Transcript Slide 1

AFCC REGIONAL TRAINING CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 2007
INSTITUTE: THE PARENTING
COORDINATION PROCESS
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN
SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
(Module 2)
Christine Coates, J.D.
Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D.
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
CONFLICT AFTER SEPARATION:
IMPLICATIONS FOR PARENTING COORDINATION
• Conflict expected in first 2-3 years (see
Ahrons, Maccoby & Mnookin, Wallerstein
& Kelly, Hetherington, et. al. Wallerstein
et.al)
• High conflict: Estimates from 10 - 25 %
• Long standing and enduring pattern of
behavior/conflict
Prevalence
Divorce/
Separation
Low
Conflict
Acute Reaction Period
Conflict
Stabilizers
0-4 Years
High Conflict
Perpetuators
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
CONFLICT POST-SEPARATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR PC
• Other processes have failed to resolve issues
• Exhausted resources: Have had numerous
lawyers, multiple agencies, therapists
(“shopping” for the right one)
• Prone to litigation, numerous attendances at
court, aka “frequent flyers”
• Can have one enraged, one disengaged
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
ASSESSMENT OF CONFLICT
• Need to consider degree and nature of conflict
• Need to consider/assess the impasse; where it
comes from; degree and type of conflict
• Garrity and Baris (1994); clinical tool
• Trend to develop tools so as to better identify
best intervention based on level of conflict
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Sources of Impasse: Johnston & Campbell, ‘88
Three Levels of Impasse
• Concentric Circle depiction
• Three levels impasse:
– External
– Interactional
– Intrapsychic
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Sources of Impasse: Johnston & Campbell, ‘88
EXTERNAL-SOCIAL
• Tribal warfare (friends, neighbors, family, new
partners)
• Role of mental health, professionals, lawyers,
educators
• Multiple allegations to CPS, police
• Role of court/judge; litigation
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Sources of Impasse: Johnston & Campbell, ‘88
INTERACTIONAL
• Legacy of a destructive marriage
• Ambivalent separation – shattered dreams
• Traumatic separation – negative
reconstruction
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Sources of Impasse: Johnston & Campbell, ‘88
INTRAPSYCHIC
• Vulnerability to loss
– Prior traumatic loss
– Separation-individuation conflicts (diffuse, counterand oscillating dependency)
• Vulnerability to humiliation/shame
– Mild – specific acknowledgment
– Moderate – projects total blame
– Severe – paranoia
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
HIGH CONFLICT: PERSONALITY DISORDERS
• Dispute/conflict stress exacerbates existing
characteristics, personality structure, defense/coping
mechanisms
• May function adequately in other areas in life
• 60% of high conflict parents have personality disorders
• Most common traits/disorders: Narcissistic, Histrionic,
Borderline, Paranoid, Anti-social
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
HIGH CONFLICT: PERSONALITY DISORDERS
THREE DIMENSIONS
• Thinking: perceiving, interpreting selves, others, events
• Feeling/ Impulse Control (Modulation of Affect):
-ability to manage, restrain impulses
- range, intensity, stability, modulation,
appropriateness
• Interpersonal Functioning & Parenting:
– style and nature of relationships
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
HIGH CONFLICT: PERSONALITY DISORDERS
Thinking:
•
•
•
•
Idealization – devaluation
Rigid VS Flexible
Inability to take another’s perspective
Externalize blame, deny responsibility,
complaints
• Distort reality, suspicious, even paranoid
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
HIGH CONFLICT: PERSONALITY DISORDERS
Feeling
•
•
•
•
•
Exaggerations, drama
Childlike, charming, seductive
Fluctuating moods; unpredictable
Poor impulse control; outbursts
Critical, hostile, disparaging, attacking
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
HIGH CONFLICT: PERSONALITY DISORDERS
Interpersonal:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Needy, demanding, high expectations
Strong sense of entitlement, grandiosity
Intimacy limited, shallow
Projection
Oppositional, power/control struggles
High defensive, easily offended
Little insight into own part, role in conflict
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
HIGH CONFLICT: PERSONALITY DISORDERS
Parenting:
• Emotionally and developmentally similar to
children
• Unable to separate their needs/feelings,
experiences from child’s
• Over identify with child, enmeshment
• May depend over rely on child, parentified child
Coparenting and The PC
Process
Structural Transition From
Nuclear To Binuclear
– Adequate functioning in each subsystem
– Adequate functioning between subsystem
– A set timeshare schedule
Coparenting After Divorce
Level
Of
LOW
Engagement
HIGH
Level
LOW
Parallel
40%
Cooperative
25%
HIGH
Mixed
20%
Conflicted
15%
Of
Conflict
Parallel Parenting
Low conflict/low communication
• Emotional disengagement
• Kelly and Emery (2003) - children’s
adjustment similar to cooperative if
respective households adequate
• PC as “interface”
• Change versus management
The tragic legacy of the
Litigation Context
• Litigants don’t make good coparents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Representation - advocacy
Distrust
Sabotage
Win/lose
Chaos
Unilateral action
In the name of the child
Focus on the problem being the other parent -advesaries
Depleted resources - financial,emotional
Coparent training in the PC
Process
• Clear demarcation of new ADR process
– Let go of the legal/adversarial process
– The rules are changing
– You don’t have to work with the other parent,
just with the PC and the rules
– Disengagement with the coparent, moving
towards functional engagement
• Manageability, protection
Boundaries
• Two ways to get into trouble with
boundaries:
• Faulty Rules
• Failure to maintain Boundaries
• Faulty Rules
– Explicit, detailed policies and procedures as a
tool for setting appropriate boundaries. The
rules of the relationship.
