Tag Archives: divorce

Parent-child relationship problems: Treatment tools for rectification counseling

By Monika Logan December 8, 2015

As counselors, we come in contact with clients who are angry or heartbroken and oftentimes feel defeated. This sense of pain and loss is frequently realized in the forensic setting in which I work with parents who are desperate to rebuild a parent-child relationship that is severely damaged or estranged. I also work with children who assert that they never want to see or speak with one of their parents again.

SadKidThese are not parents who have abused or neglected their children. They are parents who previously had what would be characterized as a good relationship with their children — until the time of a separation or divorce. I have worked with families in which the conflict has continued for longer than 10 years prior to therapy.

It should be noted that many people in the helping professions refer to this troubled parent-child relationship as “parental alienation.” Through the years, various nomenclatures have been applied in an attempt to give this pathological post-divorce phenomenon a name. But even as we settle on what to call it, we must help these children and the counselors who work with them.

Most counselors working with children or families have witnessed this dynamic to varying degrees. There are ample articles on child alienation, yet many counselors remain conflicted about how to effectively treat these troubled parent-child relationships.

I’ll provide a case example. “Sarah” contacted me and said she had been divorced for 15 years. She told me she had been happily remarried for five years, held a doctorate degree in mathematics and was employed as a full-time professor. But she indicated she had a damaged relationship with her 15-year-old daughter, “Julie.”

In chronicling her story in my office, Sarah vacillated between sobbing and seething with anger. She said that when Julie spent time with her biological father, “Michael,” that he undermined Sarah’s parenting boundaries, spoiled Julie and used every opportunity to denigrate Sarah. Sarah went on to say that she was worried because Julie was disregarding curfews and skipping classes, had been in trouble with the juvenile court system and had recently been caught smoking marijuana.

When I contacted Michael, he presented with a jovial disposition. He stated he was engaged to be married and was employed as a plumber. He initially appeared supportive of his daughter. Although he said he didn’t see any reason that Julie might need therapy, he indicated that he wasn’t opposed.

When Julie’s therapy sessions began, she insisted that she loathed her mother because Sarah was unreasonable. Julie stated that her mother grounded her for “trivial” reasons such as skipping school and smoking marijuana. When discussing her father’s approach to parenting, Julie described Michael as a superb parent because he did not stoop to “ruining” her life. In addition, Julie mentioned that her father was planning on buying her a car. She stated that her father would talk with her and not carry out “ridiculous, over-the-top consequences for trivial, normal teenage mishaps.”

 

Treatment tips

Step one: The first step is to ask yourself if you possess the skills and advanced training to work with families engaged in transition and ongoing conflict. If not, that is OK. This is a good time to seek referrals from colleagues who are comfortable with court-connected work.

Step two: When working with parents who are separated, divorced or are in the middle of a child-custody evaluation, counselors should request a copy of the court orders prior to starting treatment with their children. Counselors should be aware that some parents “therapist shop” and are actively looking for a counselor who will tell them what they want to hear, not necessarily what is helpful. Some potential clients are searching for a counselor to align with them and join in with them about how awful their ex-spouse is. Counselors should keep in mind that failure to contact the child’s other parent may introduce a host of issues (for example, board complaints), especially if the parent seeking treatment for the child does not have the right to do so per court order. Also make certain to obtain all necessary releases before conversing with any previous counselors who have worked with the family members.

Step three: Counselors working with parents who are irrationally rejected by their children need to be well-versed in the literature. Failing to recognize and treat alienated children and their parents prolongs emotional damage for the child and can harm the entire family system.

Step four: As a counselor, you must know who the client is. Are you working with the child, the child and the parent(s), or one/both of the parents? It is vital to understand how the client ended up in your office. Additionally, your role must be clear. Are you working as a court-appointed counselor or a court-involved counselor? Recognize that in cases of child alienation, other parties — such as other counselors, attorneys or parenting coordinators — are often involved.

