• Interparental conflict after divorce escalates the risk of mental health problems in children and adolescents.
• Elevated levels of conflict between parents can also induce fear and worry in children about their future and whether they will be adequately taken care of. In turn, a greater fear of abandonment puts children at greater risk of mental health problems.
• Parents can protect their children’s mental health by adopting strategies that shield them from conflict and that assure them that they will be well cared for no matter what happens.
• Developing programs to help children and adolescents cope effectively with interparental conflicts is a pivotal step toward safeguarding their well-being.

This article on the mental health implications for children caught between highly conflicted divorced parents will cover the following key points:

1. Protecting children in the emotional storm of divorce
2. Linking conflict to children’s mental health problems
3. Exploring the role of children’s fear of abandonment
4. Does high-quality parenting reduce the negative effects of interparental conflict on fear of abandonment?
5. Reducing the harmful effects of interparental conflict on youth’s mental health by supporting both parents and children

1. Protecting children in the emotional storm of divorce

In most divorces, parents make many important decisions: How much time will the children spend with each parent? Will the children change schools? Who will make decisions about medical and educational issues? These and other issues can be very emotional, so it is natural for many separating and divorcing parents to experience conflict.

Shielding youth from parental conflict is undeniably challenging. Children might witness or overhear arguments, or they might sense tension in more subtle ways during one-on-one interactions with a parent. Simple remarks can inadvertently place children in a difficult position and make them feel torn between both sides.

Children exposed to more frequent and intense parental conflict in the first years after divorce were more than two and a half times more likely to develop a mental health disorder six years later than were peers whose parents were also divorced but who had experienced less frequent and less intense conflict.

Phrases like “I can’t believe your mom went out with her friends instead of spending time with you” can foster feelings of being caught in the middle.

Similarly, asking children and teenagers to relay messages (e.g., “Tell your dad I need to change the time I pick you up next week”) or pressing them for information about the other parent (e.g., “Who else was at your mom’s with you today?” “What did you have for dinner at your dad’s last night?”) make children feel they need to take sides.

2. Linking conflict to children’s mental health problems

There is a well-established link between high levels of interparental conflict and the development of mental health problems in children and adolescents, including anxiety, depression, and aggression.

For example, in one of our studies, of 240 nine- to 12-year-olds, we assessed patterns of child-reported conflict over six to eight years following divorce.

The study was conducted in the United States; 88% of mothers were Caucasian, 8% were Hispanic, 2% were African American, and 1% were Asian; median yearly income ranged from $20,001 to $25,000 (equivalent to approximately $45,000 to $56,000 today), and 47% of mothers reported completing some college courses.

More intense parental conflict leads to to worse mental health

Children exposed to more frequent and intense parental conflict in the first years after divorce were more than two and a half times more likely to develop a mental health disorder six years later than were peers whose parents were also divorced but who had experienced less frequent and less intense conflict.

But despite the clear connection between conflict and mental health problems, we do not yet understand how and why this link occurs. To help families navigate the process of separation and divorce and to protect children’s mental health, we must understand this process more thoroughly.

Photo: rubberduck1951. Pixabay.

3. Exploring the role of children’s fear of abandonment

One potential explanation for the link is that witnessing frequent conflicts makes children fear abandonment or worry about whether they will receive adequate care from one or both parents.

In a recent study, of 559 youth ages nine to 18 who had experienced a parental separation or divorce in the previous two years, we addressed a few important questions about conflict and fear of abandonment. Our goal was to help experts create better programs for families going through separation and divorce.

First, we asked whether children and adolescents were more afraid of being left alone or not taken care of properly when there was more conflict between parents.

Next, we explored whether a greater fear of abandonment correlated with increased mental health problems. Finally, we explored whether high-quality parenting protected children from fear of abandonment, even when there was a lot of conflict between parents.

The emergence of the fear of abandonment

Fear of abandonment emerged as a key explanation for the heightened risk of mental health problems. Exposure to elevated levels of conflict made children and adolescents more prone to fearing abandonment three months later. This heightened fear, in turn, was associated with an increase in mental health problems 10 months later.

This finding remained the same even after accounting for previous mental health problems. Fear of abandonment may get in the way of children and adolescents coping effectively with stress, distract them from developmental goals, or push them toward potentially harmful peer groups that encourage antisocial behaviors.

Fear of abandonment emerged as a key explanation for the heightened risk of mental health problems.

4. Does high-quality parenting reduce the negative effects of interparental conflict on fear of abandonment?

Research shows that high-quality parenting is a very strong protective factor for all children, especially those who experience separation or divorce.

High-quality parenting is defined as parenting that is responsive, close, accepting, supportive, and encouraging, and is characterized by a generally positive emotional relationship between parent and child.

Research also indicates that high-quality parenting can lessen the impact of divorce-related stressors on children’s mental health problems. With this in mind, we anticipated that high-quality parenting could counterbalance the adverse effects of high levels of conflict between parents.

Surprisingly, when we examined the protective role of high-quality parenting in our study, this did not happen. Even though high-quality parenting was somewhat protective for the children and adolescents we studied, it may not have been powerful enough to cancel out the harmful effects of high levels of conflict.

5. Reducing the harmful effects of interparental conflict on youth’s mental health by supporting both parents and children

How can the harmful effects of interparental conflict on children’s and adolescents’ mental health be reduced? A focus on both parents and children is important. Here are two suggestions.

Photo: Kindel Media. Pexels.

First, researchers and clinicians need to help separated and divorced parents access programs that give them the tools to reduce their children’s exposure to conflict.

In rigorous evaluations, few in-person or online programs for separated or divorced parents have reduced children’s exposure to interparental conflict. One exception is the eNew Beginnings Program (eNBP), which was developed by one of the authors (Wolchik et al., 2022).

In the eNBP, parents learn practical strategies to protect their children from witnessing interparental conflict; they also learn how to refrain from sharing negative comments about the other parent with the child and asking the child to relay messages to the other parent.

To help reduce the fear of abandonment, parents let their children know that they will always be there for them and that parents never divorce children.

Second, researchers need to develop and test programs that help children cope effectively with the difficult thoughts and feelings that arise when parents fight or say things that make children feel they need to take sides. Research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health is underway to develop a program to help children cope effectively with interparental conflict.

The post Children caught between highly conflicted divorced parents at greater risk of mental health problems appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• A brief, online program can help parents promote their children’s resilience following separation and divorce.
• Not all online programs for divorced and separated parents are the same. Evidence from research can help parents and practitioners identify online programs that work rather than ones that are just based on someone’s favorite approach.
• Programs that give parents simple, practical tools to strengthen parenting and reduce conflict between the parents are most likely to reduce children’s behavior problems.
• The eNew Beginnings Program provides an inexpensive but effective opportunity for court professionals and mental health practitioners to help parents promote their children’s resilience following separation and divorce.

An evidence-based online program for divorced and separated parents

Most divorced and separated parents are concerned about their children and ask themselves: “What can I do to protect my children from the problems that often follow divorce?” Although many online parenting-after-divorce programs offer advice, few are backed by solid research that show they actually work.

However, recent research provides new scientific evidence that one online parenting-after-divorce program can provide parents with the help they seek. In the first rigorous evaluation of an online program, this study showed that a brief, online parenting intervention for divorced and separated parents reduced interparental conflict and children’s behavior problems, and improved the quality of parent-child relationships and the effectiveness of parental discipline.