– Slippage do to your stuff and/or the client’s stuff becomes
evident when you rules are violated
• Failure to Maintain boundaries
– Challenges come in two ways
• Pulls - idealization, need, money, celebrity
– More seductive, gratifying
• Pushes - devaluation, Demand, threat, criticism,
questioning
– Hard to stand up to
• Limit setting, training the clients
– What behavioral theory tells us
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clearly defined expectations of behavior
Consistent response
Timely response
Compassionate firmness
Depersonalize
Consequence fits the violation
Disengagement: Structuring
Coparenting in H-C situations
• The PC is the interface between the
parents – Titrating the communication/contact so that it
is functional and manageable
–
–
–
–
–
Face to face meetings - structure
Telephone conference calls
Email - timely, can control receipt, response, documented
Fax, letter
No contact, except through PC
Functions Of The PC Role
• Alternative court-sanctioned dispute
resolution
•
•
•
•
Timely
Proactive
Without judgment
Establishing protocols, reciprocity
Case Management
• Structure the coparenting process
– Specifying, interpreting and modifying the parenting
plan
– Reduce the need for information sharing and decision
making
– Coordinate professional interventions
• Collaborative teams
– Documentation
Monitoring And Limit setting
• Behavioral models
– Objective, Immediate feedback, consistent
response, criteria for consequences
• Sanctions
• Use of the Court
Coparent Work
• “Therapeutic” case management
• Diagnose the impasse
• The context surrounding the coparents
• Spousal relationship vs. parental
relationship
• Reconstructing images of each other
• Selfish altruism
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
CHILDREN’S ADJUSTMENT TO
SEPARATION & DIVORCE
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment
DEBATE
• Discrepancies in literature and research data re:
divorce adjustment
• Debate: Wallerstein VS most others (e.g.,
Hetherington, Kelly, Fabricus, Braver, Emery)
• Substantial risk VS overwhelming resilience?
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment
Discrepancies Reconciled? (Emery, Amato)
• Divorce associated with greater risk AND
• Most children are resilient AND
• Many report substantial and continuing pain
• Can be both PAIN AND RESILIENCE
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment
OVERVIEW: 5 KEY CONCLUSIONS FROM RESEARCH
1. Divorce creates a number of stressors for children
and families, AND
2. Divorce is a risk factor for psychological problems
among children, BUT
3. Resilience is the normative outcome of divorce for
children, STILL
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: 5 Key Conclusions
4. There are important “costs of coping”
– painful feelings, memories, events AND
5. Individual differences in children’s divorce
outcome are influenced by qualities of postdivorce family life, family process variables,
especially:
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: Process Variables
a. quality of child’s relationship with both parents;
b. mental health and adjustment of the parents;
c. parenting competence of both parents
d. degree of parental conflict and how the children
are involved in it
e. family’s economic standing
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: Stressors
#1. Stressors:
•
Economic Hardship
•
Physical Changes:
– relocation to another jurisdiction
common
– residential move, sometimes multiple
moves
– school changes
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: Stressors
• Loss of important relationships:
– peer relationship changes
– loss of contact with both parents; often abrupt
– 18-25% have no contact with fathers 2-3 yrs
after divorce
– mother often returns to work; mother’s
overwhelmed, less time for children
– explanation for separation
• Remarriage and repartnering:
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: Process Variables
#5. Key Conclusions: Family Process Variables:
• Parents’ Conflict: before, during and after
separation
• Parents’ Psychological Adjustment
• Parenting Competence
– Authoritative VS Authoritarian VS Permissive
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: Process Variables
– Mothers: poorer parenting (less warm, more
rejecting, harsher punishment)
– Fathers: withdraw from kids, more intrusive
interactions with kids
• Parent-Child Relationships
– impact of conflict
– impact of parenting
– relates to loss, absence, contact
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: Father Loss, Absence &
Contact
-
father absence literature
– negative impact growing up without fathers
– father’s can parent as well as mothers;
parent differently
– generally positive impact of NCP on child
adjustment when NCP remains involved,
provides guidance, discipline, supervision,
involvement in school (meta-analyses)
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: Father Loss, Absence, &
Contact
– active, competent and involved Dad -> ++ adjustment
– good Father/child relationship related to positive
outcomes
– good Dad/Child relationship buffers compromised
Mom/Child relationship
– involvement in variety of activities across domains
– frequency of time with NRP NOT best predictor
– quality of time is better predictor
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
Children’s Adjustment: Father Loss, Absence, &
Contact
(ii) Retrospective Studies (Emery, Fabricus, LaumannBillings, Parkinson et. al.)
