Merrill Graham dissertation

Institute for Clinical Social Work

The Subjective Experience of Children in the Reunification Process

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By Merrill Graham Chicago, Illinois March, 2019

Abstract This phenomenological qualitative study offers an in-depth exploration of the subjective experience of five children who were participating in the reunification process.

This study presents new insight into the experiences of children in reunification, including their perceptions of the ability of a reunifying parent to adequately meet children’s mirroring and idealizing self-object needs. By offering a psychodynamic understanding of the children’s experience, this study deepens the understanding of professionals who facilitate reunification services.

This study returned four findings: 1. Participants perceived a loss of actual and desired connection to others . . .

2. Participants perceived a loss of control within their relationships. In negotiating parental separation they experienced splitting and a disrupted sense of agency . . .

3. Participants perceived that they were not heard, and experienced ego depletion and psychological pain . . .

4. Participants perceived a lack of positive parental affect and sensitivity, and experienced shortages in mirroring and idealizing selfobject needs . . .

ii

Thanks to Rich, Alec, and the A. clan.

Words cannot express my gratitude and appreciation for your love and support.

iii

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. ~Marcel Proust

iv

Acknowledgements

I’d like to express my sincere appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Denise Duval Tsioles, for her commitment to seeing me through this research and her patience with the contractions that I couldn’t resist using. She provided me with the guidance and support necessary to grow as a researcher. I would also like to thank Dr. James Lampe, who supported me through the literature review and understanding of theory, but who also gave me the memorable advice to “Preach!” I hope that I have, and that it is worth hearing. Thank you to Dr. Michelle Piotrowski, who guided me through the methodology section and results, and with helping me make sense of what I’d learned. I know that your brilliant comments and suggestions have enriched my meaning-making, and my research.

Thank you to Dr. Kerstin Andrews, whose insight and perspective was meaningful and appreciated. Thank you to Dr. Constance Goldberg, whose early input was treasured as being from an ICSW legend. I also want to thank Dr. Amy Eldridge for her efforts in advising me in my early years at ICSW. Finally, I’d like to thank Dr. Brenda Solomon for their guidance and support in my first attempts at a dissertation proposal. They offered a presence that cannot be acknowledged enough.

MG

v

Table of Contents

Abstract..............................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................v List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………..…......ix Chapter I. Introduction........................................................................................................1 General Statement of Purpose Significance of the Study for Clinical Social Work Statement of the Problem and Specific Objectives to Be Achieved Theoretical and Operational Definitions Statement of Assumptions The Epistemological Foundation Foregrounding

II. Literature Review..............................................................................................6 Introduction The Importance of Attachment The Impact of Parental Absence on the Child Divorce and Separation Parental Alienation Relevant Literature

vi

Table of Contents--Continued

III. Methodology...................................................................................................38 Introduction Phenomenology Research Sample Research Design Data Collection Data Analysis Ethical Considerations

IV. Results.............................................................................................................60 Introduction The Research Participants Introduction to the Results Categories Category One: Reunification as a Process Category Two: Child as Participant Category Three: Child’s View of the Reunifying Parent (RP) Category Four: Child’s Other Relationships

V. Findings and Discussion ...........................................................................82 Analysis and Interpretation of the Findings Findings, Discussions, and Implications Implications for Future Research

vii

Table of Contents--Continued

Appendices A. Interview Schedule…………………………………………………….…….118 B. Introductory Email to Be Sent by Supporting Professionals and Agencies….121 C. Telephone Script………………………………………………...…………..123 D. Script for Initial Contact with Potential Participant (Phase II): Informed Consent…………………………………………………………………………126 E. Research Information and Parent Permission Form…………………………129 F. Assent to Participate in Research..…………………………………………..133 References …………………………………………………………………..….136

viii

List of Abbreviations

PAS

Parental alienation syndrome

RP

Reunifying parent

IPA

Interpretative phenomenological analysis

IRB

Internal Review Board

CPS

Child Protective Services

FCCPWM

Family Court Counseling Professionals of West Michigan

PEP

Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing

ix

1

Chapter I

Introduction

General Statement of Purpose The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain an understanding of the subjective experience of children who reunite with an estranged or absent parent. These reunifications, which are often court-mandated, typically involve therapeutic support services intended to assist in the reconnection process, specifically by facilitating meetings between the child and the reunifying parent. This research studied the process of reunification, an intervention facilitated by a trained professional with the goal of helping to establish or re-establish trust in the child-parent relationship. The research intended to explore children’s experience of reunification. Through the phenomenological qualitative method, I intended to better understand the lived experience of the children, as well as the meaning that they ascribe to the experience.

Significance of the Study for Clinical Social Work The current divorce rate sits between 40 and 60 percent in the United States1. Recent statistics indicate that 25 percent of children experience ongoing emotional and

1

US Department of Census, 2009.

2

behavioral problems following a divorce2. These statistics justify further research into how children experience divorce, as well as how they reconnect with a parent who has been absent for a significant amount of time. Research in this area can better inform professionals of such children's experiences and needs in a clinical setting. Additionally, such research may also increase the knowledge base for mental-health professionals and others such as attorneys and judges.

Statement of the Problem and Specific Objectives to Be Achieved Following parental separation and divorce, approximately 10 to 20 percent of children resist or refuse contact with a parent3. This may happen for many reasons, and some of these children are eventually court-ordered into services that intend to reunite the parent and child. This study sought to explore the experiences of children who rejected or refused contact with a parent. This study also aimed to review other factors in the process, including: 1. The child’s experience during reunification process . . .

2. The child’s thoughts, feelings, and wishes during reunification . . .

3. The child’s relationships with the caregiving / preferred and reunifying / rejected parent . . .

4. How the child views the family (pre- and post-divorce) . . .

5. How children view themselves while involved in the process . . .

2 3

US Department of Census, 1998 Baker & Fine, 2014.

3

Theoretical and Operational Definitions Reunification is a child-centered process offered by a trained professional following a disunion or absence of contact between child and parent due to a separation or divorce (Graham, 2015). This is an alternate dispute resolution process where a judge may recommend the initiation of reunification services to avoid continued motions regarding parenting time in court. In reunification, the caregiving parent (often the preferred parent), is the parent with whom the identified child resides. The reunifying parent (RP) is often the rejected parent and has the following characteristics: The RP has been estranged from the child for a period of six months or more, and is typically seeking professional reunification services to help restore the relationship.

Statement of Assumptions This study made the following assumptions: 1. Parental separation, especially when children lose contact with one parent, may have significant emotional impact on the children . . .

2. Children involved in divorce, especially high-conflict divorces, may resist or otherwise decline contact with one parent for a multitude of reasons, including: i.

Child adjustment . . .

ii.

A history of domestic violence or abuse . . .

iii.

Alienation . . .

iv.

Ongoing parental conflict . . .

4

v.

Post-divorce distance . . .

vi.

Parental mental-health or substance-abuse issues . . .

3. The primary caregiver may not permit, or may even discourage, the child from having contact with the estranged parent . . .

4. Children have many complex feelings about the estrangement . . .

5. Children may feel caught “in the middle” . . .

6. Children may be willing and able to openly discuss their feelings . . .

The Epistemological Foundation This project was broadly based in the hermeneutic paradigm of inquiry, based on this assumption from Creswell (2007, p. 59): Researchers first turn to a phenomenon, an “abiding concern” which seriously interests them. . . . they reflect on essential themes, what constitutes the nature of this lived experience. They write a description of the phenomenon. . . . it is also seen as an interpretive process in which the researcher makes an interpretation . . . of the meaning of the lived experiences. I grounded my study in the hermeneutic paradigm.

As such, the interview process resulted in a narrative that evidenced meaning embedded in participant experience.

5

Foregrounding In foregrounding this research, I could cite many experiences in which parents and court personnel were not necessarily aware of children’s true feelings, and were not aware of the negative impact that reunification can have on a child in terms of (a) selfesteem, (b) sense of self, and (c) security. I have spent 15 years acting as a reunification therapist. In this role, I have seen the limitations of professionals’ and parents’ understanding of children’s needs. I looked forward to researching a topic that helped shed light on the child’s perspective of the process.

6

Chapter II

Literature Review

Introduction This study explored the subjective experiences of children engaged in the reunification process. Reunification may take multiple forms, including (a) re-involvement, (b) reintroduction, and (c) initial introduction between an estranged parent and child. The reunification process is typically court-ordered, with the family being referred for therapeutic support. High-conflict divorce cases often include frequent visits to court, as well as allegations of abuse and scheduling disagreements. In these fractious situations, children may become involved in (a) parental alienation, (b) gatekeeping, and (c) programming. Recent data suggest that such cases comprise approximately 20 percent of all divorces (Baker & Fine, 2014). The court system has become aware of this correlation and now makes more referrals for reunification services, which increases the importance of understanding the child’s experience of the process, in hopes of improving services and long-term outcomes.

Divorce is a complicated and potentially traumatic process for adults, and even more so for children. Divorce can result in a developmental interference for young children, according to Freud and Nager, respectively (as cited in Tyson, 1983). Tyson (1983) also cites the separate work of Birchell and Jacobson, who found that children make

7

identifications with the lost object. Tyson goes on to cite Furman, who suggested that these identifications may facilitate or impede subsequent development. For young children, divorce may be disruptive "because the loving attachments made between the child and the parent are the basis for harmonious personality growth, and the disruption of these attachments inhibits and distorts subsequent further development" (Tyson, 1983, p. 208).

Drawing on Margaret Mahler's research (1975), Tyson states, "Slightly older children may experience the loss of a parent as a confirmation of their hostile omnipotence, based on the ambivalence inherent early in the process of separation-individuation" (p.208) This hostile omnipotence may result in internalized anger and "I am bad" thinking. Tyson writes that children experience divorce as a narcissistic wound; it seems that the parent left because the child was not sufficiently lovable (p. 208). This is significant when considering the absence of the reunifying parent—even if rejected by the child—because it may ultimately result in "I'm not loveable" and / or "I am bad" thinking.

I conducted my literature review by reading and reviewing articles of research and opinions from books, journals, workshops, and relevant research engines including: 1. Psych Info . . .

2. Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing . . .

3. ERIC . . .

4. EBSCO . . .

5. Google . . .

8

6. APA Psych Net . . .

7. Family Lawyer Magazine (online) . . .

The target audiences for the literature include: 1. Therapists . . .

2. Social workers . . .

3. Psychologists . . .

4. Educators . . .

5. Researchers . . .

6. Lawyers . . .

7. Parents . . .

8. Judges . . .

The Importance of Attachment Attachment is ". . . conceptualized as the interactive regulation of synchrony between psychobiologically attuned organisms" (Schore, 2000, p.34). Attachment is a simultaneous interaction between people that is (a) relevant, (b) important, and (c) necessary to the continued psychological growth of the individual. This is relevant when considering the attachment relationship, or lack thereof, in the initiation of the reunification process. Regarding the evolutionary function of attachment, "We argue that an evolutionary function of early object relations is to equip the very young child with an environment within which the understanding of mental states in others and the self can fully develop" (Fonagy et. al., 2004, p.5). The importance of attachment as significant to

9

human development was pioneered by John Bowlby and later Mary Ainsworth. The lasting importance of attachment is a point of contention in psychological circles. Some, including Wylie and Turner (2015) contend that attachment is pivotal to later psychological health. Others disagree, arguing that healthy attachments after the formative years are equally important. However, Sroufe and Siegel (2011) found that early attachment relationships become the foundation for later personality development.

Also, attachment provides proximity to an identified individual whom the child perceives as better able to cope with the world (Fine, 2010). More recent additions to the literature include Daniel Siegel's interest in how attachment affects human neurobiology, which Siegel termed "interpersonal neurobiology" (1999), and Allan Schore's focus on re-enactment as a means of affectively repeating and integrating attachment. These contributions to the literature are particularly important to my research, as they help better understand how the child might be impacted by attachment loss, and why a parent from a divorced family might unwittingly contribute to alienation or estrangement.

Peter Fonagy's research on affect regulation and mentalization has found that ". . . the caregiver's capacity to observe the moment-to-moment changes in the child's mental state is critical in the development of mentalizing capacity� (Fonagy et al., 2002, p.54). Also, the caretaker's belief that the child is an "intentional" and multi-dimensional being underlies the formation of loving and attentive responsiveness. Thus, when a parent is entrenched in a high-conflict divorce and enlist the child to reject the other parent through alienation, the parent abandons the process of facilitating mentalization. In this instance, the parent does not see the child as a being, but rather as a weapon to hurt the other parent.

10

The development of mentalization depends on continued cognitive development during adolescence. Also, one of the primary tasks of adolescence is separation from significant others. Therefore, according to Fonagy and others: Real separateness implies an ability to recognize both difference and similarity . . . the challenge to identity in adolescence comes from accepting not difference, but similarity. [The adolescent who] has projected parts of the self and needs to perceive the caregiver as completely different feels that he has lost his identity if he is separated from her. Thus, an exaggerated claim to be different may be seen as a defensive response to pressure for separation, which threatens the return of projected parts of the self. (2002, p. 321) This also means a natural disadvantage for the adolescent who has had a ruptured relationship with one parent and an intrusive or enmeshed relationship with the other.

(This is sometimes the case with reunification.) This is because adolescents need a physical presence of the other (indeed, both others) to mentally separate from the parents.

Otherwise, ". . . the residual core self will be swamped, he will lose contact with it, and his sense of identity will be lost" (Fonagy, et al., 2002, p.321).

Daniel Siegel's 2012 book, The Developing Mind, notes that relationships (attachments) influence the brain in specific, significant ways. The author writes: Relational experiences have a dominant influence on the brain because the circuits responsible for social perception are the same as or tightly linked to those that integrate the important functions controlling the creation of meaning, the regulation of memory, and the capacity for interpersonal communication. Interpersonal experience

11

plays a special organizing role in determining the development of brain structure early in life and the ongoing emergence of brain function throughout the lifespan." (p. 33) Thus, relationships encourage communication between oneself and others, whether within adult-adult or adult-child attachments. Additionally, they help determine the development of the brain within relationships, starting during early years. This further attests to the need for healthy parent-child interaction and the necessity for reunification efforts when the bond is ruptured.

The Impact of Parental Absence on the Child Theories of attachment and psychoanalysis are filled with concern for object loss. Otto Kernberg believed that psychic structure consists of (a) combinations of selfrepresentation, (b) object representation, and (c) the affect state linking them (as cited in Fonagy, 2001, p. 111). Kernberg also held that the need for object or parent representation is vital to the growth and development of the child. Daniel Stern (1985) describes the need for selfobjects in self-psychology in terms of the ". . . memory of experiences of being with others and the way in which these memories are retrieved and used" (p. 243). Further, Stern believed that these memories are the internalizations of the selfobjects.

12

Regarding selfobjects and narcissism, Heinz Kohut taught that the development of narcissism4 has its own developmental path. Kohut believed that caregivers (objects) provide experiences that function to fulfill selfobject needs and thereby facilitate the child’s development of healthy narcissism. According to Wolf, these selfobjects function to evoke the experience of selfhood (1988), which is important because the way in which the self experiences the other, is vital to development. Thus, the process of reuniting a child with their selfobject (parent) helps to create the internalization that leads to a stronger and healthier sense of self. Additionally, by satisfying the child’s need for a positive mirroring (experiencing affirmation, acceptance, and feeling appreciated), idealization (experiencing oneself as respected, admired, accepted, and merged into a wise and powerful selfobject), and twinship (experiencing an essential likeness with the selfobject) experience, the parent is helping to provide a self-sustaining and fulfilling experience of self for that child.

The loss of a parent is considered a potentially traumatic event. Research demonstrates a link between trauma and a six-fold increase of the risk for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and neuroendocrine dysfunction (Heim et al., 2009). There is also an increase in PTSDlike symptoms in children following a divorce, as observed in Dr. Steven Joseph's 2000 research. Joseph showed that 29 percent of boys and 39 percent of girls who reported a 4

Heinz Kohut wrote that moving from the understanding phase (which is based on empathy) to the explaining phase of psychoanalytic therapy allows the analyst to perceive and communicate accurately, so that although the archaic merger bond is lessened, an empathic bond on a more mature level of experience replaces what is left behind. "The empathic connectedness between patient and analyst is thus retained . . . the analyst enables the patient to continue to feel supported by the fact that he, the analyst, retains his selfobject functions [and enables] the patient to become more objective vis-a-vis himself and his problems [and by beginning to accept himself, the patient moves towards] greater objectivity during the analysis, which should therefore be seen as a sign of developmental progress; it parallels the replacement of one selfobject experience with another, namely, the replacement of the archaic selfobject experience by a mature one, the replacement of a merger experience with the selfobject by the experience of empathic resonance from the side of the selfobject" (Kohut, 1984, p. 185).

13

parental divorce demonstrated symptoms of posttraumatic stress (Psychology Today, 2013). Symptoms of PTSD in children include: 1. Intense fear . . .

2. Disorganized and agitated behavior . . .

3. Emotional numbness . . .

4. Anxiety or depression . . .

These symptoms usually develop after direct exposure to or witnessing a traumatic situation involving real or perceived threats to oneself or a significant other (Goodman & Gurian, 2014). Complex trauma occurs within the caregiving system, which is supposed to be the source of safety and stability in a child's life. This concept, according to the paper published by the Complex Trauma Task Force, refers to the “. . . simultaneous and sequential occurrences of child maltreatment—including emotional abuse and neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and witnessing domestic violence—that are chronic and begin in early childhood" (2003). In this white paper, the Trauma Task Force described several domains of impairment following a child's exposure to complex trauma, including: 1. Impairment in attachment (including distrust, social isolation, and interpersonal difficulties) . . .

2. Biology (including sensorimotor problems, hypersensitivity to physical contact, somatization) . . .

3. Affect regulation (difficulty with emotional self-regulation) . . .

4. Dissociation (distinct alterations in states of consciousness) . . .

14

5. Behavioral control (poor modulation of impulses, self-destructive behaviors, aggression and resulting disorders) . . .

6. Cognition (difficulties in attention regulation and executive functioning) 7. Self-concept (lack of predictable and stable sense of self, low self-esteem, etc.) . . .

The trauma, PTSD, and / or complex trauma symptoms that result from parental alienation both disrupts the child's developmental processes and makes the reunification process exponentially more difficult.

Judith Wallerstein conducted a longitudinal study on the impact on children following divorce. Wallerstein found a "pervasive sadness" in certain children due to the inability to manage grief and painful affects via their usual defenses and coping mechanisms. This sadness resulted in fantasies of deprivation and aggression towards the absent parent (as cited in Kirsten, 1993).

Narrowing the focus of parental loss, Figueredo and others believed that children who grow up in fatherless homes have an accelerated risk of illness and a higher rate of infant mortality (as cited in DelPriore and Hill, 2013). I will briefly explore additional factors involved when considering father loss in girls and boys, and its impact on the father-son and father-daughter dyads.

Regarding father loss, Cath, Gurwit, and Ross (1982) noted that the father-son dyad creates a template that prepares the son for later development in adolescence and manhood. The father plays a significant role in the modulation of aggression in boys. The father's absence ". . . produces an unmodulated state of affairs" (Herzog, 1982, p.172).

15

According to Maccoby, this generates a greater need for support and mentorship in the management of aggression (as cited in Herzog, 1982). In a 1992 paper, Gilead Nachmani identified a syndrome that results from father (object) loss. This syndrome has an organization of symptoms that involves depression in relation to the emotional absence of fathers and the mourning of a living parent. Regardless of the child's gender, father absence is negatively related to intellectual competence. Lamb stated that father loss creates disadvantages in lessening the paternal attention necessary to help model mature decision-making and problem solving (as cited in Krohn and Bogan, 2001).

The Bay Area Male Involvement Network (1997) showed that people from fatherless homes account for the following: 1. Sixty-three percent of youth suicide victims . . .

2. Ninety percent of runaway children . . .

3. Eighty-five percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders . . .

4. Eighty percent of rapists motivated by displaced anger . . .

5. Seventy-five percent of all adolescent patients in chemical-abuse centers ...

6. Seventy percent of juveniles in state-oriented institutions . . .

7. Eighty-five percent of youths in prison . . .

In a 2010 paper, Edward Kruk examined the father-child attachment during and after parental divorce. Expanding on his earlier research (1989), Kruk found that both father and child experience pronounced, profound grief after divorce. Defined as "divorce

16

reaction" in The Child Psychotherapy Treatment Planner, the behavioral definitions include the following, according to Jongsma and others (2014): 1. Intense emotional reactions associated with separation from parents . . .