The online program, the eNew Beginnings Program (eNBP), was adapted by researchers Sharlene A. Wolchik and Irwin Sandler from their in-person group program for parents that reduced the mental health problems, drug and alcohol use, and risky sexual behavior of children from divorced families. The program also improved children’s self-esteem, grades, coping, and work competence. Several of the positive changes lasted up to 15 years after the program ended: When the offspring were young adults, they had lower rates of depression, substance use, and painful feelings about the divorce.

Despite the positive effects of the in-person program, few divorced parents could participate because it was expensive for agencies to offer. Moreover, parents faced practical barriers, such as travel, making time in their busy schedules, and finding child care.

Practical tools for parenting after divorce

To make the program affordable, more widely available, and easier for parents to use, Wolchik and Sandler adapted the in-person program into an online version. The eNBP is affordable, and parents can take part on their own time and in the comfort of their own homes. They need only a smartphone, computer, or tablet. The eNBP is a five-hour (20 to 30 minutes per session over 10 weeks) online program that includes all the material in the in-person version. Separate versions of the program were developed for divorced and separated fathers and for divorced and separated mothers.

The eNBP works by teaching parents practical tools to strengthen positive relationships with their children, create and use family rules that reduce the hassles often associated with discipline, and decrease the level of conflict with the other parent (i.e., the ex-partner). The program teaches these tools in a step-by-step, highly interactive way.

For example, sessions begin with a check-in when parents respond to questions about their use of the program tools and are provided with ways to address the challenges they experienced using them. This is followed by teaching a new tool using modeling videos, interactive exercises, and testimonials from prior participants.

The eNBP then prompts parents to set times to use the tool, identify barriers to using it, and select strategies to reduce these barriers. Parents receive downloadable tip sheets on how to address common challenges in using the tools, sheets to record their use of the tools, and handbooks that summarize what was covered in the session.

Photo: Tatiana Syrikova. Pexels.

Positive impacts of the online program on parents and children

The effectiveness of the eNBP was evaluated using the gold standard of program evaluation, a randomized controlled trial. One hundred thirty-one parents were randomly given access to the program or assigned to a waiting list. Parents were recruited from across the United States. Of the parents, 78% were non-Hispanic White, 8% were Hispanic, and 14% were of another race/ethnicity. Parents had various levels of education: 1% had less than GED or high school diploma, 14% a GED or high school diploma, 17% an associate degree, 29% some college or vocational training, and 39% a bachelor’s degree or higher. Annual income ranged from $10,000 to $175,000 (median = $30,001–$40,000). Parents were on average 41 years old; 60% were female. Children averaged 13 years old; 48% were female.

After completing the program, both parents and their children provided information about its effects. Parents and children reported that the program improved the quality of parent-child relationships, increased effective discipline, and reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression in the children. Both parents and children also reported reduced conflict between parents.

The program was equally effective when used by mothers and fathers. The improvements noticed by the children increase confidence in the study’s findings because the children did not take part in the program.

The improvements from the online program were as strong or stronger than those that resulted from the original in-person program, which has had remarkable effects in three randomized controlled trials. The program developers think this may be due to the high level of interactivity of the online program and the ease of using it.

The rate of program completion was also higher for the online than for the in-person program. Among the parents who completed the first session, only 16% finished the in-person version (Sandler et al., 2020), whereas 60% finished the eNBP. Parents were very satisfied with the program. Most felt that it helped them and helped their relationships with their children. And more than 80% of the parents said that family courts should recommend that divorcing or separating parents complete the eNBP.

Who can use the online divorce program?

The program is available in two formats, a 6-week program and a 10-week program. The same material is included in both formats; the 10-week program allows parents more practice and provides them with more feedback about the skills that are taught. The 6-week version is appropriate for those who are taking part in the program to fulfill a parenting class required by the court.

Family courts can use the eNBP in several ways. Family court judges, mediators, and attorneys can use the program as a tool to protect the well-being of children whose parents experience high conflict or are having difficulty developing a parenting plan.

Mental health practitioners can use the program in their work with individual clients. Parents could complete a session at home and then when meeting with the practitioner, the practitioner could address questions and help the parents solve any problems they had using the tools.

In summary, the eNBP is an effective research-based resource for fathers and mothers who want to protect their children following a divorce. It is easy to access and parents enjoy the program, as shown in these comments by parents who took part in the eNBP:

“It got me and my children closer to each other.”

“It was exactly what I needed.”

“There are several tools I used immediately that my kids are big fans of.”

Parents can directly access the program at www.divorceandparenting.com.

The post An online program for divorced parents can improve parent-child relationships, as well as children’s anxiety and symptoms of depression appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

In this article I provide an overview and summary of parental alienation to help separated and divorced parents, grandparents, and others affected by this problem to identify, prevent, and heal psychologically damaging fractured relationships.

You can read more about parental alienation by clicking on the links at the end of this article.

Summary: Parental alienation

This article covers the following issues.

A. What is parental alienation?
B. Parental alienation behaviors: Making children allies in a battle between parents
C. How to identify a child who suffers from parental alienation

• Child resists a relationship with the other parent
• Loss of a prior positive relationship with the rejected parent
• The absence of abuse, neglect, or seriously deficient parenting
• Behaviors by the alienating parent and allies
• Denigrating attitudes and behavior toward a parent

D. Prevention of parental alienation and early intervention
E. Ten common mistakes for targeted parents to avoid
F. How family courts can help with parental alienation
G.How to get more information about parental alienation

A. What is parental alienation?

A1. Definition of parental alienation

Parental alienation is a disturbance in which a child rejects a parent without good cause. The rejection can range from mild to severe. In mild alienation, a child may share a parent’s litany of complaints about the other parent but warms to that parent when they are together. In severe parental alienation, the child may refuse contact, express raw hatred of a formerly loved parent, and believe the parent is worthless.

A2. “Parental alienation syndrome” – Why the term is out of favor

As with other mental health problems, our understanding of the disturbance, and the terms used to describe it, have evolved over time. For instance, today what we call “post-traumatic stress disorder” was once known as “shell shock.” Because clinicians observed that unreasonably alienated children tend to share a cluster of attitudes and behaviors, such as expressing only negative thoughts and feelings about the alienated parent, in the past this mental health problem was known as parental alienation syndrome. The term syndrome was used because it refers to a cluster of mental health symptoms that consistently occur together.

“A child’s alienation from a parent, left uncorrected, can last a lifetime.”

Despite the commonly observed cluster of behaviors of children who are alienated, the term, parental alienation syndrome, fell out of favor, especially in family law litigation. Mental health professionals were concerned that when an alienated child showed these typical behaviors toward one parent, therapists and judges in a child custody case would leap to the conclusion that the other parent was to blame. Naturally, other factors can harm a child’s relationship with a parent, and thus it essential to keep an open mind when searching for the roots of a child rejecting one parent.

A3. Adult Children of Parental Alienation

A child’s alienation from a parent, left uncorrected, can last a lifetime. Many rejected parents report that their adult children remain aloof or completely out of touch. These parents lose out on important events, such as their child’s college graduation, wedding, and the birth of grandchildren. Alienated adult children may deprive their own children of a set of grandparents.

As adults, some formerly alienated children come to realize they were manipulated to reject a good parent. They eventually reconnect with the parent they rejected for so many years but are angry with the alienating parent who interfered with their ability to give and receive love from a rejected parent and caused them to miss out on many experiences with that parent.

B. Parental alienating behaviors: Making children allies in a battle between parents

Most separated and divorced parents understand the importance of shielding their children from the couple’s conflicts and do a fairly good job of honoring this responsibility.

