Reunification Family Therapy E-Book

Jan Faust

• Herausgeber: Hogrefe Publishing
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 410

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

A unique, evidence-based treatment manual for repairing parent–child relationships Childhood problems are often related to and worsened by the disintegration of the family structure, whether through parental separation and divorce, military service, or incarceration. Reunification therapy is a therapeutic process incorporating different empirically based methods (CBT, humanistic, and systemic) to help repair relationships between parents and children and restore not only physical contact but also meaningful social, emotional, and interpersonal exchanges between parents and children. This unique manual, bringing together the vast experience of the author, outlines the many situations numerous families currently face and why the need for reunification therapy exists. The therapist works firstly with the individual family members and then with all the family in conjoint sessions. The manual expertly guides clinicians through pretreatment decisions and processes to enable them to decide where, when, and in what form reunification therapy is appropriate, taking into account ethical, legal and special family issues. Detailed chapters outline the structure and issues for the individual and conjoint sessions, as well as a step-by-step treatment plan template. Additional tools in the Appendix enable clinicians to monitor and effectuate change

Leseprobe

Reunification Family Therapy

A Treatment Manual

Jan Faust, PhD, ABPP

Professor at the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

About the Author

Jan Faust, PhD, ABPP, is Professor at the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern University (NSU), Fort Lauderdale, FL. While at NSU, Dr. Faust developed the Child and Adolescent Traumatic Stress Program, which is a clinical, training, and research facility serving children exposed to traumatic events, including child abuse, witnessing interpersonal violence, accidental injury, and medical traumas. Furthermore, she has developed a family forensic component to her trauma program wherein her doctoral students conduct forensic evaluations, post-dissolution therapy, reunification therapy, and individual therapy for children and their families experiencing family court issues.

Dr. Faust has conducted various research projects, and currently she is conducting treatment outcome research on treatment efficacy for families in reunification therapy, parent empathy training, and children with post traumatic stress disorder. She has published many articles in peer-reviewed journals and book chapters in the field of child, adolescent, and family psychology. Dr. Faust has served as Associate Editor for the APA trauma journal Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy and was a founding editor of the Journal of Trauma Practice.

Finally, Dr. Faust also serves as an academic expert witness and conducts family reunification therapy, forensic evaluations, family mediation, and second opinion reviews in independent practice. She is a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator. She has also received Board Certification from the American Board of Professional Psychology in Behavioral and Cognitive Psychology.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication information for the print version of this book is available via the Library of Congress Marc Database under the Library of Congress Control Number 2017952625

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Faust, Jan, author

Reunification family therapy : a treatment manual / Jan Faust, PhD,

ABPP, Professor at the College of Psychology at Nova Southeastern

University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Includes bibliographical references.

Issued in print and electronic formats.

ISBN 978-0-88937-491-1 (hardcover).--ISBN 978-1-61676-491-3 (PDF).--

ISBN 978-1-61334-491-0 (EPUB)

1. Family psychotherapy--Handbooks, manuals, etc.  2. Family

reunification--Handbooks, manuals, etc.  3. Parent and child--Handbooks,

manuals, etc.  I. Title.

RC488.5.F38 2017

616.89'156

C2017-905814-2

C2017-905815-0

The authors and publisher have made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this text is in accord with the current state of scientific knowledge, recommendations, and practice at the time of publication. In spite of this diligence, errors cannot be completely excluded. Also, due to changing regulations and continuing research, information may become outdated at any point. The authors and publisher disclaim any responsibility for any consequences which may follow from the use of information presented in this book.

Registered trademarks are not noted specifically in this publication. The omission of any such notice by no means implies that any trade names mentioned are free and unregistered.

© 2018 by Hogrefe Publishing

http://www.hogrefe.com

PUBLISHING OFFICES

USA:

Hogrefe Publishing Corporation, 7 Bulfinch Place, Suite 202, Boston, MA 02114

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

EUROPE:

Hogrefe Publishing GmbH, Merkelstr. 3, 37085 Göttingen, Germany

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

SALES & DISTRIBUTION

USA:

Hogrefe Publishing, Customer Services Department, 30 Amberwood Parkway, Ashland, OH 44805

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

UK:

Hogrefe Publishing, c/o Marston Book Services Ltd., 160 Eastern Ave.,

Milton Park, Abingdon, OX14 4SB, UK

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

EUROPE:

Hogrefe Publishing, Merkelstr. 3, 37085 Göttingen, Germany

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

OTHER OFFICES

CANADA:

Hogrefe Publishing, 660 Eglinton Ave. East, Suite 119 – 514, Toronto, Ontario, M4G 2K2

SWITZERLAND:

Hogrefe Publishing, Länggass-Strasse 76, CH-3000 Bern 9

Copyright Information

The e-book, including all its individual chapters, is protected under international copyright law. The unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted or proprietary content is illegal and could subject the purchaser to substantial damages. The user agrees to recognize and uphold the copyright.

License Agreement

The purchaser is granted a single, nontransferable license for the personal use of the e-book and all related files.

Making copies or printouts and storing a backup copy of the e-book on another device is permitted for private, personal use only.

Other than as stated in this License Agreement, you may not copy, print, modify, remove, delete, augment, add to, publish, transmit, sell, resell, create derivative works from, or in any way exploit any of the e-book’s content, in whole or in part, and you may not aid or permit others to do so. You shall not: (1) rent, assign, timeshare, distribute, or transfer all or part of the e-book or any rights granted by this License Agreement to any other person; (2) duplicate the e-book, except for reasonable backup copies; (3) remove any proprietary or copyright notices, digital watermarks, labels, or other marks from the e-book or its contents; (4) transfer or sublicense title to the e-book to any other party.