(iii) Frequency of Father-child Contact & Adjustment
•
Divorced & non-divorced do better having warm and
positive relationships with two involved parents
•
Negative effects of divorce mitigated by good
relationships with two involved parents
•
Less robust differences for depression, anxiety and self
esteem
Parenting Timeshare Plans
• General considerations for timeshare
• AFCC “Shared Parenting” booklet/AAML Model
• For younger children, short separations from both
parents
• Regular interactions in diverse contexts
• Overnights (controversy)
• Equal time not necessary - roughly 30+% is fine, if
distributed well
General Considerations
– Continuity with both parents is extremely
important
• Psychological relationships with both
• Psychosocial development and development of
other relationships
• Routines are very important for younger children
High Conflict Considerations
For Transitions
– Transitions at day care
– Use of babysitter or extended family
– Parent counselor or mediator
– Highly structured parenting plan
– Use of daily journals/email
Understanding The Child
• Developmental concerns
– See AFCC booklet
• Attachment concerns
• Secure/insecure
• gatekeeping
• Conflict related concerns
• Temperament concerns
• Continuum from vulnerable to resilient
Evolving Parenting Plans
• Setting expectations
• Relationships with both parents are meaningful and help
shape the child’s emotional and overall development
• The continuity/change tension
• Developmental considerations
– Up to school age, school age, adolescence
• Constructing a collaborative process
• Timelines for review(s)
• Criteria for review
– parenting focused, child focused, coparenting focused
• Procedure for review
INVOLVEMENT OF
CHILDREN
REASONS FOR AND AGAINST
• Make decision carefully. Do not rush to include
– Assessment phase VS for specific issue
• Consider risks/benefits: “Do no harm” VS minimize
harm
• May assist with parents’ confidence and trust in PC
• May detract from parents’ confidence and trust in PC
REASONS FOR AND AGAINST
• Children deserve to be heard
• Research that kids do better when they have input-perceived control
• What they want is not equal to what is best for them
• Children don’t always make good decisions
REASONS FOR AND AGAINST
• Interpret and weigh, not only obtain child’s input:
– consider their competence
– consider overall functioning
– consider factors that detract from that competence
– consider views/input/preferences re: what?
– consider context i.e., high conflict divorce
– consider how voluntary the input is
– pressured? alignments? alienation?
TYPES OF SITUATIONS/ISSUES
• Changes in usual residential schedule not mandate of PC
• Activities/Camp: What? Who attends? Parent behavior?
• Change of School
• Special events requiring temporary changes to schedule
• Small change to usual schedule (e.g. adding in Sun o/n)?
• To assess (and/or arbitrate) child’s need to attend
therapy/decide if child sees therapist child’s need for
therapist or not
• Short term education/coaching (not ongoing therapy)
e.g., managing parental conflict, separation, peer
relationships
• “Therapeutic access”; parent-child reintegration,
parent-child “mediation”, education and/or coaching
INTRODUCING PROCESS
• How you begin will depend on age of child and what
they know
• Prior to seeing child talk to parents about:
– What child knows and does not know
– What the child-related issues are
– What the child is like (likes, dislikes, interests,
temperament, maturity, personality, academically,
socially, etc.)
• Do family interview:
– Socializing stage
– What does the child know about coming?
– Have each parent give child permission:
1. to be open and honest?
2. to not worry about parents’ feelings (they
can take care of themselves)?
– Parents to promise/reassure that they will not
question children afterwards
Interviewing Considerations
• To assess level of thinking/comprehension
• Ask simple questions they can answer
• Distinguish: “I don’t know” VS “I don’t understand” VS
“I don’t want to say”
CONFIDENTIALITY
• Tricky Issue
• Don’t make promises you can’t keep
CONFIDENTIALITY
• Does child want PC to share the information with
parent?
• Explore topics child wants kept private from parents
• Does child want help from PC to speak with the
parent about a sensitive topic?
CONFIDENTIALITY
• Use discretion
• If necessary:
– present themes to parents, not specifics
– don’t identify specific child as source of
information
– Seek multiple sources of information
INTERVIEWING TIPS AND TECHNIQUES
“Give me your evidence and don’t be nervous or I’ll
have you executed on the spot”
`Lewis Caroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, 1865
HOW CHILDREN THINK
•
6 – 11 Year Olds:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Concrete, literal (in comprehension and response)
Only answer questions you ask
Difficulty with hypothetical: “what ifs” (are likely to guess)
Never ask child to guess
Avoid “Do you remember…
Don’t ask “why” questions: perceive blame, responsibility
(egocentric)
– Can’t project time: e.g., “What would it be like to have 5 days
with….?”