Some parents, though, lose sight of their children’s need to love and be loved by both parents. Such a parent, sometimes called the alienating parent, enlists children as allies in a battle against the other parent, sometimes called the targeted parent or the alienated parent.

Through a variety of parental alienation strategies, alienating parents teach children that their other parent is a bad parent who does not really love them, may be dangerous, and does not deserve their trust, affection, or respect. Alienating parents encourage and support the children’s defiance and disrespect toward the other parent and reward the children for avoiding contact with the other parent. Some children feel burdened by a parent’s need for emotional support and become an emotional caretaker of the parent by complying with the parent’s wish to diminish the importance of the other parent.

Children who absorb the lessons of hate from an alienating parent pull away from a formerly loved mother or father, and often an entire extended family, leaving the rejected relatives puzzled over what they might have said or done to fracture the relationship.

In the most extreme cases, parents who alienate their children against the other parent conspire with the children to kill the target parent.

Photo: Anete Lusina. Pexels.

C. What does parental alienation look like?

A child’s negative behavior toward a parent is not sufficient to determine that the child is unreasonably alienated. To make a determination of parental alienation, mental health and legal professionals, and professionals involved in child custody evaluations, consider five factors.

C1. Child resists a relationship with the other parent

The hallmark of parental alienation is the child’s emotional and sometimes physical withdrawal from a parent. This can occur to various degrees. The child may spend time in the parent’s care but refuse to engage meaningfully with the parent—remaining withdrawn; rebuffing the parent’s attempts to communicate, interact, or share enjoyable activities (even meals); scorning expressions of affection; and treating the parent with contempt.

“Alienating parents teach children that their other parent is a bad parent who does not really love them, may be dangerous, and does not deserve their trust, affection, or respect.”

The child may spend time in the targeted parent’s home only to steal items and documents, sabotage electronic equipment, or gather evidence by “spying” on the parent. While in the home, the child may destroy cherished possessions, physically assault the parent, or attempt in other ways to provoke a dramatic scene that results in complaints of being mistreated.

Or the child may resist contact with the parent, refuse to comply with the court-ordered parenting time schedule, or run away from the rejected parent.

For a child’s negative behavior to be considered an expression of parental alienation, the negative behavior must be chronic, frequent, directed at only one parent, occur without displaying genuine love toward that parent, and be atypical for a child of that age. For instance, a child who feels closer to one parent or more comfortable in that parent’s home but continues to show love and interest in spending time with the other parent, is not alienated.

C2. Loss of a prior positive relationship with the targeted parent

In most cases, before the child began rejecting the targeted parent, they enjoyed a normal relationship. The child’s current alienation contrasts starkly with the past. The child used to show affection and comfort with the parent. Now the child claims to hate or fear the alienated parent.

But a prior good relationship does not automatically mean a child rejecting a parent is not justified. It is possible the rejected parent’s behavior deteriorated significantly after the breakup. For instance, children may feel anxious around or resent a parent who has begun to relentlessly bad-mouth the other parent. Instead of aligning with the alienating parent and rejecting the targeted parent, the children want to avoid the parent who makes them feel uncomfortable—what professionals call “blowback.”

If an alienating parent relentlessly bad-mouths the other parent, children may feel anxious and resentful, and they may want to avoid hearing bad things said about a parent they love.

Also, in some families, a child can be alienated even when a prior good relationship was never established. In these families, the child was deprived of sufficient opportunities to see the parent in a positive light, either being kept out of contact or being taught from an early age that the other parent was unworthy of respect.

C3. The absence of abuse, neglect, or seriously deficient parenting

When a child’s rejection is a justified reaction to being harshly mistreated by a parent or witnessing domestic violence, it is not a case of parental alienation.

Children who are chronically mistreated by a parent may welcome parental divorce or family separation as an opportunity to escape the mistreatment. When these children know they no longer must spend time with an abusive parent and don’t fear retaliation, they may resist or refuse contact. This is not parental alienation.

In some families a child rejecting a parent involves a mix of rational and irrational components. The rejected parent has acted in some manner that could reasonably disappoint or anger a child to the extent that the child’s initial reaction is understandable. But with time, sensitivity from the rejected parent, and proper support from others, the parent-child relationship would normally recover–unless someone, such as the other parent, fuels discord and encourages the child to view a single unfortunate episode as unforgivable and justification for a permanent rupture. In that case, the child’s hostility and scorn are unrelenting, clearly out of proportion to the parent’s misdeeds, and may risk ending the parent-child relationship.

All children find things to criticize about their parents. Normally this does not torpedo the relationship. Children who are alienated need help understanding that mistakes do not define a person and that people, including rejected parents, are more than their mistakes.

In some instances, what looks like behavior that would justify the child’s rejection is, instead, a parent’s ineffective response to the child’s alienation. It is not uncommon for a parent who does not understand the child’s confusing and hostile behavior to lose patience with the child.

Mental health and legal professionals distinguish cases of parental alienation primarily linked to one parent’s behavior from those linked to both parents by considering when the alienation began, the nature and context of each parent’s behaviors, the child’s attitudes, and whether the rejected parent can have good relationships with other children (such as stepchildren).

Photo: Ketut Subiyanto. Pexels.

C4. Behaviors by the alienating parent and allies

In most cases of parental alienation, the alienating parent engages in a pattern of behavior (not a few isolated instances of bad-mouthing) that clearly has the capacity to damage the child’s relationship with the other parent. In my book on parental alienation, Divorce Poison, I refer to a spectrum of alienating behavior ranging from bad-mouthing to bashing and brainwashing.

In these cases, the alienating parent and allies persistently bad-mouth the targeted parent, focus children’s attention on the targeted parent’s mistakes, and exaggerate the parent’s flaws. They hide from the children all evidence of the other parent’s love and support. Alienating parents interfere with parent–child contacts by scheduling conflicting activities, giving children the choice to opt out of court-ordered time with the other parent, or encroaching on this time with frequent calls and texts to reinforce the children’s negative attitudes while they are with their other parent.

By never speaking positively about the other parent and drum-beating negatives, an alienating parent manipulates the children to reject the other parent in the same way a politician paints an unfavorable picture to alienate voters from their opponent. In some cases, an alienating parent coaches a child to falsely accuse the other parent of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.

C5. Denigrating attitudes and behavior toward a parent

According to psychologists who work with parental alienation, children who are unreasonably alienated share certain attitudes and behaviors. Alienated children are preoccupied with denigrating the parent, recite a list of complaints, and treat the parent as if he or she has no value and never did. Many severely alienated children say they wish the parent would die or just disappear.

At the same time, the children express no guilt or remorse for their hateful behavior. In contrast, most physically abused children fear their abuser and act obsequious and compliant to avoid angering the parent. They do not openly defy or disrespect the abusive parent.

Unless they accuse a parent of abuse, children who are irrationally alienated generally cannot adequately explain why they reject the parent. They give trivial, sometimes absurd, reasons for wanting to sever ties. For instance, one child said he no longer wanted to see his mother because he did not like the meals she prepared.

Ordinarily, most children have mixed feelings about their parents. They like certain things and dislike others. Even children who have suffered a parent’s physical, sexual, or emotional abuse cling to memories of good times with that parent, want to see the abuser in a positive light, and often defend the parent to authorities.