Step five: Know your definitions, but do not diminish your clients by labeling them. When conversing with other professionals, it is acceptable to refer to the parent to whom the child aligns as the “favored” parent. The “rejected” parent (or “target” parent) is the parent whom the child rejects or refuses to spend time with. When working with the courts, and depending on their jurisdiction, counselors may want to use behavioral descriptions, not diagnostic labels.

Counselors should remember to focus on behaviors that can be described. Although it is acceptable to discuss the concept of triangulation, gatekeeping, pathological alignment or irrational alienation with your colleagues, it is not helpful to use these terms with clients.

Step six: Do not diagnose if you have not actually met the client or witnessed the parent-child interactions. For instance, if one parent seeks your services and reports that the other parent is alienating the child and is a narcissist and/or borderline, you cannot diagnose that other parent as borderline because you have not met with or witnessed that parent.

 

Therapeutic fallacies

Richard Warshak is a world-renowned expert on parental alienation. He has written countless peer-reviewed publications on custody disputes, divorce, alienated children and stepfamilies, and has developed educational materials. Warshak recently provided strategies that can guide counselors in working with this difficult parent-child dynamic. According to a study he published earlier this year (see http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2015-27699-001/), several fallacies can compromise the therapeutic process.

  • Children never unreasonably reject the parent with whom they spend the most time. The first fallacy counselors should recognize is that more time does not necessarily equal quality time. Using rapid clinical judgment, it is easy to conclude that a child identifies with the parent whom he or she sees the most. If counselors do not recognize this fallacy, they may determine that the parent must have done something that warranted poor treatment by the child. This line of thinking contributes to additional emotional distress. In turn, under this assumption, counselors can go on the lookout for flaws within the rejected parent to substantiate their beliefs. Counselors should be aware that when a child spends time with the nonresidential parent, that parent could be using that limited time to teach the child to disrespect and disobey the custodial parent. To offset this fallacy, counselors must stop thinking in unidimensional terms.
  • Children never unreasonably reject mothers. According to Warshak’s study, “Those who believe mothers cannot be the victims of their children’s irrational rejection are predisposed to believe that children who reject their mothers have good reason for doing so.” He advises that counselors should keep an open mind about both parents and consider that mothers may be rejected without good reason.
  • Each parent contributes equally to a child’s alienation. Counselors should not generalize that both parents are always equally at fault for a child’s alienation. Counselors would not place equal blame for intimate partner violence on the victim. Likewise, it is not helpful to equally blame both parents for a child’s unwarranted rejection when one parent may be instigating the child’s actions and attitudes.

One bias that comes into play is repetition bias. Those working in the field are permeated with the term “high conflict” and may deem that parental alienation is synonymous with that term. As described by Warshak, the term high conflict “implies joint responsibility for generating conflict.”

In my practice, I developed a nuanced view. There are times when both parents contribute to and could benefit from parenting education or family therapy. However, in the case of Sarah and Michael, Michael openly defied the court’s orders, ultimately refusing to let Sarah spend time with their daughter. He also denigrated Sarah in front of the child. I would not be practicing the concept of “non-maleficence” when working with Sarah if I were to suggest that she was at fault. Demanding more of Sarah and blaming her only adds insult to injury.

As Warshak points out, “When the rejected parent’s behavior is inaccurately assumed to be a major factor in the children’s alienation, therapy proceeds in unproductive directions.” At this point, counselors may wonder, “What am I to do?” A counselor should remain neutral and avoid making unwarranted assumptions.

  • Alienation is a child’s transient, short-lived response to the parents’ separation. This fallacy is damaging because child alienation may be deemed to be a normal byproduct of divorce that will resolve on its own. Prior to going into private practice, I co-led a support group for adults who had lost all contact with their children. These cases were not due to a background of abuse or neglect; instead, many involved a contentious divorce.

Unfortunately, some counselors espouse the notion that the child should decide when to see the rejected parent and suggest that over time, the child will come around. In some cases, the child may re-establish a relationship with the parent. However, not all children reconnect. And even if they do, parents cannot reclaim lost time.

