An Interdisciplinary Case Management Protocol for Child Resistance or Refusal Dynamics†

High‐conflict parental separation cases associated with child's estrangement or contact refusal take an unusually large amount of court time and generate high emotional costs for parents and children. This paper reports on a study of a research‐based pilot project and protocol, called the Parenting Conflict Resolution (PCR), which is intended to reduce parental conflict, improve interparental communication, and support or restore the parent–child relationship. The protocol was developed at the Superior Court in Quebec City (Canada), and involves single judge case management, and lawyers' commitment to have the child's best interests as their primary consideration and to guide their clients to trust the process. The assigned judge and lawyers have the ongoing involvement of a mandated psychotherapist, taking a family systems approach with the case. The PCR also requires the parents to participate in a psycho‐educational, introspective group program to work on co‐parenting and communication skills. Ongoing communication between the professionals involved in the PCR is required to ensure cohesion and accountability. This pilot project was implemented with 10 high‐conflict families, 6 of which presented with the child's resistance or refusal to see one parent. A qualitative data study was undertaken into the experiences of all the participants. The most salient result is the resumption of parent–child contact in all six contact refusal cases. Discussion highlights key elements to successfully address these cases: (a) interdisciplinary program delivery, (b) systemic understanding of the contact problems, (c) focus on the child's best interest, (d) single judge assigned to the case, (e) lawyers' support of the parents' participation, and (f) psychotherapist reporting to the court.     

Best Interest of the Child and Parental Alienation: A Survey of State Statutes

State statutes regarding the best interests of the child (BIC) in deciding disputed custody were reviewed and independently coded with respect to three issues (i) the child's preference and any limits (ii) parental alienation and (iii) psychological maltreatment. Results revealed that many states allowed for the child's preferences to be considered and none qualified that preference when undue influence has occurred; parental alienation as a term was not found in any state statutes but 70% of the states included at least one BIC factor relevant to its core construct of the parent supporting the child's relationship to the other parent; and many states included a history of domestic violence or child abuse but only three states explicitly mentioned psychological maltreatment. These findings highlight yet another way in which the BICS factors lack specificity in ways that could negatively impact children caught in their parents’ conflict.     

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN EUROPEAN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: WHY ARE FAMILY PRACTICES SO DIFFERENT FROM LEGAL THEORIES?

Debates about child custody following parental separation often have been framed in terms of a battle between the competing rights of different family members. In the United States, advocates of mothers’ rights square off against proponents of fathers’ rights, with each side claiming to truly represent children's rights. Of course, not all advocates lay claim to children's rights in contact and custody disputes merely as a tactical maneuver. Some experts believe that children are entitled to (and benefit from) their own, independent legal advocate in custody cases. In theory, at least, the position that children lay claim to a third set of independent rights is strongly held in Europe, more strongly than in many U.S. states, because of the adoption of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Europe, but not in the United States. In this article, we examine children's rights in custody disputes from a European perspective, particularly children's legal right to contact with their parents, as well as the children's right to be heard in custody and contact disputes. We find that, despite differences in legal theory, tradition, and family demographics, European countries ultimately face a familiar reality: Custody and contact disputes are, in reality, more about renegotiating family relationships than they are a matter of a mother's, father's, or child's rights.     

The Place for Custody Evaluations in Family Peacemaking

Custody evaluations can serve the dual purpose of providing neutral, objective information to the court while also contributing to the possibility of earlier settlement, which coincides with the therapeutic jurisprudence goal of more positive outcomes for children and families. Research suggests that most cases settle after custody evaluations. However, most of the literature is focused on the use of custody evaluations for litigation. Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health consultants can influence parents to focus more on children's needs and less on their conflict as they go through the evaluation process. This article urges family courts to develop processes and require professionals to learn skills needed for an interdisciplinary process to utilize evaluations in peacemaking.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• All custody evaluation processes should aim to reduce and/or shorten children's exposure to parental conflict.
• Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health professional consultants should use the evaluation process to influence parents to be more aware of their children's needs and less invested in their adversarial positions.
• Evaluators should learn to write and orally present information and state opinions with consideration of the parents themselves as consumers of the custody evaluation as well as the court.
• Attorneys and mental health professional consultants should help clients review the report, process their emotional reactions, and consider their options for settlement versus litigation in terms of emotional and financial costs to the family.
• Court processes should be developed to contain the time and cost of custody evaluations and provide dispute resolution after custody evaluations.