2. Strong feelings of grief and sadness combined with low self-worth . . .

3. Withdrawal . . .

4. Loss of interest in previously-enjoyed activities . . .

5. Unreasonable guilt resulting from the (false) belief that they were the cause of the divorce . . .

6. Marked increase in frequency and severity of acting-out (including oppositionality, aggression, decline in school performance, regression) . . .

7. Pseudo-maturity manifested by denying or suppressing painful emotions about the divorce and /or assuming parental roles and responsibilities . . .

8. Psychosomatic complaints . . .

Researching the absence of fathers in the father-daughter dyad, Wassil-Grimm (1994) found that girls with absent fathers are more prone to diminished cognitive development and school performance. These girls tend to have lower achievement-test and IQ scores, in addition to a decreased sense of security and lack of a sense of protection. Griffin held that these deficiencies may result in (a) teenage pregnancy, (b) dropping out of college or never trying to go to college, and (c) low self-esteem (as cited in Krohn & Bogan, 2012).

These girls are also likely to shy away from males. Conversely, they may become sexually aggressive, and / or become desperate for male attention. In this latter instance, girls with absent fathers may have more physical contact with boys their age, as compared to girls from intact homes. Also compared to girls from intact homes, girls with

17

absent fathers experience (a) sexual intercourse at a younger age, (b) accelerated puberty, and (c) more sexual partners (DelPriore and Hill, 2013). At the same time, they tend to be more critical of their fathers and the opposite sex. (Wassil-Grimm, 1994, p. 147).

Draper and Harpending's 1982 research on the "paternal investment theory" surmised that girls are ". . . uniquely sensitive to the availability and quality of investment they receive from their biological fathers because these cues provide important diagnostic information . . . [about] the local mating system" (as cited in DelPriore and Hill, 2013), which may encourage reproduction at a younger age.

According to Lohr and others (1989), father loss may result in stunted emotional development and reduced coping skills, including (a) intensified separation anxiety, (b) denial, and (c) avoidance of an array of feelings associated with (a) the loss of a father, (b) identification with the lost object, and (c) object hunger for males (Krohn & Bogan, 2012). In the same study, Krohn and Bogan found that daughters of single parents, in comparison to those from intact homes, appear to commit to adult life prematurely, given that they are: 1. Fifty-three percent more likely to marry as teenagers . . .

2. One hundred and eleven percent more likely to have children as teenagers ...

3. One hundred and sixty-four percent more likely to be a single parent . . .

4. Ninety-two percent more likely to divorce if they marry . . .

These girls can also experience a negative impact on their self-esteem (Hetherington, 1978). Parental absence eliminates "narcissistic supplies,� consisting of expectable

18

father-child interactions that include compliments and the expression of pride (Kestenbaum & Stone, 1976). Girls experience this consistent lack of attention as rejection (Leonard, 1966). There is also an impact on academic performance, including poor performance in school and on achievement and IQ tests (Wassil-Grimm, 1994), in addition to weaker mathematical abilities and verbal skills (Adams, Milner, & Schrepf, 1984). Furthermore, a negative male bias against females exists around science and mathematics. Biller believed this bias could be offset by a father who serves as a counterforce (as cited in Krohn and Bogan, 2001). Outside of school, these girls might be discouraged by a perceived lack of security and sense of protection, which could hamper their ability to make sound decisions and stretch themselves to reach goals (Griffin, 1998). Fatherless daughters are also at a higher risk of (a) suicide, (b) homelessness, and (c) mental disorders (Krohn & Bogan, 2001).

Regarding death and / or complete paternal absence, Harwant Gil (1991) states that children have an ". . . inborn propensity to relate to a father [or] a father introject" (p.

252). Regarding paternal attachment, Peter Fonagy stated that children can form many attachments early in life, and the “hierarchy of major caregivers” is topped by a “preferred principle attachment figure” (p. 10). Fonagy also held that time spent with the primary caretaker, as well as the quality of care and emotional connection, helps determine with whom the “preferred principle attachment figure” resides. Lastly, there is a sort of father-child identity reciprocity, in which both members of the dyad shape each other's identity (Ross, in Cohen, 1984). Thus, one can see how paternal absence disrupts attachment quality, leading to some of the statistics and theoretical suppositions recently discussed in this research.

19

Regarding mother loss, maternal caregivers contribute to attachment security through certain “predictors of attachment security" (Fonagy, 2001, p. 25), including: 1. Sensitivity . . .

2. Responsiveness to distress . . .

3. Moderate appropriate stimulation . . .

4. Interactional synchrony and warmth . . .

5. Involvement . . .

6. Responsiveness . . .

The complexities of mother loss have been well documented, from the Hampstead Nurseries in World War II to Anna Freud and Dorothy Burlingham's research on behavioral symptoms of loss in infants separated from their mothers. John Bowlby noted that the loss of a mother figure for children aged between six months to four years has "high pathogenic potential" (Bowlby, 1960, p.12). Bowlby also stated that the loss of the mother in early developmental years may result in the development of depression and other psychiatric illnesses (p.13).

Rene Spitz's research involved the comparison of infants being cared for in: 1. Hospital settings . . .

2. Middle-class homes . . .

3. Impoverished homes . . .

4. An institution for “delinquent adolescent girls,� i.e., young mothers . . .

Spitz showed the importance of the infant's need for emotional and physical support, and the devastating effect on the infant when these needs were not met. Spitz showed that

20

the infant has an "absolute need" for emotional care, and that even minimal care by caretakers improved their emotional development. On the other hand, basic maintenance such as nutrition and shelter was insufficient to promote ongoing development and resulted in profound delay and disturbance (Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 1993, pp. 342-343).

In his 1960 paper published in The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, John Bowlby described the grief and mourning that occurs in infancy when the attachment security is compromised, writing, “. . . the responses mediating attachment behavior and the mother figure continues to be unavailable" (p. 9-10). Bowlby further says that if a child aged six months to four years loses a mother figure, the child develops a "high pathogenic potential." Bowlby wrote that the loss of the mother in early years may result in the development of personalities prone to depression and other psychiatric illnesses, and although the early loss of the breast is exaggerated (p.13), it is of consequence when occurring alongside separation or loss of close contact with the mother. Citing Helene Deutsch's research with young children, Bowlby noted that even with familiar substitutes, children will respond to the loss of a loved one with loss and mourning.

In her 1961 paper in The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Margaret Mahler noted that the loss of the maternal care was significant in Spitz’s research. Mahler stated that during the second part of the first year of life (the symbiotic phase of development), the need-satisfying mother-child relationship is crucial for healthy development, whether through physical closeness or smiling responses. The "dual unity" between the infant and mother happens within a "symbiotic membrane," which sets the stage for further growth and development, as well as the development of the superego.

21

Further, Mahler and others (1975) noted that the separation / individuation process in infancy is necessary for the establishment of a stable sense of self and the capacity to relate to others. In a 1990 model of mourning, Mardi Horowitz described a process that prepares individuals (both children and adults) for new commitments to others and for the acceptance of new roles. This process involves an unconscious change in mental structures of the meanings of self and others. It is present in both the loss of mother and father. When a parent-child problem results in loss of contact, mourning becomes complicated because the parental loss is different. Frequently, with high-conflict families, the child takes the role of caretaker, confidante, or pseudo-mature child-parent.

Divorce and Separation This study defines divorce as ". . . the termination of a marriage by legal action, requiring a petition or complaint for divorce . . . by one party" (LAW.com). I will use the term "separation" in a legal and non-legal sense, indicating ". . . married persons living apart either informally by one leaving the home or agreeing to 'separate,'� or formally by seeking legal means (Law.com). I would also add the "never married" and the "never engaged in a relationship" subgroup to this study about reunification.

Each year in the United States, an estimated 1.1 million children experience parental divorce (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009). Approximately 45 percent of American children will witness the divorce of their parents (Heuveline et al., 2003), and 40 to 50 percent of American adults will divorce (APA, 2019). Children from divorced homes, according to Amato and Keith (1991), are more likely to experience the following:

22

1. Depression . . .

2. Anxiety . . .

3. School delinquency and dropout . . .

4. Aggression . . .

5. General delinquency . . .

Interparental conflict has been identified as a precursor to problematic adjustment for children (Braver, Shapiro & Goodman, 2005; Cookston, Braver, et al., 2006). This conflict increases the likelihood of behavioral and emotional problems (Vandervalk et al., 2004). Thus, as Adamson and Pasley reasoned, this conflict is the biggest determinant of a child's overall wellbeing (as cited in Cookston et al., 2006). Unfortunately, little research shows statistically significant intervention effects on interparental conflict (Goodman, Bonds, et al., 2004).

An estimated 8 to 15 percent of parents remain in high conflict post-divorce (defined as two years after the finalization of the divorce), according to Joan Kelly, Ph.D. (AFCC conference, 3/4/13, Loyola University Chicago). Among post-divorce individuals, psychiatric illness and personality disorders are disproportionately common (Johnson et al, 2008; Kelly, 2000, 2003, 2012). According to several scholars (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Sandler et al., 2008, in Kelly 2013 AFCC Conference, Loyola University Chicago), buffers that help protect children from high parental conflict include: 1. Having a good relationship with at least one parent, caregiver, or mentor ...

2. Parental warmth (nurturance, support, acceptance) . . .

23

3. Good quality of sibling support . . .

4. Encapsulating conflict . . .

The Children's Rights Council of 1994 reported that an estimated six million children experienced interfered parenting time by their (primary) custodial parents. This is often a symptom of high-conflict divorce. More recent studies show similar statistics (Robert Ferrer, in Dad's Divorce blog, 2012), and a recent (1/2019) search on this statistic proved fruitless in providing an updated statistic. These studies include estimates that alienation is present in anywhere from 11 to 60 percent of custody-disputing families. However, these statistics are questionable because of two reasons: As Baker pointed out, no formal instruments exist to measure and track (resulting) alienation (as cited in Fidler, Bala, et al., 2013, p.11), and the concept is relatively new and has no reliable statistics to give an exact percentage (p. 11).

When writing on this topic, Childress stated the following: In high-conflict divorce, the inability of one or both parents to regulate their emotions and the profound failure of empathy for the children's experience suggests the presence of narcissistic personality processes with one or both parents . . . one or both parents are placing the parent's emotional desire to express spousal anger ahead of the children's emotional needs. . . . The narcissistically self-absorbed parent is unable to recognize the emotional and psychological needs of the children . . . to vent and indulge his or her own anger within the spousal conflict without recognizing the devastating emotional and psychological effect that this spousal anger and interspousal conflict is having on the children. Parental empathy for the child's experience is the single most important parental obligation next to providing for the child's basic

24

survival needs . . . it is the critical component of parenting that results in healthy child development." (2015, p.2) Elsewhere in the same research, Childress quotes Moor and Silvern (2006): The capacity for child abuse in any form, physical, sexual, or psychological, emerges from a parental absence of empathy for the child. In addition, the research evidence also indicates that the two concepts of child abuse and failure of parental empathy actually represent two manifestations of the same underlying process.

Childress further states that divorced parents with healthy empathy for their children's experience find ways to cooperate with each other and recognize the need for children to have intact, healthy relationships with both parents. On this topic, Dr. Lisa Piemont concluded: . . . [a child's] psychic structures are weakened by the excessive demands that the losses of divorce place on his developing ego. In addition to difficulties in developing a healthy attachment style and managing uncontained drive energies, the child is frequently overwhelmed by feelings of powerlessness and insignificance.

(2009, p.112).

Parents wishing to forego high conflict will remain consistent with and supportive of their children. In Schaefer and DiGeronimo's Ages & Stages, the authors state that divorce adjustment largely depends on the consistency and emotional support of the parent-child relationship (Schaefer and Di Geronimo, 2000). The authors quote Rutter and Garmezy’s 2003 research that states, "The nature of the ongoing parent-child

25

interaction is much more important than whether both parents are present in the home" (Schaefer and Di Geronimo, 2000, p.170).

Parental Alienation Bruber and Moral defined parental alienation as a ". . . childhood disorder that is almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes" (2001). According to Warshak, parental alienation occurs when children who ". . . reject a parent after divorce, who refuse or resist contact with a parent, or whose contact with a parent is characterized either by extreme withdrawal or gross contempt" (2010). Additionally, Cartwright and Gardner note that in parental alienation, the child contributes to the denigration of the hated parent (Cartwright, 1993; Gardner 1992, 1998).

Douglas Darnall (1993) defined parental alienation as ". . . any constellation of behaviors, whether conscious or unconscious, that could evoke a disturbance in the relationship between a child and the other parent.” Elsewhere, Darnall described a ". . . parent's purposeful campaign of vilification characterized by anger, resistant and inconsistent compliance with court orders, conscious or unconscious denigration of the child's other parent, and interference with the other parent / child relationship" (Baker & Darnall, 1993).

“Parental Alienation Syndrome,” or “PAS,” was initially described by Richard Gardner as a diagnosable disorder that represents ". . . a disturbance in which children are preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent—denigration that is unjustified and / or exaggerated" (1987, p.68). Gardner identified behavioral factors in alienated

26

children more complex than "brainwashing,� including conscious, subconscious, and unconscious factors within the alienating parent. These factors influence the child, thereby playing a role in the syndrome and behaviors associated with the syndrome (Gardner, p.68). A child may also contribute to PAS out of the need to protect and care for an angered and unhealthy alienating parent, or to gain more control at a time of powerlessness by manipulating conflicts between the parents. Additionally, Rand held that some adolescents seek freedom by using PAS to their advantage in an otherwise toxic family situation (as cited in Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001). Gardner attributed the increase in alienation cases to a change in how courts view custody, namely that child custody should be considered within the context of the child-parent relationship and the parenting capacity of the parents, not the parent's gender (Gardner, 1985).

Kelly and Johnston (2001) presented a reformulation of the syndrome, with emphasis on the alienated child who ". . . expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection, and / or fear) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child's actual experience with that parent" (p.

251).

My aim was to research the child's actual internal experience. I have not found research that describes interviews with the children. Rather, the research focuses on the parents and any pathology or conflict that they engage in.

Baker and Darnall's 2006 study found that reports of alienation occurred more often in girls (55.6 percent) than boys (32.6 percent), and that older children were more likely to be alienated (Darnall, 2008). More recent research shows that girls and boys experience

27

alienation in equal amounts (Baker, 2010; Bow, et al., 2009; Kelly & Johnson as cited in Fidler et al., 2013). Bow and others set the median age of behavioral onset at 10 years of age (as cited in Fidler et al., 2013). An actual estimate of alienation cases is unknown because the concept is relatively new and difficult to measure (Fidler et al., 2013).

Darnall (2008) identified three types of alienators. First, the naĂŻve alienator recognizes the value of the child's relationship with the other parent, but may say or do something that indicates that the other parent is flawed or wrong. Parents in this group respect court orders and generally respect the relationship of the other parent and extended family.

The second type is active alienators. These parents tend to support the relationship with the other parent, yet criticize that parent during an occasional loss of control, often due to the active alienator’s own inability to tolerate frustration. Parents in this group can usually differentiate between their needs and those of the child.

Lastly, obsessed alienators hold irrational beliefs. These parents are obsessed with destroying the other parent and the child's relationship with that parent. Their goal of denigration and annihilation of the other parent results from their own narcissistic injury.

They ultimately enmesh themselves with the child and stunt the child's growth, as they focus less on the child’s interests and more on their own adult issues and conflicts.

Alienating parents, particularly those in the obsessed class, tend to (a) have poor coping skills, (b) display impulsiveness, and (c) have little control over their own behaviors (Major, 2009). Additionally, they have an extreme need to punish the other parent. Alienating parents often use brainwashing that recognizes the power imbalance

28

between parent and child and induces the child's compliance in a nine-step process, as enumerated by Clawar and Rivlin (as cited in Rand, 1997). The nine steps are as follows: 1. Developing a negative ideational or ideological focus (such as attacks on the religion, or lifestyle of the other parent) . . .

2. Rationalizing their ideas or techniques . . .

3. Using mood-induction techniques to create a distorted view in the child ...

4. Using sympathy-creating techniques to induce the child's emotional reactions (such as garnering guilt, making threats, or playing victim) to facilitate a link between the brainwasher and the child . . .

5. Gaining the child’s compliance with the parent's belief systems and desires (the child begins to share the same attitude, belief and opinions as the brainwasher) . . .

6. Testing effectiveness with feedback-seeking questions, such as "Are you wanting to spent less time with Dad?" . . .

7. Measuring loyalty through feedback assessment and tests of loyalty (e.g., to determine if the child still wants to spend time at the other parent's home) 8. Escalating / intensifying / broadening / generalizing, which builds on the previous steps and involves broadening the brainwashing to include additional assaults that attack the love and devotion of the targeted parent ...

29

9. Maintenance of the brainwashing program, allowing the brainwashing parent to develop procedures to maintain the program ("Sure, your mother was at your game. But she was too busy on her phone to watch you.") . . .

Amy Baker's limited 2006 study of adult children who experienced alienation as children found three clear patterns of alienation, including (a) having had a narcissistic mother in a divorced family, (b) having a narcissistic mother in a non-divorced, intact family, and (c) having a cold, rejecting, or abusive alienating parent. Most of the children in Baker’s study, who were adults when they participated, reported felt loved by their mothers when they rejected their fathers. However, this was not the case in the third group, who never felt loved by their mothers. This research has the qualifying aspect of focusing on adult participants’ perceptions from their childhood. The interviews themselves were not conducted during childhood.

Kelly & Johnson (2001) assert that alienation and estrangement are different, as estrangement results from a child's rejection of a parent based on: 1. A history of neglect . . .

2. Physical or sexual abuse . . .

3. Domestic violence . . .

4. Abandonment . . .

Affinity and alignment also factor into parent-child contact problems. An affinity develops when a child has a close relationship, or alignment, with one parent with whom the child (a) shares a similar temperament and similar interests, (b) is more familiar and "comfortable" spending time with, and (c) has preferred parenting practices. The age and

30

gender of the child may play a factor, and does not involve negative feelings towards the other parent (Darnall, 2008; Kelly & Johnston, 2001).

Alignments result from having a bond with the preferred parent before, during, and following separation. Alignment occurs because of the other parent's minimal, interrupted, or nonexistent involvement in the child's life (Darnall, 2008). These levels of involvement might result from intense marital conflict and flawed marital and family dynamics (Kelly & Johnston, 2001). Kelly and Johnston (2001) list behaviors of the rejected parent that contribute to alienation, including: 1. Passivity and withdrawal of the parent . . .

2. Counter rejection of the alienated child . . .

3. A harsh and rigid parenting style . . .

4. Immaturity and self-centeredness of the parent . . .

5. Critical and / or demanding traits of the parent . . .

6. The diminished empathy for the aligned child . . .

According to Goldstein (2013), practitioners believe nothing is worse than alienation within the realm of parent-child relational problems. To help deter alienation, practitioners suggest intensive family therapy with all members (such as the Warshak Family Bridges Program) and threats of court action (Walsh & Bone, 1997; Bruber & Moral, 2011). However, some researchers have also observed that prolonged court involvement contributes to the development of PAS and increases its severity and longevity of PAS (Cartwright, 1993).

31

Finding reliable statistics on the prevalence of alienation is difficult (Fidler & Bala, 2010). Even in high-conflict divorce cases, which may include negative talk by both parents about the other, most children still want time with both parents, and maintain an attachment to both (Fidler & Bala, 2000; Johnson, Walters, & Oleson, 2005; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Warshock & Santrock, 1983). Additionally, not all children exposed to alienation become alienated (Fidler & Bala, 2010; Johnson, Walters, & Oleson, 2005).

Some studies estimate the rate of alienation within the parent-child relationship in highconflict divorces to be as high as 20 percent of the divorcing population (Fidler & Bala, 2010; Johnston, 1993, 2003; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005). Researchers suggest that as many as 40 percent of children exhibit an alignment with one parent (Fidler & Bala, 2010; Johnson & Campbell, 1988; Lampbell, 1996). Research consistently shows that boys and girls experience alienation equally, but adolescents are more likely to experience alienation than younger children (Fidler & Bala, 2010; Kelly & Johnston, 2001). Research has found that mothers and fathers create situations of alienation equally, although alienation is most often perpetrated by the parent with primary custody (Fidler & Bala, 2010; Bala, Hunt, & McCarney, 2010).

Finally, it should be noted that the phenomenon of alienation goes by different names, including: 1. Parental alienation . . .

2. Parent social alienation . . .

3. Programming . . .

4. Negative parental influence . . .

32

5. Pathogenic parenting . . .

6. Brainwashing . . .

“Pathogenic parenting” and “brainwashing” are used more frequently in recent literature by Canadian therapists and researchers. “Programming” and “brainwashing” were initially used when referring to research on religious cults. According to Lofland (as cited in Clawar & Rivlin, 2013, p. 7-10), “programming” and brainwashing” include the following characteristics: 1. Physical and social isolation (in alienation, this includes isolation from the targeted parent and others that support that parent) . . .

