Catching Them Before Too Much Damage is Done: Early Intervention with Resistance‐Refusal Dynamics

Children often need help before their parents are ready to stop fighting. Children at the center of high‐conflict disputes, particularly those who resist contact with a parent, face extraordinary risks of maladjustment. Years of investigation and litigation may precede any meaningful attempt at intervention, based on the questionable belief that all elements of causality (or blame) must be established before any effective treatment can occur. Children's functioning may continue to deteriorate during this time, undermining their future adjustment and reducing the chance of successful intervention later. We illustrate the application of the coping‐focused, multisystemic Child Centered Conjoint Therapy model to assisting these families. Methods to assist children without compromising external investigations are discussed.     

Reunification in Intrafamilial Child Abuse Cases: A Model for Intervention

In response to a growing number of requests to help reunify parents and children separated by allegations of child abuse, we developed a model for intervention informed by clinical experience, feedback from clients and professionals, and insights from a growing body of interdisciplinary literature. This article presents a retrospective analysis of 29 intrafamilial cases describing the intervention, outcomes, and problems presented by these challenging situations. The safety and protection of the child was the paramount consideration in determining success, whether or not reunification was achieved. Using informal follow‐up data, 24 of the 29 cases were categorized as successful, 21 resulted in full or partial reunification, and 3 cases resulted in the voluntary or court‐ordered withdrawal of an accused father believed to pose a risk to the child. In 5 cases, the nonaccused parent thwarted efforts at reunification, and the case returned to the court of relevant jurisdiction.     

Risks and Realities of Working with Alienated Children

Involvement in custody cases that include accusations of parental alienation—whether as an evaluator, expert witness, lawyer, judge, therapist, provider of a specialized intervention, or researcher—incurs both professional and personal risks. Some risks relate to false negative or false positive identifications of parental alienation that can lead to regulatory agency complaints and public condemnation by the parent who feels wronged by the case outcome. Other risks stem from providing services in an emerging area of practice and working with children who overtly oppose repairing the relationship with their rejected parent. These risks include: unfounded accusations of mistreating children; negatively biased commentary and sensationalist attacks in the media and in social media, professional conferences and journals, and in courtroom testimony; harassment, vilification, and invasion of privacy; threats of violence and public humiliation; shunning and rumor spreading by colleagues; and complaints to regulatory agencies. This article examines circumstances, beliefs, and dynamics that give rise to these risks, suggests precautions to reduce the risk of false accusations against professionals, and offers recommendations for dealing with regulatory agencies. Criticisms that a court or service provider has mistreated a child merit careful scrutiny in the context of the case evidence and empirical data. While some interventions for alienated children raise legitimate concerns, others have been maligned by anecdotal complaints that studies show do not represent the experience of most participants.     

Responding to Severe Parent–Child Rejection Cases Without a Parentectomy: A Blended Sequential Intervention Model and the Role of the Courts

There have been significant developments over the past two decades that have expanded our understanding of the dynamics of parent–child contact problems post‐separation, which have resulted in some changes in judicial processes to respond to these cases. One significant advancement is a more sophisticated differentiation of the nature and severity of contact problems, which better assists legal and mental health professionals to provide more suitable legal and clinical interventions. However, the issue of innovative court processes has received limited attention. The authors describe a subgroup of families within the “severe” category, for whom an expanded intervention model, referred to as a Blended Sequential Intervention is proposed. This approach involves a reversal of care with court mandated therapeutic support for the rejected parent and child, but also involves the favored parent in the therapeutic plan from the outset, and is intended to avoid a permanent “parentectomy” of the child from either parent. The authors discuss how the courts should respond to these cases, and posit that until all therapeutic treatments are exhausted, interim orders should be preferred to final determinations, and judges should maintain oversight. The authors discuss the critical role of judicial leadership in working with lawyers and mental health professionals to manage and address the issues in these high conflict cases.     

澳门归侨与中国和平统一大业

地处中国南大门的澳门,因其独特的历史地理条件而成为一个多元文化的国际城市。20世纪六七十年代东南亚地区排华,使得大批华侨华人迁居澳门,此后仍有归侨陆续回流至此。现在,归侨和侨眷人口在澳门总人口中占有较大比重。随着澳门归侨人口的不断增加,出于维护自身正当权益的需要,先后有十多个归侨社团在澳门成立。近十年来,澳门归侨社团利用其独特优势,积极举办各种形式和多种主题的"反独促统"活动,加强海内外侨界的联系互动,为促进中华民族和平统一大业作出了很大贡献。     

越南武力统一的“复合权力结构”探析——兼论其对中国和平统一的启示

1976年越南武力统一的实现不单是因为美国从越南的撤军,也是复合权力结构综合作用的结果。本文通过对越南统一问题中全球硬权力结构、全球软权力结构、地区硬权力结构、地区软权力结构、国家硬权力结构以及国家软权力结构六个因素的比较分析,离析出了武力统一模式的重要因素"同质性复合权力结构",以及武力统一模式的关键因素"异质性复合权力结构",从而论证复合权力结构影响越南武力统一进程的研究假设。该结论对中国和平统一进程的推进具有重要的参考价值。     

关于现代化过程中国家问题的思考

现代国家是各国现代化事业的主导力量,如何搞好国家政权本身的建设是一国现代化过程中最重要的任务之一。从历史的角度看,民主国家并不排斥对外战争,一个民族并不必然与另一个民族分享自由,我们必须高度关注民主进程与国家统一之间的内在矛盾。     

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

     

The Transitioning Families Therapeutic Reunification Model in Nonfamilial Abductions

The existing literature on abduction reunification is limited and evolving. Although guidelines for model service approaches exist, few programs address the unique challenges of reunifying children and families following abduction. This article delineates a family‐based reunification model that has assisted families affected by abduction since 2006. Model components include a team‐centered approach, a stage‐oriented reunification process, and pitfalls and strategies related to intersystem collaboration. We present the value of a family‐systems, solution‐focused, trauma‐informed, and case‐specific approach to therapeutic reunification following child abduction. Evidence that is contrary to the popular notion of Stockholm's syndrome is also marked. Research on the efficacy of therapeutic reunification is essential for the growth of systems equipped to address the dynamic needs of these families. Accordingly, suggestions for evaluation research are proposed.     

两岸关系制度化如何处理“台湾当局政治地位”问题

两岸关系和平发展制度化面临的核心障碍是：是否认同“两岸同属一个中国”,以及如何设计两岸都能接受的“一中”法律架构和中央政权架构,而台湾当局的政治地位及两岸关系定位则是争论的焦点所在。两岸在“国号”上的分歧并未改变“两岸同属于一个中国”、“中国的主权以及人民和领土完整并未分裂”的事实,只是中国内战未能彻底结束,导致了“一个中国内两个敌对政权阶段性并存”的格局。笔者认为,在两岸均以谋求国家和平统一为目标的前提下,似可默认在国家统一前双方政权互不隶属,两岸任何一方都不强求对方接受自己作为国内法意义上代表全中国的中央政府,并在国际社会共同维护“一个中国”。未来两岸“统一”的法律目标是：本着相互宽容和谅解的精神,通过平等协商,制定或认可两岸均能接受的、在全中国范围内具有最高法律效力的宪法或宪法性法律,组成能有效管治全中国的中央政府。