     

Relocation Issues in Child Custody Evaluations: A Survey of Professionals

We report on a sample of 90 child custody evaluators in the United States, who completed an online questionnaire on their attitudes and beliefs in child custody relocation cases. Findings indicated that the vast majority of participants relied on relevant professional literature and utilized a relocation risk assessment forensic model. Participants found many risk, protective, and specific relocation factors important, but the triad of past parental involvement, support for the other parent, and child's age were afforded the most importance. Participants also reported that the moving parents sought relocation for educational/vocational reasons, to receive support of their extended family, or to remarry, while the nonmoving party most commonly opposed relocation due to fears of interference/damage to the nonmoving parent–child relationship, restrictive gatekeeping, and alienation. A common trend among participants was concerns over the possible detrimental impact of any relocation on the nonmoving parent–child relationship and quality of co‐parenting. The vast majority of participants reported that they made specific recommendations to the court about relocation, and the court agreed with their recommendation the overwhelming majority of the time. We discuss Implications of the findings as well as areas needing further research.     

Cognitive‐Behavioral Methods in High‐Conflict Divorce: Systematic Desensitization Adapted to Parent–Child Reunification Interventions

Children who are triangulated into their parents' conflicts can become polarized, aligning with one parent and rejecting the other. In response, courts often order families to engage mental health professionals to provide reunification interventions. This article adapts empirically established systematic desensitization and flooding procedures most commonly used to treat phobic children as possible components of a larger family systems invention designed to help the polarized child develop a healthy relationship with both parents. Strengths and weaknesses of these procedures are discussed and illustrated with case material.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Family law and psychology agree that children should have the opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both parents
• Adult conflict can polarize a child's relationships, including rejection of one parent
• Existing clinical and forensic “reunification” strategies often prove inadequate
• Reliable and valid cognitive behavioral methods can be adopted to facilitate this process
• A cognitive‐behavioral “exposure‐based” reunification protocol is discussed

     

PUNCHING THE PARENTING TIME CLOCK: THE APPROXIMATION RULE,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND THE BASEBALL BAT KIDS*

The American Law Institute proposes that in contested physical custody cases the court should allocate to each parent a proportion of the child's time that approximates the proportion of time each has spent performing caretaking functions in the past. Examined through the lens of child development research, the approximation rule is unlikely to improve on the best interests standard. It is difficult to apply; is perceived as gender‐biased; creates a new focus for disputing parents; renders a poor estimate of parents’ contributions to their child's best interests; overlooks parents’ intangible, yet significant, contributions to their child's well‐being; and miscalculates the essence of how a child experiences the family. A preferable alternative is a better defined, contemporary best interests standard that accommodates new knowledge and reforms that encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of custody disputes.     

THE KIDS' TURN PROGRAM EVALUATION: PROBING CHANGE WITHIN A COMMUNITY‐BASED INTERVENTION FOR SEPARATING FAMILIES

We provide evaluation results for Kids' Turn, a community‐based divorcing parent education program. Based on pre‐ and post‐test results from 61 parents, we found that parents reported improvements over time in interparental conflict, the number of topics parents argue about, parental alienation behaviors, parent anxiety and depression, and children's internalizing behaviors. These changes over time remained after we accounted for child sex, parent and child age, and time since separation. However, we did not observe any change in parenting behaviors. We discuss these results in light of factors influencing the ability of community‐based programs to affect change in families after divorce.     

