Beyond the manufactured arguments about the label and theory of parental alienation, the reality of how children are emotionally and psychologically abused after family separation is becoming increasingly clear. In the UK, where the Judiciary continue to demonstrate their understanding of the complexities which lie beneath the label ‘parental alienation’, there is increasing clarity in public judgments which show that child protection is the primary goal in the family courts. Also clearly shown, is the judicial committment to publishing judgments which give full details of the psychological and psychiatric realities of what lies beneath a child’s alignment and rejection behaviour. Without ever needing to use the label or theory of parental alienation, the work of protecting children who are hamred by a parent in divorce or separation continues.
In a recent fact finding hearing, the details of the impact of disorganised attachment in two children were laid bare, giving a clear depiction of why the underlying harms which are caused in cases where children align with one parent and reject the other, are necessary to identify and understand. This is incredibly helpful to anyone with an interest in this child protection issue because –
a) it directly counters the promulgation of the narrative that all cases of children’s alignment and rejection are false claims designed to defend against allegations of domestic abuse
and
b) it sets out in great detail the way in which the psychological evidence of the harm being caused to children must be properly applied and understood.
The case I refer to has crossed the welfare threshold, which in England and Wales means that the concern for the children is such that the Local Authority is involved which means that it has moved from private law to public law. In my experience, many of the cases of children’s alignment and rejection are properly placed within public law because these are not about the contact relationship between a child and parents but about the need for child protection due to harm being caused by the parent to whom the child is aligned. In this case, the harm being caused is identified by a team of professionals from Great Ormond Street Hospital in addition to social workers from the Local Authority.
‘The commentary included in this judgment is comprehensive and taken from the evidence given by the court appointed professionals. The clear description of the underlying patterns of behaviour which causes children to align with an abusive caregiver and reject a healthy one, are useful to help the outside world to understand the reality of these cases.
At point 62 of the judgment is set out the following description of the projection onto the children of this mother’s unresolved trauma and mental health needs.
Most of the professionals working with the family have now met and we share concerns about Mum projecting her own trauma and mental health needs onto the girls, This concern, combined with her telling different stories depending on the agency she is talking to, increases our worries about the girls’ safety, in relation to any genuine mental health needs (or the risk of their mental health deteriorating), school attendance and engagement with both lessons in school and support agencies. We are also concerned that the breadth of referrals Mum has made is a technique to maintain disguised compliance with actions the various agencies have asked her to attempt, in order to help her own children. We suspect that there is a risk of emotional abuse and neglect arising out of mum’s own mental health needs not being fully met, including her self-diagnoses of the children. We are particularly concerned at Mum’s repeated requests to agencies that Sasha should be hospitalised, as an indicator that she wants social care and support agencies to take the steps required to address her older daughter’s needs and that this pattern will be repeated with Tara as she approaches adolescence.’
At point 63, the impact on the children and the mother’s control of them, is described clearly.
Sasha is not being educated. Mum continually self-diagnoses both her children. Tara has stated her mum told her she is depressed. Mum sends an unprecedented amount of emails which list one or both of her children having PTSD, autism, complex trauma, selective mutism amongst other issues and stated her eldest child needs inpatient mental health care. Neither the school or myself have been provided with any paperwork to support these statements. …. During sessions mum has remained either in the room and the children have seemed very restricted and unable to answer basic questions.’
‘We understand Sasha’s presentation to be a psychological response to an experience of early childhood instability and conflict, changes in caregivers and experience of neglect by her mother, in comparison to the better care provided to her sister. [the mother] has been preoccupied with Sasha’s physical and mental health, perceiving Sasha to have numerous things wrong with her. Sasha has internalised this sense of herself as odd, different and defective. This has had a profound impact on her self-esteem and ability to cope in society.
The findings in this case include –
Sasha has been exposed to emotional abuse and neglect. … Sasha’s experiences include:
- Emotional unavailability and neglect: [the mother] has been unable or unavailable to respond to the Sasha’s emotional needs.
