Book Now5

 

Reunification INFORMATION.

Reunification PROCESS

Tina Mayer, LMHC

The process of reunification has a basic outline, but no two families or circumstances are alike, so having a plan that is formulated to fit the needs of the family is crucial to success. When formulating a plan, the therapist/coach must understand the history, the severity of the division between members, the goals for outcome, and what has been ordered by the court. Ideally, the court will work with the reunification program or leave room in the order for modifications if necessary.

Reunification therapy is not a certification or system that has codified specifics of practice, but is recognized as an area of practice with a growing research base. It is founded on family systems practices and adapts to confront the counter-intuitive behaviors associated with parental alienation. The premise is simple: remove the motive and necessity of the child to perform, or the necessity to choose according to the allied parent’s directives. This shift allows the child to return to a more normative relational behavior. It is supportive of the child’s need to alleviate guilt and shame associated with participation in the alienation, erases confusion over expectations of allegiance, and restores norms to the damaged parent/child relationship.

PARENTAL ALIENATION

Parental alienation is a form of psychological abuse. Psychological abuse and control is a very difficult and complex subject to discern and dissect. It leaves no visible wounds or scars, but is just as, if not more, damaging as physical abuse. A clinical explanation of parent to child psychological abuse: Parental psychological control is defined as verbal and nonverbal behaviors that intrude on youth’s emotional and psychological autonomy. The central elements of psychological control are intrusion into the child’s psychological world and self-definition and parental attempts to manipulate the child’s thoughts and feelings through invoking guilt, shame, and anxiety. Psychological control is distinguished from behavioral control in that the parent attempts to control, through the use of criticism, dominance, and anxiety or guilt induction, the youth’s thoughts and feelings rather than the youth’s behavior. (Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents. Stone, Buehler, and Barber, 2002 p. 57)

The key component to Parental Alienation is the cross-generational coalition or alliance resulting from the manipulation of the thoughts and beliefs of the child that result in actions they would not otherwise do, i.e., rejection of a loving parent. Alienating parents will often reject, shame, or make their child feel guilty for showing any loyalty or warmth toward the target parent or the target parent’s extended family (Baker & Darnall, 2006; Harman & Birigen, 2018) If the allied parent or family member can control the narrative and beliefs of the child that the target parent is dangerous, unfit, or just unworthy, the child is empowered to reject the parent without cause. The child is also empowered to defy the authority of the court by refusing to comply with the court ordered visitation schedule. “In some cases, the child may threaten to run away from the targeted parent or the child may threaten self-harm if the child is ‘forced’ to cooperate with the authority of the Court, revealing the child’s over-empowered effort to impose the child’s will upon the Court’s decisions.” (Childress, Assessment of Attachment Related Pathology Surrounding Divorce, p. 11) Without the removal of the negative psychological influences of the allied parent and family members, the opportunity to regain balance will be negligible, if not impossible because the pressure to conform is continuously present in the body of the alienating influencers.

The necessity of action from an outside source, most often the court, is to provide relief to the child because it removes the “mission” that should never have been placed on them in the first place while absolving some of the guilt associated with the participation in actions and accusations against the target parent. It also relieves them of the responsibility to the alliance with the alienating parent because the child is not the one betraying the parent, but the court is in charge of the decision. Consider the following scenario as an example of this duality of resistance and relief for the child.

A teen girl lies to her parents in order to attend a party. It feels like an exciting adventure that is an expression of freedom and adulthood. Once there, she finds that there is pressure to drink from those she is with and she isn’t equipped to resist the influence. Added to that is the attention of an older boy. At first it is flattering and she is thrilled, but then the pressure for sex becomes frightening. Again, she isn’t capable of handling the coercive tactics because it is beyond her maturity level and self-assertive ability. She finds herself walking deeper into the minefield and sees no way out. Suddenly, she spots her parents pushing through the crowd. They caught wind of what she was up to and tracked her phone. She yells at them and screams in protest that they have just ruined her life! What she is actually experiencing is the relief that she can escape a situation that is over her head, but save face with her friends because she didn’t have to be the one to refuse and be uncool. The reality is that the authority figures in her life protected her from things from which she could not protect herself. In doing so, she was presented an opportunity to escape into the safety of protective boundaries and the opportunity to start again and make better informed decisions.

When the court acts swiftly and decisively, the child can participate in the reunification process without being the “responsible party” to the determination of action, therefore allowing the child opportunity for an unfettered application and response to interventions.

THE PERIOD OF ZERO INFLUENCE

There have been erroneous and negative assertions made concerning this recommendation. It is important to make some clarifications in order to understand the necessity and purpose of this time of intense healing and restoration.

