Latest / Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour / Beyond The Label

Transcript

Beyond The Label · Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: Hello, this is Kim Lee.
• 0:02
  SPEAKER_00: Welcome back to this final episode in the series when a child says no to contact.
• 0:10
  SPEAKER_00: I've called this episode beyond the label for a very good reason.
• 0:14
  SPEAKER_00: And although I've touched on some of these points in previous episodes, I want to bring this together now.
• 0:20
  SPEAKER_00: Now, throughout the series, I've challenged the idea that parental alienation can by itself explain why a child might very well reject contact.
• 0:33
  SPEAKER_00: This is very important because we have to, instead of thinking in terms of a particular action and labeling it, we have to consider why maybe the child is behaving in this way.
• 0:50
  SPEAKER_00: Some parents do involve children in adult disputes, and sometimes they undermine important relationships or place children under intolerable pressure.
• 1:01
  SPEAKER_00: I want to make the point though that I'm not convinced of the idea that this is necessarily willful.
• 1:07
  SPEAKER_00: Yes, in some cases I'm sure that's true, but very often I think of it as being consequential, an outcome rather than necessarily an intention.
• 1:18
  SPEAKER_00: But we also have to understand that children refuse contact sometimes because they're frightened, angry, traumatized, or they're responding to harmful parenting.
• 1:28
  SPEAKER_00: So whatever the the whatever label is used, it doesn't actually tell us which explanation is correct.
• 1:35
  SPEAKER_00: And that requires assessment.
• 1:39
  SPEAKER_00: In this final episode, I want to move beyond the label and consider two things.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_00: First, what a sound forensic clinical approach should look like.
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_00: And second, how a parent accused of alienation can move forward without abandoning their protective position.
• 2:00
  SPEAKER_00: So the starting point is behavior, not is this parent an alienator?
• 2:07
  SPEAKER_00: But what has this parent actually done?
• 2:12
  SPEAKER_00: Not is this child alienated?
• 2:15
  SPEAKER_00: But what has the child experienced and what might explain their refusals?
• 2:22
  SPEAKER_00: Now labels compress histories into apparently simple answers.
• 2:27
  SPEAKER_00: And a formulation does something very different because it it brings together the child's development, family history, experiences, and present emotional state.
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_00: And it then tests the possible explanations against the evidence.
• 2:42
  SPEAKER_00: This begins with chronology.
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_00: When did the difficulty start?
• 2:46
  SPEAKER_00: What was happening in the family?
• 2:48
  SPEAKER_00: When was distress first apparent?
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_00: What has happened before, during, and after contact, when were concerns raised, what was observed by people outside of the family.
• 3:00
  SPEAKER_00: And although chronology doesn't decide the case, what it does is it tells the story between the headline.
• 3:07
  SPEAKER_00: And that's a phrase I'm using more and more.
• 3:10
  SPEAKER_00: But what it does do it very often is the chronology prevents later explanations from rewriting the sequence in which events occurred.
• 3:22
  SPEAKER_00: Now, the next task is to separate observation from interpretation.
• 3:29
  SPEAKER_00: So for example, the child vomited before contact.
• 3:35
  SPEAKER_00: Then that is an observation.
• 3:38
  SPEAKER_00: The child was frightened of the parent is an interpretation.
• 3:42
  SPEAKER_00: The other parent caused the child to become fur become frightened is a further interpretation.
• 3:48
  SPEAKER_00: Now, each step may ultimately be supported by evidence, but they must not collapse into one another.
• 3:57
  SPEAKER_00: A forensic assessment also examines competing hypotheses.
• 4:03
  SPEAKER_00: Has the child been psychologically manipulated?
• 4:06
  SPEAKER_00: Are there justified reasons for the rejection?
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_00: Is the child responding to harmful behavior?
• 4:13
  SPEAKER_00: Are they protecting a vulnerable parent?
• 4:15
  SPEAKER_00: Have their own experiences led them to a conclusion about the rejected parent?
• 4:21
  SPEAKER_00: No.
• 4:22
  SPEAKER_00: Are several factors operating together?
• 4:25
  SPEAKER_00: The assessor must look for evidence which supports each possibility and evidence which contradicts it.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_00: This isn't indecision, it's disciplined reasoning.