- Negative attributions and misattributions to the child: describing Sasha as narcissistic, a ‘bitch’, blaming her for the family’s problems and exposing Sasha to over-assessment, in search of labels to explain Sasha’s distress. Sasha appears to believe in these negative attributions, believing herself to be faulty, or problematic.
- Developmentally inappropriate or inconsistent interactions with the child: this includes limitation of exploration and learning (for example failure to promote friendships and schooling) and exposure to confusing or traumatic events and interactions.
- Failure to recognise or acknowledge the child’s individuality and psychological boundary: inability to distinguish between the child’s reality and the adult’s beliefs e.g., a belief that there was something ‘wrong’ with Sasha.
- Failing to promote the child’s social adaptation: promoting mis-socialisation (into believing that she has multiple diagnoses), psychological neglect (failure to provide adequate cognitive stimulation and/or opportunities for experiential learning). This category contains both omission and commission, including isolating children.
The findings in the case are extensive and demonstrate that when children are harmed in this way there are psychological and psychiatric concerns. An example of this are findings 3/4
Findings 3 and 4
[The mother] has over-medicalised Sasha’s behavioural difficulties by seeking a variety of referrals / diagnoses. [The mother] has told professionals that Sasha has diagnoses/problems for:
PTSD
ADHD
Sensory processing disorder
Selective mutism
Eating disorder
Learning disabilities
An undiagnosed syndrome
Lactose intolerance
Food allergies
Dyslexia / Dyspraxia
Autistic symptom of intolerance to noise
ASD with element of OCD
A new allergy growing every day
Dyscalculia
Sasha does not have any of these conditions.
[The mother] has asked for referrals to:
Occupational therapist
sleep specialist
allergy specialist
[The mother] has made a number of requests for Sasha to be admitted to an inpatient psychiatric facility]
In my experience these issues are familiar in the severe cases where children align with an abusive caregiver and reject the other, the underlying problem being the mental health profile of the parent to whom the child is aligned.
This judgment is from a fact finding hearing. At no point in the judgment is there a focus on the use by the children’s father of allegations of parental alienation to defend against allegations of domestic abuse. Whilst domestic abuse was claimed by the mother, particularly in relation to the father’s concern about his children’s wellbeing, this was not upheld by the Court and it did not prevent the deeper investigation which was necessary.
The findings which are made in the judgment are extensive and extraordinary and describe a wealth of psychological and psychiatric issues of concern in the mother. This is the reason why judgments of this nature are so valuable, they illuminate the reality of the risks to children when a parent is harming them and it enables an understanding of just how far away from the misleading campaign narratives, this problem for children really is.
In all I counted over fifty psychological or psychiatric issues of concern in this judgment, all of which relate to the mother’s mental health and her control of the children and projection onto them of her own unresolved trauma. Further findings for example, show the impact on the younger child of parentification, where she is described as being competent beyond her years and unusually self reliant. The descriptions of the attachment disorders involved in such a case are clear and the neglect aspect in terms of not having her needs met by her mother is the conclusion.
Finding 11: Tara has suffered significant emotional harm and neglect whilst in the care of [the mother].
Finding 12: Due to the care received by [the mother], Tara:
- presents with a predominantly anxious-avoidant style of attachment alongside features of disorganisation;
- She presents as competent far beyond her years; and
- she is, unusually, highly self-reliant.
Further, Tara:
- Has not had her needs met by her mother
Whatever we call it the problem remains the same
Whatever we call the problem of children’s alignment and rejection in divorce and separation, the problem for children remains the same, they are vulnerable to this childhood relational trauma and vulnerable to having their experience of childhood overshadowed by a controlling parent or the mental health profile of a parent or both. Whilst the campaign to eradicate the use of the label parental alienation continues, supported by MPs and even the Association of Clinical Psychologists who appear to have swallowed whole the manufactured arguments around this issue, those who understand what lies beneath the problem of children’s alignment and rejection behaviour are simply getting on with the work to protect children. And thank goodness they are because judgments like this show beyond doubt, that in the face of the constant efforts to cover up this child abuse, this work to protect children must continue and those who understand what lies beneath must continue to speak up about it.