These conditions are also applicable to any audio or other files belonging to the e-book. Should the print edition of this book include electronic supplementary material then all this material (e.g., audio, video, pdf files) is also available in the e-book edition.

Cover image: © Oksana Mizina – shutterstock.com

Format: EPUB

ISBN 978-0-88937-491-1 (print) • ISBN 978-1-61676-491-3 (PDF) • ISBN 978-1-61334-491-0 (EPUB)

http://doi.org/10.1027/00491-000

Citability: This EPUB includes page numbering between two vertical lines (Example: |1|) that corresponds to the page numbering of the print and PDF ebook versions of the title.

|V|Dedication

For my family, and the families I have had the privilege of serving.

Contents

Dedication

Preface

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Family Structure and Fragmentation of the Family

CHAPTER 2 Bases and Elements of Reunification Therapy

Mechanisms Responsible for Breaches in the Parent–Child Relationship

Why Does the Need Exist for Reunification Therapy?

Why Not Let the Child Decide? Application of Developmental Psychology

Spontaneous Reunification

Treatment Selection Guided by Empirical Evidence and Specific Characteristics of Family

Reunification Therapy: Terms and Related Concepts

Therapy Terms

Terms Referring to Parents

Interparental Conflict Terms

CHAPTER 3 Reunification Therapy as a Specific Form of Empirically Based Family Therapy

What Reunification Therapy Is NOT

Reunification Therapy: A Composite Treatment

Empirical Bases of Reunification Therapy

Cognitive and Behavioral Domains

Behavioral Parent and Behavioral Coparent Training: Interventions Based in Operant Conditioning

Communication Skills Training for Parents and for Parents and Children

Behavioral Activation Therapy

Systematic Desensitization and Exposure-Based Therapy: Interventions Based in Classical Conditioning

Information Processing Theory and Cognitive Restructuring

Motivational Interviewing for Children and Parents

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

Humanistic (Client-Centered) Domain

Systemic Family Therapy Domain

CHAPTER 4 Pretreatment Decisions and Process

Appropriateness for Reunification Therapy in Military Deployment and Institutionalization Cases

Appropriateness for Reunification Therapy in Family Law and Guardianship Cases

Ethical and Legal Considerations

Informed Consent: Statement of Understanding

The Contract, Court Order, or Agreed Order

Do No Harm

Avoiding Multiple Relationships

Avoiding Making Custodial and Time-Sharing Recommendations

Practicing Within the Scope

Communicating With Attorneys and Allied Professionals Prior to Treatment

When Reunification Therapy Is Inappropriate

Necessary Therapist Characteristics

Therapist’s Thick Skin

Activating the Expectancy Set

CHAPTER 5 Working With the Child

Explanation of the Reunification Process to the Child or Adolescent

The Use of Metaphors

Establishing Effective Working Relationships: The Buy In, The Child

Capitalizing on Children’s Natural Curiosity

“Are You My Mother?”; “Are You My Father?”

Assessing and Addressing Resistance: The Child

Resistance Due to Anxiety and Fear: “Getting Back Up on the Horse”

Resistance Due to Oppositionality

Resistance Due to Alignment With the Time-Sharing Parent

Addressing Anger

Face-Saving Maneuvers

Appropriately Empowering the Child

Siblings: A Double-Edged Sword

Developing an In-Session and Out-of-Session Safety Plan

Assessing Resistance of Others and Determining Outside Influences

Critical Collaboration With Other Case-Specific Professionals

Children’s Individual Differences and Special Abilities

CHAPTER 6 Working With the Non-Time-Sharing Parent

Initial Therapy Considerations

Anger and Blame

Parents Who Have Been “Victimized” and/or Maintain Their Victim Role

Parents Without Parenting Leverage

Temporary Abdication of Parenting

Parents Without Adequate Parenting Competencies and Self-Confidences

Fear of Rage, Retaliation, and Rejection of the Child and the Alternate Parent

Ground Rules for Non-Time-Sharing Parents

When Interacting With Children During Reunification Sessions

CHAPTER 7 Working With the Time-Sharing Parent

Resistance Versus Intentional Interference

The Current Theme

The Historical Theme

Child and Different Relationships Themes

The Intrapersonal Theme

Enhancement of Time-Sharing Parents’ Engagement in Reunification Therapy

Time-Sharing Parents Require Empathy and Support Too

Closing Parenting Loopholes

The Buy-In

Subterfuge

Therapist at Risk of Being Thrown Under the Bus

CHAPTER 8 Conjoint Sessions and Effecting Change

Initial Non-Time-Sharing Parent–Child Contact

Staying Present-Focused

Instructing Parents Not to “Take the Bait”: Children’s Attempts at Triangulating Parents

Presenting a Unified Front

“More Is More”

Homework: A Necessary Tool

Utilizing Interparental Electronic Communications to Effectuate Change

Obstacles During Family Treatment

Including Other Professionals in the Process to Effectuate Change

The Guardian Ad Litem

Guardian Ad Litem as Observer

Guardian Ad Litem as Good Cop/Bad Cop

Guardian Ad Litem and Therapist Mirroring the Parenting Dyad

Guardian Ad Litem and Therapist as a Team

Children Who Cannot Separate From the Time-Sharing Parent for Reunification Therapy