2. A stripping process (in alienation, where the child's past identity and attachment to the targeted parent is "stripped") . . .

3. The view of outsiders as bad / evil / wrong (in alienation, this includes the target parent and those that support them) . . .

4. Repetition of themes (the targeted parent is criticized repeatedly to damage the child's view of that parent) . . .

5. Reinforcement of the targeted parent’s inferior status (in alienation this includes the exclusion or rejection of the child who voices love for the targeted parent, or criticisms of the targeted parent that minimizes that parent’s value) . . .

For purposes of this research, “reunification” is defined as therapeutic intervention intended to help repair the ruptured parent-child relationship via a specific model applied by a trained professional. The expertise of this professional lies in the following areas:

33

1. Attachment . . .

2. Family systems theory . . .

3. Conflict resolution . . .

4. Interparental conflict . . .

5. Child development . . .

Oftentimes a voluntary process, in reunification the estranged child and parent meet within a therapeutic setting to work towards the re-establishment of the relationship. In most cases, the reunifying parent is attempting to re-enter the child's life after an absence.

This absence does not include those situations resulting from foster care or adoptive removal, or when a child has been incarcerated.

Also relevant within the reunification process and noteworthy here is the phenomenon of “splitting”. For purposes of this paper, “splitting” consists of ". . . unconsciously seeing people as either all good or all bad, an extreme way of coping with confusion, anxiety, and mixed feelings . . . [which is] especially prevalent under stress" (Eddy & Kreger, 2011, p.16). The Online Psychological Dictionary defines splitting as “. . . a primitive defense mechanism where objects that evoke anxiety are dealt with by compartmentalizing the negative and positive emotions. It is not seen in babies and young children.” I specifically note this source because the latter sentence is relevant. Babies and young children do not experience ego splitting, contrary to the suggestions of some early psychoanalytic theorists. (When considering the children who are most likely to experience and respond to parental alienation and "brainwashing" against the other parent, babies and young children are often not included in the population.)

34

Splitting in situations of divorce and separation often involves one partner seeing the other as all bad, to cope with the loss of the attachment. Partners with Borderline Personality Disorder or Narcissistic Personality Disorder often show splitting behaviors, characteristics of which include a loss of attachment and inflated self-image or control. In turn, these characteristics may result in the following behaviors, according to Eddy and Kreger (2011, p. 16-17): 1. Hitting / physical violence and destruction to property . . .

2. Hiding money . . .

3. Refusing to work . . .

4. Hurting / kidnapping / alienating the children . . .

5. Spreading rumors . . .

6. Using the court system to humiliate and control . . .

7. Making false allegations of child or domestic abuse, or alienation . . .

Children may become part of the splitting when they receive negative information about the person who is supposedly all bad. This is evidenced in Stephen Ceci's 1995 research, wherein Ceci made several negative statements about a man to children in a room. The man later entered the room for two minutes and only said "Hello" and "Goodbye." Children in the group who received negative information later reported that the "bad" man threw a teddy bear and marked on it with a crayon, neither of which had occurred. A trusted adult's splitting behavior can negatively influence a child's perception of an individual. Parental splitting stunts mental development by limiting mentalization and shrinking the child’s worldview. This reduction in thought processes can lead to brainwashing. Moisy Shopper (2009) wrote, "Many allegations of child abuse arise in

35

cases of high-conflict divorce, where one party believes they will secure a more favorable custody decision . . . " (p.514). This also likely involves the splitting of one or both parents.

Relevant Topics in Literature Some relevant literature discusses disruptions to the parent-child attachment relationship, including: 1. Placement of children into foster care . . .

2. Incarceration of one or both parents . . .

3. Termination of parental rights due to severe abuse and / or neglect . . .

4. Developments that deem parental care against the best interest of the child, e.g., a trained professional's assessment of a reuniting parent as unfit . . .

5. Court decisions to allow near-adult children to choose for themselves . . .

Besides the fifth example in that list, all these disruptions to the parent-child attachment were not included in my research, as they are not typical dynamics involved in voluntary reunification services. In my review of the literature, some writings came closer to my area of research. Relevant topics included (a) the subjective experience of children of divorce, (b) children exposed to high-conflict parenting, intergenerational boundary breaching, and varying degrees of parental alienation—but who are not engaged in the reunification process, and (c) parental alienation.

36

The subjective experience of children of divorce includes children who feel "caught in the middle," but who are not engaged in the reunification process. Maccoby and Mnookin found that within three to four years after marital separation, 24 percent of families evidenced conflicted parenting (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1998; Donner, 2006). Children in this situation experience an overwhelming residual emotional and psychological impact.

As Donner (2006) states, conflicted parenting consists of ". . . perverse modes of thought [that] permit [parents] to indulge their rage and aggression against the other parent and against the children who cause them despair" (p.545). A review of the literature in this area yields no actual data on children engaged in the reunification process as defined in this paper. Research on other instances of reunification, e.g., following the incarceration of a parent, are plentiful. However, these instances do not apply to this study because they involve (and are managed by) Child Protective Services.

The second relevant topic of the literature, in terms of this study, concerns children who are exposed to (a) high-conflict parenting, (b) intergenerational boundary breaching, and (c) varying degrees of parental alienation, but who are not engaged in the reunification process. Fieldstone and Coates defined high-conflict parents as being ". . . engaged in intractable conflict that is ongoing and unresolved and that intensifies after the divorce or separation rather than diminishing" (2008, p.9). These parents are highly litigious and have a difficult time agreeing on the varying facets of divorce and childrearing. They account for approximately 8 to 12 percent of divorce cases (Coates, et al.

2004). However, as Neff and Cooper noted, these parents take up 90 percent of familycourt time (as cited in Fieldstone and Coates, 2008), and they create instability for the

37

children involved. Here, too, I was unable to find any research that addresses the subjective experience of the children.

Finally, I found relevant research on parental alienation, which ". . . refers to the situation in which a child rejects a parent for trivial or false reasons, not consistent with his or her own experience of that parent" (Fieldstone and Coates, 2008, p.18). The fact that children experience parental alienation was significant to my area of research.

Unfortunately, little to no research exists on the subjective experience of children participating in reunification. My goal was to help remedy this and clarify the experiences of children engaged in reunification—with specific focus on the subjective experiences of those children.

38

Chapter III

Methodology Introduction This qualitative study intended to answer this research question: “What is the subjective experience of the children participating in the reunification process?�

Reunification is defined as a child-centered process offered by a trained professional following a disunion or absence of contact between child and parent, often following a separation or divorce (Graham, 2015). Within reunification, an estranged (sometimes called "rejected" or "resisted") parent attempts to reunite with a child (or children) after a significant absence. These absences often occur after a disunion, divorce, or breakdown in the parental relationship. Lastly, it should be noted that reunification process I researched differs from the reunification process that exists in the child welfare system.

In the latter process, the parent or child has been removed from the family home due to abuse and / or neglect. The reunification process I researched does not result from court or CPS intervention. Instead, it results in a change in parenting time following a divorce or disunion.

39

Phenomenology Phenomenology can be described as a person’s perspective of the meaning of an experience or event, as it exists to that person. By focusing on the personal perspective, a researcher can gain a clear understanding of the meanings attached to an event. For purposes of my research, this includes the experience of a child participating in reunification. I was able, through detailed interviews and interpretation, to examine how some child-participants’ views changed during their involvement in reunification, which in extreme situations could last up to two years. I believed that my research approach could potentially demonstrate a child's perspective of reunification over time, and account for changes in how children define aspects such as the relationship, the nature of the problem, and other relevant factors.

Phenomenological qualitative strategy is designed to help understand the meaning of participants’ lived experiences in their own words and reality. In my study, this approach evolved during the interviewing process. The subjective experience of children looked different from the beginning of reunification than at the end, by which point parenting time had been reestablished and the child-parent relationship was intact. As new ideas and issues emerged, children’s experiences of reunification changed. Children verbalized their new ideas and issues during the natural unfolding of research interviews. This allowed for the kind of understanding of lived experiences that, according to Moustakas, characterize ". . . phenomenology as a philosophy as well as a method, the procedure [which] involves studying a small number of subjects through extensive and prolonged engagement to develop patterns and relationships of meaning" (as cited in Creswell, 2009, p. 13).

40

To observe the natural unfolding of a child's subjective experience, I was best served by the qualitative research method of phenomenology, along with bracketing, which strives to suspend judgments about the natural world to focus on participant experiences.

Further, I set aside questions and thoughts about the real existence of a contemplated object—the process of reuniting with an estranged parent, for example—to identify the true human experience as described by the participants (Creswell, 2009). By "setting aside" my experience, and by observing the natural unfolding of participant experiences, I better understood the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions—that is, the subjective experiences—of the participants.

The constructivist paradigm of inquiry offers a hermeneutic methodology, which Guba (1990, p.7) described as follows: [It] demands that inquiry be moved out of the laboratory and into natural contexts, [to] create naturally occurring experiments . . . [and to] discern meaning implicit in human activity . . . [Its] designs for such inquiries can never be fully articulated until after the inquiry has been declared complete, because the design must emerge as salient issues emerge from research respondents . . . [and] theory must arise from the data.

I worked within this hermeneutic paradigm of inquiry based on this assumption, as described by Creswell (2007, p. 59): Researchers first turn to a phenomenon, an “abiding concern” which seriously interests them . . . They reflect on essential themes, what constitutes the nature of this lived experience. They write a description of the phenomenon . . . It is also seen as an

41

interpretive process in which the researcher makes an interpretation . . . of the meaning of the lived experiences.

With this form of inquiry, I ensured that the children's subjective reality was heard and interpreted, so that my research truly reflected their experiences. Furthermore, as a result of my research, professionals who facilitate reunification can be better informed by the exploration of children's experiences during interviews, as children describe their lived experiences.

Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) offered the best approach for this study. Smith and others (2009, p. 32) described IPA as being ". . . concerned with the detailed examination of human lived experience” and that IPA intends “to conduct examination in a way which as far as possible enables that experience to be expressed in its own terms, rather than according to predefined category systems.” Elsewhere, Smith wrote, "IPA is a model of a person as a sense-making creature . . . Of particular interest is the 'double hermeneutic' that IPA employs, where the researcher makes sense of the participants, who in turn are making sense of something” (p. 35) In this study, the participants were making sense of reunification. The double hermeneutic allowed me, as the researcher, to see myself as similar to the participants, yet only having insight into their experiences as they reported them (p. 35).

My research question asked, “What is the subjective experience of the children who participate in reunification?” Potential procedural sub-questions inspired by my reading of Creswell (2007, p. 110) involved:

42

1. Experiences within research participants’ lives . . .

2. Themes that arose in participant stories about their experiences . . .

3. Turning points in their stories . . .

4. Theories that related to participants’ lives . . .

Again, the phenomenological approach supported the use of open-ended questions and the unfolding of the participant experiences as I collected and interpreted data based on context and setting. In keeping with IPA, this question was "open" and exploratory, reflecting on meaning and the process, not the outcome. (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009, p. 47). I viewed participant context through the lens of the social-constructivist philosophical world view, and interpreted through the IPA approach.

Social constructivists believe that individuals seek understanding of the world they live in. These individuals find varied meanings, indicating that researchers must examine multiple complex views, each of which holds personal meaning for at least one participant. These meanings aren't simple or singular, and they allow participants to construct meaning themselves. As Creswell (2009) stated, these meanings are ". . . typically forged in discussions or interactions with other persons. . . . Often these subjective meanings are negotiated socially and historically" (p.8). Much like a socialconstructivist researcher, I recognize that my own background has shaped my lens of interpretation, resulting from my own personal, cultural, historical, and even psychological experiences. As a gatherer of data, I used semi-structured, open-ended questions, and met the participants in their context, setting, or environment while viewing their responses through the object-relations theoretical framework.

43

Research Sample IPA studies ". . . are conducted on relatively small sample sizes, with the aim to find a reasonably homogenous sample, so that, within the sample, we can examine convergence and divergence in some detail" (Smith, Flowers, and Larkin, 2009, p. 3). Further, Dukes recommended that between three and 10 subjects should be used (as cited in Creswell, 2007). I proposed a participant group of five to eight participants between the ages of 12 and 17, both male and female. The actual participant group included five children between the ages of 13 and 17, both male and female. The participants were unknown to me, as were their parents. Through purposive and convenience5 sampling, referrals came from the Midwest. All referrals came from area professionals (therapists and attorneys).

Regardless of the origin of the referral (and whether court-ordered or voluntary), my role remained the same. I attempted to learn about participants’ subjective experiences of reunification. Thus, my role was clearly defined as researcher, and not that of courtordered or private therapist or reunification therapist.

To qualify for inclusion in the study, each participant needed to meet the following criteria: 1. Rejected or refused contact with a parent . . .

2. Been involved in some stage of the reunification process . . .

3. Are between the ages of 12-17 . . .

4. Able to understand and speak English . . .

5

The purposive sample was homogenous in that it was selected because the child participants were all involved in the reunification process. In order to achieve maximum variation, I attempted to gather information about these experiences from a varied group of participants engaged in both the introduction and reinvolvement phases of reunification. Because of the limited availability of the available sample group, I utilized the most convenient and available participants who qualified.

44

5. Not have cognitive processing delays that inhibited comprehension . . .

6. Willing to participate in the research . . .

7. Agreeable to participating in two to three interviews, ranging between 30 and 45 minutes each . . .

8. Willing to separate from their parent(s) and meet with me individually . . .

9. Understand that their experience with me would not result in my intervention into the reunification process itself, and that my role was limited . . .

Criteria that would have resulted in exclusion from the research study included: 1. Family history of substantiated sexual abuse against the child participant or a sibling . . .

2. Family history of domestic violence against the child participant that resulted in the removal of the reunifying parent from the home permanently . . .

3. History of the reunifying parent being imprisoned due to domestic violence or child abuse against the participant teen or other immediate family member . . .

4. History of the participant being placed into the foster care or residential treatment system . . .

5. Families in which the reunifying parent had their parental rights terminated . . .

45

6. Situations where inclusion was deemed against the best interests of the child . . .

7. An active and open CPS case against the reunifying parent . . .

Research Design Johnson and others estimated that 10 to 15 percent of children resist or refuse contact with a parent following a parental separation or divorce (as cited in Fidler & Bala, 2010).

Therefore, a court may recommend that the child receive reunification services. The child’s resistance may result for any number of reasons. I intended to achieve the following: 1. Gain an understanding of each participant's subjective experiences during reunification, including (a) thoughts, (b) feelings, and (c) wishes . . .

2. Explore participants’ perceptions of their relationship with the caregiving and reunifying parent . . .

3. Explore how each participant viewed life within the family, both before and after divorce . . .

4. Explore how participants viewed themselves while involved in the process ...

Following the Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) approval of the study, I took specific steps to begin my research. First, I notified and presented my research intentions to a several different groups of the professionals within the Midwest, requesting their support in obtaining referrals. These groups consisted of therapists, mediators, and

46

attorneys who work with high-conflict families in offering complicated court-ordered cases for reunification, parent coordination, custody evaluations, etc. Also, I informed many of the professionals that offer collaborative divorce and alternate dispute resolution (ADR) services and about my intended research, and requested referrals. All potential research participants received referrals from (a) "gatekeepers" such as these attorneys and therapists, (b) professionals in my own personal network, or (c) the "snowballing" that occurs when a research participant (or perhaps a parent involved in reunification) refers another qualified candidate (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009, p. 48). I informed all the aforementioned professionals that I considered all collected data confidential and would not share it with any parent, professional, or court personnel. (Please see Appendix B for the email draft I asked professionals to share with potential participants.)

Once a parent in reunification contacted me, I introduced myself and offered a brief explanation of my research. My script for this telephone call can be found in Appendix C. After the call, if the candidate met the criteria for inclusion, I collected the candidate’s contact information and email address. A legal guardian or parent signed paperwork that included information about the (a) risks, (b) benefits, and (c) confidentiality and consent.

The paperwork also stated that once the interviews finished, the participant would receive a $30 Visa gift card. The parent or legal guardian and the child signed the consent form in person.

The initial telephone calls determined that all referred candidates were good potential participants, with one exception. I screened out one parent as ineligible. I informed the custodial parent that the study carried specific criteria for participation, which the parent did not meet. Because we were unable to continue, I stated my appreciation for the

47

parent’s time and interest, and explained that any screening information collected would be destroyed, per research protocol.

In the third step of pre-research protocol, I met with the parent or legal guardian and the child. Prior to signing the consent paperwork, I asked the parent or legal guardian if they had any other questions. (This paperwork can be found in Appendices E and F.) For several of these parents, I confirmed again that I would not speak to attorneys or court personnel about their child’s interviews. Because none of the participants requested their parent’s presence during the interviews, I did not have to address any issue of safety or anxiety that could have disrupted the one-to-one interviews. Each initial interview occurred in the presence of my English bulldog, Winston—sometimes at the child’s request, and always with parental permission.

For the first meeting with the child, I started with a script that can be found in Appendix D. The second interview took place four to eight weeks after the first interview, depending on the participant’s scheduled meetings with the reunifying parent.

The scheduling of the second interviews was also contingent on the participant’s ability to navigate court, school, extracurricular activities, and counseling. With one participant, I scheduled the third interview following the reunifying parent’s withdrawal from services.

The option of participating in up to three interviews allowed me to collect data regarding the child's subjective experience as the reunification process continued. It also allowed participants to process any insights they had as reunification unfolded. The three interviews were semi-structured and included open-ended questions intended to elicit

48

personal and expressive insights, reflections, and opinions. I used different kinds of questions, including: 1. Descriptive questions, e.g., "Why were you supposed to participate in the reunification process?" . . .

2. Narrative questions, e.g., "Why haven't you seen your [parent] in x years?" ...

3. Comparative questions, e.g., "What would your life be like if you didn't have to see your father / mother / reunifying parent?" . . .

4. Evaluative questions, e.g., "How do you feel after you see your father / mother / reunifying parent?" . . .

I also used prompts ("Tell me a little more about ______") and probes ("What do you mean by _______"), as described by Smith and others (2009, p. 60). These devices assisted in accuracy through member checking. Although I anticipated six to eight questions to elicit the participant’s thoughts and feelings, I was also prepared to listen and follow their narratives. None of the participants asked to review the interview transcript, which I offered as a means of increasing the validity of the study and assure accuracy.

None of the participants had any reading or comprehension deficits. Had this been the case, I would have offered to read the transcripts to them.

I was willing to peruse any qualitative documents from participants that might have offered insight into their experiences—such as art, journals or diaries, or other private documents—but only if participants offered these materials. Although one participant brought a journal, the participant did not offer it for view. Also, no participants offered

49

any qualitative audio or visual materials such as recordings, music, or video as a means of offering insight into their experiences, although one participant doodled while talking.

In the fourth step, I established specific data-recording procedures, which I discussed with the child and parent or legal guardian prior to starting. The use of an observational protocol for recording information within a qualitative study offered me the ability to take separate descriptive notes and reflective notes, as discussed by Bogdan and Biklen (as cited in Creswell, 2009). These notes included my thoughts, ideas, impressions, etc.

After each interview I transcribed the recording, and consulted with my committee chair as needed.

The use of an interview protocol (see Appendix A) helped me gather information about the child's experience within reunification. I used the interview protocol, as found in Appendix A, as presented by Creswell (2009, p.183). The protocol included the following: 1. A heading (date, place, interviewer name, interviewee identification—by letter only) . . .

2. Instructions for the interviewer to follow, for consistency among interviews . . .

3. Open-ended questions, which intended to illicit the child's experiences (thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc.) . . .

4. Probing statements for each question (if needed), to gather additional detail or to inspire the child to elaborate . . .

5. Added space after questions to allow for recorded responses and interviewer reflections . . .

50

6. A thank-you statement to acknowledge the child's effort and willingness to let me see into their world . . .

In addition to these protocol objectives, I also collected the demographic data of my sample, including: 1. The age and gender of the participant . . .

2. The number of years the parents have been divorced or separated . . .

3. The length of time since the child last saw the reunifying parent . . .

4. The parent or guardian with whom the participant resides . . .

Data Collection The steps of data collection in a qualitative-research study include the purposeful identification of interview sites and interviewees (Creswell, 2009, p.178). The four aspects of participants and sites that Miles and Huberman proposed (as cited in Creswell, 2009, p. 178) include: 1. The setting (my office or agreed-upon alternate location) . . .

2. The actors (the child participants) . . .

3. The events (interviews, etc.) . . .

4. The process (the evolving experiences, e.g., the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the children who are participating in reunification) . . .