• 12 and older:
–
–
–
–
Developing abstract reasoning skills
Better conception/sense of time
Often seek fairness and justice
May focus on own needs
CONTINUUM OF SUGGESTIVENESS IN QUESTIONS
• Open-ended
• Focused/Direct
• Leading questions
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
• Come from child’s free recall memory
• Most accurate, least amount of information
• Dependent on age, ability, trauma
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
•
•
•
•
“Do you know who I am?”
“Do you know why you have come here today?”
“What did your mom/dad tell you?”
“Do you know why your mom/dad live in two different
homes?”
• “What did mom/dad tell you?”
• “Tell me what you do for fun with mom/dad
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
•
•
•
•
“Tell me more about ….”
“And then what happened?”
“What happened next?”
“Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Can you
try again?”
• “Before you said…..Can you tell me more about
that?”
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
• “What do you think might be important for me to
know”
• “Is there anything you want me to tell your parents?”
• “What advice do you have for your parents?”
• “Pretend I am the magic genie from Aladdin. What
are your 3 wishes?”
• “If you had a magic wand and could change
something about mom/dad/brother/sister/self, what
would it be?”
• At end, “Is there anything else you want to tell me?”
“Do you have any questions?
FOCUSING QUESTIONS
• “Wh” questions
• Direct attention to specific topic (details):
• New partner
• Rules and routines
• Parental conflict
• What happens when parent gets mad?
• Schedule, transitions
• Activities (type and both parents’ presence)
• Risk/harm (punishment, domestic violence, alcohol)
FOCUSING QUESTIONS
•
•
•
•
Elaborating on child’s input
Multiple choice questions: limit to 3
Explore whether routine or exception
Avoid bias: Give all options, not just the ones that you
think support your hypothesis (2 choices, feel he/she
must pick one)
• Yes/no question: Use on limited basis, followed by
“Tell me more about that.”
LEADING QUESTIONS
• Avoid them
• Avoid coercive questions
• Eg., “You’re telling the truth, aren’t you?
• You’re not making that up, are you?
• Don’t you want to live with your mother more?
• Doesn’t your father make you feel sorry for
her?
MORE PRACTICE TIPS
• Use child’s words; not yours
• Be reassuring:
– “Is it hard to talk about that”?
– “I can see you are struggling with that?”
– “Try, it’s ok to talk here.”
MORE PRACTICE TIPS
•
Short, simple VS run-on sentences with multiple questions
• Try to finish one topic and at time
• Try not to move back and forth in chronological time
• Give some indication/signal of shifting topics
• Allow time (count to 10) before you rephrase or ask question
again, or go on to new question
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
IMPACT OF PARENTAL
CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
• Can be more or less conflict after VS before separation
• More sophisticated research on effects of conflict:
– intensity of it
– how the child is involved
– role/function he/she plays
• No studies that examine/identify threshold of conflict
necessary to undermine the benefits to children of
continuing contact with both parents
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
• Varied findings likely due to different measures of conflict
and adjustment
• Failure to differentiate between types of conflict; parental
styles of conflict resolution, and extent of direct exposure
to anger and conflict
• Conflict most destructive when it is overt, kids used as
messengers and are directly exposed
• Low conflict is a predictor of good adjustment
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
• Impact of post-divorce conflict on later adjustment in
young adults—mixed results
• Due to pre or post marital conflict?
• Kids from high conflict marriages whose parents
separate do better as young adults than those from high
conflict marriages that do not separate
• Kids in low conflict marriages, whose parents’ divorce do
less as young adults VS kids in high conflict marriages
whose parents’ divorce
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
Child’s Adjustment Related To:
• Child’s age at the time of separation
• Gender
• Temperament
strategies for managing stress learned earlier in life
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
Johnston & Campbell ’88
•
4 principle methods children use to cope:
1. MANEUVERING
•
•
•
•
masters at manipulating their parents to get their needs
met
slowly learn to take care of themselves first and always
fail to learn empathy or compassion
become skilled at manipulating others for their own
gain
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
2. EQUILIBRATING
•
•
•
•
diplomats par excellence—mediators
capable of withstanding high degree of conflict
try desperately to keep everything under control.
appear composed, well organized and
competent, while underneath perpetually
anxious
• learn to hide their feelings and to seek safe ways
to stay out of parental disputes
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
3.
MERGING
• enmeshed in the contest between their parents
• lose sense of self: unable to identify own thoughts and
opinions
• arrested at the developmental level of 6 – 8 year old
• continue to side with the parent they are with more of
the time--imitate
• split their identities in half and have little individual sense
of themselves
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
4.