Use of Ancillary Strategies to Enhance Contact

Developing New Traditions

Extended-Family Systems: Grandmother, Grandfather, and Others

Enhancing Attachment: Photography and Video Recording

Planned Termination of Reunification Therapy

CHAPTER 9 Legal Processes During and After Treatment

Translucent Legal Agendas (AKA Not-So-Transparent Agendas)

“Less Is More”

CHAPTER 10 Special Topics

Preparing Children When Reunification Is Not Possible

Reunification Therapy With Other Primary Caretakers

Reunification Therapy When Physical Distance Is a Factor

Immersion Interventions: Workshops and Retreats

Reunification of Infants and Very Young Children With Their Parents

CHAPTER 11 Fundamental Treatment Plan

Reunification Therapy for Dissolved Parental Relationships

Pretreatment

Treatment Sessions

Important Notes

References

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Reunification Therapy: Motivational Interviewing Questions

APPENDIX B

Reunification Therapy: Behavioral Activation

APPENDIX C

Empathy Training for Parents

|XI|Preface

The inception of this book originated from observations gleaned and research conducted over the years, revealing that child problems do not occur in isolation and that many children are confronted with a variety of losses during childhood. Irrespective of a child’s symptom presentation, its maintenance, exacerbation, and amelioration appears to be contingent on several environmental variables, including those exhibited in the family setting. For example, family conflict has been observed to drive children’s adjustment to a myriad of life events, not just to a parent’s divorce but also to chronic and life-threatening disease, exposure to various traumas (e.g., fire, terrorism, child sexual abuse, hurricane), and peer relational problems. In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the fracturing of the family system due to a host of factors such as military deployment, incarceration, and dissolution of the coparenting relationship (e.g., divorce and separation). The physical and/or emotional separation of a parent from a child can have deleterious emotional consequences for the child as well as the potential to permanently erode the parent–child relationship.

While lawmakers appreciate that children require opportunities to have healthy relationships with both parents, the vehicle employed to provide these affiliations is obscure in many cases. This is particularly true in high-conflict families, where parents are not only embroiled in overt conflict but also have multiple covert agendas from which they are operating, and which, at times, unexpectedly shift. These agendas often include the thwarting of one parent’s time-sharing with the child in order to maximize the amount of child support payments, as an example. Frequently this leaves little recourse for officers of the court, who frequently call upon mental health professionals to assist in conflict resolution. For therapists who have been the recipients of these cases, they understand that conducting family therapy to repair intact families, while challenging, is nearly an impossible feat when attempting to repair those families comprising individuals who no longer desire to be together. Given societal mandates, scientific discovery, and the law, it is important for children to have healthy relationships with both parents irrespective of their parents’ marital status, employment status (e.g., military), health status, and legal status (e.g., incarceration). It ultimately becomes incumbent upon the mental health professional to facilitate parent–child relationships, and while treatment outcome research is scant with respect to the best methods to assist these reunifying families, the incorporation of evidence-based treatments obtained from other realms of clinical psychology can be applied in the service of these cases. It is hoped that this treatment guide can serve as a manual to assist professionals in their work with reunifying parent–child relationships.

This book is divided into chapters that include the procedures of reunification therapy from the commencement of therapy to its completion. It incorporates instructional information as the therapist works initially with each member of the family and then when family members are subsequently joined together for family intervention. Additionally, ethical and legal considerations as well as the use of ancillary professionals in the reunification process are addressed. Alternative forms of reunification therapy, as well as special considerations when reunifying families, are also presented. Finally, a step-by-step treatment plan is provided as a reunification therapy template, and additional tools to effectuate change are included in the Appendices.

I would like to express my gratitude to Brandon and Nina for their unremitting unconditional support and faith in their mother. I would like to acknowledge Anita Alexander and Kelly Gibson for their invaluable assistance in preparing this volume and Colby Schepps for the use of her poignant maxims. I would also like to thank the Honorable Susan Greenhawt for her thoughtful feedback regarding this book and her valuable insights over the years from the bench. Finally, I would like to thank the Florida Family Court Bench and the family law attorneys who have entrusted me with serving the needs of their clients.

Jan Faust

Fort Lauderdale, FL

October 2017

|1|CHAPTER 1Introduction to Family Structure and Fragmentation of the Family

And love is love is love is love is love is love is love is love…

Lin-Manuel Miranda (2016, 70th Tony Awards, New York, NY)

The objective of publishing this book is to provide a blueprint for mental health professionals who are working with fragmented families of all constitutions and structures, to assist in reunifying parents and children. Family structures have changed considerably in the last 100 years, with the advancement of science and social revolution and reformation. The American landscape has been transformed with multigenerational family farming units collapsing into smaller entities and the scattering of family members across the country. Historically, farming parents bore a large number of children to assist with the servicing of the farm; however, with the invention of automated machinery, the need for multiple hands diminished. Scientific discovery, not only within the farming industry but also with respect to mass production of goods and expeditious transportation, has heightened human mobility. These changes have contributed to the dispersion of extended families such that there no longer remains a need for relatives to live in proximity to the nuclear family. Additionally, the women’s movement has contributed to increased numbers of women in the work place, affording women greater self-sufficiency, which has had a cascading effect on divorce rates. No longer do women have to remain married for reasons of economic security; in fact, woman have chosen to marry less frequently in recent years and to have children out of wedlock in increasing numbers, such that since 1960, the number of live births to unmarried women has increased from 5.3 % to 40.3 % (Child Trends Data Bank, 2015). The impact of the women’s movement coupled with the sexual revolution has assisted with the destigmatizing of divorce.

Economic changes have also episodically impacted the family structure, including adult children returning to their parents’ home to reside, and adult children caring for their elderly parents in their own homes or those of their parents. Additionally, the notable increase in substance abuse and addiction in recent decades has contributed to children being raised by grandparents, other relatives, and non–biologically related caregivers. Similarly, there is an observed downward effect of substance abusing parents on child maltreatment; hence, in a cohort of abuse cases, substance use and abuse are factors detected in the family systems of abused children (Barth, Gibbons, & Guo, 2006). In fact, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (1996) identified parents with a substance use disorder were 3 times more likely to engage in child maltreatment than those without a substance use disorder.

Family composition has also been impacted by modern war such that between 2001 and 2013, 2 million children experienced a military deployment of a parent at least once (Clever & Segal, 2013). Other noted changes in the military family structure, in recent history, are observed in the fact that many more women are entering the military than previously, and concomitant with this change, many households are headed by two military parents. In 2014, the Department of Defense stated that 11.7 % of all active duty personnel included both married partners, with 19.3 % of all active duty Air Force personnel in dual military marriages (Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Defense, 2014). Not only have military parents recognized the need to reconfigure family processes, structure, and operations given their impending absence from their children’s lives, but courts have also recognized the need for adjudicating guardianships for children in these families when both parents are deployed simultaneously or when deployments overlap with each other. The federal government has sought to protect the child’s interests in this regard (Burelli & Miller, 2013), and the majority of states have followed with similar laws as a result of the federal statutes. Currently, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (2014) is the only |2|federal statute designed to protect single-parent service members. The parent’s military deployment cannot be used as grounds for a change in custody, including time-sharing or modification of an existing parenting plan (e.g., Cal. Family Code § 3047, 2011, Division 8: Custody of Children, Chapter 2: Matters to Be Considered in Granting Custody;Temporary Time-Sharing Modification and Child Support Modification Due to Military Service, 2016; Modification of Order Based on Military Duty, 2009; Definitions, 2009). In fact, in some states, there are provisions for the deploying parent to appoint someone in their absence to stand-in for their time-sharing and parental decision making (e.g., Temporary Time-Sharing Modification and Child Support Modification Due to Military Service, 2016).

With respect to marital or partner dissolution and family court, the judicial climate has changed dramatically over the years regarding coparenting of children. For example, in 1996, researchers discovered that southeastern US judges’ preferred time-sharing plan was for children to reside for the school year with one parent and the summer with the other parent, followed by the sole custody of one parent (Stamps, Kunen, & Lawyer, 1996). They also found that for visitation and time-sharing schedules, judges’ preferred schedules were every other weekend as the most popular, followed in descending order of popularity by every weekend, more often than every weekend, one weekend per month, and less than one weekend per month. These 20-year-old findings contrast with the more recent statutory abolition of any demarcation of custodial or residential parent, and the current pending legislation in Florida of a presumption of 50/50 time-sharing (FLS SB 668, 2016). These statutory events highlight the dramatic changes in the views of the bench regarding time-sharing.

Despite a more restricted judicial perspective of time-sharing in the past, judges historically rated the parent–child relationship and the family unit as the most important factors in deciding time-sharing and access in divorce cases (Stamps et al., 1996). The focus on the parent–child relationship and the family as essential in considering a variety of parenting plans continues to be primary in judicial determination of parent–child time-sharing. In fact, most states employ “the child’s best interests” standard when considering parent access to children. These best interests examine, in part, whether or not the parents can facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent–child relationship. Some states expand upon this premise adding that the parents are required to honor the time-sharing schedule and to be reasonable when changes are required.

Finally, a more unusual need for reunification therapy can be discerned in the shifting age demographic as baby boomers age and are living longer than in previous decades. This, coupled with young-adult children returning home after college graduation or not leaving home as expeditiously as in earlier years, has created greater frequency of contact between adult children and their parents, as well as heightened reciprocal support-seeking relationships. Ultimately this change in family structure can create problematic interpersonal relationships leading to severed parent and adult-child relationships.

This treatment manual provides the therapist with a guide to assist the dissolving family unit which has been ruptured via several different mechanisms involving unified family law litigation, including marital or partner dissolution, paternity, dependency, domestic violence, and juvenile delinquency, as well as those families involved in military deployment and institutionalization (incarceration or hospitalization) and adult-child–parent relationship difficulties.

It should be emphasized that the content of this manual is based on the available scientific literature, including evidence-based practices and other empirical research, and well-established theories in the psychology literature, as well as observations gleaned in clinical practice. It also should be noted that the information imparted through this book and the example treatment template at the close of this book consider these scientifically derived sources of information, while noting that each individual and specific family is unique. The treatment utilized for each family is likely to vary to some degree from that which is imparted in this book. This treatment variance may be due to individual nuances of the problem areas leading to reunification therapy, individual differences in the family members and the family as an entity, and individual differences of the totality of the situation, including the specific legal issues in those reunification cases with court or other legal involvement.

|3|CHAPTER 2Bases and Elements of Reunification Therapy

Mechanisms Responsible for Breaches in the Parent–Child Relationship

Reunification therapy is a therapeutic process designed to repair relationships between parents and children in an attempt to restore not only physical contact but meaningful social, emotional, and interpersonal exchanges between parents and children. For families in need of reunification, the mechanisms responsible for the severed relationship include the following: First, the absence of the parent may be “intrapersonally” imposed for example, if the non-time-sharing parent has been hospitalized, incarcerated, or is unavailable due to substance use and abuse or major mental illness. In their 2015 article, Dallaire, Zeman, and Thrash (2015) cite statistics indicating significant increases in parental incarceration, with the most notable increases in recent years being in maternal incarceration. Approximately 1.7 million children in the US will have lost a parent to incarceration prior to their reaching 18 years of age, with many of the parents not released from prison until after the child has reached the age of majority (Hoffmann, Byrd, & Kightlinger, 2010). While in-person prison visits are a preferred method of contact to prevent the complete erosion of the child–parent relationship, two of the barriers to live prison visits are location and concomitant travel time and costs. On average, prisons are located 160 miles from incarcerated prisoners’ children’s homes (cited by Coughenour, 1995, in Hoffmann et al., 2010). There are some established programs that circumvent this potential barrier via the utilization of phone calls and video conferencing for parent–child contact (Hoffmann et al., 2010).