Hearing the Voices of Formerly Alienated Children
Our project with formerly alienated children who are now adults will shortly begin to deliver outputs and we are looking forward to launching something very new for children and young people at risk of this form of harm in 2024. We will shortly be holding a private seminar in the Palace of Westminster to inform MPs and policy makers about the harm suffered by children in divorce and separation and I will write more about that after the event.
Therapeutic Parenting for Children of Divorce and Separation
Our learning and study resources for parents of children with disorganised attachments are currently in development and in December we will be launching the full range of online courses and groups which will be available to you for the Winter Term 2024. We will also publish details of the Therapeutic Parenting Intensives to be held in the USA/Canada, UK/Europe and Australia/New Zealand in 2024/5. This area of work is a major focus for us currently and will continue to develop over the coming years to provide for families affected by children’s alignment and rejecting behaviour, a comprehensive support service which enables parents themselves to support their children to recover from the harm they have suffered.
Therapeutic Parenting Newsletter
You can keep up to date with all of the information about our courses and resources plus learn more about trauma responsive caregiving for children of divorce/separation via our newsletter. If you would like to receive this please email me at karen@karenwoodall.blog and put the words ADD ME in the subject line. The next newsletter will go out in early December and will contain all of the new courses and groups for January to March 2024.
Social Work Training Pathways in UK and Europe
We continue to partner with Local Authorities in the UK and with Social Work Teams in European countries to deliver therapeutic interventions to children who have been harmed by a parent in family separation. Evaluation of this work continues and will provide an evidence based model for statutory services in treatment of the problem of children’s alignment and rejection behaviours.
Listening Circles 2023
Our final listening circles for 2023 are on December 5th and December 12th and you can book here
Lighthouse Keeping for Christmas – A Free Circle for Families Affected by the Trauma of Rejection – December 19th at 18:00 hrs GMT
On 19th December I will be holding a special circle for all families affected by a child’s alignment and rejection behaviour in which I will discuss the ways in which children experience Christmas and other special days without you and how if you keep the beam shining bright, Lighthouse Keeping provides a path for them to return to you. Based upon five years of working with families outside of the court system using Structural Therapy, I will share with you the importance of continuing to be there for your children even in the silence and how shining a light into the void, provides hope for children, who like the children in the judgment above, are neglected and abused.
If you would like to join this complimentary circle, please email karen@karenwoodall.blog and put the words LIGHTHOUSE KEEPING CIRCLE in the subject line.
Karen Woodall - Psychotherapist, Writer, Researcher, Trainer 
OMG is almost seems like Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome!
LikeLike
I agrre it is factitious illness Bob
LikeLike
The Ideological Subversion in the Social Cultural Context and the Influence of the Defense Mechanism: Shifting the Balance of Power by Disrupting the Social Script.
The Ideological Subversion [1] Demoralization [2] Destabilization [3] Create a Crisis [4] Normalization
Stage 1 – Demoralization: Defensive behavior comes at the cost of healthy reality testing.
DIALOGUE: Between [A] & [B]
[A] Speaks about any topic, [B] experiences stress due to an inner conflict, causing [B] to act on autopilot with survival mechanisms, react defensively with defense mechanisms at the expense of the healthy (minor distorted / major distorted / extreme distorted to the point of delusional) reality testing.
[A] notes that that information is incorrect, so [B] appeals to that distorted reality. As a result, [B] again experiences stress from this inner conflict, causing [B] to again act on autopilot with survival mechanisms, again reacting defensively with defense mechanisms, which is again at the expense of the healthy (minor distorted / major distorted / extreme distorted to the point of delusional) reality testing.
What’s the real problem here?
[B] has no problem with [A], but in general [B] has a problem himself, because he does not have a healthy reality assessment, which means there is no support for reality. The truth and reality cause inner conflicts, but how [B] deals with the inner conflicts [B] itself causes inner conflicts again on autopilot, by distorting reality again.