DIFFUSING
•
•
the most dysfunctional and disorganized
respond to parents conflict same way they
respond to other forms of stress
not strong enough to cope with high conflict
unable to develop adequate coping
mechanisms; few resources
shatter emotionally—fall apart
•
•
•
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
Johnston and Roseby ’97
• Disruptions of normal development due to
exposure to contradictory realities of right and
wrong
• Belief in self and competence undermined
• Distortions of information to maintain own view
point
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
Hetherington, Hagen and Anderson (‘89): 3 TYPES
• Aggressive/Insecure:
– low self esteem, poor academic performance
– aggressive impulsive behaviour in home and
school; bully others (modeling)
– 70% unable to preserve close relationships
– boy to girl ratio -> 3:1
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
• Opportunistic and Competent:
– Reminiscent of Johnston & Campbell’s
equilibrating
– very influential and calming, even faced with
high conflict
– diplomatic and able to make friends easily
– difficulty maintaining any depth of peer or
adult relationships/attachments
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN FAMILY
• Caring and competent:
– well adjusted prior to separation
– often have to take care of younger sibs
– able to establish and maintain healthy
relationships
– characterized by affection and compassion
– mostly girls raised by single parent mothers
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN FAMILY
Summary
• Most children do not exhibit clinically significant
symptoms/disorders over the long-term
• Protective factors:
– child’s temperament (resiliency, problem-solving
skills)
– quality of social supports (teachers, daycare) and
familial relationships (with at least one parent; sibs,
grandparents, other family)
– consistent, authoritative parenting
FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
IMPACT OF PARENTAL CONFLICT ON CHILDREN
• Parental fighting years later -> children 2-5x
more likely to develop emotional and/or
behavioral problems
• Most common diagnoses:
– anxiety disorder (NOS)
– oppositional defiant disorder
– adjustment disorder (anxious or depressed
mood)
– conduct disorders
INTERVENTION WITH
ALIENATED CHILDREN AND
THEIR PARENTS: IF, WHEN,
AND HOW DOES IT WORK?
The Model: A Family-Focused
Intervention
• Family-focused intervention presented in Johnston,
Walters & Friedlander (2001) and Sullivan & Kelly
(2001)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Careful assessment
Stipulation or Court Order
Therapeutic work with Aligned Parent (AP)
Therapeutic work with the Rejected Parent (RP)
Therapeutic work with the Alienated Child (AC)
Therapeutic work with selected combinations of family members
CASE MANAGEMENT
Other Interventions
• Internet survey of 1172 Mental Health and Legal
professionals indicates most frequently recommended
intervention for alienated child is individual therapy for
child and for parents (Bow, Gould & Flens, 2006).
• Other interventions
– Rand & Warshak (2006)
– Freeman, Abel, Cowper-Smith & Stein (2004)
Lessons Learned: The
Intervention
• More complex even than the complex
model we outlined
• Reinforce:
– Importance of comprehensive understanding
and formulation
– Importance of including all relevant individuals
in the intervention
– Importance of collaborative Team and Team
Leader
Lessons Learned: Reality
• The model is often neither practical nor realistic
– Time, money, human resources
– Interventions that conform to the model vs.
interventions that are informed by the model
– Intervention with and without the benefit of a Custody
Evaluation
– Intervention with and without the benefit of the “Case
Management” legal structure and support afforded by
Court Orders
Lessons Learned: Outcomes
• Results have been disappointing from
various perspectives
– Amount of time required for the treatment
– Progress and outcomes that sustain
involvement in treatment not quickly achieved
– Need for patience when most other factors
mitigate against patience
– Especially true for RP and the goal of
“reunification”
Lessons Learned: Reminder
• Emphasize that “…reunification with the
rejected parent is not the primary goal of
the intervention…
• “…although it may be a consequence of
achieving the primary goal.”
• Defining the goals of the intervention
Lessons Learned: Reasonable
Expectations
• It is therefore important to:
– Select appropriate cases
– Formulate case-appropriate goals
– Determine a reasonable timetable
• Intervention as a diagnostic process
– Identify areas of relative strength and weakness to specify where
change might occur
– Attention to one component may affect the other—The “bubble
under the rug”
– Open and flexible to revision of focus, goals, etc.
Lessons Learned: Alienation
and Estrangement
• Understanding the nature of the alienation and how it
affects the intervention, the focus, the goals, and the
definition of “success”
• Realization that alienation and estrangement are not
always easily distinguished concepts
– Both alienation and estrangement are often present in the more
difficult, unresponsive cases
– This may limit goals
Lessons Learned: Alienation
Refined
Positive Relationship
Affinity
Alliance
Estranged-----Alienated-------Refusal to Contact
-Communicate Only
-Spends time with RP
Limited Contact
Regular time
Regular timeshare
Lessons Learned: Obstacles to
Progress
• Recognition that each participant has a different agenda, more or
less in their conscious awareness, when entering this work
• Factors outside of awareness often drive this behavior
• Appreciate and respect the role of these less conscious factors
• These factors limit the usefulness of coaching and educative
interventions and extend the time required to achieve goals
• Dumb Spots and Blind Spots
• These factors comprise an initial Wizard’s Sorting Hat for alienation
cases
Lessons Learned: The Rejected
Parent
• Parenting behavior of the RP
– Relationship capacity and parenting skills
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lacks warmth and empathy
Not attuned to child’s feelings and needs
Narcissistic
Controlling
Demanding
Authoritarian
– A common and often fatal mistake is the failure to integrate the reality of
the alienation into the RP’s interaction with the child, especially the
effort to parent and discipline
•
•
•
•
“De-parented”--Role as parent undermined
Responsibility without authority
Parental “rights” vs. child’s feelings and needs
Learning trials vs. Extinction trials
– The myth of “compensatory parenting”
Lessons Learned: Forcing Contact
• Forcing contact does not work…but sometimes it
does
– When the Moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter
aligns with Mars
• May backfire
• Will it create a more “secure base” for the child?
