 6 to 8 weeks and court procedures that delay processing the evaluation once the report is complete allow for further entrenchment of a child’s alienation.

Third, case management should assure continuity in the transition from evaluation to any

further intervention. Court processes that follow evaluation (settlement conferences, further

litigation, and trial) often reduce or change the evaluator’s recommendations and therefore

the effectiveness of the interventions that follow. At a minimum, the full report should be

read by all professionals who will be involved in interventions. Ideally, the evaluator should

be directly involved in selecting and initially consulting with any legal or mental health professionals

or intervention teams, and court orders can increase the likelihood of this

occurring.

CASE MANAGEMENT AFTER EVALUATION AND JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING

Judicial decision making and court orders at the completion of evaluation are rarely the end of the family court involvement in alienation cases (Baris et al., 2001; Garrity & Barris, 1994; Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Both structural interventions (orders about timeshare, transitions, communication, other coparenting structures, and enforcement) and therapeutic interventions (appropriate individual and conjoint modalities) are usually needed, and court review may be necessary to ensure implementation.

Access Arrangements and transitions

Blocking intrusions from the aligned parent. A common behavior of aligned parents is to

contact their children frequently (sometimes a dozen or more times a day) or to instruct their

children to call them regularly during their visit. The impact of this contact is severely undermining

of rejected parents’ attempts to restore a normal relationship with their children. Court orders may contain explicit regulation of such contact, and the perceived need for the frequent calls and the negative impact on treatment goals should be a focus of the therapeutic work. For example, the court order might begin with a strict limitation on, and specification of, time and length of calls, with progressive elimination of contact. During brief visits, phone calls may be prohibited from the start.

Blocking aligned parents’ ability to unreasonably obstruct scheduled visits. Orders can

require physician documentation of a child’s illness that would interfere with scheduled visits.

Other requests to change a visit due to a special circumstance can be made contingent on

immediate make-up provisions. In addition to providing rejected parents with explicit permission

in the court order to be involved in the child’s extracurricular activities, injunctions

can also prevent the aligned parent from scheduling alternative activities such that children

must choose between a favored activity and visits with the rejected, noncustodial parent.

Information exchange and decision making. It is important to establish protocols for joint

involvement in decision making to reinforce rejected parents’ rights as equal legal custodians,

whether or not visits are occurring. Besides legitimizing the role of rejected parents, the

following sample orders address aligned parents’ attempts to undermine and exclude rejected parents from meaningful involvement in their children’s lives. The unwillingness of an aligned parent to share information and decision making may be grounds for the court to take these rights away. Conversely, the inability of rejected parents to responsibly participate in these parental domains, even with structure and support, may validate some concerns of the residential parent. In this case, rejected parents’ legal custody rights may need to be restricted as well.

Communication between parents. Protocols that encourage safe, written interparental

communication and provide for parental disengagement (the parents do not see or talk to

each other) as well as accountability (i.e., a written document is part of every communication)

are very important.

Relationships with third parties. Teachers, school administrators, clergy, child care providers,

health care professionals, and others often become used and embroiled in parental conflict. Some become strongly aligned with particular parents and increase children’s alienation from the other parent. Court orders can prevent or diminish these problems.

Support of therapeutic interventions. Protocols that provide expectations for the establishment

and working relationship with professionals involved with the family are essential to encourage and monitor compliance with these interventions.

Sanctions and enforcement of court orders. Detailed, complete, written guidelines, dealing

with all of the business that coparenting needs to accomplish, together with a coparenting

mediation and/or arbitration, can greatly reduce the destructive effects of chronically high

levels of conflict and preempt the need for sanctions. Initially, the parents must be disengaged

from each other to diminish conflict. Vague, limited, and ambiguous orders quickly

become exploited by parents to create conflict or mishaps.

THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS

Therapeutic interventions must be backed by court authority, either through the family court judicial officer or a designated, court-appointed professional. Any professional serving in a quasi-judicial role must have sufficient training to develop a comprehensive understanding of the case dynamics (in consultation with the evaluator), the time and availability for intensive case management, and the authority to monitor and enforce compliance with the intervention plan and make adjustments to the residential access arrangement as appropriate.

These three components-understanding, availability, and authority-are essential to supporting any therapeutic intervention. They can be combined into one role or, when economically feasible if sufficient professional assistance is available, can be provided by a collaborative team. Any therapist working with the child or family members, however, should not be expected or empowered to make recommendations or binding decisions for the family.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF COLLABORATIVE TEAM FUNCTIONING

Confidentiality. Confidentiality in therapeutic relationships with family members creates partial perspectives, which makes the therapy more susceptible to the distortions, splitting, and polarization noted above. Furthermore, a closed therapeutic process with an aligned or rejected parent can serve to validate and reinforce destructive distortions. Informed consent contracts that begin the treatment by waiving aspects of confidentiality are essential to treatment progressing.

Hierarchy and roles. Each team member needs to understand and conduct themselves according to their agreed-on role in the family intervention, including their relationship to other team members, their clients, and the legal process. The designated team leader generally helps to resolve disputes among team members and to communicate with the court. To protect their therapeutic alliance with a family member, therapists should not take on the responsibility for decision making about parenting schedules or other coparenting issues. However, their input and views can be communicated, preferably confidentially, to the decision maker, who takes responsibility for decisions and works diligently to protect therapeutic relationships.

Communication. A clear understanding about how team members will communicate consistent

with court orders and confidentiality agreements is necessary. Questions to be addressed are whether professionals can communicate with each other over the phone, whether they can meet periodically in case conferences, the extent of documentation, and the responsibility for payment, and whether family members contact their team professionals by telephone, contact them exclusively in writing with a copy to others, or raise issues only in scheduled sessions.

Keeping on track. Effective team functioning in child alienation cases requires defining, updating, and reaching consensus in clinical goals; having periodic case conferences; documenting each professional’s continuing role; and ensuring that treatment is as cost-effective as possible. Differences in positions regarding the case conceptualization, clinical goals, or specific roles must be resolved through case conferences and ultimately by the judicial decision maker.

Linkage to the authority of the court. Either through direct channels to the judicial officer

or delegation to a team leader (special master or coparenting arbitrator), the ability to codify

decisions and agreements as court orders is essential. Although the goal is to move the family

outside of the legal system, it may be necessary at times to have the case return to the judicial

officer for review and decision making if the case is not progressing.

SPECIAL ISSUES IN CHILD ALIENATION

In some extreme cases, children’s alienation from a parent is so chronic, internalized, and entrenched that any intervention is likely to fail (Gardner, 1992; Garrity & Barris, 1994;

Johnston & Roseby, 1997). In general, the children are older adolescents, and the cases

involve multigenerational family issues, significant personality pathology in the parent(s),

and long-standing reinforcement of the alienation in the surrounding family and professional

system, The choices in these cases may be limited to structural interventions that effectively

designate the custody to one of the parents or neither. They include changing custody to rejected parents temporarily or permanently, working with rejected parents to let go of pursuing contact with the child at least on a temporary basis (see Johnston et al., 2001), and placing the child outside the custody of either parent, for example, in a boarding school. The latter choice is less common but may provide the least detrimental alternative for the adolescent in the long term.

Helping rejected parents let go of their active pursuit of a relationship. In chronic and

very severe alienation, it is sometimes impossible to help rejected parents restore a viable

relationship with their children, despite repeated well-conceived interventions to address the

alienation. Some older children simply refuse all contact and all treatment efforts. In such

instances, interventions that “punish” the child (and aligned parent) by placing them in criminal

facilities are clearly not in their best interest. Even placement of children in mental

health facilities is not warranted solely by the existence of alienation. In some of the most

entrenched cases, forcing reunification is not indicated and, indeed, is not possible. Alternatively,

after exhausting all avenues, including years of litigation, one approach is a carefully crafted therapeutic session with the rejected parent and the child. In this strategic intervention,

the rejected parent tells the child that they will no longer fight through legal channels to

try to restore the relationship, that they love the child and wish they could be together again

but see that currently that is not possible for the child. The rejected parent expresses sadness,

invites the child to call or write anytime in the future when the child would like to have contact,

and withdraws. It is advantageous for the parent to give the child the same message in writing as well as in person.