Counselors understand that they should practice within the scope of their license. In many states, counselors are prohibited from making access or possession determinations. Counselors do not have the right to supersede a court order and tell an alienated child that he or she does not have to spend time with the rejected parent. Again, it is necessary to obtain a copy of the client’s current court orders prior to starting counseling.

Another practice tip is that counselors should encourage the parent who is the target of unwarranted rejection to remain in constant contact with his or her children. Counselors can also aid parents in knowing and understanding the stages of development and helping parents to formulate proper responses to a child’s verbal insults.

  • Rejecting a parent is a healthy short-term coping mechanism. Counselors can identify this fallacy by reflecting on common biases, many which are covered in counseling programs. Counselors must be cautious about the bias of wishful thinking because it provides a false hope to clients. As Warshak (2015) explains, “Counselors who believe that rejection of a parent is a healthy adaptation encourage parents to accept the children’s negativity until the children feel ready to discard it.” He goes on to say that “this is especially true when therapists assume that the alienation is destined to be short-lived.” Although we have specialized training as counselors, it is important to remember that we cannot predict future outcomes.

Another way to think about parental rejection is to consider whether the parents would ignore their child refusing to speak to one of the parents if the whole family still resided together. Understandably, most would find this unacceptable.

  • Alienated adolescents’ stated preferences should dominate decisions. This fallacy can be offset by using analytical thinking and a basic understanding of brain development. Many adolescents know more about adult matters than we would want them to know. Regardless, adolescents are not adults and should not make adult decisions. Adolescents are prone to peer pressure and are in the process of discovering their identity. Most adults cannot imagine asking if an adolescent would like to attend school. As Warshak writes, “Adolescents’ vulnerability to external influence is why parents are wise to worry about the company their teenagers keep.”

Counselors can help rejected parents to not personalize it when a teenager has a soccer game and prefers to forego parent-child time. Or when working with a favored parent who claims the child does not enjoy time with the target parent, counselors can point out that some adolescents do not enjoy their homework, but they are expected to do it anyway.

 

Treatment goals and tips

When working with the child:

  • Promote a healthy relationship with both parents.
  • Help the child to correct cognitive distortions.
  • Work with the child to maintain a balanced view of both parents.
  • Improve the child’s critical thinking skills.
  • Recognize when a child’s behavior is incongruent from one setting to the next.
  • Augment the child’s coping skills.

When working with the rejected parent:

  • Recognize that the parent may feel misunderstood.
  • Work with the parent not to counter-reject the child.
  • Be aware of avoidance and passivity; the parent may want to escape the poor treatment of the ex-spouse and the child by avoiding the problem altogether.

When working with the favored parent:

  • Recognize there may be a role reversal. The child may be meeting the emotional needs of the parent. Help the parent recognize his or her role as a parent and encourage the parent to engage in adult relationships to find emotional support.
  • Keep an eye open for enmeshment. What might initially appear as a healthy parent-child relationship could be extremely unhealthy. For instance, there may be a lack of community or family support.
  • Recognize that children generally benefit from the involvement of parents, absence abuse or neglect. Realize that some rejected parents may have personality disorders and continue to instigate court hearings or defy court orders.

 

The do’s and don’ts

• Do not recommend a change in custody if one parent is behaving badly. Custody reversal may be necessary in some cases, but it is not the role of the counselor to make that determination.

• Do not align with one parent over the other.

• Do cooperate with parenting coordinators and the courts.

• Do recognize that parents in litigation are likely to be working toward an adult-oriented outcome — namely to prevail in court.

• Do consider a variety of explanations when working with a child or teenager who irrationally rejects a parent.

• Do not discard information that is inconsistent with the counselor’s viewpoint.

 

*****

Monika Logan is a licensed professional counselor living in Dallas who specializes in troubled parent-child relationships and sexual behavior problems. In addition to maintaining a private practice and doing court-connected work, she recently developed a program to help youth in the criminal justice system maintain boundaries both offline and online and stay connected with their families. Contact her at mlogan@texaspcs.org.

