Post on 02-Feb-2016
description
Interventions With Alienated Families
Peggie Ward, PhD
Co-Parenting Assessment Center
Natick, MA 016760Peggieward@comcast.net
Early Warning Signs of Alienation in Court Cases Transition times - child late drop off,
child difficulty leaving car, parents’ unmonitored hostility toward other
Contact time - child resistant to visit Connection time - child refusal to talk on
phone, connect via e-mail, Aligned parent time - child increasingly
home sick, child late to school
Conflict and Child Confusion: Pre-SeparationParentA
Parent B School
Activities
Friends
Community
Extended FamilyParent A
Extended FamilyParent B
Conflict Free Sphere
Conflict and Child Confusion Pre-Separation
Free give and take of information between and amongst family and others
Decisions made by one or both Parents Child has free access to most feelings “I
think … I feel … I act Power dynamic is stable Child DOES NOT feel caught
Separation Announced - Hostility Increased
Parent A
ParentB
SchoolTeacherAlerted
Coaches,Music teachersOther activity directorsAlerted
Friends stay outside the Conflict
Parent A’s Family Involved
Parent B’s Family Involved
Community Aware - but Child not yet Pulled in
Conflict free zone invaded
Separation Announced - Hostilities Begin(assuming this is a high conflict case)
Child’s sphere is invaded Child begins to feel pulled by parents Child’s feelings compromised (fear,
worry, confusion, withdrawal, anger) Child feels decreased power Child feels increased helplessness with
fewer outlets
Court Process Begins
Parent A
ParentB
School guidance
Activities:Increased pullWho will driveWho will go
Friends:Know more as Parents talking To their friends
Parent B Extended family More involved
ParentAExtendedFamily
Attorney A
Attorney B
Therapist AFamily Therapist
GAL Process
Court PapersLeft out
Conflict Free Zone Disappears - Child Pulled to Choose
Conflict Free Zone Disappears
Child feels world invaded Child no longer focused on child activities Child beginning to hide feelings Child moves closer to parent with whom
child has been closer (Parent A) Child moves away from Parent B Parent A and B take up their separate roles
and include their allies, neighbors, friends
Child is Internally Divided but has externally chosen
Child Involved withThis portion of world
Child Cut offFrom those outsideThe conflicted Sphere (as adaptiveMechanism towardPeople with whom Child has been mostComfortable in past)
Players now in the system Child Parent
AParentB
ParentAFam-ily
ParentBFam-ily
Teach-er’s & Coun-selors
AllActivities
ChildFri-ends
Communi-ty
Attor-Ney A
Attor-NeyB
TXIndi.Fam.
GAL Court
My Brain - 11 yr. old BrianI’m confused. I used to have a left
brain and a right brain and they used to work. Now I have a mom brain and a dad brain, and I have
to shut one off when I’m at the other’s house.
I’m confused - not about where I’m staying but about who I am
Continuum of Pre-Separation Relationships
Positive Relationship with both parents
Affinity with one parent (normal, no war, child still interested in relationship with both parents)
Alignment/alliance with one parent (child closer to one, some ambivalence about other/ variety of reasons (poor parenting by one, exaggerated connection with other, sabotage, abuse)
Clear ambivalence about one parent/ child spending less time
Child seeks out company of only one parent
Post Separation RelationshipPositive relationship with both parents
Affinity with one parent - child still in contact with both, normal developmental choices
Alliance - child prefers one parent - makes choice clear, some ambivalence still present
Resistance - child not want to spend time with the other parent ? Realistic concern (poor parenting, abuse, other safety issues)? Unrealistic - sabotage by other parent ? Adaptive choice - get out of the middle and choose safe haven.
