1 / 0

A/Prof Phil Watts Adjunct Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology University of Canberra Private practice Perth

A/Prof Phil Watts Adjunct Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology University of Canberra Private practice Perth. Some Psychological Outcomes for Alienated Children who, under Court Orders, have Moved to Live with their Rejected Parent INTRODUCTION - What are we looking at?. Time - line.

ruby
Download Presentation

A/Prof Phil Watts Adjunct Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology University of Canberra Private practice Perth

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A/Prof Phil Watts Adjunct Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology University of Canberra Private practice Perth Some Psychological Outcomes for Alienated Children who, under Court Orders, have Moved to Live with their Rejected ParentINTRODUCTION - What are we looking at?
  2. Time - line
  3. Complex and complicated Lawyers want to make alienation simple and blame it on a parent. Excuse for abuse – When genuine abuse exists then it is not alienation Lack of attachment – a child who did not have a relationship in the past may not want to see a parent Justified reactions of children
  4. Survival of children in conflict actions behaviour
  5. Types of Post-separation Relationships AFFINITY: Preference for one parent, but no rejection of other Age or gender-related reasons ALIGNED: Divorce-specific reasons e.g. genuine anger of how separation occurred (affair) result in loyalty conflict but not total rejection. FP supports relations with other parent ALIENATION: Previously had good relationship with RP previously Without alienating behaviours of AP, the child would not have rejected other parent JUSTIFIED REJECTION due to spousal violence, emotional or other abuse, inept parenting Alienation - rejection disproportionate to child’s actual experience Justified Rejection Alienation in Perspective, Bala, Perth 2012
  6. Some Outcomes for Children Adults with a history of alienation from one parent report Feelings of remorse Regret for lost opportunities- particularly when rejected parent has since died Suffer rates of depression, anger, anxiety, relationships difficulties, substance abuse Report that they wish someone had intervened and NOTlistened to them as children Can be alienated from ownchildren Have adult conflict with preferred parent Baker, A. (2007). The Ties that Bind. New York: Norton.
  7. Cases we are interested in today When the evidence says the pre-existing relationships were good When there is no evidence of actual abuse (although allegations are not uncommon) The children’s views are extreme and lack substance Evidence shows that the parent is displaying behaviours which feeds the alignment Hybrid types of cases
  8. Richard Warshak If there is rejection, I look for various possible contributing factors, including the rejected parents' behaviour, and the child’s own contributions. Most importantly, I try to determine whether the child would be better off remaining alienated from the parent, or whether the children really would better off if the relationship was repaired.
  9. Solutions – Some things I have been involved in (and failed!):- Supervised visits Period contact Therapy for the parent Changed residence Family Therapy
  10. Justice Margaret Cleary Jennifer Neoh Fiona Darroch Vincent Papaleo
  11. A view from the benchJustice Margaret Cleary
  12. Case StudyPinda FamilyDr Jennifer NeohClinical Psychologist66 Mount St HeidelbergVIC 308403 94581733jennineoh1@bigpond.com
  13. The first six months Orders to see their mother 6 hours on an unsupervised basis each week Mandy and David Refused to speak to their mother Whispered between themselves Would not use a toilet Would not eat Sat facing a wall for six hours
  14. The first six months Mandy and David Spoke for each other Could not describe sensory experiences from their own point of view Each discussion of the allegations exposed the irrational nature of it for them Mandy able to see the illogicality her allegations David confused when his sister softened towards their mother Mandy extremely controlling David's behaviour Various incidents of conflict- initiated by children
  15. Children's presentation in their father's care Repetition of their father's phrases The use of plural pronouns e.g. ‘She tried to kill us’ Difficulty describing their own perspective Intense, angry and belligerent Closed in Mandy -Physically stunted and underweight
  16. Children's presentation in their Mother’s Care Immediate physical growth Direct eye contact Normal sibling rivalry/ conflict Capacity to make choices for themselves-Most evident in David Indulging in normal behaviour Decreased emphasis on evidence for their father's case- e.g. photographs Resumed relationships with maternal family members Resumed relationship with mother
  17. Points from this case A severe case Children’s outcomes vastly improved with a change of residence They had therapy to support them Court that was prepared to change it’s decisions on residence with new information- So the importance of reportable therapy The children now exude a sense of freedom and liberty
  18. Case StudyPeter’s familyMs Fiona DarrochChild Dispute ServicesFamily Court of AustraliaGPO Box 991Newcastle 2300Fiona.Darroch@familycourt.gov.au
  19. When things go wrong and Everything ElseMr Vincent Papaleo81 Denmark St Kew 310103 9853 9022
More Related