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_00: Now the Family Justice Council guidance reflects this approach.
• 4:42
  SPEAKER_00: And I quote, a charge reluctance, resistance, or refusal is only the first element in considering alleged alienating behavior.
• 4:52
  SPEAKER_00: It must also be established that the refusal is not an appropriate response to the rejected parent's conduct, and that specific psychologically manipulative behavior by the other parent has caused it.
• 5:07
  SPEAKER_00: Protective behavior should not be reclassified as alienating merely because it restricts contact.
• 5:16
  SPEAKER_00: I would encourage people to look at the Family Justice Council guidance information which can be found online.
• 5:23
  SPEAKER_00: Because I think what this does is to take us away from what one solicitor says to another, what is said in court, what social services or other services may be saying or not saying.
• 5:37
  SPEAKER_00: Here is very, very well informed, very well researched set of guidance principles from the Family Justice Council.
• 5:48
  SPEAKER_00: Now this brings me to the parent who's been accused.
• 5:52
  SPEAKER_00: Being described as alienating can be frightening.
• 5:56
  SPEAKER_00: A parent may feel that everything they do is being reinterpreted, or that their actions have to change because they're fearful of being interpreted in that way.
• 6:08
  SPEAKER_00: Their anxiety becomes emotional instability.
• 6:11
  SPEAKER_00: So their attempt to listen to the child is considered or could be considered coaching.
• 6:18
  SPEAKER_00: So they may feel compelled to defend themselves against uh forcefully and respond to every accusation.
• 6:25
  SPEAKER_00: And that response is understandable.
• 6:27
  SPEAKER_00: So, you know, in simple terms, you're just being anxious.
• 6:30
  SPEAKER_00: And the response is yes, I am anxious, but it's it's not my anxiety that is motivating my protective stance.
• 6:40
  SPEAKER_00: You know, there can be a a whole list of explanations, but what I think what happens is parents become very kind of allegation fearful.
• 6:52
  SPEAKER_00: And so they end up modifying their behaviors and trying to hold everything together because actually what's happened is that their position has never been examined and assessed.
• 7:05
  SPEAKER_00: So it makes their position more difficult.
• 7:08
  SPEAKER_00: Now, the way forward is what I would call informed protectiveness.
• 7:13
  SPEAKER_00: Now, informed protectiveness is neither passive compliance nor reflexive opposition.
• 7:21
  SPEAKER_00: It's a position based upon evidence that is proportionate and has a clear focus upon the child.
• 7:31
  SPEAKER_00: The first principle here is to respond rather than react.
• 7:36
  SPEAKER_00: Lengthy, angry communications rarely help.
• 7:40
  SPEAKER_00: Even when the anger is entirely understandable, the parent really needs to communicate briefly, factually, and with the child's needs at the center.
• 7:52
  SPEAKER_00: So, for example, the child became extremely distressed on the evening before contact, reported that they were afraid and was unable to attend school the following morning.
• 8:04
  SPEAKER_00: I've recorded what occurred and sought professional advice.
• 8:08
  SPEAKER_00: Now that's more useful than the other parent is dangerous and nobody ever listens.
• 8:13
  SPEAKER_00: The second statement may actually be true.
• 8:17
  SPEAKER_00: However, it doesn't provide information which can be assessed.
• 8:22
  SPEAKER_00: Now the aim isn't to suppress emotion, it's to prevent justified emotion from obscuring the evidence.
• 8:30
  SPEAKER_00: The second principle is to keep a clear record.
• 8:34
  SPEAKER_00: This should include dates, events, the child's presentation, and any action without interpretation.
• 8:42
  SPEAKER_00: Just the facts, what was observed, by whom, what was said.
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_00: It doesn't need to be a verbatim account, but it is an account of what happened.
• 8:54
  SPEAKER_00: Try not to ask the child leading questions about the situation.
• 9:00
  SPEAKER_00: Instead, ask the child questions about themselves.
• 9:16
  SPEAKER_00: But record what the child said in their words wherever possible.
• 9:23
  SPEAKER_00: Distinguish, if you can, what was witnessed from what was reported, and retain relevant correspondence.
• 9:30
  SPEAKER_00: Try not to embellish, interpret every behaviour, or attempt to make the evidence stronger than it is, because you really don't know need to.