In contrast, in the case of parental alienation, children who are irrationally alienated lack ambivalence toward their parents. They can think of nothing good to say about the alienated parent but withhold criticism of the preferred parent (also called the favored parent) with whom they are aligned. In parental disputes, the children automatically side with their preferred parent against the alienated parent and automatically accept as true the aligned parent’s allegations about the targeted parent.

“As their alienation becomes more entrenched, children reject not only a parent, but also the people, pets, and activities associated with the alienated parent.”

In fact, children who are alienated echo the aligned parent’s catalogue of complaints, often using similar language even when this includes words and phrases the child does not fully understand. At the same time, the children insist they are rejecting the parent on their own initiative and have not been influenced by the parent they prefer. This occurs even when observers point out the alienating parent’s obvious manipulations.

As their alienation becomes more entrenched, children reject not only a parent, but also the people, pets, and activities associated with the alienated parent. Professionals in mental health refer to this as hatred by association or the spread of animosity. Relatives who refuse to denounce the parent are condemned as unworthy of a relationship, as if the child believes “the friend of my enemy is my enemy.” Tragically, deeply loving relationships with grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins evaporate in an instant.

The spread of hatred may be the most obvious sign that the child’s attitudes are unreasonable, because often it occurs without any intervening interactions from the relatives. The last time the child was with Grandma, she loved spending time in her home. Now she wants nothing to do with her, and her attitude change could not possibly reflect her Grandma’s treatment of her because there was no contact or communication since the last visit. Loving one minute, hating the next.

D. Preventing parental alienation and early intervention

It is easier to alleviate parental alienation before it becomes severe and entrenched. Parents engaged in alienating behavior need to learn how they are harming their children and develop healthier ways to cope with their disappointment and anger toward their ex-partner. They need to know their children may resent their bad-mouthing of the targeted parent and want to avoid being around them—blowback. In some cases, severe alienating behavior can result in restricted, supervised, or temporary loss of contact with the children. Learning about such possible negative consequences can help motivate parents to inhibit toxic alienating behavior.

Parents whose children are becoming alienated should maintain contact with the children, except when this raises concerns about the safety of the parent or child. It may be necessary to seek legal remedies, such as asking the court to enforce parenting time orders and perhaps order the parents and children to attend divorce education programs or therapy.

E. Not sure how to fight parental alienation? Avoid these 10 common mistakes

Parents with children who are experiencing parental alienation need to learn ways to communicate with their children that do not intensify the problem. Divorce Poison teaches parents to how to respond to negative behavior of children who are alienated and how to avoid these 10 common mistakes that make things worse.

1. Don’t lose your temper, act too aggressive, or harshly criticize your children.
2. Don’t counter-reject your children by telling them that if they don’t want to see you, you don’t want to see them.
3. Don’t passively allow the children and your ex to dictate the terms of your contact with them. Don’t wait patiently until the children “cool off” or feel “the time is right” for them to see you. Alienated parents learn too late that the time is never right.
4. Don’t waste your time with the children trying to talk them out of their negative attitudes. Engage in conflict-free, pleasurable interactions instead.
5. Don’t dismiss the children’s feelings or tell them they’re not really angry or afraid of you. Although this may be true, the children may feel you don’t understand them.
6. Don’t accuse the children of merely repeating what the other parent has told them. Again, although this may be true, the children will vehemently deny it and feel attacked by you.
7. Don’t bad-mouth your ex.
8. Don’t demand apologies from your children for their past disrespectful behavior. Focus on your relationship in the present and the future.
9. Don’t insist on setting the record straight about past false allegations as a precondition for moving forward. It is not necessary for children to agree you were falsely maligned. This can make them unduly anxious around you and be counterproductive.
10. Don’t be reluctant to get legal help to enforce expectations for contact with your children and to rescue them from a toxic parenting environment.

Photo: cottonbro studio. Pexels.

F. How a family court can help with parental alienation

Parents involved in proceedings at a family court, including cases of high-conflict divorce and child custody litigation, sometimes learn about parental alienation in a brief educational program ordered by the court. It helps when the court makes and enforces detailed orders about parenting time and court-ordered treatment.

“Losing a parent is a tragedy in a child’s life. We should do everything we can to prevent the tragedy of parental alienation.”

Structured, time-limited parental counselling and psychoeducational programs for the entire family may help prevent parental alienation or decrease mild levels of alienating behaviors. Structured counselling teaches coping and conflict-reducing skills to parents and children.

The family court may appoint a parenting coordinator to help parents engaged in high-conflict co-parenting better manage disputes, understand their children’s needs, and protect healthy parent–child relationships.

The video, Welcome Back, Pluto: Understanding, Preventing, and Overcoming Parental Alienation, has helped many children resist becoming alienated while learning to stay out of their parents’ disputes. Some professionals who provide family therapy show children and parents a few sections at a time during family therapy sessions. In some child custody cases, the judge asks or orders parents to watch the video. A parenting coordinator may have the parents watch the video to improve their ability to keep their children out of parental disagreements.

Overcoming more severe alienation usually requires legal intervention. The family court may place children who are alienated in the custody of the rejected parent and authorize that parent to get specialized help for the children, such as attending a Family Bridges workshop. In some cases, the court temporarily suspends the children’s contact with an alienating parent, essentially quarantining the parent to protect the children from further exposure to negative influence that may thwart their progress in healing the relationship with their other parent. This is sometimes called a period of protective separation from the alienating parent and a period of restorative contact with the alienated parent.

An alienating parent and alienated children may oppose such efforts to overcome the problem and argue that removing children from the parent they prefer—even if the court finds that their preference resulted from psychologically abusive manipulation—will traumatize the children. No scientific basis exists for such a prediction, and most mental health professionals believe it is essential to rescue children from a toxic process that could cost them a loving relationship with a parent and the parent’s relatives and lead to lifelong sorrow. No study has found that children regret being reunited with a good and loving parent.

Losing a parent is a tragedy in a child’s life. We should do everything we can to prevent the tragedy of parental alienation and to help children recover from it and avoid lasting psychological harm. The family court can help.

G. Where to get more information about parental alienation

Material on this website

Child & Family Blog article: Parental alienation is child abuse, say researchers of child development.

More resources by the author

For more information, visit my official website.

This popular website offers many resources to help parents and mental health and legal professionals understand, cope with, and overcome parental alienation and deal with child custody issues. The website’s Divorce Poison Control Center describes remedies for alienated children; tips for working with attorneys, evaluators, and therapists; antidotes for divorce poison; and advice on how to initiate helpful conversations with reluctant children.

The website also includes a list of movies, TV shows, and books that teach children how to overcome unreasonable alienation from a parent. You will also find links to community and online support groups and other resources that offer help for alienated children and their parents.

Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing is the classic and best-selling guide to preventing and overcoming parental alienation.

Welcome Back, Pluto: Understanding, Preventing, and Overcoming Parental Alienation is a powerful video for families facing potential or current parental alienation. The video teaches children and teens how and why to avoid taking sides with one parent against the other, and motivates children and adults to restore positive relationships with parents and other relatives.

Warshak e-LIBE provides downloadable resources on parental alienation, child custody, and divorce issues, as well as tips about how to manage legal cases with accusations of parental alienation, and how to defend against false accusations of parental alienation.

My Facebook Page features extensive essays about correctly identifying, preventing, and overcoming parental alienation.

Plutoverse is my blog with numerous essays about how to understand and overcome parental alienation, cultural references to parental alienation, and child custody arrangements.

Other resources on parental alienation

Parental Alienation Database is an online database of scholarly work on parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome.