EFFECTS OF FATHER AND MOTHER PARENTING ON CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH IN HIGH‐ AND LOW‐CONFLICT DIVORCES

This article studied the relations of children's mental health problems to the warmth of their relationship with their noncustodial father and custodial mother and the level of conflict between the parents. Using a sample of 182 divorcing families, multiple regression was used to test the independent effect of father warmth, mother warmth, and interparental conflict. Results indicated that father warmth and mother warmth were both independently related to lower child‐externalizing problems. However, the relations between mother and child warmth and child‐internalizing problems were different as a function of interparental conflict and level of warmth with the other parent. Implications for court practices and policies are discussed.     

A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Two Court‐Connected Programs for High‐Conflict Families

Parents who experience great amounts of legal conflict as they dissolve their relationship and arrive at their parenting arrangements require an outsize proportion of courts’ time and resources. Additionally, there is overwhelming evidence that conflict has a deleterious effect on their children. We partnered with the family court to conduct a study comparing the effectiveness of two programs for families deemed by their judge to be high conflict and thereby mandated to a program. Both involved one 3‐hour session; the existing program, Parent Conflict Resolution (PCR), used exhortational lecture and video; the newly designed experimental program, Family Transitions Guide (FTG), based on motivational interviewing, employed exercises attempting to get parents to decide for themselves what they needed to do for the sake of their children. Parents were assigned at random to one of the two programs (the literature often terms this a randomized clinical trial) and were interviewed just before it began and 9 months later, as was a child. Results showed that child's report of their own well‐being was significantly improved by FTG as compared to PCR and that these effects were mediated by children feeling less caught in the middle. On several variables, parent report showed that parents in PCR as compared to FTG felt decreased problems in co‐parenting and less interparental conflict, although the effects were not consistent across mother and father report. There was also evidence of diminished legal conflict over 9 months in FTG as compared to PCR.     

Strengthening Coparenting Relationships to Improve Strained Parent–Child Relationships: A Follow‐Up Study of Parents’ Experiences of Attending the Overcoming Barriers Program

Several interventions have been developed to address children's resistance and/or refusal to have contact with a parent following separation and divorce. There remains little agreement about how best to evaluate the success of these approaches. To explore the experiences of parents in the Overcoming Barriers Program (OCB), an online survey was distributed to all previous participants. Of the 40 parents who completed the survey at least six months after attending OCB, findings suggest mixed results. Benefits of OCB were more pronounced when changes were made to the coparenting relationships. Improvements in the coparenting relationship were specifically related to children's spending more time with both parents and better parent–child outcomes postintervention. Findings suggest that both the quality of parent–child relationships and the time that the children spend with both parents are associated with reported improvements in the cooperative coparenting relationship as a result of attending OCB. Implications are discussed in terms of lessons learned for developing, delivering, and evaluating similar programs for strained parent–child relationships.     

Play by the Rules: why States Should Adopt Uniform Court Rules for Forensic Psychologists in Child Custody Evaluations

It is not uncommon for children to fall victim to the stress and tension of a contentious custody dispute. If a party seeks a mental health evaluation and the opposing party challenges the results, the child then endures a series of evaluations until a valid report is produced. The court will often remedy this situation by appointing a neutral forensic psychologist to perform the evaluation independent from a previous party‐hired forensic psychologist. 1 This Note proposes that the court instead appoint the forensic psychologist first to conduct an evaluation and draft a report. Only at the judge's discretion may the parties hire a private forensic psychologist to challenge the report. Additionally, states should codify court rules that enumerate standards for forensic psychologists in child custody evaluations. These rules should set forth criteria that shall be required and highlighted throughout each mental health evaluator's report, allowing judges to compare and contrast each evaluation more effectively. This legislation will not only reduce the child's exposure to excessive testing, but will also provide a more efficient way of arriving at a just result.     