Lessons Learned- The Child
Framing the intervention to maintain focus on the child
• Reasons why the child is at the center of the therapist’s
concern
• Timing/ pacing based on assessment and understanding
of the child
• Potential impact of intervention on the child
• Uncovering the meaningful issues in the P/C
relationships
• Power Issues between parent and child
• Shared control of the agenda
• Safety issues
Placement of the intervention in the
child’s life
AP
Intervention
RP
Child’s Issues at Time of
Reconnection
– Readiness/interest in reconnection (anxiety, anger, longing,
sadness)
– Child’s ability to manage experiences of vulnerability, loss,
disappointment and depression (re RP or AP)
– Child’s experience of parents’ ability to see his/her needs as
separate from their own
• How any obstructing and undermining behaviors by the AP
are experienced by the child
• Impact of parents’ mental health issues, substance abuse
issues, etc. on child (presence of role reversal, enmeshment,
counter-rejection)
Child’s History: Issues Influencing
the Reconnection Process
– Child’s history of being parented/ attached to each parent
– Child’s memories of how actively that parent was involved in
caring for him/her prior to disruption
– Child’s understanding of reasons for divorce and reactions to
divorce for each family member
– Child’s age when disruption in contact with parent occurred
– Child’s understanding of the reasons for disruption of contact
with parent/child’s response to the disruption
– Child’s understanding of how the AP feels about the RP
Child Vulnerabilities:
At-Risk Children
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Temperament- e.g. slow adapting, highly sensitive
Coping- few resources, “extratensive” style
History of separation anxiety/insecure attachments
High Dependency needs
Negative Feelings about school life
Negative Feelings about social life
History of being at center of inter-parental struggle or
between very polarized households
• Burdened & overpowered child (role reversal)
• Abused child (psychological maltreatment)
Protective Factors For The Child
• Resilient Child- easy temperament, high IQ, self-efficacy,
etc.
• Secure attachment to one or more parents
• Good relationships with extended family, including
parents’ new partners
• Good sibling relationships
• Presence of relationships with neutral, supportive
adults/community
• Individual therapy for children
• Economic stability
Lessons Learned: The Aligned
Parent
• Inclusion in treatment
– To assess supportiveness of child having relationship
with other parent
– Clarify possible “Enmeshment”
– Bring into focus possible “alienating behaviors”
– To learn about view of child
– Willingness/Openness to nudge child
• Possible re-establishment of co-parenting
alliance
Lesson’s Learned: Problematic
Aligned Parent
– “Enmeshment”
– Emotionally fragile and needy
– Role reversal
– Indulges and empowers the child
– Helpless in the face of the empowered child
– Compromised ability to parent and discipline
Lesson’s Learned: Structural
Interventions with Alienated Children
• These are the Court Orders that Specify
the parenting plan and family interventions
• Contact specified and non-discretionary
• Clear specifications of therapeutic interventions
• Case Management role essential
• They are necessary, but not sufficient
• You can’t succeed if you are not impeccable about
them, but may not succeed even if you are
Hard Lesson #1
• Must move families out of the legaladversarial context
– Litigants don’t make good coparents
– Conflict is experienced by child as perpetrated
by the rejected parent
– The pressures to align are intensified
– Can’t work when there is a custody dispute
– Creating a collaborative professional system around the
family is extremely difficult
Hard Lesson #2
• Authority is elusive
•
•
•
•
Clear, detailed orders are nice, but try enforcing them
Special Master is a misnomer
Turning to the Court for help is a crap shoot
If you can’t deal with compliance issues, you’ve lost the case
Getting Johnnie to treatment
Getting Johnnie to the visit
• Finding Ways to maintain authority
Hard Lesson #3
• Legal Custody on paper is not worth the paper
it’s written on
–
–
–
–
No Contact with the child, school, activities, etc.
No sharing of information
Marginalization
Mom doesn’t have to deal with dad anymore, why
should I have to?
– Mandate information exchange, coparent structures
you would expect in shared legal custody
Hard Lesson # 4
• Collaborative Professional teams don’t just
form and run themselves
– Finding the right professionals
– Team essentials
–
–
–
–
–
Organization - goals, accountability
Leadership - hierarchy
Communication
Information control/loyalty
Loyalty
Hard Lesson #5
Sometimes all the kings horse and all the kings
men…
Sometimes the least detrimental alternative is ending work on
reunification
Keep child focused
Don’t get into blame and get punitive
interventions carry a cost, resistance can build to the
intervention
older children can be over it
When the Intervention Isn’t
Working
•
•
•
•
Steps to closure
Doors left open
Parting messages
Mapping needs for treatment of individual family
members
• Monitoring for future possibilities
• Who takes the blame for the failure?
