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