Unintended and Unavoidable: The Failure to Protect Rule and Its Consequences for Undocumented Parents and Their Children

Parents without immigration status in the United States regularly face the threat of deportation and separation from their children. When an undocumented parent is brought to the attention of law enforcement through the child welfare system, they also face the potential of the loss of legal custodial rights to their children. The child welfare system and immigration enforcement mechanisms operate independent of one another with little regard for how actions in one can impact a parent's legal rights in the other, often permanently separating children from their parents. This article examines the particular issue of undocumented parents who are charged with the failure to protect their children from witnessing or otherwise experiencing abuse committed by a third party. It explores how such a charge, whether founded or unfounded, can result in loss of eligibility for immigration relief to which the undocumented parent would otherwise be entitled, as well as deportation of the parent and permanent separation of parent and child. These issues are situated within the larger context of the normative guideposts of both family and immigration law, namely, the best interests of the child and family unity. It identifies issues for further academic inquiry as well as tips for practitioners who may represent undocumented parents in either the family or immigration systems.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Learn about the potential consequences under family law and immigration law when an undocumented parent's child is abused by a third party
• Gain strategies for planning with undocumented parents to avoid the loss of the custody of their children in the event of a sudden deportation
• Be able to identify and address particular concerns for clients who are undocumented victims of domestic violence

     

Trauma‐Informed Interventions in Parent–Child Contact Cases

Parent–child contact problems may arise in the context of high conflict separation/divorce dynamics between parents. In cases where there are parent–child contact problems and children resist or refuse contact with one of their parents, there may also be incidents of child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, or compromised parenting that can be experienced by a parent or child as traumatic. The circumstances around separation and/or post‐divorce often result in intense stress for families. In this paper we distinguish between the stressful circumstances that may arise as a result of high interparental conflict and pulls for alignment from a parent, and the real or perceived trauma as a factor which contributes to resistance or refusal of a child to have contact with a parent. Interventions to address both trauma responses and the resist‐refuse dynamics are differentiated and discussed. After screening and assessment, the intent is to treat trauma responses with short‐term, evidence‐based therapy, either before or concurrent with co‐parent and family intervention.     

“I WANT MY MOMMIES”: THE CRY FOR MINI‐DOMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES*

In child custody cases, courts will look to the best interests of a child to maintain visitation/custody rights only with the child's biological parent, not third parties. However, with a same‐sex couple, it is inevitable that one parent will not be the biological parent. Thus, when that parent is in a mini‐DOMA state, where same‐sex couples from non‐mini‐DOMA states do not have to be recognized, that parent will be viewed as a third party and lose all visitation/custody rights if the couple separates. This note advocates that mini‐DOMAs allow both the biological and nonbiological parents of a same‐sex couple to have visitation/custody rights of their children if it would be in the best interest of the children to do so.     

INCORPORATING ATTACHMENT ASSESSMENT INTO CUSTODY EVALUATIONS: THE CASE OF A 2‐YEAR‐OLD AND HER PARENTS

Attachment with parents is central to a child's development. It is well established that the quality of this attachment in early childhood is a strong predictor of developmental and psychological functioning throughout the life span. One of the primary issues in custody evaluations is assessing the quality of the child's attachment to each parent and the parents' capacity to foster security and to consider what this might mean for short‐ and medium‐term decisions about their care. The nature of attachment measures is summarized, and the combined use of three attachment‐caregiving instruments in a custody evaluation is illustrated through the case of a toddler whose parents were engaged in a high‐conflict divorce. The case study demonstrates how, in addition to standard clinical observations, including a set of attachment‐based instruments with a standardized psychological test battery provided information critical to a recommendation for custody and parent visitation.     