The period of zero influence is not meant to be a punishment, but a time to reset the damaged relationships in order that they may heal properly. The best analogy of this is the idea of cleaning a wound or resetting a bone. If one has an infected wound, simply running water over it and putting a band aid on it while leaving it in an unsanitary environment won’t be effective. The wound must be cleaned out, possibly stitched, antibiotics applied, and a proper dressing wrapped around it to prevent further infection. It is important to keep it clean and dry until it has healed properly. A broken bone is the same idea. The bone needs to be reset in the proper place and treated gently until fully restored and healthy. It requires a change in habit and activity for a period of time that allows for the restorative measures to take effect. Once healed, you can resume normal activities.

This initial period of zero influence should be applied for all severity levels of alienated families. Even a mild case will need a period of time to reestablish the relationship between the child and target parent or family members.

Mild: Utilize the initial intensive week or two with the target parent and family while engaging the alienating parent in psychoeducational work to correct the alienating behaviors. This may not require a change in timesharing agreements or restrictive contact with the alienating parent beyond the initial reunification.

Moderate: Period of zero influence is likely to be less than the prescribed 90 days, but with more contact restrictions than a mild case. Phone and supervised visits may be taking place after the initial week or two while the psychoeducation is taking place. Reintegration with the alienating parent tends to happen more quickly than the severe cases. Potential for a return to normative relationships and timesharing is dependent upon the response to treatment but positive outcomes are more easily attained.

Severe: These cases MUST have the full 90 days with the potential for more time of restrictive contact beyond that initial period. This is based more on the response to treatment from the alienator than anything else. Personality disorders tend to be present in these cases. The high percentage of personality disorders in this category make behavior modification more difficult because the disorder drives the behaviors which means the positive outcomes are lower. It is not hopeless to restore relationships for all family members, but this level requires more work to find the best state of balance. Boundaries and consequences for detrimental actions will need to be established to protect the child from being trapped in a cycle of manipulation and abuse.

The differing roles of therapy and therapeutic interventions

There are marked differences between individual therapy, family therapy, and reunification modalities. There are those who believe and will argue that a child can be fully reunified through an individual therapist. This is a false contention, especially in a case of moderate to severe alienation.

The role of an individual therapist is to focus on the needs and goals of the individual. Systemic causes and issues are a part of the evaluation and consideration for the therapist, but the goals are not group focused. Because the provider only meets with the individual, the peripheral vision is limited and can actually be counter-productive to family or reunification therapy IF the individual provider is not working in conjunction with the family focused provider.

Family therapy encompasses systems theory and family dynamics. The views of all the members are considered and challenged, narratives are reshaped, and maladaptive schemas are reorganized. The goals are not to merely meet the needs of the individual members, but to change the unhealthy dynamics that have dictated the detrimental roles within the family.

Having multiple providers while trying to repair family relationships can be taxing because the family members become over-therapized. For the purposes of reunification, it is not necessarily a problem to have individual therapy in concurrence, but any providers who are not willing to work as a team for the benefit of the whole family may hinder the process. Individual providers cannot perform the function of reunification therapist because it blurs the lines of client focus. This is not to be misunderstood that other people cannot participate in individual therapy. An individual therapist can hold a joint session with the client and another person to help their client with specific issues or communication. The difference is that the extra person is NOT a client of the therapist, so the focus is on the individual need of the client. When an individual therapist is working with the reunification therapist, it helps to make sure that everyone is heading in the same direction or alert the reunification therapist to areas that may need more work.

For the purposes of court ordered intervention, the rehabilitation process is similar to a case plan in Dependency court. The reunification therapist guides the process and makes reports on progress. IF there is a GAL, the GAL monitors the progress, reports to the court, and ensures that interventions are appropriate and effective. Parents follow the guidelines set by the Reunification Counselor. The team may also include other providers for the child (i.e., Child’s therapist and psychiatrist), providers for the parents (if they wish), and any other court appointed entity. There must be an established hierarchy of caregivers in this scenario. Once reunification is ordered, the provider in that role should be the lead for care and intervention of the child/children. Individual therapists work in conjunction with the reunification therapist or suspends or reduces the number of sessions so the child’s life is not revolving around therapy appointments.

PROCESS OF REUNIFICATION

The process of reunification is basically the same format for all cases. The alterations come with the level of severity of the alienation, the ages of the participants, and the stated goals for the satisfaction of court orders.

PHASE 1

Seclusion and rest with intensive therapeutic sessions and external bonding activities with the target parent take place. Some programs are done in resorts or vacation destinations. Some can take place in the home of a relative or other neutral person that will help to provide a layer of comfort for both the parent and the child. This time should be a minimum of one week (two or three weeks is preferable) with only the target parent, alienated child, and supportive collaterals. Session time with the therapist can address the false beliefs, anger, and other issues brought up by the child. Target parent and collaterals take a neutral stance and give room for the therapist to address the negative attitudes, false beliefs, and parental issues for the child.

