We at PsychLaw.net feel that when psychotherapists respond effectively to children of divorce, they neither volunteer themselves ‑ nor accept induction ‑ as saviors. Therapists who commit these errors sacrifice their objectivity; and this sacrifice usually leads them into situations where they are more a part of the problem than its solution. Effective psychotherapy for children of divorce requires therapists to reduce the frequency and intensity of parental conflicts. This outcome alleviates the loyalty conflicts which these children often endure; and in turn, the distress that originally necessitated their treatment begins to abate.
Structural and strategic family therapy techniques that involve both parents in treatment effectively aid children of divorce. Crisis induction, boundary re‑organization, and reframing can be used to obtain the participation of both parents in their children’s treatment.[1] These techniques also create an alternative reality between divorced spouses that leads to a reduction in their parental conflicts. When divorced spouses encourage their children to enjoy positive relationships with their parental counterparts, those children feel enormously relieved which rapidly reduces their psychological distress.
There are those situations where psychotherapists encounter circumstances that raise legitimate concerns about a parent’s competence. Evidence of parental abuse, neglect, substance abuse, etc. require therapists to act on behalf of the child’s interests. When confronted with these kinds of situations, ethically responsible therapists report them to the appropriate authorities (i.e. child protective services) and seek an independent evaluation of the issues involved. Therefore, ethical considerations impose a responsibility on mental health professionals to differentiate between their roles as therapists and evaluators.
At PsychLaw.net we believe that ultimately, therapists find it difficult to competently evaluate their clients ‑‑ a therapeutic alliance between client and therapist inevitably reduces the therapist’s objectivity. Conversely, evaluators find it difficult to respond therapeutically to the subjects of their evaluations ‑‑ neutrality and objectivity mitigate against therapeutic alliances. As a result, it is the rare therapist who can respond simultaneously and effectively to both therapeutic and evaluative responsibilities. Mental health professionals who ignore these limitations can find themselves trapped in the ethical pitfalls of dual relationships.
Footnote
[1]. Campbell, T.W. (1993). Parental conflicts between divorced spouses: Strategies for intervention. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 12 (4), 27-39.