With respect to intrapersonal reasons for the severed parent–child relationship, the non-time-sharing parent may also have been absent due to the perpetration, or allegations of the perpetration, of domestic violence and/or child maltreatment. Statistics indicate a notable presence of child incest cases among fathers and mothers (Gover & Bosick, 2011). And while many permanently lose parental rights, there is a subset of these parents where reunification is the court’s goal. Other noted intrapersonally imposed parent–child relationship breaches can be observed in the longevity and economic changes contributing to adult children residing with their parents and adult children having to care for their aging parents within their own home. A child’s age when they depart their parents’ home for the first time is increasing (Furstenberg, 2010), and more children than before are returning home to live. In fact, the term Boomerang Age was coined to demarcate these returning adult children (Mitchell, 2006), an event that appears to be a worldwide phenomenon. In a recent large-scale study, researchers observed different trajectories for a breach in the parent–adult-child relationship contingent on the family member’s role. Parents reported relationship severing was the result of their adult children’s unacceptable partner choice or sense of self-privilege, while adult children most frequently attributed the relationship breach to be a function of their parents’ noxious behavior or their rejection or lack of support (Carr, Holman, Abetz, Kellas, & Vagnoni, 2015).

A second group of reunification cases that evolves from the parent’s absence may be situationally imposed, for example, in those cases where the non-time-sharing parent has been relocated by the military or an occupation (job relocation). Approximately 1 million American children have experienced the military deployment of a parent (Clever & Segal, 2013; Park, 2011), and while there is literature to indicate the maladaptive effects of deployment on children, it is likely these negative effects and increased seeking of mental health services is the function of multiple factors. Researchers have indicated that increased mental health services for children, while possibly a direct function of the parent’s deployment, may also be a function of the nondeployed parent, who may experience their own mental health issues and addresses those by seeking services for their child (Alfano, Lau, Balderas, Bunnell, & Beidel, 2016). Military children’s problems evidenced at reunification with the returning deployed parent may also be multifaceted. These children may demonstrate a number of concerns such as worries about future parent deployments and the returning parents’ impaired mental health |4|status (Mmari, Roche, Sudhinaraset, & Blum, 2009). Researchers have shown that the returning parent who is afflicted by mental health concerns, particularly posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), may unwittingly negatively impact the child directly and the parent–child relationship (Brockman et al., 2016). With respect to reunification, Mmari et al. (2009) observed that adolescents cited reacquainting themselves with the returning parent postdeployment as the most challenging facet of the deployment process.

A rare environmental event contributing to a parent–child relationship breach is stranger abduction. Nonfamilial abduction has been cited in recent years as a traumatic event that requires the child to be reunited with all of their family members (e.g., Greif, 2009). In fact, researchers have developed a therapy model for transitioning families of children who have been abducted by a non-family member. The transitioning families therapeutic reunification model (TFTRM) for nonfamilial abductions of children includes a trauma-informed process incorporating the use of multidisciplinary teams who engage in a step-wise process with the incorporation of family systems and solution focus interventions to reintegrate the child within the family (e.g., Judge et al., 2016).

A third cluster of cases where a severed relationship exists between child and parent, originates from “failures in parenting” by the non-time-sharing parent, including failure to facilitate a bond or attachment to the child, inappropriate or severe parenting strategies, and the inability to negotiate cultural and value differences (see, for example, Darnall & Steinberg, 2008). Furthermore, maladaptive parenting practices by both parents can contribute to breaks in the relationship between the non-time-sharing parent and child, and these are typically observed in high-conflict families. For example, a parent who is angered by the child, perceives the precipitating adverse child behavior to be caused by the alternate parent and decides to abdicate their time-sharing for a night, week, few weeks, or months. Finally, active interference by the time-sharing parent may be the basis of the child’s refusal to spend time with the other parent. There are a multitude of avenues for contributions to a disruption in time-sharing in high-conflict or divorcing families. Regardless of the factors which contribute to the estrangement between the non-time-sharing parent and the child, it is evident that reunification is typically the goal, as dictated by psychological science and the law. In fact, child outcomes are significantly enhanced when children have meaningful relationships with both parents (Amato & Sobolewski, 2001; Faust & Ko, 2016; Hetherington & Kelly, 2003).

While there are multiple mechanisms by which the parent–child relationship is ruptured, until recently, parent–child reunification therapy was a process typically reserved for the reconsolidation of the child–parent relationship through dependency court (Faust, 2010). In these dependency court actions, parents, confronted with the potential permanent removal of their children by the state generally due to parental neglect and/or abuse or the imminent potential of maltreatment, require a rehabilitative parenting plan. In fact, the scientific and legal literature is replete with papers that delineate the legal and social science approach to reunifying parents with their children who have been placed in foster care or relative care. Traditionally, it was not uncommon for substance-abusing mothers to lose custody of their children at birth or shortly thereafter (Famularo, Kinscherff, & Fenton, 1992; Wells & Marcenko, 2011). Many of these original attempts at reunification of parent and child involved group programs to repair the relationship between parent and child while the mother maintained recovery (Smith, 2003; Choi, Huang & Ryan, 2012). Haight, Black, Workman, and Tata (2001), who delineated in their foster care research that parents and children exhibit a broad variability of behaviors during mother–child visits, highlighted the need for appropriate reunification intervention. The mothers in their sample spontaneously reported the challenges of these interactions, with separating from the child at visit completion to be particularly problematic (Haight et al., 2001).