The post What is parental alienation: The psychology of fractured parent–child relationships appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Seventy attachment researchers with long track records in the field collaborated globally to produce a seminal statement concerning the widespread use of attachment theory in family courts.

The start of 2021 sees a major new contribution to family court practice by child development researchers. A 35-page “Consensus position based on the concerted body of attachment research” has been published, under the names of 70 leading attachment researchers. It is the most comprehensive statement ever produced on how attachment theory can be applied in family courts worldwide in the best interests of children. It also shows ways in which attachment theory is frequently misused.

This summary highlights the key points in the statement, but family court professionals who wish to learn more about this important topic should read the document in full. References to page numbers are included in this summary to enable quick access to the more detailed account.

The “best interests of the child” has become the fundamental consideration in family courts. The concept is included in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989): “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration (#3.1)” (p. 5).

This article addresses four issues:

1. The challenge of using attachment theory in family courts
2. What is attachment theory?
3. Three attachment principles for family court practice
4. Eight pieces of advice for family courts

1. The challenge of using attachment theory in family courts

A fundamental difficulty applying attachment science in family courts is that the science and the courts start from very different places. The measures used in attachment research are accurate enough to produce average scores that predict patterns of future child development across groups, but they are not sensitive enough to be used as diagnostic tools for individual families, which is what courts need (p. 5). Correlations found in attachment science, while statistically significant, may not be substantial, and rarely provide the basis for making a prediction about one individual (p. 21). Even the more fine-grained attachment assessments have been designed and validated for standardized contexts and may not apply in highly charged situations common in family courts.

“Family courts are under pressure to appear to base their decisions on evidence, and attachment theory has become by far the most popular theory among professionals working with children and families.”

Therefore, specific measures of attachment quality should be used with great caution. They may play a part, but only in combination with other assessments. Other measures include the child’s physical, cognitive, and socioemotional development, and very importantly, the capacity of a parent to provide care or be helped to develop caring skills. Above all, it is crucial to assess risk of harm to the child. Every one of these factors is hard to assess, not least because each can change over time, particularly if the assessment is made at a moment of heightened trauma and change (pp. 15-16, 20-21, 30-32).

Family courts are under pressure to appear to base their decisions on evidence, and attachment theory has become by far the most popular theory among professionals working with children and families. This creates an environment in which over-confidence about the application of attachment classifications or concepts to individual cases is common (p. 21). Because of the complexity of cases in family courts, proceedings can be influenced by personal opinions or cultural and social values and norms (pp. 5, 6, 32).

2. What is attachment theory?

2.1 Defining attachment

The 70 attachment researchers who contributed to the statement defined attachment this way:

Attachment refers to an affectional bond in which an individual is motivated to seek and maintain proximity to, and comfort from, particular familiar persons (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Children are born with a predisposition to develop this motivation in relation to significant others (“attachment figures”) who have been sufficiently present and responsive. For children, these persons are usually their caregivers. The motivation is held to be governed by an attachment behavioral system. This system seeks to maintain a certain degree of proximity between child and attachment figures, with the setting for desirable level changing dynamically in response to internal and external cues. The motivation to increase proximity is activated when a person is alarmed by internal cues (e.g. pain, illness) and/or external cues (e.g. fear-evoking stimuli, separation), and manifests in a tendency to seek the availability of an attachment figure. When the attachment system is strongly activated, some kind of physical contact with an attachment figure is generally sought, especially by infants, though this contact can also be achieved by non-physical means later in development … Caregivers who have regularly interacted with and protect the infant when the infant has been alarmed usually come to be represented by the infant as someone he or she can turn to when in need (i.e. as a safe haven). Importantly, even the most sensitive and responsive of caregivers necessarily “tune out” from time to time – to visit the bathroom, make tea, or even temporarily hand over caregiving to another trusted person familiar to the infant, while the caregiver attends to other matters. Thus, that a caregiver provides a safe haven does not necessitate that this person is constantly accessible for the infant physically, or even psychologically, or that the child is securely attached to that caregiver. Conversely, being physically present does not necessarily mean that a caregiver is emotionally available (pp. 7-8).

Photo: Yogendra Singh. Unsplash.

2.2 Attachment quality is measured by secure/insecure, not strong/weak

In attachment research, trained and certified coders measure the quality of attachment through standardized observation of children’s relative ability to use their caregiver as a safe haven to which they can turn for protection, and as a secure base from which they can explore the environment (p. 8).

Secure attachment manifests itself in the child’s expectation that the adult will be available in times of need. Insecure attachment manifests itself in the child’s expectation that the adult will be relatively unavailable (p. 8).

Insecure attachment is not weak and is extremely common and normal. Insecure attachment is an important strategy for children to maximize the potential availability of a caregiver who is unavailable or insensitive. An insecure attachment does not mean that the caregiver is never a safe haven for the child (pp. 10, 17).

Insecure attachment is observed in three forms:

• Insecure-avoidant is when the child does not seek his or her familiar person when mildly alarmed, but remains near (p. 17).
• Insecure-resistant is when the child seeks proximity but is not readily comforted and can show anger toward the caregiver. Both this and insecure-avoidant behavior are termed organized insecure attachment because they are coherent and work to increase the availability of less sensitive carers (p. 17).
• Disorganized attachment is when the child is conflicted, confused, or apprehensive about a family caregiver in a situation of mild to moderate alarm. It is often associated with frightened, frightening, or dissociative behavior on the part of the caregiver, or a caregiver’s hostility, withdrawal, or maltreatment (p. 18).

All these forms of insecure attachment correlate with later compromised child development, but even in the case of disorganized attachment, the associations are not strong enough to infer that observing insecure attachment foretells poor development outcomes for a specific child (p. 19).

Furthermore, researchers observe patterns of attachment in carefully controlled conditions that involve only mild to moderate stress for a child. Family courts commonly deal with children in situations of intense stress. Disorganized behavior on the part of a seriously stressed child does not necessarily imply disorganized attachment (p. 19).

“Specific measures of attachment quality should be used with great caution. They may play a part, but only in combination with other assessments.”

2.3 Attachment disorder differs from insecure attachment

The negative effects of insecure attachments, as presented earlier, are far surpassed by the potential damage of attachment disorder.

Two types of attachment disorder have been defined. Reactive attachment disorder is when a child shows a lack of care-seeking toward any caregiver when alarmed. Disinhibited social engagement disorder is when a child is over-friendly with unfamiliar people.

Reactive attachment disorder is seen in children who have experienced extremely inadequate caregiving in their early years, for example, those who have lived in institutions. The symptoms are reversible if the child is placed in a stable caregiving environment (p. 19).

2.4 Children form attachments with multiple caregivers

There is a widespread belief in the importance of one psychological parent, which emerges from the practice in some cultures of a single parent being the primary caregiver. A related idea has emerged: that an attachment with one person competes with other attachment relationships. Bowlby himself started with the idea of a single attachment in his 1969 book, but had changed his mind by the time he wrote his second book in 1984.

The reality is that children form attachment relationships with multiple caregivers simultaneously if they have sufficient time with the caregivers and if the caregivers provide enough of a safe haven in times of need. For decades, the vast majority of attachment researchers have believed that children benefit from having more than one safe haven (p. 6, 11-12).

The presence of multiple caregivers is the norm in many cultural settings across the world. Multiple caregivers and a network of attachment relationships constitute a protective factor in child development when caregiving is inconsistent (e.g., a caregiver is unwell or unavailable). This does not imply that the number of attachments is limitless, nor that a child may not prefer some caregivers over others. A child’s preferences are often shaped by the current accessibility of one carer over another and do not seem to depend on relative attachment quality with the caregivers. However, in the context of inter-parental conflict and custody disputes, less is known about how children’s preferences play out (p. 11-12).