 

Stuck in the middle

By Ann M. Ordway and Ruth O. Moore October 21, 2015

Licensed professional counselors are increasingly becoming involved in court proceedings relative to their work with families involved in high-conflict divorce, separation and custody litigation. Counseling professionals can serve in a variety of roles when working with families embroiled in divorce litigation. For example, a counselor might develop a therapeutic relationship with an individual family member, a couple or the entire family unit. These roles are typically kept distinctly separate. However, when working with high-conflict families, such roles can become easily blurred. Thus, Child-Custody_brandingcounselors can be unexpectedly swept into litigation because of misinformation, hidden agendas, the expansion of what started as a fairly simple role or even a lack of knowledge about court terminology and procedures (such as not recognizing when counselors are required to release information to the court and when they are not).

Counselors must be proactive and engage in cautious practice when interacting with high-conflict families and with court professionals. We offer counselors 10 simple guidelines to follow.

1) Be aware of ulterior motives. There is no question that individuals going through separation or divorce appropriately turn to counselors for support and guidance to get through one of life’s most challenging psychosocial events. But the possibility also exists that attorneys will refer clients to counseling for other reasons. For example, if a couple is involved in custody litigation, an attorney might refer a client to a counselor to document the client’s version of events or to set the stage for later seeking an opinion from the counselor about the client’s mental health status or ability to function as a parent. There may also be times when attorneys direct clients to bring their children to counseling in hopes of later soliciting a supporting opinion from the counselor regarding the individual’s abilities as a parent.

A counselor needs to be clear at the onset of the therapeutic relationship about why the client is there, what the client expects, what the counselor can and cannot do and whether the referral is from the client’s attorney for a specific reason. It is critical for the counselor to also know who the identified client is.

Counselors can certainly work with clients to enhance their coping skills and to effect change. If a client has a history of substance abuse, for example, proactive and voluntary involvement in counseling can demonstrate that client’s interest in and willingness to tackle a problem before being ordered to do so by a judge. Participation in counseling can also indicate effort and bolster a court’s impression that the client’s problem is under control.

However, it is important that counselors not be used to perpetuate a false impression for court purposes. Counselors cannot control the sincerity of a client’s motive, but we do not want to be complacent in a ruse to gain an advantage in court.

2) Know your role and avoid dual relationships/multiple roles. A counselor in a therapeutic role provides support for clients and empowers them to build on their existing strengths and make positive changes. In contrast, an evaluator gathers information from multiple angles and sources for the express purpose of rendering a report and recommendations to the court.

Counselors can certainly opine about the condition and progress of the client. However, counselors should not opine about the condition, progress or functionality of individuals they have not met or for whom they have limited information.

Sometimes the client, or an attorney, will ask the treating counselor to offer an opinion about specific issues such as parental fitness, abuse or domestic violence. The counselor must offer recommendations and opinions that are consistent with the counselor’s role and competency. For example, it might be fine to say that the client presents with symptoms consistent with someone who has been a victim of domestic violence. But if the counselor’s information is limited only to what the client has told the counselor, it would not be prudent to comment on the propensity of the client’s partner toward violence. Similarly, it would not be prudent to repeat the client’s statements as fact if the counselor was not present for the described events.

3) Be familiar with ethical codes, legal statutes and best practices. The 2014 ACA Code of Ethics specifically addresses issues such as informed consent and confidentiality, dual relationships, multiple roles and identifying the client. When in doubt about a situation, counselors need to always consult the ACA Code of Ethics and avail themselves of the ethical consultations made available through the American Counseling Association (call 800.347.6647 ext. 314 or email ethics@counseling.org).

It is also in the best interest of counselors to be familiar with their state laws and regulations. Some state laws include nuances that more clearly define when confidentiality must be broken, such as in cases of child abuse and neglect.

