“How Am I Supposed to Treat These Cases?” Working with Families Struggling with Entrenched Parent–Child Contact Problems

The concept of parental alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy in response to an increasing range of issues in family court. In this paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for mothers, fathers and children) in the family justice field have, over time, helped shape the shifting definitions and widening focal concerns of PA-from children who make false allegations of abuse, to those who resist or refuse contact with a parent, to parent relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon children who are victims of a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using PA concepts, we argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an alienating preferred parent is primarily the source of the problem) is inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on the fallacy that abuse or poor parenting on the part of either parent have been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason for the child's rejecting stance. By contrast, multi-factor models of PA make more useful, valid, differentiated clinical predictions of children's rejection of a parent, informed by basic and applied research on children and families. However, multi-factor models are complex and difficult to argue in court and to use in assessment and interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention-focused prediction models that reduce the number of factors involved and are applicable across different types of interventions. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Several socio-cultural-legal movements in the last 30 years have contributed to the prevalence, focal concerns and ongoing controversies about Parental Alienation.Persistent erroneous assumption that an alienating parent is primarily the source of a child's resistance/rejection of a parent (called the dominant Single-Factor theory of PA) is problematic in applying PA constructs in research and practice.Four principal factors (illustrating a refined multi-factorial predictive model of PA) are identified as goals for preventive-interventions and are proposed as measures for evaluating outcomes across different kinds of interventions resist/refuse cases in practice.

Section: Multi‐factor Theoretical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

Johnston¹,

Sullivan²

2020

“…Assessment of psychological safety requires information about the active emotional abuse of the other parent or child, including: intrusive psychological parenting that is harmful, intimidation, coercive control, repeated unsubstantiated allegations of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, and severe untreated mental illness or substance abuse in a parent that results in unpredictable behaviors (Fidler & Ward, ). Based on the safety assessment, a determination must be made as to whether the intervention should include: (1) the whole family (Fidler, Deutsch, & Polak, ; Greenberg, Schnider, & Jackson, ; Ward, Deutsch, & Sullivan, 2017); (2) trauma treatment, e.g., https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments/; Drozd, Saini, & Vellucci‐Cook, (2019); and/or (3) parenting treatment (Sullivan, Deutsch, & Ward, ), as well as the order in which the intervention(s) should occur. Sometimes these treatments can occur simultaneously, while in other situations they will occur sequentially.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the family work, psychoeducation focuses on the emotional, cognitive, social, and long‐term physical and emotional health implications that parental conflicts, disputes, and alienating and counter rejecting behaviors have on the child (Fidler et al, ). Psychoeducation on appropriate developmental expectations and consequences, authoritative (as opposed to permissive and authoritarian) discipline techniques, appropriate level of parental involvement, appropriate boundaries, and emotional regulation can all be addressed.…”

Section: Components Of Family Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trauma‐Informed Interventions in Parent–Child Contact Cases

Deutsch¹,

Drozd²,

Ajoku³

2020

Self Cite

Parent-child contact problems may arise in the context of high conflict separation/divorce dynamics between parents. In cases where there are parent-child contact problems and children resist or refuse contact with one of their parents, there may also be incidents of child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, or compromised parenting that can be experienced by a parent or child as traumatic. The circumstances around separation and/or post-divorce often result in intense stress for families. In this paper we distinguish between the stressful circumstances that may arise as a result of high interparental conflict and pulls for alignment from a parent, and the real or perceived trauma as a factor which contributes to resistance or refusal of a child to have contact with a parent. Interventions to address both trauma responses and the resist-refuse dynamics are differentiated and discussed. After screening and assessment, the intent is to treat trauma responses with short-term, evidence-based therapy, either before or concurrent with co-parent and family intervention. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Parent-child contact problems may have many causes. When children resist contact with a parent the multiple factors including trauma, that result in this problem must be explored.Assessing the impact and symptoms of interparental conflict and trauma on children and coparents, including emotional dysregulation resulting in feelings of being overwhelmed or needing to avoid is necessary to proceed with a family intervention For family intervention to be successful It is necessary for each family member to be able to manage distressing emotions without feeling overwhelmed or numb and to be able to process information accurately. These issues may result in one of the treatment components that can occur before or at the same time as the family intervention.Delaying contact with a parent generally results in more negative characterization, anxiety and polarization and is generally not recommended. Instead safe, structured contact to begin the process of desensitization should occur once the parent and child have basic skills of coping with and managing distressing thoughts and feelings.

“…Many professionals of all disciplines lack the professional training or experience to deal effectively with RRD cases, especially in the early stages (Bala & Slabach, ; Fidler, Deutsch, & Polak, ; Greenberg, Doi Fick, & Schnider, ; Greenberg, Schnider, & Jackson, ). Conflicts among professional roles may also lead to missed opportunities for intervention.…”

Section: Obstacles To Early Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resist‐refuse dynamics present complex challenges to professionals (Fidler, Deutsch, & Polak, ; Greenberg, Doi Fick, & Schnider, ; Greenberg, Schnider, & Jackson, ; Walters & Friedlander, ). It is common for professionals who provide services in these cases to lament that the family did not receive specialized services more quickly, that so much time and money was wasted on investigations that did not yield clear results, or on re‐litigation of every decision, recommendation or allegation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

We're Still Taking X‐Rays but the Patient is Dying: What Keeps us from Intervening More Quickly in Resist‐Refuse Cases?

Greenberg¹,

Schnider²

2020

Professionals frequently lament the fact that the dynamics of resist-refuse cases are often entrenched before the family receives effective intervention. Dysfunctional behavior patterns can become entrenched, with severe impairment of children's ability to function. Assessment is a critical component in the process of assisting families, but can come to so dominate the process that the situation is unrecoverable once the assessment is completed and meaningful interventions begin. The authors will describe commonly encountered obstacles to early intervention in resist-refuse cases, ranging from systemic stressors to the persistence of inaccurate beliefs and information and practices that undermine accountability. Practical strategies, including a broader conceptual model, integrating assessment into intervention, encouraging lawyers and courts to take earlier action, and suggestions for future professional development will be addressed. Practitioner's Key Points:Intervention in Resist-Refuse Cases often comes too late to save the child and family from severe emotional dysfunction Judicial officers, attorneys and mental health professionals have unique contributions to either impeding progress or promoting solutions Practitioners may need to intervene to stop "emotional bleeding" and support the child's or family's functioning, and weigh the risks and benefits of prolonged and repeated assessments compared to evidence-informed intervention Scientifically informed interventions exist for many of the problems encountered in these families Risk assessment and intervention are not mutually exclusive Suggestions are made for judicial education, structuring services and system reform