As a data-collection method, IPA allowed for semi-structured, in-depth interviews that ". . . facilitate[d] the elicitation of stories, thoughts, and feelings about the target

51

phenomenon . . . with an intimate focus on one person's experience" (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009, p. 56).

I conducted all interviews in my office, which was the preferred setting of each participant and their parent. My office offered a quiet and secure location that included a support animal. The 30 to 60-minute interviews were semi-structured and conducted inperson, one-to-one. I offered telephone interviews as an option if necessary. Because the actual parent-child reunification meetings could not be observed (nor did they need to be for my research), the aforementioned interview process offered the best way to elicit the child participant's views. Additionally, I collected the demographics of each participant, including their age at the time of relationship disruption, the length of time since seeing the reunifying parent, etc. I noted their responses to some of these questions in comparison to those provided by their parents.

I used a specific observational protocol for recording information about my observations during the interview. This included descriptive notes, which offered additional descriptions that captured the essence of the setting, dialogue, and interview. I also used reflective notes, such as thoughts, hunches, or impressions, as well as demographic information about the time, place, and date of the interview (Creswell, 2009, p. 181-182).

As previously mentioned, had participants offered personal documents such as journals, letters, or computer diaries, I might have received more insight into their worlds. However, this did not happen. The participant who brought a journal did not share any of their writings, although the participant did mention their possession of the journal. Perhaps during our interview the participant shared the same thoughts written in

52

the journal. The participant reported sharing the journal with a therapist. The fact that the participant brought the journal to the interview meant that I was, as Smith and others wrote: . . . better positioned to think about how we and other people might deal with the participation situation being explored, how at the deepest level we share a great deal with a person whose personal circumstances may, at face value, seem entirely separate and different from our own . . . the detail[s] of the individual also brings us closer to significant aspects of the general" (2009, p. 31-32).

Data Analysis Although primarily using the IPA phenomenological design by Smith, Flowers, and Larkin, I also integrated some ideas from other designs, as referenced below.

After I (a) completed the interviews, (b) compiled relevant notes and observations, and (c) viewed all supporting documents, I interpreted the data. Because phenomenological research uses (a) the analysis of significant statements, (b) the generation of meaning units, and (c) the development of what Moustakas (1994) calls an essence description (p. 184), the analysis and interpretation of the data more fully and accurately reflected the intended meaning of the participant.

By using the analytic process in IPA, I focused on each participant's attempts to make sense of lived experience. I determined the following analytic strategies to be best, taken from the set of common processes and principles described by Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (p. 79-80):

53

1. "A close, line-by-line analysis of the experiential claims, concerns, and understanding of each participant . . .

2. The identification of the emergent patterns (i.e., themes) within this experiential material, emphasizing both convergence and divergence, commonality and nuance, usually for single cases, and then subsequently across multiple cases . . .

3. The development of a 'dialogue' between the researchers, their coded data, and their psychological knowledge, about what it means for participants to have these concerns, in this context . . .

4. The development of a structure, frame, or gestalt which illustrates the relationships between themes . . .

5. The organization of all of this material in a format which allows for analyzed data to be traced right through the process, from initial comments on the transcript, through initial clustering and thematic development, into the final structure of themes . . .

6. The use of supervision, collaboration, or audit to help test and develop the coherence and plausibility of the interpretation . . .

7. The development of a full narrative, evidenced by a detailed commentary on data extracts, which takes the reader through this interpretation, usually theme-be-theme, and is often supported by some form of visual guide . . .

8. Reflection of one's own perceptions, conceptions, and processes" . . . (p.

79-80)

54

To this list I added the additional analytic strategy of identifying and clarifying my own biases by documenting my assumptions at different stages, including before the first interview and at the start of data analysis. I stayed alert for the additional biases: 1. Mood bias. This may occur if a child is in an extreme mood state where their answers reflect their mood. To help manage this, I did not interview a child immediately after a reunification meeting, to allow for the processing and reflecting of their own thoughts and feelings. . . .

2. Question bias. I strived for neutrality and avoided leading questions and predicting what participants were trying to say . . .

3. Question order bias. I asked a general, open question before following up with specific questions to help decrease bias . . .

4. Moderator acceptance bias, which might occur when a child wants acceptance. I avoided this by "friendly challenging" participant answers if it appeared as though they wanted my approval. . . .

5. I used my own "radar" for parental alienation, which I've been trained to recognize in family systems. Also, I recognized and controlled my questions and demeanor. This meant putting my radar aside and simply listening to the participant’s subjective experiences. Because I am aware of the error bias in children of high-conflict divorce families regarding faulty and easily influenced memories, I focused my reactions on the potential for influencing (Hoets, 2018). In the end, however, the need for my parental alienation “radar� was not an issue, as the focus remained solely on the child participant and their experiences. . . .

55

By reading and re-reading case notes, and by making detailed initial notes of anything of interest, I gained further insight into participant experiences with reunification. I employed exploratory noting and some descriptive comments such as, "It sounds like you're saying _____.�

I used participants’ own (a) key words, (b) phrases, and (c) explanations in discussing content about their experiences. Linguistic comments allowed me to focus on their use of language, including: 1. Pronouns . . .

2. Pauses . . .

3. Laughter . . .

4. Sighs . . .

5. Tone . . .

6. Metaphors . . .

Lastly, I used conceptual comments that helped interpret and move away from specific wording into sensed feelings (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, p.88).

The transcription process included a verbatim record of the data collected, as recorded on audio media (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009, p.73). By reading and re-reading the data, I gained a sense of (a) what participants were saying, (b) what they believed, and (c) their perceptions of the process and their parents. As I read, I wrote notes in the left margins of the data, and compiled themes in the right margin (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, p. 87). The process of coding involved organizing data by sections and looking at the meaning of each section. At that point, I hand-coded the data. I also used field notes to

56

describe my thoughts, observations, and inquiries about the child’s perceptions of reunification. By noting "developing emergent themes" in meetings with the children, I witnessed the unfolding of their narratives.

I found Creswell's "research tip" (p. 186) of interest, as it recommends the following method: 1. First, coding topics that readers would expect to find . . .

2. Coding topics that are surprising and likely unanticipated . . .

3. Coding topics that are unusual but of interest to readers . . .

4. Finally, coding topics that address a larger, perhaps more significant theoretical perspective in the research . . .

In following this tip, my hand-coding included each participant’s perspectives regarding various aspects of reunification. This coding allowed me to see and understand the emerging themes in the data analysis. I typically use color-coded tabs and ink when reading articles and noting specifics, and I carried this practice over to my data analysis.

This helped me create a description of categories and themes that emerged. I identified the meaning units and continued coding when developing the second stage of analysis, which consisted of identifying the major organizing themes and categories.

The data-analysis process started immediately after the first interview. This allowed me to quickly modify or change the interview process as needed. This also allowed for clarity in interviewing as themes emerged. Overall, I viewed data through a selfpsychology and object-relations lens by examining:

57

1. Emergent data . . .

2. Narrative themes . . .

3. Quotes . . .

4. Notable results . . .

I prepared for the final step of interpreting data after I checked and re-checked the qualitative research in terms of (a) reliability, (b) validity, and (c) generalizability (as defined below). I confirmed validity by triangulating different data sources to build a reasonable justification for the themes that emerged. I asked for clarification on what the participants had said, which added member checking as a means of validity. I coded the data independently, comparing and contrasting them when the data was fully collected. I told participants that they could read my findings to see that the descriptions and themes were accurate, but none of the participants did so. Inter reliability was achieved through comparing the degree of agreement among raters in the coding and interviews. I further validated the research by acknowledging my own limitations, in terms of my bias as a researcher (and reunification facilitator for more than 15 years). I also reflected on how my own prejudices (as informed by my gender / culture / history / profession) might skew my interpretations. Other limitations included the emergence of contrary information from the perspectives of the participants and that of their parents. Any difference in perceptions did not prove to be counter-productive, and indeed helped to enrich the research. Because of the extensive experience that I have in reunification, it encouraged further validity, as did my intention to utilize peer debriefing (with a committee person) as a means of potential alternate interpretation. Again, these qualitative steps furthered the validity of my research and ensured quality in the process.

58

Lastly, Greene and Caracelli describe generalizability in qualitative research as “particularity� (as cited in Creswell, 2009, p. 193). With particularity, qualitative inquiry does not intend to generalize findings to anyone or anything outside of the particular study (p.193). Rather, we study findings in context of a broader theory. Thus, the idea that research findings can be exported (as significant and relevant) to other similar situations with similar participants is an example of generalizability, although arguably with limitations. Within my study, generalizability is achieved in the context of the participants’ developmental strivings, attitudes, and desires, which can be considered typical for 12 to17-year-old children.

Ethical Considerations Ethical considerations that assured the safety and wellbeing of this vulnerable population of 12 to 17-year-olds included the understanding that their participation was purely voluntary. This meant that by signing the IRB-approved consent form, the child and parent(s) understood the procedures involved for interviewing and open-ended questions. They understood that I was interested in the child's experience of reunification, and that the potential for risk of harm was low, but possible, when dealing with the emotion-packed experience of ruptured parent-child relationships. Alternatively, a parent might react negatively to reading the research and attributing specific (negative) comments to their own child. Participants understood that confidentiality was of utmost priority, and that the child would be referred to solely by a letter, and that any identifying information would be withheld from the final write-ups. Finally, they understood that

59

they could remain anonymous in their interactions with me, especially if it encouraged their full investment in the data research.

60

Chapter IV

Results Introduction To introduce the various aspects of each research participant, I attempted to take every precaution to maintain confidentiality. I not only needed to maintain confidentiality about the child participants themselves, but also about their verbalized expressions that might negatively impact their relationships with custodial or reunifying parents. Thus, what follows is a composite image of the research participants. All research participants received referrals from attorneys or mental-health clinicians. Additionally, all participants were reported to have parents engaged in a high-conflict pre- or post-divorce situation.

Given the likelihood of the continuation of discord as well as the concern that the participant’s contributions to the research might be wanted for use in an unintended manner, I used great caution in sharing direct quotes and identifying information.

In offering a composite description of the research participants, I included factual and demographic information about them, but in an aggregated manner. Aggregating the data combines sensitive (and potentially identifying) participant information. Data is compiled and shared in summary form. To further protect participant privacy, I referred to all participants as “children” or by the use of a single letter (e.g., “Z”), which eliminated gender-based assumptions of identity. In addition, the use of “their” helps to eliminate the

61

identity of the reunifying parent (referred to as “RP� throughout), or the custodial parent.

Finally, I excluded and / or disguised specific identifying information regarding: 1. Siblings . . .

2. Family . . .

3. Dates . . .

4. Extracurriculars . . .

5. Interests that the child participants may have referred to during the interviews . . .

The Research Participants This chapter presents results from interviews conducted with the child research participants. Because this qualitative study intended to explore the subjective experience of children who participate in reunification, my primary goal was to learn about their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of reunification. Parent-child reunification is often characterized as a child-centered process that involves a disunion or absence of contact between at least one parent and a child. Because of this, I sought to learn more from the child’s perspective of what works, and what does not work, when they are engaged in reunification.

I analyzed a total of 11 interviews involving five participants. The participants ranged in age from 13 to 16 and included two females and three males. Four participants identified as Caucasian, one as Hispanic. All currently reside with a custodial (the preferred) parent. All participants attend high school in their communities. All five

62

referred to participation in sports or other extracurricular activities. Three participants live in different cities than the RP, and all but one participant reported a recent history of disruption in parenting time with the RP. One other participant reported a disruption that occurred more than five years earlier. Most of the children had their own individual therapist with whom they were reported to have a steady relationship, and one was seeking additional support from a school counselor. None of the participants reported holding a job outside of the home.

Four of the five participants resisted and ultimately rejected the RP. These participants were court-ordered and / or recommended to engage in reunification within one year of their rejection. Two participants had been involved in more than one series of reunification services, both of which initially failed. Four of the five participants reported the desire to discontinue reunification services and / or contact with the RP at our first interview. All five expressed the desire to do so by the second interview. The longest span of time between first and second interviews was 11 weeks, and the shortest was five weeks. I determined the spacing between the interviews based on time needed for at least one additional meeting with the RP, and time needed to schedule the second interview with the busy (and emotionally tired) participants.

Three of the participants preferred to keep the second interview shorter than the first and even appeared bothered by having to engage in the interview at all, which they acknowledged as being voluntary. The other two participants appeared to be more engaged in the second interview and more introspective in general. None of the participants requested to view the research notes from the interviews. I did not offer this to the parents, to ensure confidentiality.

63

Interviews took place primarily in my office. Two of the participants either drove themselves to the interview(s) or drove to the meeting place with a non-parent adult.

Nearly all participants reported having an animal (dog or cat) that they referred to— unprompted—when meeting my dog, Winston. Finally, regarding referral sources, one attorney asked a specific question about the child participant that they referred, and one of the mental-health clinicians asked if I had completed interviews with their patient. To both questions, I replied that I could not elaborate, but thanked them for the referral.

To improve accuracy, I used member checking to assess the validity of participant experiences. Member checking occurred in the second and, occasionally, third interviews, as I asked for clarification on previous participant statements. Participants responded and clarified as I attempted to correctly capture their thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

Introduction to the Results Categories Upon examination of the children’s narratives regarding their subjective reunification experiences, four different categories and 15 different subcategories emerged.

Category One: Reunification as a process.

Within this category, subcategories included: 1. Pace of Reunification . . .

2. What the Child Needs from the RP and the Process . . .

3. Need for Control . . .

64

4. Need to Feel Heard . . .

5. Need to Feel Understood . . .

6. Need to Feel Safe . . .

7. Reunification as a Family Stressor . . .

8. Reunification as a Failed Process . . .

Category Two: Child as participant.

Within this category, subcategories included: 1. Mixed Messages . . .

2. Body Language . . .

3. Child’s View of Themselves Now . . .

4. Child’s Perception of Their Future . . .

Category Three: Child’s view of the RP. Within this category, subcategories included Perceptions of Parental Affect and Sensitivity, and Child’s Perception of Their History with the RP.

Category Four: Child’s other relationships.

Within this category, subcategories included Lost Time with Peers: Resentment, and Lost Time with Family.

65

Category One: Reunification as a Process Pace of reunification.

Reunification is typically scheduled and facilitated in a manner deemed most appropriate for the RP and child. Participant S described their interaction with a reunification therapist and related thoughts, saying, “I’m just thinking to myself that your pace is way too far ahead and you’re expecting more from me, but I’m not in the position now to do that.” S spoke of the reunification therapist moving too quickly in wanting them and their RP to “do something new” at each reunification meeting. This added to S’s stress. S also described the pace as overwhelming, as did T, who described it as going “too fast.” Participant L reported not wanting reunification services to begin, and described resistance to the court order of biweekly visits with the RP, as it would interfere with L’s involvement in extracurricular activities.

What the child needs from the reunification process.

During participant interviews, children verbalized a need for control in the process.

Participants stated that (a) the RP did not understand them, (b) did not hear them, and (c) they did not feel safe with the RP.

Need for control.

Participants S, L, J, V, and W all verbalized the specific desire to have more control over reunification. L said, “Next year I’ll have more say [in the process],” and “I’m not

66

going [to the RP’s home] for longer than two hours.” L reported a refusal to listen to the RP’s talk of their blended family during the meetings. Regarding the content of meetings with the RP, S said, “[It’s really unfair] that I didn’t get what I wanted, like seeing what I wanted to do.” S described their RP as “. . . expecting more from me, but I’m not in a position now to do that kind of thing”—indicating that the RP wanted longer reunification meetings. S also thought that the reunification process was unfair “. . . because I didn’t get what I wanted” when it came to compromises within the meetings, which S feared might result in “the process going really fast,” and “[the RP] making me go back to [their] house earlier than I want.”

Participant J stated, “I know this needs to be done” in reference to talking to me, following the termination of their reunification meetings with the RP. J also responded to my question, “If you had a magic wand, how would you change [things]?” by saying, “Make this never happen again,” referring to the reunification process and meetings with their RP. J also shared thoughts regarding their future as a grownup and how reunification meetings prepared them to take control of their life, despite the failed reunification.

Participant V would use their magic wand to make their RP really listen to them. V expressed the desire to have more control over reunification and time with the RP, saying, “I do not like going to [their] house. It causes a lot of stress for me. [I can’t] get sleep, and [we’re always] arguing.” Participant W stated that the RP “. . . controlled my life ever since I can ever remember.” W would use the magic wand to stop reunification, explaining, “I would never go back there if it’s my choice. I guess right now it is my

67

choice. I hope I don’t have to and nobody makes me anymore. I don’t want to go back there or see [them].”

Need to feel heard.

Nearly every participant commented on not feeling heard within the reunification process, be it by the professionals or the RP. This topic came up naturally throughout the interviews, without any prompts from me. One participant presented as somewhat defensive when talking about not feeling heard, to the point that I had to clarify that our interviews were voluntary, and that they didn’t have to participate. Because of this child's saddened and depressed affect, I said goodbye to them and their custodial parent after the interview, with the encouragement of continued individual therapy. The participant described not feeling heard in reunification, and appeared to question whether I would hear them.

Regarding their actual physical voices, V, J, and S all became much quieter when asked about their feelings. Each participant also attempted to avoid talking about their specific feelings without my prompting. J’s speech sped up when discussing the RP’s decision to withdraw from reunification. Perhaps this was an attempt to quickly glide over feelings of disappointment and anger.

L wanted to feel heard by the judge, stating that the judge has never met them, and doesn’t know how L feels about seeing the RP or why they rejected the RP in the first place. It is possible that feeling misunderstood—or not feeling heard at all—may give further cause to L’s continued resistance of time with the RP.

68

Need to feel understood.

Outspoken and seemingly introspective, S spoke of the RP not understanding how the RP’s behavior impacted S. In response to how a magic wand might help the RP to understand them, S responded that the RP would “. . . think outside of [themselves], like thinking about how their words and actions connect back to me.” Also, S spoke to the emotional safety that the RP didn’t offer, and characterized their overall thoughts toward the RP as being “. . . incredibly pissed at the whole situation.” L shared their fear that the RP would get mad if they shared their true feelings, which included L’s wish to avoid time with the RP. Another participant spoke of getting a gift from the RP that was not of interest to them, and how it represented the RP’s lack of knowledge of them and their lifestyle.

Other participants frequently spoke of the RP not knowing about them or their needs.

Participant V characterized the RP as “yelling” and “blaming” them because “. . . they’re upset at something,” which V doesn’t quite understand. V shared that the RP doesn’t understand them or their need for connection to their peers and stepparent. Along these lines, another common thought emerged regarding the child’s needs. Nearly all participants repeatedly requested that the RP stop criticizing the custodial parent and step-parent, which participants believed to be occurring out of jealousy and anger. One participant stated that the RP “. . . talks bad about everyone—including my [custodial parent] and [step-parent].” This may have contributed to the ongoing discord that the child described in the interviews.

69

Need to feel safe.

Regarding safety, three participants had been involved in resolved Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations, wherein the allegations were unsubstantiated. W talked about their lack of emotional and physical safety while with the RP, and the fear that professionals do not understand the extent of the RP’s behavior. When asked about discussing their concerns with the RP themselves, W stated, “Yeah, I told [RP] that, and [they] just laughed at me.” W also said, “[RP] would punish you a lot for things if [they] got mad,” and described the RP as “dangerous.” W also shared that professionals don’t understand that RP hasn’t adequately apologized for being mean, and that W may get hurt again. V described their RP as “. . . pretty mean, and [they] sometimes call me names and stuff.” L shared that they did not feel safe with their RP outside of reunification meetings, and stated, “When I first saw [them], I felt panicky.”

Reunification as a family stressor and as a failed process.

Reunification clearly stressed each participant and their parents. S spoke of the stress that it caused the custodial parent prior to the termination of services, saying, “It’s just a guess, but they’ll feel less stressed-out for me because they’ll think that I’m less stressedout, and then they will be less stressed-out.” L spoke of the stress related to having to accept the new stepfamily, as did A, who believes that the RP uses stepsiblings to manipulate A, causing extra stress on everyone. L also mentioned their custodial parent’s support, and that the RP “lied to the judge,” which resulted in more trips to court and extra financial burden to the custodial parent. J spoke of the financial burden that the RP

70

created for the custodial parent, via reunification expenses and the RP’s lack of childsupport payments.

V described stress that resulted from distrust and hopelessness of the parental rejection, as well as reunification meetings. V stated, “[RP] likes to talk bad about my [custodial parent], which makes me mad and shut down.” V also voiced the simple desire to be heard. S wanted to be asked for their opinion, and to be believed when their perception differs from that of their RP. S encouraged professionals to repeat what they just heard from the child, to make sure they’ve understood them. S also shared that they didn’t view their RP as having heard them or validated them. I asked S, “So, when thinking about this whole process, is there anything that you would have whispered in [the reunification therapist’s] ear to advise them to do something differently?” In response, S said, “The therapist could say, ‘[S], do you agree with what [RP] is saying?’

