Transcript Interventions in Alienated Families

Interventions With Alienated
Families
Peggie Ward, PhD
Co-Parenting Assessment Center
Natick, MA 016760
[email protected]
Early Warning Signs of
Alienation in Court Cases




Transition times - child late drop off,
child difficulty leaving car, parents’
unmonitored hostility toward other
Contact time - child resistant to visit
Connection time - child refusal to talk on
phone, connect via e-mail,
Aligned parent time - child increasingly
home sick, child late to school
Conflict and Child Confusion: Pre-Separation
Parent
A
Parent
B
School
Activities
Extended
Family
Parent A
Friends
Community
Extended
Family
Parent B
Conflict Free Sphere
Conflict and Child Confusion PreSeparation





Free give and take of information
between and amongst family and others
Decisions made by one or both Parents
Child has free access to most feelings “I
think … I feel … I act
Power dynamic is stable
Child DOES NOT feel caught
Separation Announced - Hostility Increased
Parent A’s
Family Involved
Parent
A
Parent
B
Parent B’s
Family Involved
Community
Aware - but
Child not yet
Pulled in
School
Teacher
Alerted
Coaches,
Music teachers
Other activity directors
Alerted
Friends stay outside the
Conflict
Conflict free zone invaded
Separation Announced - Hostilities Begin
(assuming this is a high conflict case)





Child’s sphere is invaded
Child begins to feel pulled by parents
Child’s feelings compromised (fear,
worry, confusion, withdrawal, anger)
Child feels decreased power
Child feels increased helplessness with
fewer outlets
Court Process Begins
Parent
A
Parent
B
Parent B
Extended
family
More
involved
Parent
A
Extended
Family
Attorney A
Attorney B
School
guidance
Activities:
Increased pull
Who will drive
Who will go
Friends:
Know more as
Parents talking
To their friends
GAL Process
Therapist A
Family Therapist
Court Papers
Left out
Conflict Free Zone Disappears - Child Pulled to Choose
Conflict Free Zone Disappears






Child feels world invaded
Child no longer focused on child activities
Child beginning to hide feelings
Child moves closer to parent with whom
child has been closer (Parent A)
Child moves away from Parent B
Parent A and B take up their separate roles
and include their allies, neighbors, friends
Child is Internally Divided but
has externally chosen
Child Cut off
From those outside
The conflicted
Sphere (as adaptive
Mechanism toward
People with whom
Child has been most
Comfortable in past)
Child Involved with
This portion of world
Players now in the system
Child
Parent
A
Parent
B
Parent
A
Family
Parent
B
Family
Teach- All
er’s & Activit
Coun- ies
selors
Child
Friends
Comm AttoruniNey A
ty
AttorNey
B
TX
Indi.
Fam.
GAL
Court
My Brain - 11 yr. old Brian
I’m confused. I used to have a left
brain and a right brain and they
used to work. Now I have a mom
brain and a dad brain, and I have
to shut one off when I’m at the
other’s house.
I’m confused - not about where
I’m staying but about who I am
Continuum of Pre-Separation
Relationships
Positive Relationship with both parents
Affinity with one parent (normal, no war, child still interested
in relationship with both parents)
Alignment/alliance with one parent (child closer to one, some
ambivalence about other/ variety of reasons (poor parenting
by one, exaggerated connection with other, sabotage, abuse)
Clear ambivalence about one parent/ child spending less time
Child seeks out company of only one parent
Post Separation Relationship
Positive relationship with both parents
Affinity with one parent - child still in contact with both,
normal developmental choices
Alliance - child prefers one parent - makes choice clear, some
ambivalence still present
Resistance - child not want to spend time with the other
parent ? Realistic concern (poor parenting, abuse, other safety
issues)? Unrealistic - sabotage by other parent ? Adaptive
choice - get out of the middle and choose safe haven.
Is Any Part of the Continuum
Unreasonable?Stoltz and Ney 2002 FCR




Child’s response is reasonable given the
adversarial context (can’t say if not abuse
then must be alienation)
Need for rapid, comprehensive diagnostic
emphasized
Child is in a DOUBLE BIND: “Stay engaged
with both parents” and “Choose me”
Child can be “reasonably alienated” and it is
still alienation - a reasonable response to an
unreasonable system
The Whole System becomes
the Problem - one Solution:




For the child: most healthy choice may be
rejection of a parent. Define the problem as
“resistance” (to contact) and assess
resistance from all parts
The whole system is thus involved in the
solution
The problem is “outside” the system, and is
not one person to blame or label
People will work on solving a problem but
may not work on why they ARE the problem
Variables to Identify
If you know how you arrived at a
certain place, you may know how
to get back - those who do not
know history are doomed to
repeat it
Lee and Oleson: FCR 2001
Child Variables - Family
System