• 9:40
  SPEAKER_00: Credibility is built through accuracy and consistency.
• 9:45
  SPEAKER_00: So a useful record might be on Sunday evening, Sam said, I don't want to go because he shouts and locks the door and won't let me call you.
• 9:54
  SPEAKER_00: He was crying and complained of stomach pain.
• 9:57
  SPEAKER_00: I informed the school and contacted my solicitor the following the following morning.
• 10:03
  SPEAKER_00: What it shouldn't say is Sam was clearly traumatized by narcissistic abuse.
• 10:09
  SPEAKER_00: The first is a record, the second is a conclusion.
• 10:13
  SPEAKER_00: And I have to say, you're not qualified to make that kind of conclusion.
• 10:17
  SPEAKER_00: Think it by all means, but do not commit it to paper, do not give it in evidence.
• 10:22
  SPEAKER_00: That is not it is not your responsibility to come to conclusions.
• 10:26
  SPEAKER_00: You're feeding a process.
• 10:28
  SPEAKER_00: And I will say that whenever I've appeared in court to give evidence, my job is not to prove a point, it is to help the court to come to a decision based upon my observations, the evidence that supports the observations, the conclusions and recommendations, which can be understood through a separately evidenced framework.
• 10:51
  SPEAKER_00: Now, that's what I do.
• 10:52
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, amongst other things, it's a you know a significant part of my work.
• 10:56
  SPEAKER_00: I'm not an angry parent, and angry parents who don't feel like they're being heard don't don't need to do all of that, but all they need to do is to is to describe the facts as you know them.
• 11:12
  SPEAKER_00: Now, a third principle which I've already alluded to is to not investigate a child.
• 11:19
  SPEAKER_00: Now, a protective parent may understandably want to know everything that happened, but repeated questioning can distress the child and it can affect their account and expose the parent to allegations of coaching.
• 11:33
  SPEAKER_00: And this is quite common.
• 11:34
  SPEAKER_00: And I I mean it's in many ways it's a bit of a cheap shot.
• 11:40
  SPEAKER_00: The child has been coached, really, or is it is it the case that the child has been encouraged to say what they feel?
• 11:50
  SPEAKER_00: And I I really do think that's incredibly important.
• 11:54
  SPEAKER_00: In my in my position, as I've said before, I when when I'm investigating, I have to be very careful in terms of how I how I gather uh information and the way I ask for it and then the way I communicate it.
• 12:12
  SPEAKER_00: Recently, uh in a case, counsel for the other side stated that the child had been coached during a therapy session, and the evidence they put forward for that was that uh the other parent was in the room at the time.
• 12:35
  SPEAKER_00: When it came to providing a response to that, I was able to produce transcripts which demonstrated clearly that wasn't the case.
• 12:45
  SPEAKER_00: However, what was really interesting was the the speed with which the child has been coached was used.
• 12:53
  SPEAKER_00: That that the nothing was further from the truth.
• 12:56
  SPEAKER_00: But phrases like that have currency within that setting.
• 13:02
  SPEAKER_00: So you need to be very careful.
• 13:04
  SPEAKER_00: Listen if the child speaks, clarify only what is necessary to understand immediate safety.
• 13:11
  SPEAKER_00: Sometimes I will encourage parents to say what I often say in the consulting room, which is something like, Can you help me understand?
• 13:21
  SPEAKER_00: Because what you're inviting the child to do is to communicate with you as openly as they can manage.
• 13:29
  SPEAKER_00: So say, can you help me understand what happened?
• 13:34
  SPEAKER_00: That and sometimes having the child just talk through the event gives you a very uh very clear and important picture.
• 13:43
  SPEAKER_00: Not one that you can necessarily make interpretations about.
• 13:47
  SPEAKER_00: If you do, you can't communicate them.
• 13:50
  SPEAKER_00: But it's the child's words.
• 13:52
  SPEAKER_00: Don't ask the child to repeat the account of several adults.
• 13:56
  SPEAKER_00: Do not show them court documents or discuss things, aspects of the case.
• 14:02
  SPEAKER_00: Don't ask them to decide what should happen.
• 14:06
  SPEAKER_00: The child can be heard without being made responsible.