More recently, the legal system and mental health professionals have identified family law cases of marital or couple dissolution, wherein one biological parent holds the primary caretaking role and the other parent has not had contact with their child for varying periods of time. Often, the parent without contact wishes to develop or reestablish a relationship with their child. In rare hybrid family law cases, a breach in the parent–child relationship has occurred not only due to divorce or parental relationship dissolution but also due to parental abduction, with the child’s time-sharing parent incarcerated for the kidnapping. Another uncommon phenomenon is the reunification of both parents with a child who has other adults as custodial agents. While there is a dearth of literature with respect to family law parent–child reunification, the need to remedy the separation between the parents and the children in these legal family matters is a reality in practice. Although many therapists actively try to avoid working |5|with families involved in litigation cases, they often find themselves either wittingly or unwittingly having to address such parent–child separation issues in their practice.

Why Does the Need Exist for Reunification Therapy?

It is obvious that both divorce and death have varied negative consequences for children (Amato & Anthony, 2014). Irrespective of the mechanisms responsible for the breach in the parent–child relationship, there are a multitude of studies indicating that children are adversely affected by the loss of a parent and are better adjusted when able to maintain sound relationships with their parents. In fact, research demonstrates that children of divorce exhibit better overall adjustment when they enjoy adaptive and positive relationships with both parents (Hetherington & Kelly, 2003; Amato & Sobolewski, 2001). Furthermore, it appears the loss of the parent relationship has greater negative effects for children than exposure to family conflict, which has been cited as a primary variable of maladjustment for children in multiple domains and a variety of contexts. In a multimethod prospective study, Sturge-Apple, Davies, and Cummings (2006) observed that parental withdrawal had a direct negative effect on all areas of children’s adaptation and functioning, whereas interparental hostility had an indirect impact on subsequent changes in child functioning. These researchers also discovered an intermediary role of parental emotional unavailability as related to interparental withdrawal and hostility and child adjustment. Hence it is evident that a parent’s emotional and physical absence has a notable impact on child adjustment that is potentially greater than that observed when children experience interparental conflict only.

Interestingly, there are some longitudinal data to indicate that children are affected prior to the dissolution of the parenting relationship. Arkes (2015) observed that children experienced low reading scores and behavioral problems 2 years before the disruption of the parents’ union. Amato and Anthony (2014) also detected that the estimated effects of divorce seemed to be the greatest for children with parents who have the maximum propensity to experience divorce, prior to the actual divorce. In this study, variables associated with a parent’s greater proclivity toward divorce included issues of resources (Amato & Anthony, 2014). In a longitudinal study following a large child cohort from kindergarten through the fifth grade, Potter (2010) observed divorce to be associated with reduced psychosocial functioning in the youths, which was related to a decline in academic performance. In fact, the effects of divorce and loss on children have been globally and culturally observed. For example, Al Gharaibeh (2015) observed high rates of sleep disorders, stubbornness, and noncompliance in his sample of children from divorcing families of the United Arab Emirates.

Parent–child involvement is likely multidetermined. Pearson (2015) indicated a relationship between father involvement and the payment of child support, such that those fathers who paid child support were more likely to be involved with their children. This finding was bidirectional in that those fathers who were more involved in their children’s lives were more likely to pay child support than those less involved. The benefits of both are paramount, since the literature supports the idea that children typically profit from the positive involvement of their nonresidential fathers, and that those who lack interaction are at risk for cognitive, social, and emotional deficits (Pearson, 2015). It is also evident that children benefit from financial integrity, which is often threatened or even adversely affected post marital dissolution (Amato, 2000). The financial resources of families are often considered as a potential risk or protective factor for children’s emotional, academic, and cognitive state; physical integrity and health; and growth and social adjustment (Kelly & Emery, 2003).

Older research indicated that children benefit when they have contact with same-sex parents. However, in recent years, parent gender matching has been seen as not necessarily indicative of better outcomes for children who experience their parents’ divorce (Faust, Ko, Alexander, & Greenhawt, 2017; Faust, Ko, Alexander, Tarver, & Gibson, 2016). More specifically, the literature indicates that children derive benefits from both parents postdivorce. The support for this includes research that identifies frequent and regular contact with fathers to be associated with more positive psychological adjustment in boys and young children than is the case with less contact. When children have close relationships with their father, and the father is actively involved in their lives, school-aged children have better psychological adjustment and academic achievement than children with a less-involved father (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999). There is also evidence that daughters derive benefits from close and continuing relationships with their father. The better the quality of the relationship an adolescent daughter has with her father, the higher her self-esteem and healthier |6|her romantic partner choice in early adulthood (Nielsen, 2011).