PHASE II

Return to normal life but maintain intensive sessions as long as needed. As the relationship becomes more positive and stable, the session length and frequency are reduced. Once the need for sessions is reduced to once or twice a week for a regular hour, therapist can recommend moving to the next phase.

Therapist evaluates and sets the boundaries for initial contact with the alienating parent and family members. This determination is based on the progress of the alienating parent and family members to recognize and eliminate behaviors that feed the alienation, as well as the progress of the alienated child’s ability to reestablish relationship with the target parent. The child should be able to accept the target parent as safe, loving, and positive without prompting. This recovery of positive relationship will help the child effectively resist alienating behaviors from the other parent or family members if they do reoccur. The measurement used is the child’s positive regard and behavior toward the target parent. If the behavior is primarily negative toward the target parent, this phase would last longer. If the behavior is positive, this phase is shorter. This phase can take days, weeks, or months depending on the cooperation and progress of the parents (both target and allied) and the child. This method is known as RTI, response to intervention. The more responsive the participants, the shorter the period of intensive interventions.

SPECIFIC TASKS TO ACCOMPLISH DURING PHASES I AND II

    • Reestablish connection between target parent and child/ren. Games, activities, and therapeutic sessions are the vehicle for this goal.
    • The alienating/allied parent begins the therapeutic and psychoeducational process with the goal of reducing and eliminating the alienating behaviors. Family members of the alienating parent who may have participated in the behaviors should also be included in the rehabilitative process. This may include, but is not limited to, therapeutic sessions, study guides, videos, groups, and other learning tools concerning the effects of maladaptive parental behavior on children and supportive tools modeling positive behavior.
    • Therapist guides the discussion between child and target parent about any false information or allegations that have been a part of the alienation process. Truths are presented, but the goal is to not cast blame or shift animosity to the alienating parent. It is important to identify the false beliefs or narratives, but emphasize the ability to restore and move forward so the child can have the best opportunity to have relationship with both parents.
    • The alienating parent begins to acknowledge maladaptive motivations that precipitate the behaviors and actions resulting in the division of loyalties in the family. The goal is that the parent and participating family members write a letter of acknowledgement and apology to the children with a commitment to not repeat moving forward. A letter to the other parent, family members, and any other people affected by this scenario can also be a part of the rehabilitation.
    • The target parent writes a letter to the child that absolves the child of guilt and shame for the participation in the alienation. The premise is to let the child know that the parent loves the child and holds the child fully blameless, allowing the family to move forward without holding onto the past.

PHASE III

Therapist integrates allied parent into therapy with the target parent. (This can begin in phase two if progress is being made.) Both parents work to establish a co-parenting alliance. This component is also evaluative. The realistic expectation of how well the two parents can move forward will determine the best outline for the parenting plan. The result may be more of a parallel parenting style where there is shared goals and records on a communication app and limited actual communication between the parents, but cooperation on the timesharing and parental responsibility.

Visitation plans with the alienating parent are made with boundaries and guidelines. The process began with supervised, therapeutic visits in the office during phase two, if the allied parent made progress with the case plan. In this phase, if those have gone well, visits can move on to supervised or unsupervised short visits. As confidence increases in the ability to not engage in maladaptive behaviors, overnights can begin. The end goal is to return to a normative visitation schedule.

ALL progress is determined by the elimination of the alienating behaviors by the allied parent/family members and a return to a more positive/normative relationship between the target parent and child.

SPECIFIC TASKS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PHASE III

    • Temporary visitation schedule established with the court.
    • The timeline for evaluation and goals for permanent timesharing are set.
    • Coparenting contract is drafted and signed. (This is between the parents and is focused on respect and mutual love of the child, not the legal sense of duties.)

PHASE IV

Plan is complete and there is no need for intervention, monitoring, or court involvement. Parents are co-parenting or parallel parenting autonomously and effectively.

**It should be noted that the possibility of never fully reaching Phase IV does exist. The 90-day period is a guideline and not a hard rule of time. When orders are written, it is helpful to include a provision that all family members have reached the goals of each phase before moving forward. If extended services or restrictions are warranted, the GAL continues to monitor or an appointment of a Parenting Coordinator may be necessary to facilitate the parents and timesharing to reduce the conflict and ensure that alienation does not reoccur.

SPECIFIC TASKS FOR PHASE IV

    • Submit permanent timesharing and parenting plan to the court.
    • Submit report from the reunification center/therapist to support the timesharing and parenting plan.