It doesn’t matter with whom [B] is in conflict or having a discussion, because [B] is himself in conflict with reality, so anyone who has a healthy reality check or uses problem-oriented coping mechanisms will cause inner conflicts by default at [B].
Domination, aggression, demoralization, and the disruption of the social script.
When [B] pushes his/her opinion with the aim that [A] must distance himself from his/her own perception (inner experience, authentic feelings and emotions, healthy reality testing, personal opinion, personal boundaries, freedom of choice, equality, reciprocity) the autonomy of [A] not accepted by [B].
When [B] structurally relies on [A] on autopilot for his/her opinion, this is harmful behavior, because in this way [B] is breaking the morale of [A] with the chance that [A] will go or doubt his own perception and breaks the moral of wanting to have one’s own opinion at all, just to prevent a discussion from quickly turning into a conflict that can escalate over time.
If [A] has conflicting thoughts and feelings for a long time, cognitive dissonance will occur, but in most cases these feelings are smoothed out by (structural) dissociation, where the side effects (depersonalization, derealization, amnesia, demoralization) can form chronic forms. all at the expense of one’s own social-emotional skills.
Stage 2 – Destabilization: Allostatic-load, double binds, transference & countertransference.
Window of Tolerance (Fight, Flight, Freeze, Fawn)
The Fight Response: People provide resistance to disrespectful transgressive behavior in order to prevent further problems (negative tensions and emotions such as fear, stress, irritation, frustration, injustice, powerlessness, powerlessness, anger, aggression) in the relationship, family or understanding in the future.
The Flight Response: People leave the area when emotions start to run high to prevent the entire situation from getting out of hand.
The Freeze Response: One is in the mental state of dissociation at times when the other unexpectedly has a cloudburst or outburst of anger, it is an automatic reaction / survival mechanisms in the event of a shock and can be compared to a moment of mental bewilderment.
The Fawn Response: One places oneself in a subordinate slave position (distances oneself from: authentic feelings and emotions; healthy testing of reality; mentalizing capacity; personal perception, inner experience, boundaries, rights, own opinion, freedom of choice, equality, reciprocity, or autonomy) because the another determines what should be done and how it should be done, does everything (without resistance) that is ordered to prevent stress, escalation or punishment (never a one-off because it is mercilessly revisited daily for weeks and even months).
General Adaptation Syndrome (Hans Selye)
As early as 1936, the endocrinologist Hans Selye placed rats in different physical and psychological situations and examined how they responded. The rats showed a strong reaction of the body, namely enlarged adrenal glands, atrophy of the thymus and stomach ulcers.
The adrenal glands produce important hormones; the thymus is, among other things, the nursery for T lymphocytes. Selye called this reaction the ‘general adaptation syndrome’. This response was not specific to one drug, but occurred after many different stimuli. Selye described the phases in this syndrome.[3]
“Because Bastiaans is often missing from current literature, I would still like to refer to the four phases of Selyes General Adaption Syndrome (GAS) (Bastiaans, 1986) [5] that he describes. The physiologist Selye described the typical stress reactions in 1936.
First – shock phase: Bastiaans indicates in extreme situations there is a shutdown of consciousness. Depersonalization, self-alienation and a kind of self-paralysis can arise. In addition, if consciousness has not yet been completely extinguished, extreme powerlessness predominates, causing some people to remain fixated in the powerlessness experience for the rest of their lives.
We can also state here that the central mechanism in complex post-traumatic disorders is dissociation. This mechanism acts as a defense strategy against overwhelming experiences (Herman, 1992) [6]. At that moment, the cognitive I consciousness (the consciousness we normally work with) can no longer cope with the situation and a regression, going back, takes place to our internal basic I self that is connected to a collective energy (Rump, 2014) [7].