In a meta-analysis conducted by Bauserman (2002), it was observed that irrespective of who was rating the children (mothers, fathers, teachers, clinicians, or the children themselves) joint-custody children exhibited better psychological adjustment than sole maternal custody children. Viry (2014) observed that cohesive coparenting (the ability for separated parents to positively and supportively communicate and jointly problem solve child issues with the other parent) was linked more to frequent father–child contacts by phone and e-mail than to the proximity of the father’s residence to that of the mother. Both cohesive coparenting and the father’s residential proximity had positive and independent effects on children’s adjustment. These researchers observed that children who had fathers living in proximity to the mother’s residence exhibited fewer behavioral difficulties and showed more prosocial behavior than those whose father lived far away (Viry, 2014). These findings suggest that frequent contacts by phone or e-mail can substitute for distance in coparenting, but geographical proximity remains important for fathers’ contributions to children’s well-being. Furthermore, in one study, half of college students studied, who had experienced their parent’s divorce on average 11 years earlier and who spent the majority of time with their mother, retrospectively desired additional time with their father (Fabricius, 2003). Additionally, Fabricius (2003) found that less than 10 % of this sample in any time-sharing category (based on amount of time with each parent) desired less contact with their father than was previously realized.

For other populations, in a study conducted in 2015 by Dallaire and her colleagues, it was observed that children whose mothers were incarcerated manifested symptoms of both internalizing and externalizing disorders when they experienced the risks associated with their mother’s incarceration, including loss. Zeman, Dallaire, and Borowski (2015) found that children with incarcerated mothers who engaged in emotion-focused responses to their children’s sadness and who had high maternal incarnation risk experiences (e.g., mothers with three or more incarcerations and separation from siblings due to the incarceration) had poor psychological and social adjustment. Children separated from a parent due to military deployment also experience adverse effects with the separation. Researchers have found that youths report significantly more social and emotional difficulties with parental deployment than youths in a non-deployed-parent sample (Chandra et al., 2010). They also observed that length of parental deployment and nondeployed caregiver psychological functioning were significantly associated with adjustment difficulties for children both during deployment and after deployed-parent family reintegration. (Walsh et al., 2014; Laser, & Stephens, 2011).

The evidence in support of reunification intervention is demonstrated by research regarding the impact of parent–child relationship reparation. McWey and Mullis (2004) tested a model of the quality of attachment of 123 foster care children who received monitored time-sharing with their biological parents. The results indicated that for children reunifying with their biological parents, the children who had more regular and recurrent contact with their biological parents had stronger attachments than children who had less contact. In turn, the children with greater levels of attachment had better behavioral and emotional adjustment, were less frequently prescribed psychiatric medication, and were less likely to be diagnosed with developmental delays than were children with less adaptive attachment (McWey & Mullis, 2004).

In family court, the need for reunification therapy is evident, as highlighted in cases where the time-sharing parent is intentionally withholding the child from the non-time-sharing parent. While judges have had the means to shift custody from the time-sharing parent to the non-time-sharing parent; they are hesitant to do so, as there is a lack of data that support (or invalidate) such a shift, and this remedy is often viewed as extreme by the judiciary. Furthermore, there is both implicit and explicit pressure on judges not to shift custody from the time-sharing parent to the non-time-sharing parent (Warshak, 2015a). Hence, in these cases, if a parent–child relationship is to be established or reestablished between the non-time-sharing parent and the child, the only recourse is to effectuate some form of intervention.

Why Not Let the Child Decide? Application of Developmental Psychology

Overall, having a child contribute to decision making in areas of parenting and child behavior has been shown to have positive results with respect to overall child adjustment. Parenting-style research indicates that parents who partially include children in rule development and consequences for infractions of the rules, |7|combined with a parent’s explanation for the rule, have children who exhibit the best outcomes versus those parents who are authoritarian, laissez-faire, and uninvolved (Givertz, 2016). However, while it is important for children to express themselves and be involved in family decision-making processes, there are some life areas for which children should not finalize the decision. Health and education are two of the most obvious examples where the decisions in these domains should remain with the parents or guardians. Parents generally do not allow children to decide whether they should or should not take medicine for an acute or chronic medical condition, as the health risks are potentially great. This is true even if religion dictates the refusal of medical treatment, as the parent is the one declining medical treatment, which often involves other adults such as members of the judiciary in this decision-making process. Similarly, there are laws that enforce education for children in the US, and the mores and cultural values of the US society place a premium on education for children. In fact, when the time-sharing parent informs the therapist that they cannot obtain compliance from the child to share time with the non-time-sharing parent, it is useful to ask the parent what they would do in the event the child refused to go to school. These parents often appear mortified at the thought that the child would be allowed to decline school attendance. This question is often a useful launching point for a discussion of the importance of forging a relationship with the alternate parent.

There are excellent developmental data that indicate that children’s developmental processes at different stages of their lives prohibit their decision making with full contextual adult understanding. Most obvious are babies and very young children who are unable to understand let alone communicate time-sharing beliefs and feelings. Furthermore, given the importance of attachment and the critical evolution of adaptive attachment from birth, it is extremely important that the adults ensure positive attachments occur to all primary caretakers, irrespective of a young child’s beliefs or statements. Furthermore, as indicated previously, there are a multitude of reasons proffered as to why children have a severed relationship with a parent. Many of these causes or beliefs are complex in nature, requiring advanced cognitive development and socioemotional maturity for the child to enter a well-reasoned decision regarding time-sharing with a parent. In fact, while there is an extensive literature that indicates that children derive significant benefits from forging a relationship with both of their parents, children are not consumers of the scientific literature and hence are unable to make well-reasoned decisions that are in their best interests regarding time-sharing with their parents.