If I agreed or disagreed, they could say, ‘Do you want to tell [RP] why?” Although this or similar discussions may have taken place in their reunification sessions, I was left thinking that S did not feel heard, and wanted—in their words—for the reunification therapist to “intervene” and work towards “more compromise” to “get both sides of the story.”

V stressed that professionals are limited in their ability to help. V had been previously involved with professionals who were supportive of attempts to reunite V and the RP (even though V did not want to), only to have the judge order services to take place anyways. According to V, “nothing really happened” and “no one listened” when V told the professionals the reasons behind the rejection of the RP, which resulted in V feeling unheard and distrustful. “V’s message to the professionals include, “Listen,” and “Talk

71

to people.” Finally, V shared some advice for custodial parents: “Don’t make children come” to reunification meetings.

Category Two: Child as Participant During the interview process, participants shared how they see themselves relative to peers who don’t have to participate in reunification. Participants also shared their perceptions of themselves now, and how they might change in the future.

Mixed messages.

One theme that presented in different ways involved RPs sending participants “mixed messages.” Mixed messages occurred during reunification, from the RP-supported pace of the process to how RPs honored children’s requests, and even RPs’ commitment to the children themselves. S described the complications that arose when the RP seemingly validated S’s need to slow the pace, while clearly wanting more. “It was kind of complicated,” S said. “[RP] was going along with it, but was expecting me to do all these different things.” This referred to contact and expectations of S outside of reunification meetings, which S was not ready to embrace.

Some participants described their own mixed feelings about having to participate with a seemingly committed RP, only to have the RP withdraw. This resulted in both S and J believing their RPs to be insincere, and furthered the children’s distrust. J shared what appeared to be grief (sadness, anger, indifference) following the RP’s decision to

72

discontinue attempts to reunify. J accepted blamed for the RP’s withdrawal, which prompts me to suggest further research into children involved in reunification that fails following RP withdrawal.

Body language.

The body language of some participants was significant. One participant sat forward while talking, visibly engaged in their story. Another participant hunched their shoulders upwards and leaned forward when describing an emotionally painful incident with the RP. All participants described previous instances in which they felt aggrieved by the RP. Three maintained good eye contact and facial congruency as they recalled the good and the bad. One participant kept their eyes down as they talked about the RP, as if it were painful for them to discuss. This kind of avoidance presented as yawning with one participant, who yawned between 10 and 15 times in the interview when sharing experiences of feeling rejected by, and angered towards, the RP. Most participants kept their hands at their waists or folded in their laps, although some of the participants drew or doodled on paper, at their request. One participant brought a journal that they had been writing in to refer to painful instances in their lives.

Participants who drew did not appear absorbed in their drawings. They possibly used drawing to avoid eye contact at certain times during the interviews. One of these participants would stop and put their pencil down at times when they were explaining how they were feeling about certain aspects of reunification. They completed very little actual drawing by the end of the interviews.

73

Child’s view of themselves now.

In response to my questions about the reunification process, nearly all participants shared their views of who they are now, and how they’ve changed following the courtordered process. Initially, participants offered these thoughts without prompts, as interviews naturally unfolded. This is particularly interesting given the age and developmental level of the participants.

I asked participant S about the differences between a first attempt at reunification, which failed, and subsequent attempts. S attributed one of the differences to how they changed as a person. I asked, “Are you different as you sit here now, compared to who you were then?” S said, “Because of anxiety, I couldn’t say everything I really wanted to say back then.” S indicated that they felt more empowered to (a) speak up and to disagree, (b) to ask for their turn to speak, and (c) to return to the subject to clarify what point they wanted to get across to the RP. J stated, “I went on with my life. I’m trying to get into college. I’m excited for the future.” J also said, “The best way to heal is to not travel back in time. I was really dumb for getting excited or really hoping for [reunification]. I’m pretty disappointed and shocked.” This indicated J’s newfound resolution following the RP’s withdrawal from reunification.

W shared that as they get older, they feel empowered to make some choices regarding their RP, saying, “I don’t want them to be a part of my life anymore. I’ve not been seeing them, and it has opened up a whole new part of life where I can feel.”

74

Child’s perception of their future.

In exploring their thoughts about their world prior to, during, and (for S and J) after the reunification process, participants referred to their future, whether as an individual person or as part of a parent-child unit. S shared that they couldn’t predict whether they’d ever reach out to the RP in the future to reconnect (following the RP’s withdrawal from services). However, S said they and their custodial parent would both be “less stressedout.” J spoke of a bright future, saying, “I’ve decided to actually try in school.” J attributed this change to the emergence of “life goals.” J said, “I’m pretty excited about the future,” and reported telling the RP, “My life’s been perfectly fine without you.” J plans on having children and sharing “new experiences” with them. J said they will be a different kind of parent than the RP was to them.

L characterized their RP’s requests to see them more often as “delusional” and said: I’m not happy and I don’t want to go, and they’re on the phone anyways. I told [RP] that I’m not going to go for longer than two hours. [RP] got mad when I said that next year I’m going to be in a different school and be busy, so I won’t have any more time for them. I barely have time for my friends right now.

V shared the same concern, and said that the RP “doesn’t listen to anyone” about V’s desire to continue extracurricular activities that fall during RP’s parenting time. V predicted that the RP will continue to deny V transportation to friend’s homes, school events, and extracurricular activities. By their second interview, W stated that if reunification meetings didn’t improve, once they were old enough to have more say in the matter, “No one will ever make me go anymore.”

75

Finally, participants dispensed some words of wisdom, aimed at other children engaged in reunification. I asked, “Do you have a message for other teenagers who are going through a similar situation with reunification meetings?” J responded by saying: For one, don’t get your hopes up. For two, don’t try to get connected too fast. For three, don’t let your guard down because probably when you least expect it, they will leave, and if they do stay, really, be happy because there’s a lot of kids out there that don’t have that.

J later stated that others should not be like J, because “I was really dumb for getting excited or really hoping for that.” V said that other children should, “Talk to people” and that those children “won’t enjoy [reunification].” Only S responded positively, saying, “Tell them they’ll get through it.”

Category Three: Child’s View of the Reunifying Parent (RP) Their views of the RPs varied from one participant to the next, although most suggested that they did not experience the RP as loving and accepting. They also shared that their histories with the RPs were positive for insensitivity, verbal abuse, and control. In the absence of these perceptions, the parent-child stress was more pronounced, leading to a resulting deficiency in the bond. This stress within the parent-child bond is the area of research that Keith Crinic, Ph.D., has focused on.

Dr. Crinic has spent much of his career looking at how parent-child relationships develop over time, and how the nature of stress in these relationships influence family and child function. Dr. Crinic’s research has demonstrated that “Parental warmth and

76

controlling . . . are the two most parental attributes that help to create positive effects” in the parent-child relationship; this was defined as parental affect and sensitivity (Farber, 2016). This quote demonstrates what the participants referred to as being problematic.

Similarly, the child research participants shared the following concerns about the RPs: 1. They were not warm and loving . . .

2. They were not doing enough to work on their own issues . . .

3. They did not understand the participant enough . . .

4. They did not effectively address the issues that contributed to the breakdown of the parent-child relationship . . .

Perceptions of parental affect and sensitivity.

Participant perception of RPs’ affect and sensitivity appear to be a crucial part of the problem. Not one participant noted that the problems within the parent-child relationship resulted from poor parenting choices or parenting limitations—as many custodial parents indicated. This is a significant finding that should be explored further in research and practice.

S spoke of their RP’s inability to understand S’s point of view and to validate S. In fact, S believed that the RP saw the problems that led to the estrangement as solely S’s fault. This, in turn, resulted in S feeling misunderstood by the RP when S made requests during reunification meetings. S described this situation as “really unfair,” and wished that the RP could “stand in my shoes.” S also characterized the RP as wanting control over them and the process.

77

J spoke of the RP’s immaturity and “problems and flaws” that led to the breakdown of reunification meetings and the RP’s ultimate withdrawal from services. Although J did not comment specifically on the RP’s affect, their statements of being “. . . pretty disappointed and shocked, and [I] don’t want to see them” gives us some insight into J’s perspective following what they described as a lack of parental sensitivity.

L spoke of the RP’s affect when saying that the RP frequently talked on the phone during supervised parenting time, and that their face “looked monotone” when speaking.

L interpreted the look as one of indifference or disinterest, as they see the RP as insensitive and preferential towards L’s stepsiblings. L also shared that the RP was frequently “mad” at them—a perception that they described as inhibiting L’s free expression regarding their need for independence.

V described their RP as “pretty mean” and difficult to communicate with, saying, “[RP] just yells at me about everything I do and anything I say.” V stated that the RP doesn’t listen to them, threatens V and the custodial parent, and causes V to worry and cry. As with the other participants, V did not share any positive aspects of the RP in the first or second interviews.

W described the RP as insensitive to them and the custodial parent, saying the RP was “selfish and sarcastic” and lacked empathy regarding W’s needs. “[The RP] never says sorry,” W explained, adding that the RP often calls and texts repeatedly when angry, which scares W. When I asked how W lets the RP know that they’re scared of the RP’s actions, W replied, “I’ve explained to [RP] before why I don’t feel safe and gave specific examples. [RP] just tells me how that’s not a reason to not feel safe, and that what I’m thinking is not right”.

78

The child’s view of their history with the RP. S described a history of verbal abuse by their RP, which S partially blamed for the relationship breakdown. This abuse also contributed to S believing that the RP was the one with the problem, not S, who shared that the meetings were “to help us get along” and “to hear each other.” However, S predicted that the RP “won’t change,” even with the help of the meetings. J described a history in which the RP would come in and out of their life, getting J’s hopes up and then letting them down. J attributed the lack of continued commitment as a sign of the RP’s (a) immaturity, (b) anger, and (c) resentment. Unfortunately, J also blamed themselves for not being good enough to keep the RP’s interest.

L also alluded to feeling “less than,” and detailed a history of verbal and alcohol abuse by their RP. This resulted in (a) a lack of trust, (b) a feeling of insignificance, and (c) a lack of safety while with the RP. Referring to the visit with the RP, L stated that the RP “. . . didn’t want to be there, and didn’t seem to care to be there, honestly.” Also, when referring to their own feelings of safety, L said that being with the RP “. . . made me feel uncomfortable.” V described a relatively close relationship with their RP until they became a teenager and “pushed back” when the RP challenged them. V stated that they didn’t want to go to the RP’s house after the divorce because the RP changed and blamed V for everything. Similar to L, W described a history with their RP that included alcohol and verbal abuse, which reportedly led to W’s rejection of parenting time and the RP. Furthermore, W said that the RP “controlled my life” and “dreads” seeing the RP.

79

Category Four: Child’s Other Relationships One of the emerging themes of this research includes the sentiment that participants missed time and opportunities with friends and family as a result of their (both voluntary and involuntary) participation in reunification. Participants talked about lost time with peers (L) or family (J, S), or both (V, W). Additionally, S was equally as concerned with their academic career, voicing worries that time invested in reunification would be detrimental to study time.

S referred to academic expectations (school work, homework, teacher’s expectations) and a desire to see more of their immediate family as motivation to see the RP less. S noted an extensive family on both sides with whom they still interact. Secondary relationships reportedly suffered as a result of the RP’s behavior and time spent in courtordered reunification. Although no other participants referred to lost time in and around academics, almost all participants voiced concerns around significant relationships.

Lost time with peers: Resentment.

Three participants talked about losing time with peers. L lamented that they would lose time with teammates due to the meetings with their RP, and W noted that they were “jealous of others that don’t live like this,” referring specifically to the forced meetings with their RP. In both interviews with me, L reported concerns about continuing extracurricular activities during the coming autumn, during the RP’s parenting time.

My first contact with J occurred when J called to ask about changing the date of the first interview, as J had plans with friends. Perhaps the control that J had coming into the

80

research process was a predictor of success and / or voluntary contribution. J admittedly had other things they could be doing, but stated, “I know this needs to be done.” When referring to the reunification process, J said, “I could have done other things,” referring to specific interests and hobbies that J shared with a close family friend. J also referred to losses that resulted from relationship break-ups between the custodial parent and their previous mates. In our second conversation, J sounded pleased that they had been spending more time with a beloved relative, learning how to change the oil on cars. It is likely that this connection helped to soothe the pain of the RP’s absence, as evidenced by J’s statement, “I like spending time with [them]”.

L lamented that they don’t have time for their friends and teammates due to the scheduled meetings with the RP. When I asked if the RP understood the importance of sports, L replied that the RP doesn’t care. When L spoke of the final games of the season, the RP reportedly said that the reunification meetings would take precedent over (a) extra-curricular activities, (b) time with friends, and (c) personal hobbies. This clearly furthered L’s anger and resentment towards the RP. V was equally resentful towards their RP for altering afterschool schedules and prohibiting V from attending football and basketball games with friends and their significant other, in order to spend time with the RP both in and outside of reunification. “[RP] doesn’t understand the fact that I’m starting to have more friends and wanting to hang out with them more,” V reported.

81

Lost time with family: resentment.

V shared that they were unable to spend time with a stepparent, half-siblings, and others because of RP’s demands to spend time with them. V verbalized anger towards their RP, and appeared frustrated with the imposition presented by divorced parents living in different locations. V spoke of the stepparent sparingly, perhaps out of defensiveness, following what they considered to be a hostile air towards the stepparent by the RP. V characterized the stepparent as loved, “fun,” and positive, and shared frustration that they did not get more time with them.

W characterized their RP’s attempts to stay in contact outside of reunification as manipulative. The RP frequently reported that W’s step- and half-siblings missed W, who believed this was an attempt to hook their interest. W described their relationship with their stepparent as more fulfilling, and that time with the RP detracted from W’s life with that stepparent. W stated that having less time with their RP “. . . opened up a whole new part of life, where I can feel”—quite a declaration for a child who had previously resisted sharing their feelings towards the RP.

82

Chapter V

Findings and Discussion

Analysis and Interpretation of Findings Utilizing the IPA construct of making meaning of participant experiences, I read the (explicit) statements of each participant many times. With each reading, I looked more closely at the words. Eventually I moved to a conceptual annotation, which Smith and others (2009) describe as follows: [The conceptual annotation] often represents a move away from the explicit claims of the participant. Conceptual annotating will usually involve a shift in your focus, towards the participant’s overarching understanding of the matters that they are discussing. There is often an element of personal reflection to conceptual coding, too.

The interpretations which you develop at this stage will inevitably draw on your own experiential and / or professional knowledge. (p. 88) I came into this research with pre-existing knowledge, first as an experienced parentchild reunification therapist. When I became a researcher and tried to make sense of participant experiences, my knowledge evolved into a more in-depth understanding of the pain and loss that children can experience in reunification.

83

Findings, Discussion, and Implications Based on a review of the themes that emerged from the child participants’ narratives, four findings came to light: 1. Participants perceived a loss of actual and desired connection to others . . .

2. Participants perceived a loss of control within their relationships, as they negotiated parental separation, experiencing splitting and a disrupted sense of agency . . .

3. Participant’s perception of not feeling heard, resulting in ego depletion and psychological pain . . .

4. Participants perceived a lack of positive parental affect and sensitivity . . .

Finding One: Perceived loss of actual and desired connection to others.

All participants described a feeling of loss that resulted from both actual and desired connections with others during reunification. Historically, I have interacted with family situations characterized by symptoms of grief and rejection of or resistance to a parent by a child. During these interactions, I have taken on different roles, including that of the child’s or (either) parent’s therapist, reunification therapist, or family therapist. Within these roles, I’ve been witness to the great sadness that belies the anger and indignation that teenagers experience when they believe that (forced) reunification is interfering with the relationships that they hold dear. The irony that accompanies forced reunification lies in the fact that the children lose these significant relationships by having to participate in

84

the reunification process. By relinquishing these relationships, the children need to grieve yet another aspect of their lives.

Social work professionals often assume that divorce entails mourning, grief, and eventually, an adjustment. Reunification specialists receive training in Kubler-Ross' stages of grief. We are taught that children and their families will follow this progression.

We hope that they will simply adapt and move on. Unfortunately, grief and adjustment by children is not so simple. It may result in loss via disrupted attachments, intrapsychic selfobject loss, and loss of mirroring and twinship opportunities that help offset intrapsychic disruptions.

Loss through disrupted attachments.

High-conflict divorce situations often disrupt attachments. Not only does this include the collateral loss of family members from the child’s world, additional loss occurs when children move to different schools or neighborhoods. There is also a grief period in which children need to adjust and accept their new reality and potential loss of certain attachment figures. Some of the participants in this research viewed time spent with their rejected and / or resisted parent as detracting from their new life. This complicates the necessary adjustment and acceptance, especially if the child experiences the RP as emotionally distant and not meeting their needs. All participants described the importance of attachments that they had with significant others in their lives.

Participants described missing out on time with these important attachment relationships while with the RP. These others include stepparents, stepsiblings, and

85

extended stepfamilies. They spoke of feeling disconnected from that part of their lives.

They felt as though they could not process their feelings of sadness and loneliness because the RP did not understand the depth of attachment to the other family members.

Because some of the participants did not see the RP as understanding or supporting these other attachments, they avoided talking about that part of their lives. These (adaptive) reactions likely contribute to the splitting that professionals see in children of high conflict divorce, as the child must become accustomed to separating significant parts of their lives.

In addition to their stepfamilies, participants also lamented missing time with: 1. Teammates . . .

2. Friends . . .

3. Romantic interests . . .

4. Siblings . . .

5. Custodial parents . . .

6. Grandparents . . .

Participants believed that reunification meetings took away valuable time from these other relationships. Most participants viewed spending time with the RP as negative and unproductive, and therefore avoided it. Participants viewed seeing the RP as punishment, which created more resistance and resentment towards the RP and the reunification process. Participants described the RP as a disinterested party who negated their extracurriculars and friendships—in essence, disrupting their attachments. Participants believed that the reunification process only served to minimize their needs while

86

promoting those of the RP. In this way, the reunification process positions RP’s needs as being of greater importance than the child and the child’s needs.

An example of this was reported by participant L, who could no longer participate in afterschool activities because of scheduled reunification meetings. These afterschool activities provided L with a means of connecting with peers, which is an important attachment experience. These peer attachments are important for healthy emotional and social development. Given the disruptions that divorce causes, being able to maintain these important peer connections may serve to mitigate some of the loss. These friendships met certain attachment-needs by providing connection to others and a feeling of value and self-worth. Thus, the cohesion of L’s healthy self was put at risk by eliminating experiences with these significant others in order meet with the RP (who scheduled the meetings during the practices).

From a self-psychological viewpoint, age-appropriate selfobject needs are necessary to sustain self-cohesion (Wolf, 1988). Further, self-cohesion is a hallmark of health (Goldstein, 2001). Based on the perspectives of participants, healthy ongoing child-child (peer) interaction and fulfilling child-adult (non-parent) interactions are beneficial. These rewarding relationships help participants by offsetting the de-idealization of the RP (and parents in general) and providing responsive connections. Participant J expressed disappointment and frustration when referring to lost time with a trusted adult because of the timing of the RP meetings. J felt that the meetings disrupted J’s attachment relationship with this other important adult. Thus, the reunification meetings that were intended to help heal the ruptures in the parent-child relationship actually caused

87

disruption within other significant adult attachment relationships. And because this other relationship met J’s attachment needs, it helped maintain J’s psychological health.

To again visit attachment, Siegel (2012) believes that attachment relationships influence the brain in special ways. These relational experiences influence the brain and are, among other things, responsible for controlling the creation of meaning and the capacity for interpersonal communication. Siegel stated that relationships encourage communication between oneself and others, and help determine brain development.

Therefore, it makes sense that parent-attachment relationships impact child development.

But these relationships need to be healthy and contribute to a child’s positive sense of who they are by providing attachment experiences that help the child meet their full potential.

Participants also saw the RP as emotionally distant and equated that distance with anger. Participants perceived a loss of connection to the RP in the pre-reunification phase. In a cyclical manner, the child perceived the RP as being emotionally unavailable, which prompted the child to resist and reject the RP. This resulted in the emotionally fragile RP to react negatively, so to regain control over the child. This reaction by the RP was reinforced with the help of the court system and other “neutrals.” During this time, the RP became more emotionally distant as a result of sadness and anger directed at the child. Thus begins a cycle of rejection between the child and the RP. Within this cycle, participants described RPs as “bitter” and “angry,” and predicted that RPs would try to take away their friends, extracurricular interests, and families out of anger and resentment. Participants reacted to this threat by holding onto other attachments more firmly and by resisting the RP even more. Thus, the children seemed to

88

interpret the RP’s threats and emotional instability as a direct attack on the self, as well as to attachment figures necessary for equilibrium. These children described their RPs as not valuing attachments (within their own families), and they did not believe their stepparents (RP’s spouses) supported their lives with their friends, activities, or custodial parents. In general, participants did not trust the RPs to value their attachments with others. This undoubtedly led to a further erosion in trust and served to increase uncertainty of the RP’s intentions.