Second – alarm phase or counter-shock phase: a state of inner alarm with all the manifestations of “arousal”. This is accompanied by all kinds of symptoms such as extreme nervousness, anxiety, insomnia, restlessness and everything that comes with hyperaesthetic emotional syndrome, an oversensitivity to sensory and emotional stimuli. The built-in alarm equipment is activated. Normally, fear, pain, guilt and shame are a warning signal to activate the organism to find a solution. If a person no longer picks up these signals, only the threat is experienced and he can remain fixed in the experience of these feelings and the associated behavioral patterns for the rest of his life. Then that person remains, in fearful pain, guilty, or permanently ashamed. Here we see the development of symptoms that are not described in PTSD but do occur in complex PTSD.
Third – adaptation phase: in which the person and organism try to find a solution. Basic principles here are “fight” or “flight”. This depends on whether the person has a stronger neurotic or psychotic organization (Rump, 2003) [8]. In “fight” anger and aggression dominate. With “flight” a withdrawal occurs, such as chronic depression, apathy, or emotional poverty. In this third phase, fatigue begins to play a role and nightmares arise.
Fourth – exhaustion phase: where no resistance can be offered anymore.
We can connect this with the four groups of symptoms that the Dutch Psychiatric Association mentions in the overview. post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – diagnosis.”
⦁ Rump, H. a. J. (2017). Opgeslagen beleving van trauma. Trauma & Ontwikkeling. https://www.jungiaansinstituut.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Opgeslagen-beleving-van-trauma1.pdf
Psychoneuroendocrinology: Allostatic-load & Allostatic-overload
Fava, G. A., McEwen, B. S., Guidi, J., Gostoli, S., Offidani, E., & Sonino, N. (2019). Clinical characterization of allostatic overload. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 108, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.05.028 | Download: https://www.well-being-therapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/50.-Fava-et-al.-2019-Clinical-characterization-of-allostatic-overload-1.pdf
Clinical criteria for allostatic overload (A through B are required).
Criterion A The presence of a current identifiable source of distress in the form of recent life events and/or chronic stress; the stressor is judged to tax or exceed the individual coping skills when its full nature and full circumstances are evaluated
Criterion B The stressor is associated with one or more of the following features, which have occurred within 6 months after the onset of the stressor:
1. at least two of the following symptoms: difficulty falling asleep, restless sleep, early morning awakening, lack of energy, dizziness, generalized anxiety, irritability, sadness, demoralization
2. significant impairment in social or occupational functioning
3. significant impairment in environmental mastery (feeling overwhelmed by the demands of everyday life)
The Double Bind Theory
Hesni, S. (2023). How To Disrupt A Social Script. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2023.10
ABSTRACT:
Social scripts, like A gives a compliment, B says ‘thank you’, pervade and shape natural language discourse and social interactions. Scripts usually promote cooperation between conversational participants, but not always. For example, if A pays B a ‘compliment’ like ‘nice legs’, A puts B in a double bind of either abiding by the compliment script by saying ‘thank you’ and being humiliated, or breaking the script and risking escalation. In this paper, I take a philosophical lens to the notion of a social script. I give a theoretical overview of what it would mean to disrupt a social script and explain why and when it is prudential to do so. Accordingly, one feature of interpersonal social scripts is that they can be taken advantage of to put a person who is (wittingly or not) participating in the script in a double bind: they must either go along with the script or reject it at the risk of some social cost.
Social scripts pervade and shape natural language discourse and social interactions. To take an everyday example: A pays B a compliment, then B usually says‘thank you’ and perhaps reciprocates. In this sense, compliments are scripted; when one conversational participant says a particular thing in a certain situation, there is a certain expected response.
This might be an insurmountable problem, and future work should examine the relationship between these disruptions, counterscripts, and dominant narratives. If we are feeling optimistic, I think we can conceive of these disruptions as steps toward kicking away an ideological ladder. They are making inroads into a dominant narrative, disrupting one oppressive social script at a time for the sake of progress, with the aim of ultimately subverting them all.
Parent–Infant Communication and the Double Bind Theory of Schizophrenia
The Double Bind Theory of Schizophrenia
A paper was published in 1956 that first became famous, and then infamous, because it focused on the role of the family, and particularly the relationship between mother and child, in providing the foundation for symptoms of schizophrenia later in life. With the rise of medical psychiatry and the emphasis on genetics in the 1960s and 1970s, any attempt to implicate family dynamics in the development of schizophrenia was widely disparaged – as unscientific ‘family blaming’ for an illness which was obviously a ‘brain disease’.