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic Violence
•
•
•
•
Effects on children
Traumatic response
Long term effects
Protective factors
Violence And Child Adjustment
• More symptoms in violent H-C than nonviolent H-C
• Higher rates of sibling violence
• More parent-child violence
• PTSD with repeated exposure to violence
• Adolescence exposed to violence commit
more crimes
Family Violence and Parenting
• Violence impacts both parents
negatively
• More physical punishment, controlling
authoritarian discipline, less use of
reasoning
• Abused mothers less warm,
inconsistent, lax discipline, or coercive,
power-assertive style
High Conflict Vs
Abuse/Violence
• Distinction between high conflict
and abuse/violence
• Power and control struggles
common in high conflict non-true
violence-type parents
Conflict Assessment Scale
(based on Garrity and Baris 1994)
MINIMAL
• Cooperative
Co-parenting
MILD
• Occasionally
berates other
parent
MODERATE INTENSE
SEVERE
• Verbal abuse;
no history of
violence
• Parent(s) in
•Endangerment
physical danger or abuse of
due to contact
child.
• Conflicts
• Occasional
resolved
verbal quarrels
between adults in front of child
• Loud quarrels
in front of
child
• Separate own
needs from
children’s
• Threats of
violence,
• Drug or
limiting
alcohol abuse
access, litigation
• Denigration
of other parent • Attempts to
to child
alienate child
from other
parent
• Questions child
re: personal life
of other parent
• Validates,
•Occasional
supports other attempts to form
parent to child coalition with
child against
other parent
• Emotional
endangerment
of child
• Severe
parental
psychopathology
DV Definition
• FC Section 3044 (CA):
• A person has perpetrated domestic violence when he or she is
found by the court to have intentionally or recklessly caused or
attempted to cause bodily injury, or sexual assault, or to have
placed a person in reasonable apprehension or imminent
serious bodily injury to that person or to another, or to have
engaged in any behavior involving, but not limited to,
threatening, striking, harassing, destroying personal property
or disturbing the peace of another..”
Broader Definition
• Perpetrators of domestic violence exhibit a
pattern of violence, threat, intimidation and
coercive control over their coparent. They
seek to maintain power and control over
the other.
• Psychological:
• Cursing demeaning, yelling, taunting
• Isolating, coercion, threats of harm
• Stalking, harassing, inducing fear
• Physical
• Slapping, grabbing, shoving, twisting arm/hair
• Kicking, punching, biting, throwing objects
• Choking, using guns & knives, mutilation,
murder
• Sexual
• Rape, unwanted sexual behavior, coercion
• Harassment
• Financial
• Controlling purchases, witholding funds and
information
• Legal
• Repeated initiation of litigation, threats
JOHNSTON AND CAMPBELL’S
TYPES OF INTERPERSONAL
VIOLENCE AMONG FAMILIES
DISPUTING CUSTODY
• Ongoing or episodic male battering
• Female – initiated violence
• Male-controlling interactive violence
Johnston and Campbell (2)
• Separation-engendered or post-divorce
trauma
• Psychotic or paranoid reactions
Ongoing/Episodic Male
Battering:
– What we’re used to thinking of as
domestic violence
– Also known as intimate terrorism
– Man has intolerable tension states and
chauvinistic attitudes
– Drug and alcohol use frequently involved
– Woman usually does nothing to provoke
assault
– Most severe attacks; can be lifethreatening
Battering-Intimate Terrorism
• Intended to intimidate and control
• Generally escalate with separation
• Patterns continue after separation
Emotional Abuse in Battering
– Cursing, yelling, humiliating
– Isolating from family, friends
– Checking up on whereabouts
– False accusations of sexual infidelity
– Monitoring of phone calls
– No credit cards or checks
Female-Initiated Violence
– Aways initiated by the woman
– Often in response to man’s passivity or failure to
provide for her in some way
– Nag, pummel, throw things, hysterical
– Trying to get husband to do something to meet
her needs, expectations
– Often become more intense during divorce—eg.
Getting enough from settlement
– Man often passive-aggressive, depressed,
obsessive-compulsive and/or intellectualizing
Male-Controlling Interactive
Violence
– Arises primarily when spouses disagree
– Man physically dominates the woman to assert
control
– Man feels he has the right, or duty, to put woman
in her place
– Generally man does not beat up woman
– Woman often tries to leave when escalates; man
often tries to prevent—pins her down
– Shakes to calm her down if screaming “for her
own good”
– Frequently co-exists with female-initiated violence
Situational Or Conflict Instigated
Violence
– Most common 12% total, 50% of DV
– Bi directional, initiated by both at similar
rates
– Poor management of conflict
– Coercion and control not central
– Minor forms of physical violence
– Partners not fearful of each other
– More likely to stop after separation
Separation-Engendered PostDivorce Trauma
– Uncharacteristic acts of violence precipitated by separation
or divorce process
– Not present during marriage itself
– Violence not ongoing or repetitive
– Usually spouse who feels abandoned becomes violent
– Perpetrator usually embarrassed or ashamed
– Changes power balance and offender may gain
leverage/control
Psychotic and Paranoid
Reactions
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Very small per cent
Serious thought disorder, distortion of reality
Psychosis, drug-induced
Perceive spouse as aggressor, persecutor
Attack before being attacked
Unpredictable, therefore frightening
Need for protection for spouse, children and
those helping family
Screening For Abuse & Violence
• Screening is an assessment process
throughout NOT discrete action at front
end only
• Understand dynamics of abuse and
violence
• Assess your degree of expertise and
specialization
Screening For Abuse & Violence
• Rely on:
– Conference call with counsel
– Review of documentation (orders,
parenting plan, criminal records,
restraining orders, other reports, etc.)