Age and Stage - can they consolidate a
negative image and hold it, tolerate
ambivalence, black/white, rigid cognition
Moral - junior investigator - find out who is
lying
Emotional security - enmeshment
Abuse or trauma - HX crucial and current
Personality - needs to preserve core identity lack of a cohesive sense of self is major
concern
Peers - positive relationships or beginning of
Child Assessment








Motivation/? need to take this position
Context in which position emerged
Process by which position became solidified
Detailed description of events in question
Consistency of events described
Language used in description of events
Rigidity of thought surrounding events
Trauma to child? Result of abuse or
alienation
Parent Variables in System







Authoritative vs. authoritarian or lax
Warm/loving/involved vs. passive, neglectful
uninvolved
Self confident vs. anxious, fearful, paranoid
Own identity vs. intrusive, psychological
needy, role reversal
Protective of child vs. abusive or part of
abuse system
Empathy for child vs. counter rejecting or
blame
Parent disposable vs. value to child of both
Therapeutic Management of
Reunification adapted from Hewitt 1994



Court ordered, one person direct the case
Review file COMPLETELY before start/ Make certain
an assessment has been carefully done and Orders
are in Place
PREPARATION: (STAGE ONE)
Meet with Aligned Parent
Meet with Child
Meet with Aligned Parent and Child
Meet with rejected parent
Meet with aligned parent and rejected parent together
Meet with child(ren) to discuss plans
Aligned Parent






Review Process - begin support
Discuss ALL areas of concern (parents and
yours) (this may take several meetings, cover
issues from assessment)
Discuss anxiety, fear, powerlessness openly
Help separate parent’s own HX from that of
child
Get detailed child HX/ discuss problem of
resistance for child
Remove parent from role of “investigator”
(what other parent has done wrong) to
“parent” - active listening, accept, reflect not
Meeting with Child




Tell child about therapeutic process, TX role, create
safety rules, see situations from many views as well
as Court Mandate for Contact
Tell child - no more ?? about who did what to whom
and when; they are not an investigator. Child’s role help family understand the resistance so they can all
help in addressing it
Observe if child feel ambivalence: if yes amplify
Make list of what would make things better for child
with each parent
Meet with Aligned Parent and
Child



Aligned parent encouraged to support to child
in meetings - i.e. to give permission for
meetings to occur, for child to have own
thoughts
Other parent and I - not friends (or whatever
words chosen) - but child must see other
parent
Child’s lists are discussed -parent helps (if
can) modify list, add areas to address and
most importantly feels involved in the process
Meet with Rejected Parent





Explain process of therapeutic management/
family TX and answer all questions
Hear rejected parent’s version of allegations,
concerns, feelings about child
Show Parent child’s list, get feedback, create
list that includes all parts of child’s list that are
mutually of concern and open for discussion
Discuss any ground rules child wants/needs,
add your own as they fit the situation
Make careful plan for arrival and departure
times for child contact with rejected parent
Meet with Aligned Parent and
Rejected Parent




Appreciate they are willing to work together
Educate on potential problems children face
who lose one parent
Refine earlier discussion _ Resistance is the
problem, bring out flip chart and show what
would make things better for child
Agree NOT to ask child about meetings, AP
not make plans when child with RP, AP may
intervene if child rude to RJ
Meet with Child for
Preparation
THE SPECIFICS
 Involve child in planning, and help set rules
(where parent sit, no yelling, flip chart with
child’s list and parent’s concerns (from
previous meetings - what do during session)
 Explain that talk time and building/creating
more positive thoughts time separate initially
(structure)
 Brainstorm who resistance helps, who it
hurts, how would things be different without it
(make clear, parent is pursuing the
relationship, the choice not to is not an
option)
Child and rejected parent





Rules discussed, plan followed, comfort level
established, resistance defined,
brainstorming
Work begins - RP not angry, wants to work
with child, no retributions, understands child’s
resistance
Discuss all ideas that came up in
brainstorming, add your own if need be.
RP explain to child his/her understanding of
how got to this problem, thoughts to make it
better.
After specified time of working with RP and
child, “reward with a game or cards or
Follow up - with each member





Any behavior changes, any symptoms, any
positive contact
What each person liked and didn’t, is
comfortable or isn’t
Meet with pairs as appropriate to deal with
anxieties, stressors
Meet further with child and RJ or AP to
continue work on issues as needed
When comfortable - take meetings out of
office - walk, snack, park (with knowledge of
AP)
Goals for Intervention





Immediate Evaluation
Abuse/ trauma clearly
ruled out
Continue contact
One person or team
intervention
Address all system
issues (first slides)
PROBLEMS:
Slow court process
Inadequate evaluation
TX not designed with
family system in mind
Lack of rapid decision
making authority
One parent has put the
child into TX