While all attachments with regular caregivers are important, researchers’ opinions differ about whether a most familiar carer should be afforded priority in the early years. Variations in context – such as cultural and family factors – might influence the organization of continuous contact with different caregivers (p. 12).

“Insecure attachment is not weak and is very common – the average rate of insecure attachment in the general population is nearly half.”

2.5 New attachments can form

When a child and new caregiver spend sufficient time together, attachments usually form. The time together can activate not only the child’s attachment system but also a complementary caregiving system in the caregiver. Both are malleable. This is a relevant consideration in decisions about custody and overnight stays. However, no empirical research shows that overnight stays are a necessary condition for the development of an attachment relationship (p. 14).

Photo: Alan Wat. Creative Commons.

3. Three attachment principles for family court practice

In their statement, the researchers present three principles for family court practice based on a full consideration of attachment research.

Principle 1: A child needs to experience safe havens provided by particular, familiar, and non-abusive caregivers.

Two considerations are key:

• Limited contact with a caregiver makes it more difficult for a child to form, enhance, and maintain expectations of that caregiver’s availability in times of need.
• Almost all non-abusive and non-neglecting family-based care is likely to be better than institutional care (p. 25).

Principle 2: Safe, continuous, “good enough” care is in the child’s best interest and caregivers should be helped to provide it.

A safe haven requires particular familiar relationships and sufficiently continuous interaction with these caregivers. Even if another caregiving environment may be better in some way than the child’s current one, continuity of good enough care constitutes part of a child’s best interests. Disrupting existing attachments in favor of an “optimal” solution should be pursued with extreme caution (pp. 25-26).

Safe, continuous, good-enough care can be actively supported. Many studies and meta-analyses demonstrate effective interventions that improve caregiving quality. Many of these interventions are limited in time, typically lasting just 6 to 10 sessions (p. 26).

To this end, it is important to assess a caregiver’s potential to provide good enough care with sufficient support, not just the caregiver’s actual caregiving. The assessment also needs to consider a future time, if a current extreme state of distress diminishes the caregiver’s current ability (e.g., fear of loss of custody). Also, any particular intervention does not suit every caregiver, so alternatives should be made available (p. 32).

In families where roles were different prior to the separation, it is important to give the less experienced caregiver the opportunity to develop the ability to provide a safe haven (p. 12).

Bowlby put it this way in 1951: “Just as children are absolutely dependent on their parents for sustenance, so … are parents … dependent on greater society for economic provision. If a community values its children it must cherish their parents” (p. 28).

“The reality is that children form attachment relationships with multiple caregivers simultaneously.”

Principle 3: Maintain a child’s existing safe havens if they don’t pose a threat.

A decision to maintain a child’s existing safe havens does not provide a blueprint for allocating time in shared care arrangements. Time must be sufficient for attachment relationships to be developed and maintained (p. 28).

This principle can also apply to foster care, where relationships with biological parents can be maintained during fostering. Similarly, relationships with foster carers can maintained after foster care (p. 29).

In addition, grandparents, step-parents, siblings, and extended family members can often provide a safe haven for children (p. 29).

Photo: Frank Mckenna. Unsplash.

4. Eight pieces of advice for family courts

1. Do not equate attachment quality with caregiver sensitivity.

Caregiver sensitivity – the ability to notice a child’s signals, interpret them correctly, and respond to them appropriately and in a timely way – is, of course, important and correlates with attachment. However, gender norms can influence how care is expressed, and measures of safe haven and caregiver sensitivity may be shaped by gendered assumptions about caregiving (pp. 8-9). For example, sensitive caregiving in mothers predicts secure attachment more than it does in fathers, suggesting that other factors play a greater role in father-child attachment.

2. Do not equate attachment quality with relationship quality.

Relationships are made up of more than attachment alone. Other factors, such as basic physical care, play, supervision, teaching/learning, setting standards for conduct, and discipline, are also important (p. 9).

3. Do not interpret one-off behaviors of children as reliably indicating attachment quality.

Children’s behaviors depend on context. Attachment is measured in very controlled contexts. A very frightened child behaves differently than a less frightened child. A child in a highchair may cry in response to a threatening noise, but not cry if he or she is free to move to the caregiver. Children’s behaviors are also a function of their individual temperaments (p. 9).

4. The Tender Years Doctrine is wrong.

The Tender Years Doctrine holds that custody automatically goes to the mother for children under a certain “tender” age. While this concept has been formally replaced in most countries by standards related to the best interests of the child, it remains influential (p. 13). In Israel, it remains the policy: custody automatically goes to the mother for children under the age of six. The researchers state: “We are in full consensus that the ultimate establishment of a network of attachment relationships is generally a protective factor in the long term and thus a desirable outcome in child development. We are also in full agreement that losses of and permanent separations from attachment figure are in themselves risk factors that should be prevented wherever possible in child development.” (p.13)

5. Overnight care with a second parent is not inherently harmful for children.

In the 1990s, researchers concluded that co-parenting arrangements that included overnight visits to the co-parent were associated with insecurity in a child’s attachment with the resident parent (Solomon & George, 1999). However, the data presented in the study actually showed that parental conflict, not overnight stays, was  the problem. The inaccurate conclusion of this study has been quoted frequently to defend a position that is not supported by this or other evidence (p. 13).

The key question regarding decisions about overnight stays is whether the child experiences a safe haven with each caregiver. Of course, having a secure attachment does not preclude a child being unsettled for a time by unfamiliarity with, say, a new home. Also, the application of Principle 2 (safe, continuous, “good enough” care is in the child’s best interest and caregivers should be helped to provide it) requires attention to actively enabling the caregiver to develop a safe haven over time (p. 14).

“It is important to assess a caregiver’s potential to provide good enough care with sufficient support, not just the caregiver’s actual caregiving.”

6. Addressing and reducing conflict is key.

Inter-parental conflict and hostility undermine a parent’s own caring competencies and ability to let the other parent provide care. Interventions to reduce parental conflict are important (pp. 14-15).

If courts are clear about their decisions regarding custody and time allocation, they can increase parents’ capacity to overcome conflict. Similarly, if courts are clear about their commitment to the three principles outlined earlier, caregivers’ anxiety can be reduced and their motivation for cooperation increased (p. 33).

7. Ensure that family court professionals are adequately trained in attachment assessment.

While attachment theory is typically a mandatory part of professionals’ training, specialist training in assessing attachment quality is not. This can lead to attachment theory being either under-estimated or used with over-confidence. If assessments of attachment are used, they must be performed by formally trained observers (pp. 23, 31).

8. Take evidence directly from experts, not via representing parties.

Appeals to attachment in family courts would be less partial, more balanced, and more aligned with convergent evidence if courts called in experts, rather than the representing parties (p. 23).

The post How to apply attachment theory in family courts: The world’s leading experts weigh in appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Research from 16,652 individuals shows that divorce affects not only children’s ability to earn but reduces their wealth by 46% on average.

People in Australia who experience the divorce or separation of their parents during childhood accumulate 46% less net wealth, on average, than do people whose parents do not separate when they are children.

Wealth is defined as the net difference of all assets and debts. Assets include real estate, business assets, financial assets, savings, life insurances, private pension savings, cash, vehicles and other durables, and collectibles such as art. Debts include mortgages, loans, business debts, credit card debt and overdue bills.

