No abstract

No abstract

Parent-child contact problems may arise in the context of high conflict separation/divorce dynamics between parents. In cases where there are parent-child contact problems and children resist or refuse contact with one of their parents, there may also be incidents of child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, or compromised parenting that can be experienced by a parent or child as traumatic. The circumstances around separation and/or post-divorce often result in intense stress for families. In this paper we distinguish between the stressful circumstances that may arise as a result of high interparental conflict and pulls for alignment from a parent, and the real or perceived trauma as a factor which contributes to resistance or refusal of a child to have contact with a parent. Interventions to address both trauma responses and the resist-refuse dynamics are differentiated and discussed. After screening and assessment, the intent is to treat trauma responses with short-term, evidence-based therapy, either before or concurrent with co-parent and family intervention. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Parent-child contact problems may have many causes. When children resist contact with a parent the multiple factors including trauma, that result in this problem must be explored.Assessing the impact and symptoms of interparental conflict and trauma on children and coparents, including emotional dysregulation resulting in feelings of being overwhelmed or needing to avoid is necessary to proceed with a family intervention For family intervention to be successful It is necessary for each family member to be able to manage distressing emotions without feeling overwhelmed or numb and to be able to process information accurately. These issues may result in one of the treatment components that can occur before or at the same time as the family intervention.Delaying contact with a parent generally results in more negative characterization, anxiety and polarization and is generally not recommended. Instead safe, structured contact to begin the process of desensitization should occur once the parent and child have basic skills of coping with and managing distressing thoughts and feelings.

No abstract

Gatekeeping has been used as a theory and a measure to describe and assess family dynamics within the context of separation and divorce. In this article, we explore adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping behaviors and attitudes that can affect the other parent's relationship with the child. Implications are presented for connecting adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping responses to child outcomes of safety, well‐being, and positive parent–child relationships following separation and divorce. We build on the recent attention to gatekeeping as a potential framework within the child custody context.

Despite the trend toward statutory presumptions in favor of joint legal and physical custody, practitioners increasingly recognize that domestic violence has serious implications for the efficacy and safety of parenting and shared care. This article explores the implications of domestic violence for shared parenting and for the statutory legal and physical custody presumptions and exceptions which are triggered by or are applicable to domestic violence. This article proposes that a better framework for addressing intimate partner violence–related custody cases is one that guides practitioners toward fact‐based determinations of the implications of the violence for parenting and co‐parenting in individual cases. Parents who are coercive controlling abusers frequently exhibit the types of problematic parenting behaviors which make shared parenting unrealistic. Instead of applying blanket joint custody presumptions, all family court practitioners, including judges, should: (1) be alert to signs that domestic violence may be an issue; (2) understand the nature and context of any abuse; (3) determine the implications, if any, of the abuse for parenting and co‐parenting; and (4) account for the violence and its implications in their handling of cases. Exceptions for domestic violence cases fail to prevent the inappropriate application of joint custody presumptions to many families for whom domestic violence is a significant issue because: (1) abuse is often not detected by the system, (2) victims have problems proving that the abuse occurred, and (3) many practitioners are disinclined to believe that the abuse occurred.

No abstract

No abstract