– Informed and detailed intake screening
questionnaire, abuse/violence surveys
– Individual meeting(s) with each parent
Domestic Violence Screening
(separate interviews)
• Fear of violence or violence between parties
• Other forms of abusive and controlling
behavior
• Consider risk to children
• A B C’s
– Attitudes toward use of violence, abuse and
control
– Behaviors or threats of behaviors that are violent,
abusive and controlling
– Consequences of violent, abusive and controlling
behaviors or threats
Screening For Abuse & Violence
– Impact, severity, danger, fear of victim
parent
– How children are involved in conflict
– Related risk factors (mental disorder,
substance abuse, anti-social behaviour,
extra-familial violence)
Screening For Abuse & Violence
• Assessment of:
– patterns of conduct, behaviors (type)
– frequency (single episode vs pattern)
– Context:
• Offender’s intent
• Meaning to victim
• Effect of act on victim, how it is
perceived
– Directionality: bi or uni-directional
Common behaviors in victims
– Fear of being in same room with partner
– Fear of retribution
– Reluctant to speak up
– Reluctance to state own needs
– May assume responsibility for DV
– Overall comfort level low
AFCC Guidelines:
Abuse And Violence
• AFCC Guidelines, pp 2-3:
“The alternative dispute resolution process
described above as central to the PC’s role may be
inappropriate and potentially exploited by the
perpetrators of domestic violence who have
exhibited patterns of violence, threat, intimation and
coercive control over their co-parent. In those cases
of domestic violence where a parent seeks to
AFCC Guidelines:
Abuse And Violence
obtain and maintain power and control over the
other, the role of the PC changes to an almost purely
enforcement function. Here the PC is likely to be
dealing with a court order, the more detailed the
better, rather than a mutually agreed upon parenting
plan; the role is to ensure compliance with the
details of the order to test each request for variance
from its terms with an eye to
AFCC Guidelines:
Abuse And Violence
protecting the custodial parent’s autonomy to make
decisions based on the children’s best interests and
guarding against manipulation by the abusing
parent. ADR techniques in such cases may have the
effect of maintaining or increasing the imbalance of
power and the imbalance of power and the victim’s
risk of harm. Accordingly, each jurisdiction should
have in place a process:
AFCC Guidelines:
Abuse And Violence
to screen out and/or develop specialized PC
protocols and procedures in this type of DV case.
Likewise, the PCs should routinely screen protective
cases for DV and decline to accept such cases if
they do not have specialized expertise and
procedures to effectively manage DV cases involving
an imbalance of power, control and coercion.”
AFCC Guidelines:
Abuse And Violence
• II. Impartiality VS neutrality
• V.B. No confidentiality AND mandatory
reporting of abuse, risk of harm
• VI.D. Conflict management function; tailor
techniques to avoid opportunity for further
coercion
• IX.B. X.E. Ensuring safety, individual
meetings
• X.F. Adherence to protection orders,
necessary measures to ensure safety
• Appendix A. Domestic Violence Training
Appropriate And
Inappropriate Cases
for Parenting Coordination
• Likely to be effective for:
– Common couple violence
– Separation engendered violence
• Less effective for:
– Male battering
– Psychotic or paranoid individuals
Protections Available
• Can pick your PC vs. your Judge
• More regular and direct contacts
• Neutral person vs. one lawyer against the
other
• Separate meetings possible; decisions in
writing
• Can attend with a support person, lawyer
• Legal advice to enter process; before
agreements; during arbitration
Practice Guidelines
• Develop specialized protocols and
procedures to ensure compliance with the
details of the order
• Careful review of parenting plan and
amended/ eliminate opportunities for
violence to continue
• Ensure other experts (therapists, etc.)
involved are qualified to handle these
situations
Practice Guidelines
• Separate meetings for pre-decisionmaking
• Decisions and agreements all in
writing
Safety Considerations
In cases with domestic violence or
restraining orders:
– Check to see if parties can meet in the same
room
– Possible modification of restraining order
– 15 minute separation arriving and leaving
– Be clear what protection you can and cannot
provide and what parties may have to do on
own
Role Of The Pc
• Determined by type of violence
– On-going and Episodic Male Battering/Intimate Terrorism
• PC arbitrates, enforces
– Male-Controlling Interactive Violence/Situational Couple
Violence
• PC educates and mediates
• Monitor access plan
• Case management