Other studies have found links between experiencing parental separation during childhood and adult earning, but earnings are only a part of wealth. Wealth brings real and psychological safety nets in a way that income alone does not. Wealth, like health, represents the cumulative impact of many factors over time.

The research used data on 16,652 individuals from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey (HILDA, 2001-2014).

The timing of the parental separation – whether it occurred when the child was zero to five years old or six to 14 years old – made little difference to later wealth.

The researchers went on to examine what pathways may explain the association between childhood experience of parental separation and lower adult wealth.

They found that 21% of the link can be attributed to something rarely measured before in research on the impact of parental separation on children: a shorter ‘financial planning horizon’, which is how far into the future the individuals plan for their financial savings. A possible explanation of this link is that parental separation increases uncertainty for children, leading them to put higher value on the present and near future than on the far future. Other research has shown that people who think longer-term tend to save more money.

Another 20% of the link can be attributed to lower educational achievement, measured by the number of years of education completed. There are multiple ways that parental separation may disrupt education. It can reduce economic resources for the family; having less wealth means parents taking less risk with educational options for their children; and less consistent parenting may disrupt education as well.

A further 10% of the link can be attributed to more unstable family structures in adulthood for those who have experienced the separation of their parents in childhood. The measures used in this research were ‘how many years in a first marriage?’ and ‘how many co-residential and married partners?’ A strong link between family stability in adulthood and experience of parental separation in childhood has been found in other research. Family instability hampers wealth accumulationy. Also, children who have experienced the divorce of their parents are less likely to get married in the first place, and wealth accumulation is lower in cohabiting families than in married ones.

One thing the researchers predicted, but which did not show up in the statistics, was a link between less wealth and reduced wealth transfers from separated parents compared to married parents. Separation reduces parents’ wealth, leaving them less wealth to pass on to their children. Separation may lead to weaker parent-child bonds, particularly with fathers, which may also lead to less transfer of wealth, as well as less financial advice. But this pathway was not demonstrated in the research. It could be that when children move into blended families, new wealth transfers take place from nonbiological parents.

Unsurprisingly, the researchers found a link between reduced wealth and less income, accounting for 17% of the link between childhood experience of separation and adult wealth.

In Australia, about one-third of marriages end in divorce. Separations between cohabiting parents are more frequent.

Another study from the USA, in 2019, found an even bigger differential in wealth between adults who had experienced parental separation in childhood and those who had not. Perhaps the bigger difference in the USA is explained by the fact that less support is available for separating families than in Australia.

The post How divorce affects children’s future wealth, not just ability to earn appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Research shows that the quality of the parenting of both parents the child lives with influences joint custody outcomes – higher quality parenting is associated with fewer child problems.

Two recent studies from Arizona State University recommend that when considering joint custody, family courts should carefully consider the quality of parenting of both the mother and the father, including in high-conflict situations.

The research shows that the quality of the care provided by each parent influences child development; specifically higher-quality parenting is associated with fewer behavioral and mood problems on the part of the child. Moreover, parenting quality is not fixed: more parenting time may be linked to higher parenting quality. These findings were consistent in both high-conflict and lower-conflict situations.

The findings contradict the idea that in high-conflict situations, joint custody automatically leads to worse outcomes by exposing the child to more conflict.

Earlier research on joint custody has confirmed repeatedly that children do better when post-divorce parenting is of better quality, whether on the part of the mother or the father. Comparing the experiences of children in different families, the new studies found that the combination of more parenting time and lower-quality parenting produced poorer results, and that less time with such parents—whether they were mothers or fathers—was associated with better outcomes.

This issue is significant. In the first study, involving 472 mothers and 353 fathers (all from different families), 34% of the mothers and 18% of the fathers were in the more-time, lower-quality-parenting category, the category associated with the lowest child outcomes.

The second study producing more findings of direct interest to family courts determining joint custody arrangements. For example, in high-conflict cases, the quality of the father’s parenting is generally higher if he spends more time with the child—but only until he reaches around 12 days per month with the child, after which this relation no longer holds true. Meanwhile, if the child spends more than about 10 days per month with the father, the quality of the mother’s parenting starts to fall. That means there is an optimum point: around 33%-40% of the time with one parent and the rest with the other.

This study also produced a warning for joint custody parents who draw their children into the middle of covert conflicts (for example, making disparaging comments about the other parent, or making the child carry messages). If either parent does this, the child rates that parent’s parenting quality lower and the other’s parenting quality higher.

The first research project took place in 2015-16 in Arizona, with a sample of parents diverse in ethnicity and education who were not involved with child protective services. Four things were measured:

• Parenting time: parents were asked how often in the past 30 days they had spent two or more hours with the child when both were awake, and how many overnight stays the child had in their home.
• Parental conflict
• Parenting quality: this was assessed through four measures – acceptance/rejection of the child, consistency of discipline, quality of communication with the child, and maintenance of family routines.
• Child outcomes: parents were asked about behavioral problems (externalising) and the mood problems (internalising).

The second research project involved 141 9- to 18-year-old children who were experiencing high-conflict divorce, accessed through a family court program for high-conflict separating parents. Similar things were measured:

• Parenting time: number of overnight stays with father in last 30 days.
• Parental conflict: this was measured in two ways: the frequency and intensity of overt conflict and the extent to which the child felt caught in the middle of more covert conflict.
• Parenting quality: the child was asked to assess discipline, acceptance and how much they felt they mattered to their mother/father.
• Child outcomes: for this measure of behaviour and mood problems (externalising/internalising), parental reports were also sought.

These studies provide valuable new evidence that family courts can use when dealing with high-conflict divorce and separation and determining joint custody arrangements.

The post Joint custody decisions should be based on assessment of quality of parenting of mother and father appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Finding the coping mechanisms make a difference to long-term outcomes, a team of researchers recommends targeted programs for children of divorce, focusing on coping mechanisms, particularly in high conflict situations.

A study of children of divorce has found that differences in children’s coping styles during the first three years after the divorce predict the degree to which they experience mood/anxiety problems (“internalising”) and behaviour problems such as delinquency (“externalising”) when these are measured six years later. On this basis, the researchers recommend that children of divorce should be given specific support with coping techniques, particularly those in high-conflict situations.

The study identified three different types of coping mechanism among 240 children of divorce, assessed by means of checklists that the children were asked to complete five times over six years:

• Problem-focused coping – e.g., “tried to make things better by changing what you did.” This measure also covered a thoughtful approach to working around problems
• Cognitive restructuring coping – e.g., “told yourself that it would be OK.”
• Avoidant coping – e.g., “tried to stay away from things that upset you.”

Also measured was ‘coping efficacy’ – e.g., “how well do you think that the things you did during the last month worked to make the situation better?”

Children of divorce who were exposed to high levels of conflict over the first year of the study and also demonstrated a problem-focused approach to coping were less likely to exhibit internalising problems six years later. Across the entire sample, children who demonstrated a cognitive restructuring approach and who reported high efficacy in coping with divorce were less likely to display both internalising and externalising problems. Young people in this group who were exposed to high and continuing parental conflict over the six years were less likely to have used marijuana, suggesting that a strong coping mechanism is particularly important for children of divorce with high conflict.