The Co-occurrence of Child and Intimate Partner Maltreatment in the Family: Characteristics of the Violent Perpetrators

This study considers the characteristics associated with mothers and fathers who maltreat their child and each other in comparison to parents who only maltreat their child. One hundred and sixty-two parents who had allegations of child maltreatment made against them were considered. The sample consisted of 43 fathers (Paternal Family—PF) and 23 mothers (Maternal Family—MF) who perpetrated both partner and child maltreatment, together with 23 fathers (Paternal Child—PC) and 26 mothers (Maternal Child—MC) who perpetrated child maltreatment only. In addition, 2 fathers (Paternal Victim—PV) and 23 mothers (Maternal Victim—MV) were victims of intimate partner maltreatment and perpetrators of child maltreatment and 7 fathers (Paternal Non-abusive Carer—PNC) and 15 mothers (Maternal Non-abusive Carer—MNC) did not maltreat the child but lived with an individual who did. Within their family unit, 40.7% of parents perpetrated both intimate partner and child maltreatment. However, fathers were significantly more likely to maltreat both their partner and child than mothers and mothers were significantly more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than fathers. PF fathers conducted the highest amount of physical and/or sexual child maltreatment while MC and MV mothers perpetrated the highest amount of child neglect. Few significant differences between mothers were found. PF fathers had significantly more factors associated with development of a criminogenic lifestyle than PC fathers. Marked sex differences were demonstrated with PF fathers demonstrating significantly more antisocial characteristics, less mental health problems and fewer feelings of isolation than MF mothers. MC mothers had significantly more childhood abuse, mental health problems, parenting risk factors and were significantly more likely to be biologically related to the child than PC fathers. This study suggests that violent families should be assessed and treated in a holistic manner, considering the effects of partner violence upon all family members, rather than exclusively intervening with the violent man. Requests for reprints should be sent to Louise Dixon, Center for Forensic and Family Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.     

The Child's Attorney and the Alienated Child: Approaches to Resolving the Ethical Dilemma of Diminished Capacity

Increasingly lawyers for children follow a model of “client centered” (as opposed to “best interests”) representation in child custody disputes in which the child client defines the objectives of the representation. The client‐centered model, while appropriate in most cases to give voice to the child's preferences in a process that deeply impacts him or her, can create an ethical dilemma for the child's lawyer in cases where a child is truly alienated from the other parent by the actions of the alienating parent. Alienated children strongly and unreasonably express a preference for objectives of representation that might further damage the alienated parent's relationship with the child. The alienated child's objectives may be the result of a campaign of denigration and “brainwashing” by the alienating parent. This Note suggests that when a child is truly alienated from a parent, as diagnosed by a mental health expert, the child may have “diminished capacity” and therefore, the client‐directed model of representation is not adequate. This Note proposes that the Child's Attorney must determine whether the child is of diminished capacity under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and, if so, must treat the client accordingly under Rule 1.14. Specifically, the attorney may, if all other remedial measures are inadequate, override the child's wishes and advocate a position that the child would take, but for the brainwashing of the child used to alienate him or her from a parent.     

Surrogacy,Identity, Parentage and Childrenʼs Rights – Through the Eyes of a Child

In this article I will focus on two important aspects of children's rights which are impacted by artificial reproductive technology (particularly surrogacy); being the rights to identity and the rights to legal parentage. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child acknowledges the importance of a child's right to identity, to be protected from discrimination on the basis of the status or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians or family members. For many children born through surrogacy arrangements, they may have only one or no legally recognized parent. The adults caring for them may have parental responsibility orders but this falls well short of providing children with the benefits and protections that legal parentage does. The issue of identity can be complex. Increasingly, states have recognized the importance of children knowing the circumstances of their birth and being able to access biological and genetic information including medical information. From a child's perspective the issues of identity and parenthood are intertwined. Given the importance of identity, more needs to be done to ensure that identifying information about children born as a result of artificial reproductive technology is properly stored and readily accessible for these children. Denying a child legal parentage when there are no concerns about the care being provided by their parents cannot be justified when considered from a children's rights perspective.