Placing the child in a residential setting. In some extremely entrenched cases, the least

detrimental alternative for older children and adolescents may be to find a placement outside

the custody of either parent. Criteria for this are as follows: (a) the child, usually an adolescent,

is functioning quite poorly; (b) alienation is occurring, either unilaterally by the aligned

parent or by both parents in a more shared physical custody; (c) there is intense, chronic conflict

between the parents that is damaging the child; (d) the placement option, usually a boarding school, can provide a positive, conflict-free environment, ideally with some regular therapeutic component; and (e) the array of interventions recommended in this article have been attempted and failed or are not available.

Contrary to what is often asserted by child custody experts and parental alienation advocacy

groups (Rand, 1997), there is little empirical research evidence to support any one specific

intervention, such as changing custody, in the severe, chronic cases (Ellis, 2000).

 

Appendix

Potential Roles on Collaborative Teams

The Judicial officer. As indicated earlier, the continuity of a family court judge providing legal case

management and readily accessible decision making is essential to the success of the case. Having a

judge who understands the legal history and complexities of an alienation case often prevents a disgruntled parent from initiating endless relitigation.

The special master or coparenting arbitrator. This court-appointed role, filled by either an experienced mental health or legal professional, is best suited for team leadership. If authorized by the court, the special master can take on numerous functions, including child-specific decision making, case management, further assessment as needed, structural interventions that are legally binding, and immediate conflict resolution through mediation, negotiation, and other settlement strategies.

The child therapist. This mental health professional establishes a confidential relationship with the

child, focused on the dynamics of the child’s alienation. They may see the child individually or, in addition, may do conjoint coparenting counseling with the parents in their treatment (see Johnston et al., 2001).

The parents’ therapists. If parents have therapists, they must be part of the collaborative team.

Although this necessitates some modification of traditional confidentiality (see earlier discussion),

having parents’ therapists participate in a team conference can be the most potent family intervention in the case, Not surprisingly, the dynamics at the professional level often parallel and reinforce the dynamics at the family level, and until these are explored and resolved (with the team leader acting as systems therapist to the professionals), progress will be limited.

The coparent counselor. This professional does not have formal child-related decision-making

authority but should document agreements that the parents make in their sessions. The coparent counselor provides a structured forum to begin more constructive parental engagement (see Johnston et al., 2001). The focus with parents includes psychoeducation to build empathy for the child and each other’s position, sorting out concerns and addressing legitimate ones, building communication skills and more functional problem solving, and assisting in parental decision making. The counselor can work both conjointly and separately with the parents separately and must be well informed by the existing court orders in the case. It is quite helpful to have mediation training and experience to take on this role.

The parents’attorneys. The parents’ attorneys, by virtue of their advocacy stance and limited perspectives, may exacerbate alienation processes (see Kelly & Johnston, 2001). Their support of and involvement with the team, through their relationship with the team leader, may be essential to progress. Attorneys often have a strong alliance with their clients that can be a benefit or a liability to clinical goals in alienation cases. Their understanding and involvement with the clinical team is often instrumental in keeping the case from moving repeatedly back into the adversarial system.

The child’s attorney or Guardian ad litem. If the child’s attorney or Guardian ad litem has a reasonable understanding of the alienation dynamics and therefore represents the best interests of the child, rather than the expressed wishes of the child, they can be a valuable asset to the team, particularly in representing older children. Their liaison function to the court and the parents’ attorneys are particularly advantageous.

Source: Freeman, R, Abel, D, Cowper-Smith, M, & Stein, L (2004). RECONNECTING CHILDREN WITH ABSENT PARENTS: A Model for Intervention. FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 42 No. 3, July 2004 439-459.