Intrapsychic disruption.

According to Wolf, individuals “. . . come into being and stay whole” as a result of having sustaining selfobject experiences (1988, p. 14). These experiences include those available via connection to important others and experiences. Wolf says the “self cannot exist as a cohesive structure—that is, cannot generate an experience of well-being-apart from the contextual surround of appropriate selfobject experiences” (p. 14). Therefore, the experience of interaction with healthy selfobjects is crucial. When participants experienced a loss of connection to significant others such as peers, family members, and RPs, there existed potential for trauma, or disruption, in the organization of the self.

One way in which intrapsychic disruption occurs is from trauma related to selfobject loss. Ideally, parents fulfill certain vital psychological functions for their children that, if done well, result in a healthy, cohesive, and coherent sense of self for the child. This means the child learns to successfully manage emotions and behaviors as well as life stressors, have meaningful relationships with others, and feel good about themselves.

89

Trauma from object loss may result in a disorganization of the self. Chronically faulty selfobject environments result in failures that leave children vulnerable to a damaged sense of self (Wolf, 1988, p. 70).

Harold Blum (2003) differentiated between trauma with and without object loss, stating that the typical symptoms of trauma are absent from what he terms “object loss syndrome” (Blum, 2003, p. 421). Blum describes this syndrome as psychic trauma repeated in fantasy and acted-out behaviorally. Blum states, “Traumatic alteration of the personality is associated with the threat of personal injury or death, or with threatened or actual injury or loss of loved ones” (p. 415). Blum referenced Freud’s 1926 view that the traumatic state is a psychic helplessness that differs from anticipated danger. This is the “trauma” and “disruption” to which I refer. The loss here is one of perception, and was evident in the interviews with several participants.

For participants, divorce resulted in a disruption of relationships. All participants were living in a parenting-time arrangement of less than a 50-50 split, in which more time was spent with the custodial (non-reunifying) parent. Participants did not describe difficulties in adjusting to the parenting time plan initially, so they did not describe it as a loss. Each participant did describe the following as disruptive: (a) anxiety, (b) negative parental behavior and dialogue, and (c) intrapsychic conflict experienced post-divorce. One participant wished that the RP, whom the participant viewed as rejecting, would leave them alone. However, the same child also described a desire to leave the RP. During the second interview, I asked the participant about this, and they responded that they want a break from the RP, but want to have lunch and maybe see a movie with them “as two adults.” This exemplified the child’s intrapsychic conflict. They wished the parent would

90

leave them and fantasized about having the power to leave the parent. However, they also hoped for a reconciliation where they could interact as equals.

The reunifying child’s fantasy often involves feeling powerful enough to accept and/or reject the RP. The acceptance and / or rejection is based on whether they believe the RP is remorseful for past ruptures in trust. This fantasy becomes a conflict when the child struggles with the unconscious wish to obliterate the RP while desperately needing their love and approval. The aforementioned participant wished that the RP “would just die,” but also struggled with wanting the RP to love and value them (and to eventually meet for lunch). For some participants, the RP could not meet selfobject needs. As a means of psychological protection from trauma / intrapsychic disruption and to maintain a cohesive sense of self, participants needed to fantasize about having some sense of control over their relationship with their RP. Other perceptions of traumatic loss contributed to intrapsychic disruption. Several participants described the RP as forming new relationships with spouses and stepsiblings, or with half-siblings, that “replaced” the participants. One participant wondered if their half-siblings were favored by the RP. Another participant shared their struggle of wanting to detach from their RP so that the RP’s love and attention could be given to the other children. That participant did not believe that the RP had the psychological wherewithal to love everyone, so the participant surrendered their “portion” so the other children would have enough. Similarly, another participant spoke of not interfering with the RPsibling relationship, to help reduce the RP’s stress. The participant believed that they were responsible for triggering the RP’s stress, and feared that a stressed RP would cause emotional pain to the sibling. I asked about this (self-blaming) behavior, and the

91

participant stated that when they are not around, the RP is a nicer person. It seemed that some participants may have unconsciously felt the need to give up their relationship with the RP in hopes that their siblings would experience the idealizing selfobject experience that they had not. The participants thought that this would protect the parent-child relationship with their siblings and stepsiblings. It also served the secondary need to defend against feeling devalued and psychically injured by rejection.

Another participant felt responsible for maintaining both parent’s psychic equilibriums. The participant rejected the healthier parent (the RP) with anger and aggression, while living with and maintaining contact with the more fragile parent, out of a sense of obligation and protection. This child struggled with the intrapsychic conflict of having loved and valued the RP, only to later reject them. I see similar dynamics in many of my reunification-support services. I witness the disruption of interpersonal growth resulting from affect numbing, distortion, and the disavowal of feelings in order to keep (a perceived) balance.

Other participants spoke of the RP’s inability to provide object constancy. One participant reflected that their RP was immature and obtuse. Their RP (object) was not believed to be emotionally available, and the child wanted more than the RP could give.

This participant yawned frequently when describing their disappointment and anger, an unconscious attempt to hide the depth of their sadness. The yawns expressed the exhaustion of wanting something that the RP simply could not give. At first, this participant described feeling excited and hopeful at spending time with the RP, and started to envision the RP as part of their life. When the RP withdrew from the reunification process, the child felt devastated and blamed themselves for not being

92

enough to keep the RP’s love and attention. The child then likened the RP’s rejection to other times that adults let them down. This re-ignited the grief and loss process, as the participant was left without a budding attachment (as promised). This also triggered the trauma and disruption that the child had previously experienced when the RP left the first time after the divorce, while activating the old script that they were not loveable enough for the RP to stay.

This participant later spoke of what could have been, but they also talked about ways that they would survive without the RP. This survival gave hope that the trauma and disruption would not define them. The participant experienced two de-idealizations of the RP (as the parental imago), so the participant identified a responsive selfobject to meet the needs that the RP could not. Sitting across from that child, I was witness to the pain of the rejection. I was also witness to the hope that the other relationship would continue to be fulfilling and counteract the rejection.

Lost opportunities to experience selfobject needs for mirroring and twinship.

In order to maintain cohesion and balance, the healthy self needs a constant supply of self-sustaining selfobject ambiance (Wolf, 1988, p.55). Through the satisfying of mirroring and twinship selfobject needs, children are provided with a subjective experience that supports a healthy self. Mirroring needs help the child to feel affirmed, significant, and recognized as important. Twinship needs help the child to feel like they belong, and are like important others (such as their peers).

93

Participants felt a sense of belonging with other family members, peers, and cohorts— in essence, their community. This feeling may help heal ruptures in the relationship with their reunifying parent and meet the child’s selfobject needs. Heinz Kohut and Ernie Wolf (1978) believed that early deficits in mirroring, idealizing, and twinship lead to disorders of the self (Marmarosh & Mann, 2014). To this point, the child’s selfobject needs for twinship include feeling like they belong and feeling connected to others. These feelings also further the child’s understanding of intimacy with others, while promoting a healthy sense of self. When one participant stated that they would rather spend time with their friends than the RP, they were talking about a sense of belonging that helps them feel cared for and valued. And perhaps most importantly, these relationships comfort the participants. These participants were talking about more than an intrapsychic event. They were also talking about interpersonal relationships with others that had to be placed on hold while they participated in the reunification process.

Other lost opportunities arise out of the resistance and estrangement dynamics that may occur within high-conflict families of divorce. In that environment, a child might reject a parent for various reasons. It takes tremendous psychological work to detach from a parent that is no longer “there” (Hinshelwood, 1994). A combination of mourning, grieving, and adjustment allows the child to invest interest in the world and reestablish the capacity to love significant others. When a parent cannot meet the child’s needs, the child might attach to others and realize selfobject needs for twinship as a healthy way of meeting their own needs. Given the participants’ age range—13 to 16 years—the need for twinship is a normal developmental one.

94

Some participants stated that they did not feel important to the RP and did not have the RP’s approval. This indicates the presence of mirroring deficits. One of the three major selfobject needs, mirroring occurs through selfobjects that “. . . sustain the self by providing the experience of acceptance and confirmation of the self in its grandness, goodness, and wholeness” (Wolf, 1988, p. 184). In their experience with the mirroring selfobject, one participant believed that their RP never really wanted to spend time with them, and that they were just part of the parenting package, which included another (preferred) sibling. The participant felt less important and less valued than their athletic sibling, and did not think their own academic accomplishments were impressive enough for their RP. In response, the participant stopped telling the RP about their academic accomplishments, anticipating the RP’s disinterest. This served to eliminate a level of affinity that could bond the child and parent, and in fact resulted in the RP blaming the custodial parent for the child’s refusal to share more about their life. Instead of seeing that the RP’s own lack of appropriate and loving mirroring response resulted in the child not sharing more about their life, the RP blamed the other parent.

Another participant described their RP as constantly busy on their phone with work, and not listening or paying attention to the child. This participant contrasted this experience with that of their stepparent, with whom they enjoyed breakfasts each morning. During these breakfasts, their stepparent was engaged, smiling, and affirming the participant with a mirroring “gleam in their eye.” Because the stepparent was meeting their mirroring selfobject needs, the participant resisted leaving the home to spend time with the less-engaged RP. The participant also experienced time with the stepparent as fulfilling another selfobject need for the idealization of others. The participant saw the

95

stepparent as calm, strong, and respectful of the child’s attempts to be “my own person.”

These reported instances and those of the aforementioned participants were experienced as deficits, or inadequacies in the RP’s ability to meet selfobject needs of unconditional love and support, consistency, and predictability, as well as the attunement that the children craved.

Finding Two: Negotiating parental separation Another common theme in the research involved participants’ personal sense of agency and perceived loss of control. Whether not wanting to participate in reunification services or engage in parenting time with the RP, each participant expressed not having enough say in their own lives. This loss of control led to feelings of vulnerability. For some, feeling positioned between two parental alliances resulted in feeling as though they had limited control over their lives. Essentially, the personal sense of agency and control that the participants desired is a healthy and appropriate developmental striving.

Between two alliances.

As I began this study, I assumed that participants’ perceived loss of control would present as feeling “caught in the middle” of two alliances. This was not always the case as participants did not verbalize feeling in the middle. However, it was evident that in some instances the splitting (which involved the all-good, all-bad thinking) that did occur provided a means of defense against the anxieties inherent in high-conflict divorce. The splitting was adaptive. It helped maintain psychic organization as it defended against the

96

emotional pain. One participant exhibited such splitting during the second interview, but only after the RP dropped out of the process. Given the devastation that they were feeling, the splitting likely served the purpose of protecting the participant from the rejection that they were feeling. Their stated experience of the RP reflected an all-bad perspective. The great sadness and disappointment truly resonated with me, as I reflected on the transference, or feelings, that surfaced during the interviews. As a witness to their pain, I too experienced a relief at the custodial (preferred) parent’s presence following that interview.

Other participants repressed or disavowed the “good” parts of the RP in order to reject them. Some participants described falling out with the RP. Others were aware of the parental conflict and siding with the custodial parent. One participant shared that their RP was always getting mad at the custodial parent. This made the custodial parent angry or stressed, and the child reassured the parent to “just ignore them,” acting more like a supportive friend or confidante than a child. When I asked the participant if they acted like a friend to the parent, they did not see it that way. They did not see themselves as being in the middle, or between two alliances. In fact, they identified with the custodial parent and the anger towards the RP. The participant did not see how they may have been placed in the middle by both parents (through their disclosures and criticisms of the other). Instead, some of the participants believed that the stress and tension originated with the RP and the reunification process.

By blaming the RP for the stress and tension, the participants became more entrenched in the rejection-and-blame dynamic that often occurs in alienated family systems. Within these alienated systems, the child often secretly wishes to be forced into a relationship

97

with the parent that they’ve rejected. It is through the rejection of the (RP) parent that they can provide a holding environment for the unhealthy (preferred) alienating parent.

The rejection of the parent also serves to ease the discomfort of the more vulnerable alienating parent. This parent is often depleted and exhausted by their own anger and hatred. Unfortunately, the children also become depleted as they attempt to continue with the splitting and support of the fragile alienating parent. This depletion presented at different junctures in the reunification process, through their early attempts to “stand up” and advocate for themselves and others, or by challenging the RP, or by reassuring the preferred parent.

One participant stated that they were just “learning to stand up” for themselves. Other participants also supported their custodial (preferred) parents with words of wisdom and verbalized support. This speaks to participants’ views of the custodial parent and perception that the parents need reassurance. It also spoke to the participant’s views that the RPs were the egregious parents, i.e., the “bad” ones. True or not, these were realities for the participants. These realities contributed to their views of parent-child attachments and the lack of control that they had within the process.

Other participants described hearing their RP criticize or minimize the child’s growing relationship with a stepparent. Those participants challenged the RPs as being jealous.

None of the participants reported hearing a custodial parent or stepparent criticize or minimize the RP. In either case, when a parent criticizes the other (loved) parent, the child often sees it as a criticism of themselves, as they are an extension of that parent.

That dynamic certainly plays a part in children feeling caught in the middle and often contributes to their challenging the RP through resistance and rejection.

98

In 80 percent of participant histories, resistance and rejection towards spending time with the RP developed after a conflict in communication. The participant challenged the RP’s negative verbal or physical behavior by refusing to engage with them. At a time when the child was vulnerable (during the aftermath of divorce), the RP was harsh or critical and the child reacted by withdrawing. Other participants reacted with anxiety, which contributed to their (perhaps unconscious) decision to resist the RP as a means of self-protection. In self-psychological terms, the resulting resistance occurred due to the absence of a pacifying or unifying selfobject function. In Kohut’s self-psychology, idealizing selfobject needs stem from the desire to rely on idealized others, such as parents, in times of stress. These idealized others are strong, soothing others who help increase feelings of safety. This is much like a child seeking a secure attachment figure when scared or uncertain. When needs are met, the child can self-soothe and selfregulate, which creates a stronger sense of self. Based on the subjective experience of the participants, their needs of pacification and idealization were not met. Again, this resulted in vulnerability, anxiety, and loss of control.

To summarize, the participants’ perceived loss of control contributed to reactivity and consequent challenging of the RP, even at the detriment to their own freedom and independence. These restrictions in freedom and independence manifested in both parental and legal consequences, including threats of loss of time with the custodial parent and / or reversal of custody. These threats further restricted the participants’ control and sense of agency.

99

Agency and control as a developmental striving.

A sense of agency includes being able to imagine, initiate, execute, and ultimately control one’s self within the world. A sense of agency allows individuals to make decisions and act independently from others. When considering agency during adolescence, we consider the fact that most children transition from dependency on their caregivers towards self-sufficiency and independence (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006).

There is a profound shift in the expectations of adolescents, as adults begin to expect critical thinking and independence while expecting compliance and obedience. The adolescent may feel as though they are expected to adhere to the same rules as adults, while feeling as though they lack the power to make significant personal decisions.

These expectations seemed to confuse and frustrate several participants, who described a joyless relationship with a “controlling” RP who minimized their sense of agency.

Participants viewed the RP as demanding obedience and full adherence to rules set forth by the RP. But they did not think that the RP had adequately apologized for their past transgressions. Also, participants believed that the RP expected them to be held accountable for conflicts with the other parent, even those beyond the participant’s control. One participant believed that the RP wanted them to apologize for small transgressions that occur naturally in parent-child relationships. They also believed that the RP wanted them to apologize for the custodial parent’s transgressions. As such, the participant believed that their sense of agency was being denied as they were being held accountable for the behavior of the other parent. They also believed that they would never be able to satisfy the RP’s need for “justice.” So at a time when the participant

100

should be focusing on their own agency and the world beyond their parents, they remained obligated to the same family system that they were trying to outgrow.

Most participants spoke of not having enough control while with the RP. They spoke of having to transition from a feeling of independence in their custodial home to the RP’s home, where they were tightly monitored. Most participants expressed a desire for independence and an opportunity to have (a) self-reliance, (b) independence in choices, and (c) the option to choose what their weekends would look like. Some participants believed that their RP needed absolute control over them. The oldest research participant believed that the RP needed them to remain like a small child, thereby allowing the RP to maintain control and avoid negotiation. Many of these participants were maturing normally, and they believed the RPs wanted to stunt their growth and delay their independence. By doing so, the participant could not leave. If true, the RPs’ need for control arises from their own feelings of inadequacy and helplessness, and fear of abandonment. Nonetheless, participants believed that the RPs wanted to retract and / or retard their ability to control their own lives, thereby discouraging the development of them as multi-dimensional and complex persons.

Demby (2009, p. 483) cited this passage from Erna Furman, in which Furman describes a: . . . mixture of narcissistic and object libido with which parents normally cathect their children, investing in their children both as a part of themselves and as separate people. . . . as the child develops, the parental investment must shift from a predominantly narcissistic investment in the child toward the love of the child as a person in his own right.

101

Demby later states that divorce can complicate the parent’s blessing for the child to change, especially when the parent attempts to hold on to the child (in the absence of the marital relationship) to meet their own emotional needs. I outlined similar concerns in the section of this research about parental alienation. I also want to extend the potential for disruption in the child’s development by a RP looking for validation in the wake of divorce. The attuned teenager can recognize the emotional vulnerability of their parents, and may react to the parent’s fragile state of loneliness and dependence by becoming a caretaker or rejecting them. Only one of the participants interviewed characterized either the RP or custodial parent as fragile or vulnerable, and most thought of the RPs as asserting control to establish authority and dominance. This perceived assertion of control and dominance was interpreted as a challenge to participants’ growing identity, interests, and attitudes. Perhaps most importantly, participants perceived the RPs as not recognizing who they were becoming.

Finding Three: The perception of not being heard, ego depletion, and psychological pain.

All participants described not feeling heard by RPs, professionals, and the court system. Although all participants had the opportunity to speak to professionals regarding their experience, no one described feeling truly heard. For these children, their subjective experience was discounted even though they were informed that their views mattered.

Feeling discounted meant experiencing a lack of selfobject supply, which resulted in feelings of depletion. In feeling depleted, their energy and ego strength waned. The depletion then led to the psychological pain that they described.

102

Can I recharge?

At the start of the first interview, the participant entered my office and asked if they could charge their “dead” cellphone. I believe that every sentence is valuable and meaningful, so I wondered if parallels existed between the cell phone and the child’s mental state. Could the child actually have been saying, “Can I recharge here? I am running low on emotional and psychological strength, and I need to resuscitate.” Whether that was indeed the case or simply the musings of a psychotherapist turned researcher turned meaning-maker, there is potential depth of meaning in the statement and action.

This participant, along with the others, indicated the need to be heard and understood by the significant others in their lives. In this child’s case, they wanted the whole process to slow down and for the professionals to take their needs into account. “No one hears me” was a concern of each of the participants, although some were more direct in their attempts to speak on their own behalf, while others wished the professionals would speak for them. The participants’ perception that no one listened to them also meant that the depth of their psychological pain was not truly known.

No one listens anyways.

In the interviews, I noted that participants did not always identify their specific thoughts and feelings about their world. Several of them responded to my questions about this in a quiet voice, as if to say, “No one listens anyways.” Or perhaps they wanted me to have to listen to them. Just as a teacher speaks to a rowdy class in a quiet voice to gain attention and make the students quiet themselves and focus, perhaps these participants

103

were lowering their voices to prompt my full attention as their student. Nonetheless, most participants did not feel heard. All of them had been interviewed by at least one professional previously, and most indicated that they were not heard and therefore unable to impact and influence the process. At a time when the children were supposed to be adding their perspective of the problem, they felt that their thoughts and feelings were being discounted. And at a time when they were supposed to be given a voice, they felt unheard and powerless.

Hearing the child and helping them to feel empowered within their family is a necessity of family therapy work. The reunification professional is tasked with joining with and learning the child’s perspective while engaging the rest of the family members as they work towards a healthier relationship. Unfortunately, these participants did not believe that they were being engaged enough in the process and listened to by the professionals. Most expressed the desire to be heard by the RPs, the reunification professionals, the judge, and presumably by me. I found myself wanting the participants to see that I heard them and could see their sadness and anger.