Counselors must also refrain from offering legal advice to clients, while at the same time remaining aware of laws in their jurisdictions so they can avoid guiding clients down the wrong path. Counselors should refer clients to attorneys when legal advice is needed and in the client’s best interest. One counselor encountered serious legal problems and a licensing board complaint when she suggested that a client, whom the counselor believed to be a victim of domestic violence, take the children and relocate to another country where the client’s family lived. States have specific laws regarding the removal of children from the jurisdiction. Removal of children without the permission of the court or consent from the other parent can result in criminal charges against the removing parent and a loss of custody.

4) Obtain consent and document all contact. Counselors should obtain copies of any documentation regarding custody and visitation when a separation or divorce is involved. Counselors need to ask for the most current copy of the court order and document that the copy is represented to be the most current copy. A counselor’s informed consent document should outline the expectation that all modified and updated court orders will be provided as they occur.

When there is no official documentation, counselors must keep detailed records about what they were told and by whom. Counselors working with children in divorce situations should seek consent and input from both parents whenever possible. When this is not possible, the reasons should be documented. Sometimes a court order will grant one parent sole custody of the children or sole decision-making authority. Other times one parent may state that the other parent isn’t involved because of estrangement or death. Client records need to reflect what the presenting parent has told the counselor so that the counselor will have a reasonable basis for proceeding if another parent surfaces and objects.

5) Offer support, not re-entrenchment. From a humanistic perspective, the therapeutic alliance is built upon support and unconditional positive regard for the client. However, in cases of high-conflict separation or divorce, there can be a fine line between the position that the client is 100 percent right and the estranged spouse is 100 percent wrong.

It can be difficult for two people to settle the economic and custody-based differences in their legal case when one person is cemented into a faulty belief system of entitlement or stuck in a position rooted in principle. Settlements result from the art of compromise, and positions based on principles can be expensive. In other words, clients are sometimes so concerned with winning a point that they lose sight of the big picture and end up jeopardizing more important elements of the case. Counselors sometimes do their clients a disservice by being so supportive of the client’s position that the client cannot move forward realistically through a legal system that is often more concrete in the application of the law.

6) Maintain neutrality where appropriate. This guideline pertains mostly to counselors working with children. It is easy to become invested in the parent whom the counselor sees or talks to most frequently. Hearing only one side of the story can absolutely affect the counselor’s view of the child’s experience, especially when the child has limited verbal or cognitive abilities, is not emotionally insightful or is not detail oriented.

Counselors should start with the understanding that children generally fare much better in divorce situations when they are not caught in the middle. Counselors serve the child well by supporting his or her relationship with both parents, unless there is a clear risk of harm to the child. Counselors can refer family members in need of support to other professionals to avoid conflicts of interest.

7) Do not offer an opinion of someone you have never met. It isn’t uncommon for a lawyer to ask a child’s counselor to render an opinion and recommendations regarding custody of the child or for a client’s counselor to opine regarding parental fitness and ability. However, the counselor should stick exclusively to what the counselor knows.

It is OK to speak about the counselor’s own client — with the client’s permission — to include what that client has reported, the consistency of words and affect, and impressions regarding that client. It is not wise, however, to offer comment on a parent whom the counselor has never met. Such comments would be based exclusively on what the parent who is a client has reported to the counselor. It is acceptable to state, “The client reported that her husband hit her,” but it is not advisable for the counselor to state, “Mr. Jones is an abusive man who is violent in his relationships. He should not be trusted to have custody of his son.”

8) Do not assume you can avoid court involvement. Some counselors think they can avoid court involvement by adding one or two phrases to their informed consent documents stating that they refuse to participate in court proceedings. Although there might be an argument that the client agreed to waive any right to call the counselor as a witness, a subpoena can trump that agreement. In other words, if an attorney subpoenas a counselor, the counselor will likely have to appear for a deposition or for a hearing.

The counselor can seek to have the subpoena quashed and should not release any clinical information until it is determined that the subpoena is valid and will be upheld. Best practices suggest that the counselor obtain consent from the counselor’s own client or an authorization to release information. However, even without that consent or waiver, the counselor may have to provide records or even testify.