The researchers examined the trajectories of exposure to conflict for the 240 children of divorce and discerned three groups:

• Low conflict at the start, decreasing during the first year and stable thereafter (“low decreasing”) – 62% of the children
• High conflict at the start and decreasing throughout the first year to the same low level as the previous group (“high decreasing”) – 30% of the children
• High conflict during the first year and getting worse over the following five years (“high increasing”) – 9% of the children

Children in the high conflict groups exhibited more internalising and externalising problems than the other children, more marijuana use (measured at six years), more sexual partners (measured at six years) and more mental disorders (also measured at six years).

The children of divorce in the sample were all nine to 12 years old and had experienced the separation of their parents in the previous two years. Measurements of coping were taken five times, four in the first year and once five years later. The measures of parental conflict, approach to coping, mental health, substance abuse and sexual partners were all taken through asking the children directly. For measures of mental health, mothers were also asked.

In the USA, 30% to 40% of children have experienced the separation of their parents by the age of 15. Whilst the large majority of children of divorce do not develop long-lasting problems, some experience a wide range of difficulties, including mental disorders, substance abuse and academic underachievement. Exposure to high conflict is known to be a risk factor for later problems, and in this sample a substantial minority of the young people – 39% –  were exposed to high conflict.

In the light of the prevalence of exposure to high conflict and the results of this research, the team of researchers recommends targeted programs for children of divorce, focusing on coping mechanisms, particularly in high-conflict situations.

The post Specific support with coping is needed for children of divorce, particularly in high-conflict situations appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Male violence exceeds female violence by a very significant margin. The origins of this lie in early childhood development, with the first differences appearing in preschool.

Two researchers in the USA, Paul Golding and Hiram E Fitzgerald, have identified three areas that influence male violence during early childhood development: (1) early relationships with caregivers, (2) biological differences between boys and girls, and (3) growing economic and social inequalities among families in the USA, particularly the growing number of single-parent families.

Male violence exceeds female violence by a large margin. Starting in preschool, boys in the USA are more likely to be disciplined and suspended for behavior problems. By adolescence, boys are four times more likely than girls to be arrested for violent crime. In adulthood, male violent crime is four times more common than female violent crime. And men are seven times more likely to commit serious violent crimes, such as murder, rape and robbery. Among major ethnic groups in the USA, only Asian Americans display little difference between male violence and female violence.

Early caregiving and the emergence of male violence

Research has shown that certain deficits in early caregiving are linked to worse outcomes for boys than for girls. For example, sons of depressed mothers score lower than daughters on measures of attachment at 18 months of age. Similarly, sons who experience maternal insensitivity are more likely to display poorer executive function and more behavioral problems in primary school than girls who experience the same deficit at home.

Similar differences appear in measures of fathers’ sensitivity. For example, when fathers fail to exercise dominance during rough-and-tumble play (that is, establishing limits so that the child feels safe), boys are more likely than girls to show aggression and poor control of emotions five years later.

But the question remains: Why are boys more affected by these caregiving deficits than girls are? The authors propose that the slower maturation of boys during infancy expands the scope for stress in the social environment to have a negative impact on their development. Girls are protected to an extent by their more rapid development in early childhood.

Biological and neurobiological factors

In addition to slower development, other biological differences between boys and girls could be linked to differences in the development of male and female violence.

• Boys are more likely to have lower resting heart rates than girls, on average. Lower resting heart rates in children are associated with uncomfortable mood states, seeking stimulation, and antisocial behavior.
• Boys are more likely to have the MAOA-L gene. This gene, when combined with abusive or neglectful caregiving in early childhood, is associated with impulsive physical aggression later in life.
• Boys are exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the prenatal and perinatal periods of development and also starting in adolescence. Children’s exposure to testosterone is associated with less empathy and more aggression.
• Differences in the neurobiology of boys and girls at birth are now being studied to see whether they may point to differential vulnerability to problems in early childhood development.

Social and cultural environment

Golding and Fitzgerald consider the expanding social, economic and racial inequalities in the USA to be a critical factor in increasing the risk of male violence.

The rise of single motherhood (4% of births in the 1950s, 35% 60 years later) is one factor. Single parenthood is associated with a wide range of pressures, for example, fewer economic resources, exposure to discrimination, more likelihood of exposure to conflict, and more mental health problems. All these incur risks for a mother’s ability to care for her children, to which, as described above, boys are more susceptible.

The absence of fathers in children’s lives is linked to developmental problems in both boys and girls, but the nature of the problems are different: boys are more likely to show behavior and social problems (externalising), while girls are more likely to show anxiety and depressive problems (internalising). This differential response manifests as more aggression among boys.

Studies have shown that growing up in poor, single-parent families has differential impacts on boys and girls . Boys from such families are less likely to be employed in their 20s than are girls from the same families. Boys from these families are more likely than girls to exhibit antisocial behavior such as low self-control and delinquency.

In the coming months, the Child & Family Blog will run a series of research updates that expand on the emergence of male violence, based on a collection of research articles published this year in the Infant Mental Health Journal.

The post Male violence: early childhood development predictors appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

For every level of trauma children of divorce report, how they cope in the rest of their lives is likely to be less if they have low self-esteem.

According to a new study, one key factor influences how well or how badly children respond to the trauma of divorce: self-esteem. For every level of trauma children of divorce report, children with low self-esteem are likely to exhibit poorer ‘adjustment’ (coping) in the rest of their lives.

The study in the Netherlands examined 142 six- to 18-year-old children of divorce who had experienced high conflict between their parents. In addition to self-esteem, the researchers looked at three other things that may influence how children cope with trauma: the level of parental conflict, the length of time since the divorce, and the degree to which the child felt informed and in control. These other factors did not, at least on average, seem to make a big difference to how well the children coped with trauma. Similarly, the only factor that the the study measured differently in boys and girls was the children’s level of self-esteem: girls had less of it.

The researchers recommend paying particular attention to supporting a sense of empowerment and self-esteem among children of divorce as a way to foster resilience in the face of trauma, especially among girls.

The researchers recruited children of divorce from a high-conflict family support programme, No Kids in the Middle. Through questionnaires, they measured the children’s assessment of five things: (1) how they are coping (e.g., “Have you felt fit and well?”, “Have you had fun with your friends?”), (2) the level of trauma they experienced, (3) the level of their parents’ conflict, (4) their self-esteem and (5) their feeling of being in control.

The researchers found that children reported high levels of coping (the measures were not that different from children who had not experienced divorce at all) at the same time as they reported high levels of trauma. Higher parental conflict was linked to more trauma, and more trauma was linked to lower self-esteem and worse coping. These correlations have also been found in earlier research– common risk factors for poor coping include moving to a new home, changing schools, etc. But the link is far from absolute, and exploring why children of divorce respond to trauma in such different ways yields insights that can guide the design of support services for children of divorce.

Children are active agents in their own coping, and self-esteem is a key component of this agency. Earlier research shows that children with higher self-esteem tend to attract more positive responses and support from others. Children of divorce don’t just have lives within their families, but draw support from other domains – wider family, friendships, school. Positive experiences in these other domains can carry a child through trauma at home.

Forty percent of first-time marriages in the Netherlands end in divorce, and 50% of these couples have children. Around 20% of divorces are classified as high conflict – that is, they involve long-lasting conflict, hostility, criticism, inability to take responsibility and lack of understanding of the effects of parental behaviour on children.

No Kids in the Middle is a bi-weekly group programme for parents and children of divorce where high conflict is involved. Parents and children start together in one group and then divide into parent and child groups for eight further sessions. For the study, both parents had to give permission, and consent was required from children who were 12 years old or more.

The post Children of divorce: the key role of self-esteem in recovering from the trauma appeared first on Child and Family Blog.