There is a wealth of data that indicate that children are not able to achieve formal operational thought until early adolescence, and in many cases, children do not ever attain this level of cognitive functioning. The development of formal operational thought is a perquisite to considering many different options and hypotheticals; hence such a level of cognition is often necessary for understanding complex relationships and the child’s role in these relationships. Furthermore, children lack experiences from which to build their cognitive base, including their problem-solving skill set; consequently, they are often unable to make correctly reasoned decisions for themselves. Likewise, the brain’s frontal lobe is generally not sufficiently developed in children and adolescents, rendering them susceptible to impulsivity and hasty decision-making processes (Silveri et al., 2013).

Additionally, children and adolescents are egocentric; consequently, they are likely to be self-absorbed with their own lives as well as to take the path of least resistance if it provides immediate gratification of needs and minimizes hassles and discomfort. Therefore, the decisions they make may be derived from immediate gratification of self-perceived needs and reduction of hassles in their lives, without regard to the consequences of these decision-making processes. For example, in a child whose social life is primarily centered in the neighborhood of one parent, that focus may be a barrier to the child’s motivation to spend time with the alternate parent. Similarly, children with split time-sharing plans often find it frustrating and troublesome to relocate their belongings between homes on a fairly regular basis. By being self-focused, the youth’s ability for cognitive flexibility and to have the perspective to consider the impact of environmental events on their lives is restricted.

With respect to making informed decisions, children and adolescents are not objective masters of their lives. If given a choice, there are many variables that potentially influence children and adolescents regarding with whom they choose to live and spend time. Some of these may be biased, such as loyalty issues. For example, the child who observes the mother’s devastation after the father leaves her for another romantic relationship may feel protective of mother, wishing not to contribute to any additional psychological pain for her. Ultimately, the child may desire to forgo a relationship with father, based primarily on the mother’s reaction to the divorce. Furthermore, the loyalty issue may be fear-based, such |8|that the child may observe the non-time-sharing parent to be impaired in some manner, or they may have been told by others that the parent is impaired, and since the child cannot not yet live independently, they need to align themselves with the time-sharing parent for self-perceived survival purposes (e.g., food and shelter).

In family law cases, judges are often compelled to consider the opinions of preteens and adolescents with respect to sharing time with a parent. Laws in many states provide for child testimony regarding time-sharing and custody, with specific provisions in family law cases. In fact, child testimony in parents’ dependency litigation (i.e., for retainment or removal of parental rights) is expected in these types of cases (Section 4085 of Fla. Statute 39, 2016). Unfortunately, empirical data which elucidate the psychological impacts that testifying in these actions have on children are lacking. In dependency court, the potential impact is more obvious, such as in cases where a child, desirous of reuniting with a parent, testifies, and the judge decides, based on other evidence, that their best interests are better served by terminating parental rights. The child is left to contemplate the role this testimony had on the adverse outcome, placing them at risk for self-blame, guilt, and potentially depressive symptoms, as the cognitive behavior literature empirically supports a relationship between guilt and self-blame, on the one hand, and depression, on the other (Kim, Thibodeau, & Jorgensen, 2011; Green, Ralph, Moll, Deakin, & Zahn, 2012). In family court (non-dependency actions), children’s testimony has the potential to adversely impact the child in a number of different ways. First, should the child feel compelled to testify due to the pressure of one parent while simultaneously desiring a relationship with both parents, that places the child in an untenable situation. Second, providing hurtful testimony against a parent also places a child in a difficult position when subsequently they are required to spend time with that parent. Third, the message of power disseminated to the testifying child is evident, as the child may easily believe that the determination of parental access and time-sharing rests squarely on their testimony. While children often desire to have this power, it also comes with a cost, such as heightened anxiety and disruptive behavioral issues in other areas of their lives. Testifying children may believe that since they can make important decisions about whether or not they have a relationship with one of their parents, that they can make other power-based adult decisions. For example, this transfer of power is evident in other areas of their lives, such as academic (whether or not they go to school on any given day) and social (e.g., who they see and when they see their peers, ignoring any curfew). Finally, as previously discussed, due to a child’s developmental status, they may be unable to accurately determine what is in their own best interest with respect to maintaining or developing a relationship with their parent(s).

Spontaneous Reunification

Darnall and Steinberg (2008) define spontaneous reunification as the child’s request to reestablish a relationship with the non-time-sharing parent without court order, direct incitement, or being the result of required therapy. This request may be made directly by the child, or alternately, through some conduit of the child’s request: a family member, a court-related professional, or other nonforensic professional. Darnall and Steinberg (2008) identified four motivational models for spontaneous reunification, based on international crisis and negotiation models. These models include that of the hurting stalemate, which is derived from both parents’ knowledge that they, together, with the child are in a no-win situation, which if not addressed will lend to further problems for all three family members (Darnall & Steinberg, 2008). The crisis in the family serves to disrupt the stalemate. An example of this is a child who has been caught cheating in high school and is faced with suspension or expulsion during the time they are applying to college. Once the non-time-sharing parent is called upon to assist the child and alternate parent, the stalemate resulting from the child not seeing that parent and from the time-sharing parent supporting the child’s position to not spend time with that parent is broken.

The second model of spontaneous reunification includes a recent catastrophe, which is based on the premise that catastrophes often bring people together to work toward the common good as they put aside their differences (Darnall & Steinberg, 2008). An example includes the non-time-sharing military parent being transferred to a war zone in the Middle East or a parent dying of a terminal illness.

Darnall and Steinberg (2008) describe the third model of spontaneous reunification as based on the impending catastrophe or deteriorating position. In this model, the parents unite to prevent an impending catastrophe such as substance abuse or suicide attempts by the child.

Their fourth model of spontaneous reunification is the enticing opportunity,