Avoiding court begins the moment the client walks in the door. Informed consent and documentation are essential. Counselors should be trained in courtroom dynamics, testimony and legal and ethical issues even when it is the counselor’s preference to not go to court. Such measures, including ongoing communication with the client, can decrease the likelihood of having to participate in court proceedings.

9) Consult with your state licensing board, malpractice insurance carrier or attorney when necessary. If subpoenaed, consulting with an attorney before releasing records or providing testimony is wise. It is helpful for any counselor whose practice involves working with high-conflict families to have an attorney available for prompt consultation if necessary.

An attorney can review documents and guide the counselor regarding the process for balancing ethical responsibility and court involvement. Sometimes subpoenas can be quashed or suppressed. Some counselors make the mistake of responding to a threatening letter from legal counsel suggesting that the counselor must immediately make all records available. An attorney will know if the request or demand is valid in the counselor’s jurisdiction and can guide the counselor away from any ethical pitfalls associated with an incorrect response or the premature release of confidential records. Under no circumstance, however, should a subpoena simply be ignored.

10) Choose your words carefully. Wording can be everything. When asked for a report or an opinion, the counselor should confine his or her response to that which the counselor knows. Counselors should avoid supposition and assumption. It is acceptable to say, “My client stated …,” but it is not acceptable to respond as if the counselor was present or witnessed the event unless that is the case.

Simple wording can make a difference in how the counselor’s opinions or recommendations are received. When asked a question by an attorney, the counselor should listen to the question, think about it and then offer an answer that is responsive without providing more information than was requested.

Credibility is critical, and it is the counselor’s reputation (as well as the best interests of the client) on the line when the counselor renders an opinion or makes recommendations. The counselor must be able to support recommendations and opinions with facts, best practices and empirical evidence.

Conclusion

Counseling high-conflict families going through separation or divorce can present a slippery slope. The work is extremely important for the family unit and its individual members because they are dealing with an extremely challenging life event. However, cases involving the courts are stressful in even the simplest of cases. Many counselors prefer to maintain a supportive role and do not wish to do forensic (court-related) work. However, they can easily be maneuvered into the role of witness regardless of their efforts to avoid that position.

The guidelines provided in this article do not represent an exhaustive list of the professional and ethical responsibilities of counselors involved with high-conflict divorce cases. However, following these guidelines can help counselors maintain credibility, be more mindful of potential legal and ethical obligations and provide the client or family with needed emotional support. The guidelines should also remind counselors of the importance of receiving training for work with this population.

 

****

 

Knowledge Share articles are developed from sessions presented at American Counseling Association conferences.

Ann M. Ordway has been an attorney for 25 years and practiced in family court for many years before entering the counseling profession. She is completing her doctorate in counselor education and supervision through Walden University. She is a distance clinical professor in the Department of Counseling and Special Populations at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. Contact her at aordway@lamar.edu.

Ruth O. Moore is a licensed professional counselor and national certified counselor who is a distance clinical professor at Lamar University. She has extensive experience in expert witness testimony and has published and presented widely on court process in child abuse and child custody cases. Contact her at rmoore@lamar.edu.

Letters to the editorct@counseling.org

 

Family-centered, child-inclusive divorce

By Kristin Little and Karen Bonnell April 7, 2015

Counseling individuals and families experiencing divorce is difficult work, often fraught with conflict that is challenging to contain. A great amount of anxiety, fear, anger and sadness may be present for divorce_brandingall of the people involved, including one or both of the spouses and the children. Each individual may feel differently than the other family members and cycle intensely through different emotions at different times. This is challenging not only for those going through the process but also for counselors who work to support their clients through the loss of separation and divorce.

Historically, there has been a divide between the legal and mental health sides of divorce — with the exception of those working in the family court system. Most mental health therapists strive to stay as far away from the legal fracas as possible, attempting instead to remain neutral supports to their clients’ emotional process.

However, collaborative divorce, founded in 1990 by attorney Stewart Webb, integrates the family’s mental health and the legal aspects of divorce. The divorce coach and the divorce child specialist are two of the most common mental health professionals involved with the separating/divorcing couple as part of the collaborative divorce team. This article explains the role and rationale for the two specialties generated from the collaborative divorce movement.

In learning about collaborative divorce, counselors seeking effective ways to work with couples through divorce may find a new specialty. Others may discover helpful client resources targeting the specific adjustments required in separation and divorce. This allows the counselor to remain focused on the client’s or couple’s healing and recovery in the larger context of the psychotherapeutic process.

 

What is a divorce/co-parent coach?

A divorce/co-parent coach provides optimism and confidence about a smoother future during a time when life is seemingly falling apart, fraught with uncertainty and overwhelming challenges.

A divorce/co-parent coach is dedicated to working with couples through their separation/divorce process. These coaches confidently direct the individuals through the emotional terrain of ending their spousal/intimate partner relationship, while guiding them into a co-parenting relationship.

The coach works to “uncouple” the spousal relationship and strengthen the parenting functions of the couple so they can become effective co-parents across two homes. The co-parent coach may assist the parents in developing their parenting plan/residential schedule, which provides structure and boundaries for the new co-parenting relationship. The co-parenting relationship is often compared to a business relationship, with functions such as “co-parent executive officers” and “co-parent financial officers.”

Coaches often continue to work with co-parents after the divorce to help them learn how to implement a parenting plan and develop constructive communication protocols. Coaches also help these couples to understand roles, boundaries and ways of relating that will support their children in feeling safe and free of stress around their parents during transitions, at special occasions and in public. Co-parent coaches are problem-solvers who present strategies that make stabilizing two-home families easier for parents and kids alike. For parents, having a neutral divorce coach can ensure stability, helping them to address conflict and navigate difficult decisions productively. Divorce coaches can smooth out the wrinkles as parents continue to settle into their new post-divorce relationship. And for kids, this helps to ensure that their parents remain just plain parents.

Finding a good divorce/co-parent coach can change the trajectory of the divorce and, ultimately, the children’s lives — from dealing with parents who are guessing and stressing and uncertain to co-parents who feel more capable and confident with guidelines and protocols that work. Children return to growing up, learning and feeling secure; parents recover and begin developing the next chapter of their individual lives while raising children across two homes.

 

What is a child specialist?

To put it simply, a child specialist helps parents use their parenting skills to protect their children’s well-being and sense of security both during the divorce and in the first few years after the divorce.

The child specialist gives children a “voice” during this difficult time. It provides children a chance to express what’s working and what’s hurting to someone who cares without putting these children in the middle of parental conflict. Having a trained professional talk with children avoids putting them in the position of feeling guilty about their experience and feelings, feeling like they have to take care of one parent over another, or feeling like they have too much power in a situation in which they simply need to be kids.

The child specialist talks with children about the typical experiences of divorce and family change. He or she often helps children find solutions to challenges, identify strengths that reflect their developmental stage and support a positive view of a future once the change settles and a new sense of family takes hold.

A child specialist may be very different from other child “advocates” in the divorce process. Consider the following

  • Child therapist: Although often child therapists or counselors by training, a child specialist is not the same as a child therapist. A child specialist’s goal is to help parents (not professionals) develop the knowledge and skills to be their children’s natural supports. The child specialist reassures the parents and provides them hope, clarity and guidance on how best to emotionally support their children. The child specialist does not have a long-term, ongoing psychotherapeutic relationship with the children, or the type of “confidentiality” typical of counseling. The children know that the child specialist will be talking with and helping their parents.
  • Parent evaluator: Child specialists also help by assessing parents’ and children’s strengths and answering child-related questions and concerns, but they are not parent evaluators. Child specialists do not make decisions for or about parents as an “expert” and do not share information about the family in ways that can increase conflict, such as in court. The child specialist works for the family as a whole, not for one parent or the other.
  • Guardian ad litem: Child specialists use their skills to help children speak for themselves about what they are experiencing and to seek their best interests, but they are not guardian ad litems. Although child specialists care deeply about the child’s perspective, they also know that the needs and interests of all family members (kids and parents) are important for the family’s long-term well-being.

