At this task force meeting, Dr. Keith Roeder continued to talk about parenting, stating that you can't have a relationship between parents and children without having space, time and energy. If we do not create environments where these things are available for both parents, then children suffer.
Of course, Dr. Roeder, like so many mental health professionals is living in an artificial environment. Most parents are required to earn a living so that they can support their children, and in the economic conditions we have today, some parents are working two jobs, and there are also two career families where both parents are out working. What children benefit from is knowing they have a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in, food on the table, and warm clothing to wear when they go to school.
If parents are working hard to support their children, this should not be seen as a sign of some kind of parenting deficit. Again, this is my problem with mental health professionals, particularly of Dr. Roeder's generation. As far as they are concerned, parents shouldn't be working; they should be in therapy all day cultivating the space, time and energy necessary for good parenting!
Be that as it may, the task force then turned its attention to a question and answer period. Attorney Sue Cousineau asked what Dr. Roeder's recommendations are on how to deal with a parent that is not cooperative with the services they may be ordered to participate in.
Dr. Roeder responded that first, we need a total understanding of that person, and that person may require more individual attention particularly because a lack of cooperation can arise from a feeling of not being understood. He stated that it is important to get a total understanding of what is going on before taking any action. People must be fully understood because if a person is feeling that he or she is not heard, or that other people don't get it, there will be no cooperation.
Second, there are a lot of aspects to non-cooperation. For example, parents believe that they are protecting their children. Dr. Roeder stated that it is very unusual for a parent not to want to do the right thing for the child. The vast majority of parents want to do the right thing for their children.
Dr. Roeder also said that if you determine that the person's resistance is a detriment to the child, then maybe force can be used, but that gives no guarantee that it will work. In his words, "If it were determined that a parent was being deliberately obstructive, you could punish that parent. Would that necessarily help? I don't know."
Ms. Jennifer Veraneault said in some cases therapists are court appointed and one side wiggles out. Then the order for therapy is not enforced and the judge orders another evaluation for $20,000. The system is creating mental health issues with all these appointees.
Dr. Roeder responded that the first step to deal with this would be a thorough assessment. You can have complexity in terms of gatekeeping. Even with full access you can still have underlying negativity. Then at 13 or 14 the kids decide not to go to see the other parent. But who is making the choice in actuality.
In terms of maturing, the children then don't get what they need at important stages of their lives, and if that happens, they never will. I'm am personally not so sure about that. Again, it seems unduly negative, and that is my point. Professionals trained in Dr. Roeder's generation had such a dark and gloomy perspective on the possibility for recovery.
Dr. Elizabeth Thayer went on to say we need neuroliteracy to understand the situation in high conflict divorce. The stress arising in divorce reduces parents' capacity to cope, indeed it lowers their IQ by 30 points, according to some studies. However, it is not a mental illness. When people feel afraid and unsafe they can't interact with others that well.
Dr. Thayer commented on the issue of co-parenting therapy which she does in her Peace Program. Most people choose to participate in her program on a voluntary basis through the recommendation of their attorney or the GAL. When a couple is court ordered to be there, then the parents are more resentful, often do not want to be there, and results can be unsuccessful.
She further stated that the Peace Program does not send a bill to insurance because it is not therapy. I don't know, when you sit with a couple and help them work out their issues, if it isn't therapy, what the heck is it?
The real question is, does the full evaluation and therapy Dr. Roeder suggest provide any concrete, positive results for the participants? Such treatment is based on the concept that talking things out, digging into problems, will sometimes lead to the resolution of conflict.
But is this true? Do we actually have evidence that it works?
For example, intuitively many people believe that expressing how you feel will reduce your level of anger. However, in 2007, a study on the subject conducted by Dr. Jeffrey Lohr of the University of Arkansas showed that talking about your anger actually makes you more angry, and you are better off if you don't. What if resolving the problems are simply a matter of a minor medication adjustment? Why is it that the solutions these mental health professionals associated with family court come up with always seem to involve thousands and thousands of dollars that hardworking parents cannot afford?
Perhaps all that is necessary is that the Court require that the offending parents obey Court Orders. Imagine that!
Perhaps all that is necessary is that the Court require that the offending parents obey Court Orders. Imagine that!
So it is quite possible that this whole model of investigating conflict and focusing a microscope on all its gory details could be entirely flawed. In fact, by doing so, we could be making it worse! But again, expecting old dogs to come up with new tricks, expecting a generation of psychologists who are now in their 60s and 70s which has failed miserably already to address these issues strikes me as a recipe for disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment