Responding to Severe Parent–Child Rejection Cases Without a Parentectomy: A Blended Sequential Intervention Model and the Role of the Courts

Abstract

There have been significant developments over the past two decades that have expanded our understanding of the dynamics of parent-child contact problems post-separation, which have resulted in some changes in judicial processes to respond to these cases. One significant advancement is a more sophisticated differentiation of the nature and severity of contact problems, which better assists legal and mental health professionals to provide more suitable legal and clinical interventions. However, the issue of innovative court processes has received limited attention. The authors describe a subgroup of families within the "severe" category, for whom an expanded intervention model, referred to as a Blended Sequential Intervention is proposed. This approach involves a reversal of care with court mandated therapeutic support for the rejected parent and child, but also involves the favored parent in the therapeutic plan from the outset, and is intended to avoid a permanent "parentectomy" of the child from either parent. The authors discuss how the courts should respond to these cases, and posit that until all therapeutic treatments are exhausted, interim orders should be preferred to final determinations, and judges should maintain oversight. The authors discuss the critical role of judicial leadership in working with lawyers and mental health professionals to manage and address the issues in these high conflict cases. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Authors provide a review of the state of the research literature with respect to differentiation and available treatment approaches for resist-refuse contact cases.Authors propose the use of the Blended Sequential Model, an innovative clinical model developed for severe cases of resist-refuse dynamics.Authors describe the important role of judicial leadership in resist/refuse contact cases. Authors argue the need to develop heterodox models of interim judicial decision making in resist-refuses cases.Corresponding: shely.polak@utoronto.ca † This paper was written for and published in the context of continuing professional education only. Any and all views expressed are expressed in an academic nature rather than judicial capacity.

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

“…Process models choose factors that describe the sequence or phases of an event or a procedure (e.g. a decision‐making tree for choosing between treatment options or sequencing the different components of treatment for children who are both estranged and alienated (Drozd & Olesen, ; Drozd, Saini, & Vellucci‐Cook, ; Fidler, Deutsch, & Polak, ; Greenberg et al, ; Polak, Altobelli, & Popielarczyk, ; Sullivan et al, ).…”

Concepts, Controversies And Conundrums Of “Alienation:” Lessons Learned In A Decade And Reflections On Challenges Ahead

“…As recognized in a number of papers in this Special Issue (Campbell, ; Marcus, ; Polak, Altobelli, & Popielarczyk, ), lawyers and courts can be key agents and motivators for parental engagement in a process of positive change. While some parents will be motivated to change their behaviors and attitudes to promote the interests of their children, for many parents in high conflict situations, the threat or imposition of legal sanctions, particularly related to time with their children, and the encouragement of legal professionals, can be important additional motivators for change.…”

“…In cases of severe realistic estrangement, where abuse or violence are the major concerns, the offending parent and child may each simultaneously receive independent interventions, followed by further assessment, child protection services, and case management by the court as to the appropriateness of any parent–child reunification, or there may be long term suspension of parent–child contact. In cases of severe alienation, where the intervention involves a custody reversal, once the child's relationship with the rejected parent has been repaired, there may be interventions to help the favored parent discontinue their PABs, and further assessment and monitoring by the court before reunification of the previously favored parent and child can be attempted (Polak et al, ).…”

“…However, in many cases, courts can make some orders to start to address the RRD and PCCP issues without necessarily having a full custody evaluation. Polak et al () propose that the courts retain oversight and defer conclusions of proceedings until mental health interventions are attempted and their results can be assessed. Regardless of the procedural structure, it is essential to have unambiguous, detailed court orders for the interventions and for there to be court monitoring of implementation of orders, and any modifications to parenting plans and interventions.…”

“…There is growing recognition of the value of having single judge case management of high conflict cases, especially those involving PCCP (Bala, Birnbaum, & Martinson, ; Bala & Slabach, ; Polak et al, ). Courts orders and judicial engagement with parents can have a critical role in helping therapists provide interventions and to assist the parents to meaningfully participate in mental health interventions while ensuring their children's involvement.…”