• 14:10
  SPEAKER_00: One of the things I sometimes do, and I have to be very careful in how I do it, is in what in one case a while back, I can remember saying to the child who is feeling really conflicted and having great difficulty where the contact was concerned, and the arrangement surrounding contact.
• 14:33
  SPEAKER_00: And they were talking about all the different discussions that had had that had happened, people they'd had to talk to, and just a whole host of stuff.
• 14:43
  SPEAKER_00: And of course they weren't they weren't having to talk to me, but they were they were.
• 14:47
  SPEAKER_00: And I said, Do you do you know what you would like?
• 14:51
  SPEAKER_00: Has anybody and I said, Has anybody asked you what you would like?
• 14:56
  SPEAKER_00: And they said no.
• 14:59
  SPEAKER_00: And I believed them.
• 15:00
  SPEAKER_00: And it wasn't I wasn't asking because I wanted to in some way make them feel responsible.
• 15:07
  SPEAKER_00: I wanted them to know that this was important and important enough for them to be able to say, as it transpired, their response was, I don't know what I want, which to me was was meaningful.
• 15:21
  SPEAKER_00: But uh I I just think sometimes we can find information in ways that can can really work well.
• 15:29
  SPEAKER_00: Now, the fourth principle is to demonstrate support for safe relationships.
• 15:34
  SPEAKER_00: A parent can say, I want my child to have a relationship with the other parent, provided that it is safe and emotionally manageable.
• 15:44
  SPEAKER_00: That is not contradictory.
• 15:46
  SPEAKER_00: It shows that the objection concerns risk rather than the existence of the relationship itself.
• 15:54
  SPEAKER_00: Where appropriate, the parent can propose proportionate arrangements.
• 16:00
  SPEAKER_00: These might include supported handovers, indirect contact, professionally supervised contact, or a gradual plan which takes into account of the child's presentation and may include the involvement of other professionals.
• 16:15
  SPEAKER_00: But the proposal should identify the concern and the safeguard intended to address it.
• 16:22
  SPEAKER_00: This is more constructive than simply opposing all contact without offering a safe alternative.
• 16:29
  SPEAKER_00: But there's an important qualification.
• 16:32
  SPEAKER_00: A parent should not agree to arrangements they genuinely believe place the child at immediate risk merely to appear cooperative.
• 16:43
  SPEAKER_00: Where a court order exists, they should obtain prompt legal advice rather than simply disregarding it.
• 16:51
  SPEAKER_00: If new or urgent information safeguarding arises, it should be reported through the appropriate professional and legal routes.
• 17:01
  SPEAKER_00: Now, there's something called practice direction 12J, which requires the cook the court to consider physical and emotional safety where domestic abuse is relevant.
• 17:13
  SPEAKER_00: Contact is not to be treated as an entitlement which overrides established established risk.
• 17:20
  SPEAKER_00: In simple language, where there is safeguarding risk regardless of the order in place, the safeguarding risk overrides it, and that is practice direction 12J.
• 17:31
  SPEAKER_00: Now, the fifth principle is open to scrutiny.
• 17:35
  SPEAKER_00: A protective parent should be willing to consider whether their own fear, anger, or past experience is affecting the child.
• 17:43
  SPEAKER_00: Now, that is not a criticism, and it doesn't require them to accept an allegation of alienation, but it demonstrates reflective capacity.
• 17:53
  SPEAKER_00: They may be able to say, I believe my concerns are well founded, but I'm willing to examine whether my anxiety has also affected my child and to accept help in managing that.
• 18:07
  SPEAKER_00: That's an incredibly strong position.
• 18:09
  SPEAKER_00: What it also says is I'm not here to defend the idea.
• 18:17
  SPEAKER_00: I'm putting the idea forward that as part of this situation, of course, I contribute in some way.
• 18:25
  SPEAKER_00: But that's not about blame.
• 18:27
  SPEAKER_00: And it's a very much more mature position to take because it doesn't blame the other party.
• 18:34
  SPEAKER_00: It recognizes that protection can be necessary while also acknowledging that children are sensitive to the emotional states of those who care for them.
• 18:45
  SPEAKER_00: A parent who can't contemplate any contribution of themselves may very well appear rigid.
• 18:53
  SPEAKER_00: Equally, professionals shouldn't.