Within the transference (igniting my own feelings of sadness on their behalf), I was aware that I couldn’t ask questions from a therapist perspective. If I were their therapist, I would have asked, “What is it like to see me saddened on your behalf?” As the researcher, I wanted to know about their world, and did not go into my experience of their telling of their world. Because none of them asked, they might never know, or even care. Quite frankly, these participants were likely just keeping their heads above the proverbial waters. They did not need to concern themselves with yet another adult who

104

has strong emotions about their experience. Thus, the best I could do was to listen to their subjective experiences, whatever they may be.

By giving my full attention during the interviews, I could at least honor their subjective realities. I asked participants about their experiences and asked them to elaborate on their answers. Given the number of interviews (two to three) per participant, I could not get to know the whole child. I had to consider exhibited facial expressions, mannerisms, and general affect within the context of the limited interviews. Participants spoke of not being heard. In response, they showed sadness, anger, and resentment. They even mimicked those whom they perceived as not listening. One participant questioned why they had to meet with the reunification therapist because the therapist did not listen, just as the RP did not listen. This resulted in a negative view of the professionals and the RP. In this sense, the reunification professional became an extension of the RP, and was placed in the same category as the (untrusted) RP. This participant mocked the RP and had little faith in the reunification process. The interviews resulted in a mixture of comments about the professionals (both good and bad), but the overarching perception was that their views were not being heard.

An inherent limitation of any research, the time spent listening to and interviewing the participants offered but a snippet of their lives. When summarizing field notes and memos following the interviews, I recognized specific characteristics and traits of several participants. One participant, however, spoke up less and appeared less motivated to fully share. Whether resulting from a lack of trust in adults or a lack of faith in being heard, this participant did not leave their mark on me. One can only speculate as to the feeling they had about themselves in terms of their identities and their significance. Just as a

105

psychotherapist is struck with the blandness or emptiness of a patient, a researcher can be struck with the blandness or apparent emptiness of a participant. Perhaps this sad realization is testament to the participant’s own feelings of insignificance.

The need to feel significant and special is best fulfilled through the experience of mirroring and selfobject needs. The need to feel safe, secure, and regulated is met through experience with idealized selfobjects. Many of the participants interviewed did not describe the RP or professionals as providing the acceptance and confirmation they needed. In the absence of having their mirroring needs met through recognition and affirmation by the RP and professionals, the participants felt unheard and unknown.

Without feeling admired and respected, the participants were also being denied the idealized and mirroring selfobject needs that influence and strengthen the self. Without the ongoing supply of fulfilling selfobject needs, the participants were left with feelings of insignificance.

When contemplating their feelings of significance to the RP, all participants questioned their value as individuals. Some had been through more than one set of reunifications, only to have to begin with another professional. This meant that the participants had to relate their subjective experience to another adult who might not listen. This also meant that participants risked their emotional lives in hopes that the RP would begin to engage them with positive affectivity and warmth in the new setting.

Most participants seemed disappointed as they described not seeing the positive affectivity and warmth in the RP, which they believed to be one of the goals of the reunification process. As a result of the RPs’ perceived lack of emotional responsiveness, as well as not being listened to, the participants surmised their own insignificance.

106

Other participants questioned their significance when their RP withdrew from the reunification process. Having been ambivalent towards the process to begin with, the RP’s withdrawal only served to confirm that the child was not enough in the RP’s eyes.

This created feelings of doubt and uncertainty in the child, proving that the RP was as bad as predicted, and that even this bad parent didn’t want the less-than child.

Participants were thus left to reconcile their own true worth based on the collapse in interest of a vital attachment.

One last thought on participants’ feelings of insignificance: We look to the proof that they are truly treated as insignificant based on the lack of time and effort put into research. The truth of the matter is that the lack of research on the participants does demonstrate their insignificance within the reunification process and the family court system. So much so that there is no significant data to show the effects of forced reunification on children. The participants were correct: Their experience as being insignificant was reinforced by the fact that no one was fully exploring their worlds.

With the clear lack of interest from these important others—RP, court, professionals, judges—there is no wonder that some of the participants appeared depleted.

The depletion that I am referring to presented as sadness and emptiness. Two participants shared their exhaustion as their resources (strength and vigor) dwindled.

They described a court system that didn’t hear them and a reunification process that dismissed them. Exhausted, too, were the participants who described trying to get their RPs to show interest in them. By not feeling heard or significant, they experienced a depletion that led to their psychological pain and grief.

107

Depth of psychological pain and grief.

An equally significant finding concerns the apparent depth of psychological pain shared by participants. When previously acting in the mediatory role as a reunification therapist, I looked for elements of parental alienation and / or justified rejection by the child. This inevitably made me look for dynamics that demonstrated an alienating parent (often the custodial or preferred parent) and their undermining of the rejected parent.

Within that context, all family members are viewed as part of a bigger problem within a flawed and unhealthy system. When looking at the parent’s contributions to the problems, children are viewed from a sociological family perspective. This perspective recognizes that intra-family conflicts impact family functioning. The concept of parental alienation accounts for the preferred parent-child attachment bond and how it impacts the nonpreferred parent-child bond. More emphasis should be placed on the child’s psychological pain as it pertains to the rejection of a parent, as was evident in my research. Even children who resist and reject a parent still evidence clear pain from blaming, hating, and / or disavowing their feelings for a parent. Despite the robust, recent literature on alienation in families, I found relatively little on the actual psychological damage to children, other than symptoms of family alienation. The literature debates different viewpoints and different intervention methods, but it does not present a recent, in-depth look at psychological pain, apart from parental grief and loss.

Psychological pain as defined by suffering was difficult to locate in the research. For purposes of this paper, I am describing it as an aversive emotional experience that is “the hurt, anguish, or ache that takes hold in the mind” (Schneidman, 1996, p. 13). It is a mental pain that results from the following, as discussed by Tossani (2013):

108

1. Emptiness . . .

2. Psychic pain . . .

3. Internal perturbation . . .

4. Grief . . .

5. Depression . . .

For the participants interviewed, the psychological pain manifested in several ways, including: 1. Anger . . .

2. Defiance . . .

3. Depression . . .

4. Sadness . . .

5. Depletion . . .

Participants’ sadness was a constant throughout the interviews, as it was a constant in their lives. The snippet of time that I was allowed access to their lives showed the depth of suffering that they were experiencing. I could not help but wonder if they were sharing their true experience with anyone outside of their peer group. Perhaps they were able to sit in their grief and disclose the depth of their pain to the trusted adults outside of their family. I am not certain that the participants could share their true, unadulterated feelings with their custodial parents, and certainly not the RPs. So with whom did they share?

Knowing the fragility of some of the participants, it may have been easier to split (using the all-good or all-bad scenario) or simply suppress the depth of their feelings. A form of coping, this suppression met the needs of containing their psychological pain. It is with this finding that I was forced to look at my own policy of facilitating forced

109

reunifications. As a result, I decided to cease services that force a child to reunite with a parent who does not provide a positive and loving experience for the child. In essence, the RP will need to demonstrate a greater understanding of (a) the child’s psychological sensitivities, (b) the depth of the rupture in trust, and (c) how they must work towards making amends towards the vulnerable grieving child.

Finding Four: Lack of perceived positive parental affect and sensitivity As previously mentioned, consistency and emotional support in the parent-child relationship are vital to divorce adjustment (Schaefer & Di Geronimo, 2000). Equally important is the child’s perception that their parents hear them, validate them, and empathize with them. Whereas participants looked to their peers and important others for selfobject sustenance, they viewed the RP as prohibiting that endeavor. Furthermore, each participant viewed their RP as lacking positive parental affect and sensitivity, which meant that participants’ mirroring selfobject needs were not being satisfied.

Mirroring selfobject needs.

Mirroring selfobjects help sustain the self by providing the experience of acceptance and confirmation of the self; these are the affirmations that children need to feel good about themselves (Wolf, 1988). None of the participants indicated a positive emotional relationship with the RP, nor that they felt adequate in the eyes of the RP. Additionally, no one mentioned feeling loved by the RP. However, two participants spoke of feeling loved and affirmed by a stepparent or grandparent. The other three identified their

110

custodial parents as being their primary source of affirmation and admiration. One wonders, though, if the psychologically traumatic and / or disruptive selfobject experiences with the RP present any risk for “. . . a later outbreak of a disorder of the self” (Wolf, p. 67). These disorders include (a) psychoses, (b) Borderline States (the breaking-up of the nuclear self), and (c) “hungry personalities.” In mirror-hungry personalities, people display themselves to evoke the attention of others, whose admiring responses counteract feelings of worthlessness (Wolf, p.73).

One research participant that appeared to be mirror-hungry strove towards academic success as a means of gaining the attention of people including their: 1. Custodial parent . . .

2. RP . . .

3. Teachers . . .

4. Grandparents . . .

5. Peers . . .

Through their academic success and achievements, the participant experienced the admiration of others that they did not get from the RP. The participant reported that their RP did not praise them for their hard work, so they vowed to exclude the RP from further updates on their grades. In this sense, the RP’s seeming disinterest and perceived aloofness resulted in the participant disengaging as a means of preventing feelings of rejection. Perhaps this was the participant’s attempts at psychological survival in an otherwise barren emotional parent-child atmosphere.

111

A similar atmosphere was described by others. Participants did not view their RP as emotionally attuned. Participants did not trust the RP and their intentions. Participants reported frustration that their RP would fail them again, because the RP (a) lacked empathy, (b) were unsafe emotionally, and (c) might even retaliate once the process was complete and there was no longer any professional oversight.

Several participants reported that even pre-divorce, the RP was not emotionally available. One participant shared their anger that the RP received another chance to fail them, this time via reunification. The reunification process is complex for the child struggling with the hope that professional intervention may help, but who also fears that the RP will again let them down. For the two participants whose RPs withdrew from the reunification process, they experienced what is called a “failed reunification.�

Unfortunately, that description is but the tip of the iceberg, once the RP leaves behind the process and the financial burden of their attorneys. The RP no longer has to attend hearings or meetings or follow the guidance of the reunification professionals. But they have done much more. They have abandoned a child who was preparing to re-enter the life of a lost object / parent. This abandoned child was told that the RP was ready and willing to re-establish the parent-child bond. This child had to attend meetings with strangers who asked about their views of the RP and the history of the family. This child had to attend individual therapy that largely focused on the absence of the RP and how to prepare for seeing them again. This child had to delay or give up time with friends, peers, school, and interests that had become part of an identity that had been strengthening even in the absence of the RP. Every aspect of the child’s life was altered to accommodate the reemergence of the RP. When two of the participants experienced the withdrawal of the

112

RP, which had had forced so much change on the child, they were devastated. These participants had proven to the professionals that the RP was indeed lacking in empathy and unable to maintain a stable, loving relationship with them.

These participants and others perceived their RPs as lacking empathy and a true understanding of them—and they did not think the RP would change. The participants were able to identify specific statements and behaviors of the RP that indicated a lack of true understanding of them. The participants also did not see the RP as doing “enough” to demonstrate commitment to them. One RP did not apologize enough for previously criticizing the child, and another RP spoke of their new spouse but did not ask enough about the child. For both participants, this created feelings that proved what they were thinking all along, namely, that the RP did not get them, and that the RP had not done enough to assure the child’s safety from further emotional and psychological harm.

Several participants predicted further psychological and emotional harm by the RP after termination of court involvement. They believed that the court and professionals were acting as a sort of buffer, and that the RP would change back to their prereunification state. This showed a deep distrust of the RP, and the fear that the RP was doing just enough to regain control of the child. This thinking was present in each participant, which demonstrated a distrust of the reunification efforts as a whole. In essence, participants did not see reunification as effective, and did not believe the RP had changed for the better.

Three participants shared their anxieties about their RPs’ reactions within the reunification setting. They believed that the reunification professional was not seeing the underlying hostilities of the RP towards the child. Because the professional was not

113

aware of the nuances of the communication, they did not think the RP’s anger was being resolved. They feared that the RPs would be even more angry and bitter following the cessation of reunification services. Whether the anxieties were justified or not, the participants’ fear was clearly real and they were not experiencing the RP as providing and idealizing selfobject experience.

These anxieties and worries were evident during the interviews. This speaks to the anxiety and worries that children experience while engaged in the reunification process as a whole. Not only were participants’ mirroring selfobject needs not being met, but they were left with unresolved anxiety and worries. As such, the child-RP attachment was left with deficits in empathy, attunement, and understanding. Based on this, I wondered if the children rejected the RPs based on their own need to cast off unhealthy relationships.

Perhaps this was the participants’ way of developing a protective defense against further re-injury.

I noted my own desire to protect participants from further injury and the sadness that was evident with each child. Their sadness and longing for validation and protection was quite striking at times. They seemed to need my validation (mirroring) and “protection”, which speaks to their idealizing needs and attempts to gain strength and emotional regulation. These selfobject transferences are evidence of the participants’ desires to be protected and cared for, which is what every child needs. The very fact that the children were part of a participant-researcher relationship in this particular study speaks to the likelihood of mirror hunger and idealization hunger. The need for reunification services means that there is a disruption in the parent-child attachment, and that there are ruptures that must be tended to.

114

The participants wanted validation for the ruptures to which the RPs had contributed.

They believed that there were ruptures in trust in the parent-child relationship prior to and during the reunification process. They simply wanted the RPs to acknowledge this, and to validate their feelings, which would satisfy their needs and promote healing. The fact that the participants wanted validation as a means of getting their needs met, i.e., getting their “derailed development” back on track, is a healthy striving. The presentation of transference is a healthy and adaptive attempt to do so, even if their needs were being met by someone other than the RP. These are tendrils of health that indicated the participants could have their selfobject needs met when offered an interested and empathic ear. And these interested and empathic ears could serve to promote healing in the child.

Implications for Future Research Clinical implications.

The results of this study have clinical implications for practice. When initially proposing the study, I questioned the lack of research on the subjective experience of children engaged in reunification. I found gaps in the literature for this population and set out to learn about children’s experiences through their own personal narratives, based on their (a) spoken words, (b) thoughts, and (c) feelings. For the social worker helping a child or parents in reunification, implications add to the clinician’s understanding of the child’s perspective regarding (a) attachments, (b) grief and loss, and (c) their need for control. It helps to inform the clinician about the child’s needs regarding the RP’s affect and expressed emotions towards and about the child. It also serves to inform clinicians

115

working with adults who (as children) experienced the resistance or rejection of a parent, in that it encourages knowledge and discussion about the (a) unprocessed affect, (b) trauma, and (c) loss associated with the experience.

My research findings are important for future policy and practice in several ways.

First, the findings offer a perspective on children’s experience within reunification. This perspective has been lacking, to the point that the lack of shared insight creates potential harm for participants. The research is critical for professionals facilitating forced reunification, as it offers a child’s perspective on the problem—e.g., the insufficient mirroring and idealization responses by the RP. The data tells professionals that children have experienced the RP as lacking in responsiveness that is (a) warm, (b) loving, and (c) attentive. This should prompt proposed treatment to include parent coaching on how to positively and affectively respond to children. Thus, interventions should be altered to include an affect-based approach to the problem.

Secondly, the research findings suggest that interventions should be more childfocused. Although often touted as child-focused, reunification services also focus heavily on the parents, often assuming that parental alienation or other intramarital dynamics have greatly influenced the child. Whether true or not, the research still leaves us with the resounding fact that children experience their RP as lacking in empathy.

Third, the research informs the legal system (e.g., attorneys, judges, mental health professionals) on the potential for (re-) traumatizing the child who is ordered into compliance with services. Mental-health professionals can act as educators, informing the court on the child’s needs prior to and during reunification.

116

Study limitations.

I used a small sample size, and the number of interviews were limited due to (a) the emotional content of the data, (b) the age of the participants, and (c) the fact that saturation of data was reached. The age of available participants was within the 13 to 17 age range, and represents a segment of the entire child population that participates in reunification. Participants’ narrative reports provided the primary source of data.

Limitations surfaced in relation to participants’ (a) biases, (b) potential for inaccurate remembering, and (c) deviations from the intended topic presented limitations, although such limitations were rare. With all qualitative studies, there is potential researcher bias. I sought to control and eliminate my own bias via member-checking and reviewing findings with peers and committee members. The lack of previous research was a hindrance, as well as the limited time to assess for longitudinal effects. Finally, I examined and interpreted the data through the lens of the self-psychology perspective, but also via other theories that could apply as well (e.g., attachment, trauma, object relations, etc.).

Recommendations for future research.

I recommend taking a closer look at participants’ perceptions, specifically that of RPs not meeting mirroring selfobject needs. A research strategy that explores specific ways to help RPs demonstrate empathic attunement could improve reunification success, as measured by improved attachment. Future research on ways to decrease re-traumatizing and /or re-igniting grief responses in children in reunification could protect the children’s

117

mental wellbeing, and thereby improve results. Also, future research could include a longitudinal study of child participants that follows them from the beginning to the end of reunification and beyond, to examine their subjective experiences. To better inform our work, we need more research on younger children involved in reunification. Finally, additional, in-depth research on the experiences of parents involved in reunification would also help inform our practice. Finally, future research with a larger and more varied participation group could result in a richer study.

118

Appendix A Interview Schedule

119

Demographic Information Child’s Initials: DOB/Age: Gender Identity: Identified Race: Custodial/Preferred Parent (mother or father): Reunifying/Rejected Parent (mother or father): Age when Separated/Estranged: Age at Start of Reunification:

Interview Schedule-Qualitative Interview The first through fourth interviews will be semi-structured and include open-ended questions that are intended to elicit personal and expressive insights, reflections, and opinions on the child participant's experiences. They will include the following questions: 1. Can you tell me what you think the Reunification process is about?

2. Can you tell me about why you think you're participating in the Reunification process?

3. Can you tell me how it came that you haven't seen your (father/mother/reunifying parent) in x years?

4. Can you tell me what it was like seeing your (father/mother/reunifying parent) in therapist's office? a. feelings about the experience before/during/after the meeting? b. any thoughts that stood out? c. feelings after the Reunification meeting?

120

5. Can you tell me how your life would be if you didn't have to see your (father/mother/reunifying parent)?

6. If you were in charge of the meeting, would you have done anything differently?

121

Appendix B Introductory Email to be Sent by Supporting Professionals and Agencies

122

My name is Merrill Graham and I am a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Chicago, Illinois. I am conducting a research study for my dissertation in which I am interested in learning about the experience of the children who are participating in the Reunification process. I am exploring what it is like for these children to be involved in a process where they are being reconnected with a previously absent or estranged parent. To qualify for the study, I am looking for children between the ages of 12-17 that are willing to talk to me about their experience, and with whom you have joint or full legal custody. Contacts will be held through interviews conducted via telephone or in person. The first contact will be held with the parent (typically custodial, but possibly reunifying parent if agreed by both) to further explain my research and to acquire consent. The second through third :30-:45 interviews will be conducted with the child at the place of their choosing. For their time, the child will be given a $30 Visa gift card following the last interview. Following the first parent in-person contact, you will be given the option to consent to your child's participation in the study: Additionally, your child will have the option of declining participation at any time during the interview process, at which time all confidential information will be destroyed. Lastly, I'd like to clarify that any information collected will not be shared with any attorneys, Judges, or other professionals. A select number of children will be chosen for interviews. If you are interested in learning more about the study, please call me, Merrill Graham, at (616) 9146331, or email me at mgrahammsw@msn.com.

123

Appendix C Telephone Script for Initial Contact with Parents of Potential Participant (Phase 1): Informed Consent

124

"Thank you for calling. As (referral source) mentioned, my name is Merrill Graham and I am a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Chicago. I've done a lot of work with children and families who are involved in the Reunification process, and I'm interested in how children feel about the process. I am conducting a research study with 5-8 participants that are between the age of 12-17, on the subjective experience of children who participate in the Reunification process. I've chosen this age group because they tend to have firm opinions about the Reunification process, and I'm hoping that your child will feel comfortable sharing them with me. I have a brief set of questions that I'd like to ask you to determine if your child is a good candidate for the research. Your participation in this brief survey is voluntary and you may skip any questions that you'd like. Additionally, I will not be asking for any identifying information, and if it's okay I'll be referring to your teenager as a 'child'. Do you have any questions or concerns?

If yes: I will answer any questions asked If no: As part of any research, children under the age of 18 also need to have parental consent to participate. Do you feel comfortable giving this consent?

If no: Okay. Thank you for your time today.

If yes: Thank you. May I continue to ask you a few questions?

Is your child between the ages of 12-17?

Is your child currently involved in a Reunification process?

Do you think that your child is willing to talk to me about their experience regarding the Reunification process?

125

Do you think that your child is willing to participate in 2-3 interviews that will help me to understand their experience?

Does your child have any special needs that I should be aware of during the interviews?