The paper was called Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956) and the theory first presented there was called the double bind. Gregory Bateson was an anthropologist based at Stanford University in California, and was interested in communication and systems theories and in cybernetics. His colleagues were experts in family therapy, hypnosis, and philosophical logic. The paper came out of a multi‐year research project, which involved observations of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and their parents in therapy (separately and together), audio‐ recordings of therapy sessions with schizophrenia patients, and oral and written reports of intensive psychotherapy with schizophrenia patients. In addition, the researchers studied mothers interacting with their disturbed young children, whom they considered to be ‘presumably preschizophrenic’ (p. 262). In the first paragraph, the authors state:
From this theory [of ‘logical types’] and from observations of schizophrenic patients is derived a description, and the necessary conditions for, a situation called the ‘double bind’ – a situation in which no matter what a person does, he ‘can’t win’. It is hypothesized that a person caught in a double bind may develop schizophrenic symptoms. (p. 251)
In essence, the double bind theory claims that a regular pattern of disturbed communication between mother (typically) and child, from infancy on, leads to later disturbed ‘schizophrenic’ thinking and behaviour. The researchers did not think that childhood traumatic experiences (in the usual sense) were to blame for the schizophrenic symptoms, but that ‘characteristic sequential patterns’ of interaction (p. 253), over, and over again, were at fault.
They describe ‘double binds’ as arising from repeated interactions in an intense relationship, such as a parent–child relationship, in which it is ‘vitally important’ that communication be ‘discriminated accurately’, so that there may be an appropriate response (p. 253).
The essential conditions consist of:
1. A primary negative injunction – a punishment or threat of punishment: ‘either the withdrawal of love or the expression of hate or anger – or most devastating – the kind of abandonment that results from the parent’s expression of extreme helplessness’ (p. 253, italics added)
2. A secondary injunction denying the first, usually expressed non‐verbally via posture, gesture, tone of voice, etc.
3. A tertiary injunction prohibiting comment on the contradiction or escape from the relationship. The authors note, however, that a formal prohibition from commenting on the situation might be unnecessary, since the other two levels involve ‘a threat to survival’; further, if the double binds are imposed during infancy, ‘escape is naturally impossible’. (p. 253)
4. Over time, once the person learns to perceive his or her world in double bind terms, only a part of the double bind ‘sequence’ is necessary to ‘precipitate panic or rage’, and thus, schizophrenic symptoms.
DIALOGUE: Between [A] & [B]
Double binds are demoralizing when one is trapped and destabilizing when despair increases.
EXAMPLE 1: [A] wants to discuss a situation with the aim of preventing negative tensions and emotions in the relationship or collaboration in the future, so at the same time he comes up with suggestions [B] responds and thinks that [A] is negative about the course of events business and thereby puts [B] in a negative light and that is disrespectful.
[A] is in a Double Bind: Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t
⦁ [A] is punished for making the situation open for discussion
⦁ If [A] does not discuss the situation, the situation will escalate, which will be punished.
DIALOGUE: Between [A] & [B]
Transference & Countertransference
[B] is only concerned with ventilating the allostatic-load (negative tensions and emotions such as fear, stress, irritation, frustration, injustice, powerlessness, anger, aggression) of an inner conflict, this becomes true because of that survival mechanisms discharge, but the defensive reaction ensures the transfer of these (negative tensions and emotions such as fear, stress, irritation, frustration, injustice, powerlessness, anger, aggression) allostatic charge to [A] in that conversation.
In this way, [A] is burdened with the allostatic-load (negative tensions and emotions such as fear, stress, irritation, frustration, injustice, impotence, powerlessness, anger, aggression) of [B], which not only causes [A] her own stress has to process in that conversation, but also the load of negative tensions and emotions of [B] in that conversation. In this way [B] builds up an allostatic charge on [A] and at the point that [A] starts to express the negative tensions and emotions, [A] is dealt with by [B] but in a way that there is no normal conversation can be had with [A].
