AFCC REGIONAL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2007 INSTITUTE: THE PARENTING COORDINATION PROCESS FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE (Module 2) Christine

AFCC REGIONAL TRAINING CONFERENCESEPTEMBER 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 DIVORCECONFLICT 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

PrevalenceDivorce/

Separation

Low

Conflict

Conflict Stabilizers

Acute Reaction Period

High Conflict Perpetuators

0-4 Years

FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCECONFLICT 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 DIVORCEASSESSMENT 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 DIVORCESources 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 DIVORCESources 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, counter-

and oscillating dependency)

• Vulnerability to humiliation/shame– Mild – specific acknowledgment – Moderate – projects total blame– Severe – paranoia

FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCEHIGH 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


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


Thinking:

• Idealization – devaluation• Rigid VS Flexible • Inability to take another’s perspective• Externalize blame, deny responsibility,

complaints• Distort reality, suspicious, even paranoid


Feeling

• Exaggerations, drama • Childlike, charming, seductive• Fluctuating moods; unpredictable• Poor impulse control; outbursts• Critical, hostile, disparaging, attacking


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


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

Of

Parallel

40%

Cooperative

25%

Conflict

HIGH Mixed

20%

Conflicted

15%

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 DIVORCEChildren’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?

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 DIVORCEChildren’s Adjustment

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 DIVORCEChildren’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 post-divorce family life, family process variables, especially:

FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCEChildren’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 DIVORCEChildren’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 DIVORCEChildren’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 DIVORCEChildren’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 DIVORCEChildren’s Adjustment: Father Loss, Absence, & Contact

(ii) Retrospective Studies (Emery, Fabricus, Laumann-Billings, 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


• 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


• 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


• “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


• “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?”


• “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


• 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


• 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


• 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


Child’s Adjustment Related To:

• Child’s age at the time of separation

• Gender

• Temperament

strategies for managing stress learned earlier in life


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


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


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


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


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


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



• 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



• 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 RelationshipAffinityAllianceEstranged------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

APRPIntervention

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 legal-adversarial 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 caseGetting 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 non-violent 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)

Conflict Assessment Scale (based on Garrity and Baris 1994)

MINIMALMINIMAL MILDMILD MODERATEMODERATE INTENSEINTENSE SEVERESEVERE

• Cooperative Co-parenting

• Conflicts resolved between adults

• Separate own needs from children’s

• Validates, supports other

parent to child

• Occasionally berates other parent

• Occasional verbal quarrels in front of child

• Questions child re: personal life of other parent

•Occasional attempts to form coalition with child against other parent

• Verbal abuse; no history of violence

• Loud quarrels

in front of child

• Denigration of other parent

to child

• Parent(s) in physical danger

due to contact

• Threats of violence, limiting access, litigation

• Attempts to alienate child from other parent

• Emotional endangerment of child

•Endangerment or abuse of child.

• Drug or alcohol abuse

• 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’STYPES OF INTERPERSONALVIOLENCE 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 life-

threatening

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 Post-Divorce 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


• 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


– 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)


• 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


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


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:


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.”


• 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-decision-making

• 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

Documents

AFCC REGIONAL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2007 INSTITUTE: THE PARENTING COORDINATION PROCESS FAMILY DYNAMICS IN SEPARATION AND DIVORCE (Module 2) Christine