Trauma‐Informed Interventions in Parent–Child Contact Cases

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%

Section: Multi‐factor Theoretical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Johnston¹,

Sullivan²

2020

“…Writers have also recognized that cases vary in level of severity ranging from mild to very severe, and that cases are dynamic and change over time. In addition to general acceptance of wide‐ranging PABs, there are several protocols and decision trees, the first iterations dating back many years (e.g., Drozd & Olesen, ; Ellis, ; Fidler, Bala, Birnbaum, & Kavassalis, ), available to assist when identifying and differentiating PCCPs including realistic estrangement and alienation (Deutsch, Drozd, & Ajoku, ; Drozd et al, ). While differing in structure and detail, these protocols share similar core elements.…”

Section: Multiple Causes Concepts and Differentiation Of Parent–chilmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fidler¹,

Bala²

2020

There have been significant advances in understandings and practice related parent-child contact problems (PCCPs), with a growing consensus about some issues and continuing controversy about others. It is widely acknowledged that PCCP cases are most fruitfully understood from a multi-factorial perspective. While some cases may be totally the "fault" of one parent (a parent perpetrating violence or abuse, or a parent exhibiting alienating behavior), in many situations both parents bear some responsibility: focusing on a single cause is rarely helpful. Most professionals and researchers agree that the challenge in practice is to distinguish between false positives and false negatives for both alienation (or unjustified rejection) and realistic estrangement (justified rejection). There is continuing controversy over whether the concept of "alienation" should be used, especially in court proceedings, and a related disagreement about the extent to which family courts are now failing to respond adequately to cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) or child abuse when alienation is also raised. Continuing education, intentional exploration of alternative hypotheses, and active perspective-taking will contribute to effective professional involvement. Increased parent education and prevention can play an important role, although for the more severe PCCP cases the family courts system will continue to play a critical role. While more research must be done, given the complexity of issues, conclusive findings are unlikely in the near future. Legislators and family justice professionals must make decisions based on a thorough analysis of each family's circumstances in the context of our present knowledge, taking account of the limits of the law. They will often face the conundrum of making decisions in the face of uncertainty. Key Points For The Family Court Community:There have been significant advances in understandings and practice related to parent-child contact problems (PCCPs), with a growing consensus about some issues and continuing controversy about others.It is widely acknowledged that PCCPs cases are best understood and addressed by relying on a multi-factorial perspective, a family-systems approach and coordinated professional services.Attention to false positives and false negatives for both alienation (unjustified rejection) and for realistic estrangement (justified rejection) is necessary. For either of these types of contact problems and for cases involving elements of both, it may be in the child's best interest to remedy the strained parent-child relationship and for the child to maintain contact with both parents.Legal and mental health professionals involved in decision making, forensic and clinical assessments, and psychoeducational and clinical interventions face challenges in fact finding and correcting for ubiquitous cognitive biases. Continuing education, intentional exploration of alternative hypotheses, and active dialogue with openness to different perspectives will contribute to effective profess...

“…Programs such as Head Start Trauma Smart provide coping‐focused therapeutic, educational and recreational activities to help children master the abilities they need to achieve healthy development, regardless of whether a “definite finding” can be made about the allegations between their parents (Austin & Greenberg, ; Blaustein & Kinniburgh, ; Fidler, Deutsch, & Polak, ; Greenberg, ; Greenberg, Schnider, & Jackson, ). While specific, content‐focused trauma treatments should not occur unless there has been a definitive finding of trauma (Deutsch, Drozd, & Ajoku, ; Drozd, Saini, & Vellucci‐Cook, ), many of the abilities that underlie successful adjustment can be taught and promoted both in appropriate therapy and in children's daily activities. One of the most tragic losses to children occurs when every activity or aspect of their lives becomes another canvas for parental conflict or for parents “proving” the correctness of their own perspectives (Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, ).…”

Section: Broader Systemic Obstaclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since there are common problems that occur repeatedly in these cases, templates can be created of common behavioral expectations and then augmented by the mental health professional, attorneys and the court. Deutsch, Drozd, and Ajoku () have developed a tool, specific to issues of parent–child engagement that can be used to both guide behavioral expectations and assess the effectiveness of treatment. This can be paired with behavioral expectations for both parent cooperation and child mastery of healthy coping abilities.…”

Section: Tools and Potential Solutionsmentioning

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