Are you agreeable to the fact that I cannot share your child's disclosures with you, as all research data is confidential? Also, I will protect the information even if the attorneys or Judge try to access it. Do you also agree that my collected data cannot be subpoenaed by your attorney?

As a researcher and mandated reporter, I am responsible for contacting you and/or the proper authorities if your child discloses the intent to harm themselves or someone else.

Do you have any questions about this?

Disclosure of information by your child might reveal personal information about another family member. Do you have any questions about how this information may be used? Do you have any questions?

126

Appendix D Script for Initial Contact with Potential Participant (Phase II): Informed Consent

127

Hi-It's nice to finally meet you. My name is Merrill Graham, and as you know from your (mom/dad/grandparent), I am conducting a research study on the experience of teens involved in the Reunification process. I'm actually interested in knowing what it's like for you to be involved in the Reunification process. During our time together, I'll ask what thoughts and feelings you have about it; and there is no right or wrong answers because it's your experience that I want to learn more about. We will meet 2-3 times, for 30-45 minutes each time. Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you can skip any questions that you don't want to answer. It's totally up to you if you participate or not, and no one will be upset if you don't want to. If you decide to participate, you will receive a $30 Visa gift card at the end of our time together.

Everything that you share with me is confidential, which means that I will not share it with any other person, and I will protect the information even if someone is trying to access it. Any recordings that I take during our time together will remain in my possession-under lock and key-until I am able to destroy them. The interviews with you will be typed and you can read them if you'd like. In the report itself, I won't use your name or where you go to school or live, so that no personal information is collected or shared. If at any time you want to take a break during the interview, just let me know and I'll stop the interview to give you as much time as you need; you will also have the opportunity to withdraw if you wish. And because talking about your experience may stir up a lot of feelings that you want to talk about it further, I will have a list of therapists that you can talk to.

128

Also, you can ask me anything you'd like about the study. You can also call me later if you have a question that you forget to ask while we're together. So, do you have any questions for me about the research study or how it is done?

If yes: Answer their questions If no: By signing your name at the bottom, you're agreeing to be in the study, and I'll give you and your parents a copy of this form.

129

Appendix E Institute for Clinical Social Work Research Information and Parent Permission Form for Participation in Social Behavioral Research

130

The experience of the child who participates in the Reunification process

What is the purpose of this research study?

The purpose of this research study is to learn more about what it is like for the children who participate in the Reunification process. Through open-ended questions and the unfolding of their personal narrative, this study aims to learn about their subjective experience while involved in the process of reunifying with a previously-estranged parent. Through a series of 2-3 interviews, your child will be asked to share their thoughts and feelings regarding the history of the estrangement, their thoughts about their bond with the reunifying parent, and any feelings that result from the meetings, etc.-any thoughts that they’d like to share are valuable to my research.

What will my child be asked to do if I allow him/her to participate in this study?

Your child will be asked to engage in 2-3 interviews of approximately 30-45 minutes each. The purpose of these interviews is to get a detailed account of their experience in the Reunification process, including any information that they want to share about the reunifying parent and the history of their relationship, as well as what it’s like to participate in the Reunification process, etc. The format will include open-ended questions and the meetings will be recorded and later transcribed. All information will be kept on a password protected computer. At the end of the interviews, your child will be given a $30 Visa gift card.

Parents please be aware that under the Protection of Pupil Rights Act.20.U.S.C. Section 1232(c)(1)(A), you have the right to review a copy of the questions asked or of materials that will be used with your children. If you would like to do so, you should contact Merrill Graham, at mgraham@icsw.edu to obtain a copy of the questions or materials.

What are the risks for my child’s participation in this study?

Privacy and confidentiality are a common risk to any research, including this one. To protect your child’s identity, they will be referred to as “Participant A”, etc., and will otherwise be referred to by gender identity and age. The interviews will take place in the location of their choosing, and the data itself will only be known by this researcher and the faculty overseeing the research. The transcription will be done by the primary researcher (Merrill Graham), and the list connecting the child’s name with the assigned identification letter (“A”) will be stored separately from the interview data in a locked

131

filing cabinet. Lastly, once the data is collected and utilized, the recordings will be destroyed.

In addition, there is a chance that some uncomfortable feelings may arise when talking about their thoughts and feelings about the Reunification process. Your child can skip any questions that they don’t feel comfortable answering, and/or they can stop the interview at any time, if desired. If further assistance is needed, you can contact the following resources: National Crisis Helpline at 1-800-662-HELP or Network 180 Access Center at (616) 336-3535. However, the risk is minimal.

What are the costs for my child’s participation in this study?

There is no cost for your child’s participation in this research study.

How will the privacy and confidentiality of my child be protected?

The protection of your child’s privacy is of utmost priority, and they will be identified by letter (“Participant A”). Their name will not be published in the final report and all identifying information will be stored in a locked file cabinet and password protected computer file. All data this is collected will be destroyed five (5) years after results are published.

Subject Assurances By signing this consent form, I agree to allow my child ________________ (child’s name) to take part in this study. I have not given away any of my child’s rights or released this institution from responsibility or carelessness.

I understand that I may take my child out of this study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. My relationship with the staff of ICSW will not be affected in any way, now or in the future, if my child refuses to take part, and/or if they withdraw from the study.

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Merrill Graham at (616) 914-6331 or Dr. Denise Duval-Tsioles, at (773) 562-6042.

If I have any questions about my child’s rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; ICSW; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; irbchair@icsw.edu.

Signatures

Please check the appropriate box(es) and provide your signature and date below.

132

My child’s name is ______________________________ Print Name

________________ Date of Birth

q YES, I give my permission for my child child

q NO, I do not give permission for my OR to participate in this research study.

to participate in this research study.

_____________________________ ____________

________________________________

Parent/Guardian Signature

Printed Name

Date

By signing, I certify that I have explained the benefits and risks of the research to ________________________(Name of parent), who has demonstrated an understanding of the study and have therefore consented to the inclusion of their child’s participation in the interviews and resulting data. The child has agreed to participate of their own free will, and understand that they may withdraw at any point in the study. I agree to answer any additional questions should they arise during the research process of thereafter.

___________________________________ Merrill Graham, Researcher

________________ Date

133

Appendix F Institute for Clinical Social Work Assent To Participate In Research

134

The subjective experience of the children that participate in the Reunification process

1. My name is Merrill Graham.

2. We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more about the children who participate in the Reunification process. We are particularly interested in the thoughts and feelings that you have regarding the process.

3. If you agree to be in this study, you will be helping us to learn more about what it’s like for you to be reconnecting with the parent that you haven’t seen in a long time. You’d be sharing your experience so that I can better understand what it’s like for you. This may help Reunification therapists to better understand kids like yourself.

4. Some potential risks of participating in this study include confidentiality risks. To help to assure that your information stays totally private, I will not call you by your name in my final report, and all of the information that you share with me will be kept under lock and key in my office. And, your personal information will be deleted eventually. So, you can share whatever you want with whomever you want about our time together, but I cannot. Another risk lies in the fact that we might be talking about things that cause a lot of emotions for you. If you ever find that you need to take a break, just say so. If you ever want to end the interview, just let me know. Also, you can withdraw from this study all together if you ever decide to. I will not be mad or disappointed, because I want you to feel okay about these interviews and talking to me.

5. An important benefit to participating in this study is that your voice-all of it-will be heard. Any thoughts and feelings that you want to share, can be shared. And, you may help me to understand what it’s like for other kids that are going through the Reunification process too.

6. Please talk this over with your parents before you decide whether or not to participate. We will also ask your parents to give their permission for you to take part in this study.

7. If you don’t want to be in this study, you don’t have to participate. Remember, being in this study is up to you and no one will be upset if you don’t want to participate or even if you change your mind later and want to stop.

8. You can ask any questions that you have about the study. If you have a question later that you didn’t think of now, you can call me at (616) 914-6331 or ask me next time.

135

9. Signing your name at the bottom means that you agree to be in this study. You and your parents will be given a copy of this form after you have signed it.

Subject Assurances

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Merrill Graham (Principle Researcher) at (616) 914-6331 or Dr. Denise Duval-Tsioles (Dissertation Chair/Sponsoring Faculty), at this phone number (773) 562-6042.

9. If I have any questions about my child’s rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; ICSW; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; irbchair@icsw.edu.

________________________________________

____________________

Name of Subject

_______________________________________

Date

__________

Signature

Age

I certify that I have explained the research to ________________________(Name of child) and believe that they understand the study and have agreed to participate freely. I agree to answer any additional questions when they arise during the research or afterward.

___________________________________

________________

Merrill Graham, Researcher

Date

136

References

AFCC. (2008). Innovations in interventions with high conflict families. L. Fieldstone & C. Coates, (Eds.).

Amato, P.R. & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 43-58.

APA. (2019). Marriage and divorce. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/ Aronson, S. (2000). Re-establishing “holding” in families of divorce. Journal of Infant, Child & Adolescent Psychotherapy, 1, 39-52.

Atkins, R. (1981). Finding one’s father: The mother’s contributions to early father representations. Journal of American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 9, 539-559.

Bacal, H. (1990). The elements of a corrective selfobject experience. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 10 (3), 347-373.

Baker, A. & Fine, P. (2014). Surviving parental alienation: A journey of hope and healing. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Baker, A. & Sauber, S. (2013). Working with alienated children and their families: A clinical guidebook. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baker, A., & Andre, K. (2012, Summer). Working with alienated children and their targeted parents: Suggestions for sound practices for mental health professionals.

Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association. Retrieved from http://www.annalsofpsychotherapy.com Banai, E., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2005). “Selfobject” needs in Kohut’s self psychology: Links with attachment, self-cohesion, affect regulation, and adjustment.

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22 (2), 224-260.

Bernet, W., Von Boch-Galhau, W., Baker, A., & Morrison, S. (2010). Parental alienation, DSM-V, and ICD-11, The American Journal of Family Therapy. 38, 76-187.

Blum, H. (1983). Splitting of the ego and its relation to parent loss. Journal of the | American Psychoanalytic Association, 31 (S), 301-324.

137

Blum, H. (2003). Psychic trauma and traumatic object loss. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 51, 415-431.

Boshler, P. (2008) How best to find out what a child really needs and wants. AFCC News, 27, 5-10.

Bowlby, J. (1960). Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 15, 9-52.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Chapter 15: Anxious attachment and some conditions that promote it.

Attachment and loss: Volume II. Separation, anxiety, and anger. The International Psychoanalytic Library, 95, 429 pgs.

Brendler, C. & Brendler, J. (2014). Helping fathers and daughters connect [Recording].

In Playback Networker Series.

Childress, C. (2015). Foundations: An attachment-based model of parental alienation.

Claremont, CA: Oaksong Press.

Clawar, S. S. & Rivlin, B. (2013). Children held hostage: Identifying brainwashed children, presenting a case, and crafting solutions. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

Clark-Stewart, K.A., Vandell, D., McCartney, K., Owen, M., & Booth, C. (2000) Effects of parental separation and divorce on very young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 14 (2), 304-326.

Clements, M., Randall, D., Martin, S., & Kane, K. (2014) Child and parent perceptions of interparental relationship conflict predict preschool children’s adjustment. Couple and Family Psychology, 3 (2), 110-125.

Cohen, T., & Hossein Etezady, M. (1983). Psychoanalytic inferences concerning children of divorced parents. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 31, 247259.

Cookston, J., Braver, S., Griffin, W., De Luse, S., & Miles, J. (2006). Effects of the Dads for Life intervention on interpersonal conflict and coparenting in the two years after divorce. Family Process, 46-91.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dahl, E.K., (1993). The impact of divorce on a preadolescent girl. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 48, 193-208.

138

Darnall, D. (1998). Divorce casualties: Protecting your children from parental alienation. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing.

Darnall, D. (2010). Beyond divorce casualties: Reunifying the alienated family. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing.

DelPriore, D., & Hill, S. (2013). The effects of paternal disengagement on women’s sexual decision making: An experimental approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 105 (2), 234-246.

Demby, S. (2009). Interparent hatred and its impact on parenting: Assessment in forensic custody evaluations. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 29 (6), 477-490.

Diamond, M. (1998). Fathers with sons: Psychoanalytic perspectives on “good enough” fathering throughout the life cycle. Gender and Psychoanalysis, 3 (3), 243-300.

Percentage of new marriages that end in divorce, in selected countries, 2002. World Divorce Statistics, Divorce Magazine, October 14, 2014.

Donner, M. (2006). Tearing the child apart: The contribution of narcissism, envy, and perverse modes of thought to child custody wars. Psychoanalytic Psychology. 23 (3), 542-554.

Eddy, W. & Kreger, R. (2011). Splitting: Protecting yourself while divorcing someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc. Fidler, B. (2017, July 19). Parent-child contact problems II: More news you can use [Webinar]. In AFCC Webinar Series.

Fidler, B.J., Bala, N. & Saini, M. (2013). Children who resist post-separation parental contact. American Society-Law Psychology Series.

Fieldstone, L. & Coates, C. (2008). Innovations in interventions with high conflict families. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts: Madison, WI. Fonagy, P. (2001). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Other Press.

Freeman, R. (2008). Children and absent parents: A model for reconnection. In L. Fieldstone and C. Coates (Eds.), Innovations in interventions with high conflict families. Chapter 2 (pgs. 41-81). Madison, WI: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Gardner, R. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

139

Gill, H. (1991). Internalization of the absent father. International Journal of PsychoAnalysis, 72, 243-253.

Gordon, R. (2005). The doom and gloom of divorce research: Comment on Wallerstein and Lewis (2004). Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22 (3), 450-452.

Glucksman, M. (2005). The dog’s role in the analyst’s consulting room. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 33 (4), 611-619.

Goldstein, E. (2001). Object relations theory and self psychology in social work practice.

New York, NY: The Free Press.

Grossmann, K.E., Grossmann, K. & Waters, E. (2005). Early care and the roots of attachment and partnership representations. In K.E. Grossmann, K. Grossman, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies, (pp. 98-136). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Ha, A., Bergman, K., Davies, P., & Cummings, E.M. (2018). Parental post conflict explanations: Implications for children’s adjustment outcomes. Family Court Review, 56 (2), 219-233.

Hartwell-Walker, M. (2018). Daughters need fathers, too. Retrieved from http://www.psychcentral.com.

Heim, C., et al. (2009). Childhood trauma and risk for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Association with neuroendocrine dysfunction. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66 (1).

Heuveline, P., Timberlake, J., & Furstenberg, F. (2003). Shifting childrearing to single mothers: Results from 17 western countries. Population and Development Review. 29, 47-71.

Herzog, J. (1982). On father hunger: The father’s role in the modulation of aggressive drive and fantasy. In S. Cath, A. Gurwitt, & J. Ross, (Eds.), Father and Child: Development and Clinical Perspectives. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Hoge, H. (2006). Divorce at childbirth: A self-psychological perspective. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 1, 175-195.

Horowitz, M. (1990). A model of mourning: Change in schemas of self and others, Journal of American Psychiatric Association, 38, 297-324.

Judge, A. & Deutsch, R. (2017). Overcoming parent-child contact problems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, J. & Johnston, J. (2001). The alienated child.: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review.

140

Kelly, J., & Emery, R. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352-362.

Kelly, J. (2013) Nuts and bolts of parenting coordination: Helping high conflict parents resolve disputes. AFCC Training, Loyola University Chicago. March 4-5, 2013.

Kestenbaum, C., & Stone, M. (1976). The effects of fatherless homes upon daughters: Clinical impressions regarding paternal deprivation. Journal of American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 4 (2), 171-191.

Krohn, F., & Bogan, Z. (2001). The effects of absent fathers on female development and college attendance. College Student Journal. 35 (4), 598-608.

Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? (A. Goldberg & P. Stepansky, (Eds.).

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Kruk, E. (2010). Parental and social institutional responsibilities to children’s needs in the divorce transition: Fathers’ perspectives. Journal of Men’s Studies, 18 (2), 159178.

Lehman, P. (1939). Psychopathological aspects of emotional divorce. Psychoanalytic Review, 26 (1), 1-10.

Maccoby, E. & Mnookin, R. (1998). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Mahler, M. (1961). On sadness and grief in infancy and childhood: Loss and restoration of the symbiotic love object. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 16, 332-351.

Moor, A. & Silvern, L. (2006). Identifying pathways linking child abuse to psychological outcome. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6(4), 91-114.

Moore, R. & Ordway, A. (2013). The mirror without a face: The assessment of parental alienation among children of high-conflict divorce, In Ideas and research you can use: Vistas 2013. Retrieved from http:// www.counseling.org/knowledge-center/vistas.

Munder Ross, J. (1984). Fathers in development: An overview of recent contributions. In R. Cohen, B. Cohler, & S. Weissman, (Eds.), Parenthood, a psychodynamic perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mustonen, U., et al., (2011). Long-term impact of parental divorce on intimate relationship quality in adulthood and the mediating role of psychosocial resources.

Journal of Family Psychology, 25 (4), 615-619.

141

Nachmani, G. (1992). On mourning the death of a parent who has not died.

Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 28, 524-552.

National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. April 18, 1995. Advance report of final divorce statistics, 1989 to 1990.

Pedro-Carroll, J. (2010) Children’s resilience after divorce: Wishful thinking or attainable goal? AFCC News, 29 (2), 10-11.

Phillips, S. (2011). Spare children the grief. Parent Rise: Help for today’s families.

Retrieved from http://www.parentrise.com/spare-children-the-grief.

Piemont, L. (2009). The epigenesis of psychopathology in children of divorce. Modern Psychoanalysis, 34, 98-116.

Preidt, R. (2015, August). Family struggles may affect boy’s brain development. Health Day News. Retrieved from http://www.consumer.healthday.com.

Risley-Curtis, C. (2010). Social work practitioners and the human-companion animal bond: A national study. In Social Work, 55 (1), 38-46.

Saini, M., Drozd, L., & Olesen, N. (2017). Adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping behaviors and attitudes: Implications for child outcomes after separation and divorce.

Family Court Review, 55(2), 260-272. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.111/fcre.12276/full.

Schaefer, C., & DiGeronimo, T. (2000). Ages & stages: A parent’s guide to normal childhood development. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Schneidman, E. (1998). The Suicidal Mind. UK: Oxford University Press.

Schore, A. (2000). Attachment and the regulation of the right brain, in Attachment & Human Development, 2 (1), 23-47.

Siegel, D. (2012). The Developing Mind: How relationships and the brain interact to share who we are. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Silverberg Koerner, S., Wallace, S., Jacobs Lehman, S., Lee, S-A, & Escalante, K. (2004). Sensitive mother-to-adolescent disclosures after divorce: Is the experience of sons different from that of daughters? Journal of Family Psychology, 18 (1), 46-57.

Simmons, C., Steinberg, L., Frick, P., & Cauffman, E. (2017, January). The differential influence of absent and harsh fathers on juvenile delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 62, 9-17. Retrieved from http://www. doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.10.010.

142

Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, method, and research. London: Sage Publications.

Smyth, B. & Moloney, L. (2017). Entrenched postseparation parenting disputes: The role of interparental hatred? Family Court Review, 55 (3), 404-416.

Tossani, E. (2013). The concept of mental pain. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 82, 67-73.

Tyson, P. (1996). Object relations, affect management, and psychic structure formation: The concept of object constancy. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 51, 172-190.

Tyson, R. (1983). Some narcissistic consequences of object loss: A developmental view.

Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 52, 205-224.

US Bureau of the Census, 2009.

US Census Bureau (2011). Statistical abstract of the U.S. Vandervalk, I. (Jan 2004). The effect of parent's attitudes towards divorce on offspring's attitudes: Gender and parental divorce as mediating factors. Journal of Family Issues.

25 (1), 112-135.

Vassiliou, D., & Cartwright, G. (2001). The lost parent’s perspective on parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 181-191.

Wallerstein, J., & Resnikoff, D. (1997). Parental divorce and developmental progression: An inquiry into their relationship. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 78, 135155.

Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J. (2007) Sibling outcomes and disparate parenting and stepparenting after divorce: Report from a 10-year longitudinal study. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24, 445-458.

Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy of divorce: A 25-year landmark study. New York, NY: Hyperion.

Walsh, F. (2009). Human-animal bonds II: The role of pets in family systems and family therapy. Family Process, 48 (4), 481-498.

Warshak, R. (2010). Divorce poison: How to protect your family from bad-mouthing and brainwashing. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishing.

Warshak, R. (2010). Family bridges: Using insights from social science to reconnect parents and alienated children. Family Court Review, 48 (1), 48-80.

143

Winnicott, D. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. In International Psychoanalytic Library. London: The Hogarth Press.

Wolf, E. (1988), Treating the Self: Elements of clinical Self psychology. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B., & Cleary, T. (2006). Chapter Two. Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. SelfEfficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.