Toxic Relationship & Development of Psychotraumatic Injury
In [A] structural dissociation, the allostatic-load of [B] transference & countertransference all peaks of stress emotions are flattened (so these are negative tensions and emotions such as fear, stress, irritation, frustration, injustice, powerlessness, anger, aggression) and not processed, but stored as a psychotraumatic injury, because of this the defense mechanisms that the stressor [B] uses are also linked to that psychotraumatic injury of [A] and therefore automatically a trigger for [A] every time [B] reacts defensively.
Stage 3 – Create a Crisis: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy provokes a conflict to escalate into a disaster.
Handbook of therapeutic storytelling: stories and metaphors in psychotherapy, child and family therapy, medical treatment, coaching and supervision by Stefan Hammel
Attack and defence
This section covers methods for handling one’s own aggression and possible responses to bullying, teasing, physical threats and double bind messages. It also contains strategies that vulnerable people can use for emotional self protection or defence, as well as examples and metaphors for conversations with an individual believed by other group members to be guilty of teasing others, plotting intrigues or sabotaging procedures.
The aim of the stories is to encourage the individual in question to show solidarity with weaker members of the group, or (where applicable) to warn him or her of the possible consequences of his or her actions. It is often useful to assume that all the parties involved are pursuing goals they believe to be beneficial in some way (or which are beneficial without them being aware of this fact), and in most cases these positive intentions can be easily reconstructed by everyone. Realising and recognising that the opposite side is neither crazy, stupid nor evil, but merely pursuing different yet comprehensible goals (albeit with an unsatisfactory outcome) often results in a noticeable reduction of conflict within a group.
In the event that the therapist is working with only one member of a group in a conflict situation, that individual’s resources must be strengthened so that they can defend themselves and attack if necessary. Priority should always be given to deescalating strategies over escalating strategies, but it should not be forgotten that defensive behaviour can in some situations have an escalating effect, while offensive behaviour may have a de-escalating effect. Asymmetric conflict escalation involves one party becoming more aggressive as the other becomes more defensive and vice versa.
Neurophysiological Chess Game:
The fact that [B] causes new inner conflicts on autopilot by constantly distorting reality works to the advantage, because [A] is then structurally burdened with the allostatic load of that transference & countertransference, so the truth does not matter [A] is at the mercy of those negative tensions and emotions (allostatic load) that are transferred in that conversation, so the problem-oriented coping and mentalizing capacity of [A] is its own worst enemy in that conversation, because they cause inner conflicts in [B ] which transfers them back with those dysfunctional coping mechanisms to [A].
[A] is actually in a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of [B], because as long as that conversation/discussion continues, there is no time and space to process the allostatic load, the allostatic load only builds up, to the point that the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so that Self-Fulfilling Prophecy can only be broken by not having a conversation with [B].
Stage 4 – Normalization: The third-party intervention to resolve the conflict.
Child Protective Agency, Police, Court has to intervene so the situation can sattle.
LikeLike
Hi Karen,
I scanned through the judgement and was struck by the nature of some of the mother’s behavior towards her child, some of these were particularly vindictive and pernicious, the phlebotomist situation for example.
In your experience would you say this was an extreme example which would be a “worst case” situation or a “base line” case?
LikeLike
I think it is one of the more extreme cases but it is not isolated by any means. Many of the cases that I have worked in have had this underlying trauma pattern, some have that combined with control strategies. But all alienation cases involve psychopathology to some degree and it is the parent to whom the child is aligned who must be investigated for it because that is where the problem emanates from.
In the less severe reactions in children, the ones where the child is reacting to a parent’s control and the rejected parent has reactive splitting meaning that they are knee jerk reacting to the child’s rejection, there is a different response in the child to that of factitious illness which is what I think this case actually is. Each case is different though and it is only by observing carefully what lies beneath the child’s behaviours (observing their relationships with parents), that conclusions can be drawn and interventions can be made.
LikeLiked by 1 person