Is Any Part of the Continuum Unreasonable?Stoltz and Ney 2002 FCR
Child’s response is reasonable given the adversarial context (can’t say if not abuse then must be alienation)
Need for rapid, comprehensive diagnostic emphasized
Child is in a DOUBLE BIND: “Stay engaged with both parents” and “Choose me”
Child can be “reasonably alienated” and it is still alienation - a reasonable response to an unreasonable system
The Whole System becomes the Problem - one Solution:
For the child: most healthy choice may be rejection of a parent. Define the problem as “resistance” (to contact) and assess resistance from all parts
The whole system is thus involved in the solution
The problem is “outside” the system, and is not one person to blame or label
People will work on solving a problem but may not work on why they ARE the problem
Variables to Identify
If you know how you arrived at a certain place, you may know how
to get back - those who do not know history are doomed to
repeat itLee and Oleson: FCR 2001
Child Variables - Family System Age and Stage - can they consolidate a negative
image and hold it, tolerate ambivalence, black/white, rigid cognition
Moral - junior investigator - find out who is lying Emotional security - enmeshment Abuse or trauma - HX crucial and current Personality - needs to preserve core identity -
lack of a cohesive sense of self is major concern Peers - positive relationships or beginning of
problems
Child Assessment Motivation/? need to take this position Context in which position emerged Process by which position became solidified Detailed description of events in question Consistency of events described Language used in description of events Rigidity of thought surrounding events Trauma to child? Result of abuse or
alienation
Parent Variables in System Authoritative vs. authoritarian or lax Warm/loving/involved vs. passive, neglectful
uninvolved Self confident vs. anxious, fearful, paranoid Own identity vs. intrusive, psychological needy,
role reversal Protective of child vs. abusive or part of abuse
system Empathy for child vs. counter rejecting or blame Parent disposable vs. value to child of both
Therapeutic Management of Reunification adapted from Hewitt 1994
Court ordered, one person direct the case Review file COMPLETELY before start/ Make certain
an assessment has been carefully done and Orders are in Place
PREPARATION: (STAGE ONE)Meet with Aligned ParentMeet with ChildMeet with Aligned Parent and Child Meet with rejected parentMeet with aligned parent and rejected parent togetherMeet with child(ren) to discuss plans
Aligned Parent Review Process - begin support Discuss ALL areas of concern (parents and
yours) (this may take several meetings, cover issues from assessment)
Discuss anxiety, fear, powerlessness openly Help separate parent’s own HX from that of child Get detailed child HX/ discuss problem of
resistance for child Remove parent from role of “investigator” (what
other parent has done wrong) to “parent” - active listening, accept, reflect not interject
Meeting with Child Tell child about therapeutic process, TX role, create
safety rules, see situations from many views as well as Court Mandate for Contact
Tell child - no more ?? about who did what to whom and when; they are not an investigator. Child’s role - help family understand the resistance so they can all help in addressing it
Observe if child feel ambivalence: if yes amplify Make list of what would make things better for child
with each parent
Meet with Aligned Parent and Child Aligned parent encouraged to support to child
in meetings - i.e. to give permission for meetings to occur, for child to have own thoughts
Other parent and I - not friends (or whatever words chosen) - but child must see other parent
Child’s lists are discussed -parent helps (if can) modify list, add areas to address and most importantly feels involved in the process
Meet with Rejected Parent Explain process of therapeutic management/
family TX and answer all questions Hear rejected parent’s version of allegations,
concerns, feelings about child Show Parent child’s list, get feedback, create
list that includes all parts of child’s list that are mutually of concern and open for discussion
Discuss any ground rules child wants/needs, add your own as they fit the situation
Make careful plan for arrival and departure times for child contact with rejected parent
Meet with Aligned Parent and Rejected Parent Appreciate they are willing to work together Educate on potential problems children face
who lose one parent Refine earlier discussion _ Resistance is the
problem, bring out flip chart and show what would make things better for child
Agree NOT to ask child about meetings, AP not make plans when child with RP, AP may intervene if child rude to RJ
Meet with Child for Preparation
THE SPECIFICS Involve child in planning, and help set rules (where
parent sit, no yelling, flip chart with child’s list and parent’s concerns (from previous meetings - what do during session)
Explain that talk time and building/creating more positive thoughts time separate initially (structure)
Brainstorm who resistance helps, who it hurts, how would things be different without it (make clear, parent is pursuing the relationship, the choice not to is not an option)
Child and rejected parent Rules discussed, plan followed, comfort level
established, resistance defined, brainstorming Work begins - RP not angry, wants to work with
child, no retributions, understands child’s resistance
Discuss all ideas that came up in brainstorming, add your own if need be.
RP explain to child his/her understanding of how got to this problem, thoughts to make it better.
After specified time of working with RP and child, “reward with a game or cards or something fun”
Follow up - with each member Any behavior changes, any symptoms, any
positive contact What each person liked and didn’t, is
comfortable or isn’t Meet with pairs as appropriate to deal with
anxieties, stressors Meet further with child and RJ or AP to
continue work on issues as needed When comfortable - take meetings out of
office - walk, snack, park (with knowledge of AP)
Goals for Intervention Immediate Evaluation Abuse/ trauma clearly
ruled out Continue contact One person or team
intervention Address all system
issues (first slides)
PROBLEMS:
Slow court process
Inadequate evaluation
TX not designed with family system in mind
Lack of rapid decision making authority
One parent has put the child into TX