Child specialists can have a significant impact on parents accurately understanding their children’s needs through the transition of separation and divorce. They work to focus the parents’ energy on what they can do to help their children thrive instead of becoming overwhelmed with anxiety. Child specialists can coach parents to develop awareness and skills to effectively support their kids. As a neutral professional, the child specialist can help guide parents in making reasonable decisions rather than getting caught up in unproductive conflict. Ultimately, a child specialist’s goals are the same as the parents’ goals. Supporting children in grief, encouraging them to heal and helping them return to their childhood — to just be kids.

 

The divorce/co-parenting coach and child specialist as a team

As a team, the divorce/co-parent coach works with the adults of the family, while the child specialist focuses on the children (like a coach for the kids). This division of labor preserves the important role of the divorce/co-parent coach as neutral (not on one parent’s side or the other) if difficult issues emerge about or with the children.

During the divorce process, parents often wonder if their children are going to be OK. They worry about what’s actually going on when their children are in residence with the other parent. They may actually project their own feelings of hurt, upset, disappointment and betrayal onto their children and come to believe that the children are uncomfortable with the other parent or aren’t being well cared for. These can be normal anxieties in the heat of divorce and family change. By engaging a child specialist, parents can learn how their children are actually perceiving the changes without putting their children in the middle.

After meeting with the children, talking with them about what’s working and what’s hurting, and teaching kids about the “normal aspects” of living through a family change, the child specialist brings the information back to the parents. Again, to avoid appearing to favor one parent’s point of view over the other, the child specialist maintains his or her neutrality by simply bringing the “voice of the children” into a coach session.

The child specialist provides insights about the kids, explains developmental information, clarifies what the children are actually thinking and feeling about the family change, and provides suggestions for ways to further support the children on the basis of what the children have shared. This valuable information generally inspires parents to make adjustments, clear up misconceptions, provide experiences and solve problems together to support their children more effectively throughout the separation and divorce process.

The divorce/co-parent coach listens to the child specialist along with the parents, provides “memory keeping” (remembering what the child specialist actually said) and remains neutral. The coach facilitates the conversation between the child specialist and the parents, asks clarifying questions and helps parents assimilate the information in a constructive manner. The parents and professional team work together to determine how these new insights might help inform co-parent practices, the residential schedule or other aspects of the parenting plan.

Every divorce/co-parent coach and child specialist has his or her own unique approach. The value of the coach and child specialist is that they hold to the principles of family-centered/child-centered decision-making for parents. As neutral professionals for the family, they know that parents — not outside “experts” or legal professionals — are best suited to make family decisions during divorce when at all possible.

To learn more about divorce/co-parent coaches and child specialists or their services, visit collaborativepractice.com.

 

****

 

About the authors

Kristin Little and Karen Bonnell are the co-authors of The Co-Parents’ Handbook: Raising Well-Adjusted, Resilient and Resourceful Kids in a Two-Home Family From Little Ones to Young Adults.

 

Little is a licensed mental health counselor in private practice in the Seattle area. She has provided therapy for children at risk and their families within her community for the past 17 years. She is a board member of Collaborative Professionals of Washington, a growing organization that is dedicated to reducing the harmful conflict of divorce for couples and families. Contact her at kristinlittlecounseling.com.

 

Bonnell is a board-certified clinical nurse specialist with more than 30 years of experience working with individuals, couples and parents. Her private practice is dedicated to working with couples across the spectrum from premarital preparation to co-parenting in two-home families to remarriage. She has served on the board of King County Collaborative Law and was a founding member of the Collaborative Professionals of Washington. She is a member of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and Academy of Professional Family Mediators. Contact her at coachmediateconsult.com.

 

****