During the past decade, Families in Transition (FIT)’ has received an increasing number

of requests to help reconnect a child with a parent who has been absent from the child’s life

for 3 months or more. To more fully understand the needs of this group of children and parents,

we conducted a qualitative analysis of reconnection cases seen at FIT in the 5-year period ending in April 2002.’ The data suggest that children lose contact with a parent for a variety of reasons (Hawthorne, Jessop, Pryor, & Richards, 2002; Trinder, Beek, & Connolly, 2002), including, but not limited to, child adjustment (Emery, 1994; Freeman, 200 1 ; Freeman & Freeman, 2001, in press; Galatzer-Levy & Kraus, 1999; Johnston, 1993; Pryor & Rodgers, 2001; Smith & Gollop, 2001 ; Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1996; Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000), ongoing parental conflict that includes behaviors typically associated with child-parent alienation (Bala et al., 2001 ; Baris et al., 2001; Birnbaum & Radovanovic, 1999; Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Wall et al., 2002), the diminished capacity of one or both parents (Garrity & Baris, 1994; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Le Bourdais, Juby, & Marcil- Gratton, 2001; Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1996), and the separation adjustment of the absent parent (Wallerstein & Corbin, 1988).

Factors that precipitate reconnection range from the child’s age to an application for child support and changes in the absent parent’s mental health status. Regardless of the stated reason, in some situations we observe that the absent parent seems to be using the reconnection attempt to resurrect a relationship with a former partner. As children grow older, they may express a strong desire to reconnect with an absent parent in much the same way that many adopted children seek out the biological parents. In other cases, there is a threat of legal action or a court order requiring the resumption of child-parent contact. In many instances, the court imposes a strict timeline for a face-to-face meeting between the child and the absent parent.

When an absent parent requests reconnection, the residential parent usually expresses

concerns. Their worries range from issues such as the quality and nature of the child’s relationship

with the absent parent to the sustainability of this relationship and the impact of reconnection on the child. Some residential parents fear for their safety or the child’s safety. In other cases, the residential parent’s reluctance reflects his or her needs, rather than the child’s best interests or wishes.

Reconnections are elusive. In many of the attempted reconnections we reviewed, a faceto-

face meeting did not occur. When it does occur, the relationship is often not sustained, leading to further disappointment and adjustment difficulties for the child. Despite the acknowledged importance of children having the psychological freedom to develop relationships with both parents, our search of the divorce literature provided no guidance as to indications and contraindications to guide a successful reconnection process. We did not find any specific models or protocols for therapeutic interventions to support children and parents during a reconnection process. Therefore, our team developed a model to guide our work with families attempting reconnection. This article outlines our clinical approach, discusses the ethical dilemmas practitioners encounter, and suggests future directions for research and practice.

The key learnings that emerge from our work to date are the importance of the following:

pacing the pacing the reconnection process and developing a child-centered timeline, ensuring that safety and risk are adequately assessed and strategies for ensuring the physical and psychological safety of the child and parents are dcveloped, assessing carefully and providing therapeutic support for the child and parent, assigning each parent with his or her own therapist, and ensuring thatongoing consultation and support is available for the therapist/case manager.

A MODEL FOR SUPPORTING CHILD-PARENT RECONNECTIONS

The reconnection process is complex, and families encounter numerous difficulties in building and sustaining the relationship between a child and an absent parent. Consequently, interventions that support child adjustment need to be carefully crafted. The model for intervention is discussed in the sections that follow and involves seven phases:

Our goals during this phase of the work are to do the following:

Variables Influencing The Reconnection Process

Historical Variables–

was activated prior to his or her absence from the

involved in caring for the child?)

Variables Emerging at Reconnection–

behaviors experienced by child

depression (sadness for children)

child’s

for their behavior

resentment and conflict

health issues as well as substance abuse issues

partners

Copyright Dr. Marvin Acklin. Local Value Pesence.