In family reunification therapy, court orders are a significant part of the process. When a court orders reunification, it generally signals that the legal determination has been made regarding a child’s best interests. As therapists, we are then retained by the parties to carry out that order.
However, as therapists, our role is to determine whether and how to move forward in a way that promotes healing and minimizes harm. We have the professional responsibility to delay or decline where we determine the risks outweigh benefits. This is particularly important when asked to accept the mandate for reunification therapy in files where the concept of parental alienation has been alleged or deemed a factor.
As clinicians, we are not questioning the court’s judgment but rather fulfilling our own role within that framework. Our responsibility is to ensure that therapy is conducted in a way that supports the long-term well-being of the child(ren), which often means taking a step back to ensure we do no harm.
It is critical for therapists to acknowledge the current controversies surrounding the concept of alienation. Research and practice are divided, and there are legitimate concerns that claims of alienation can be used to obscure or dismiss legitimate instances of domestic violence or emotional abuse.
Even when the concept of alienation has been determined by the court or expert assessment, it is our professional responsibility as therapists to safeguard that any history of violence (in both physical and non-physical forms) and coercion is fully understood and addressed before reunification takes place. Trauma, where present, must also be sufficiently treated before proceeding with therapy. Discomfort is an inherent part of therapeutic growth, but the therapist's role is to ensure that this discomfort serves a healing purpose. When domestic violence, coercion, or trauma has been part of the family dynamic, proceeding with reunification without addressing these issues may lead to significant emotional harm rather than fostering reconciliation.
Therapists have a responsibility to differentiate between necessary discomfort for healing and the risk of retraumatizing or endangering the child or protective parent.
While courts may order reunification therapy, it is ultimately the therapist’s responsibility to determine whether the intervention is appropriate based on a thorough clinical evaluation. We must ensure that the family is a candidate for reunification therapy and that it will not cause harm. This may involve engaging in a collaborative dialogue with the court or other involved professionals. Given the complexities of domestic violence cases, it’s critical that therapists collaborate with assessors and other professionals to ensure that reunification therapy is informed by a deep understanding of trauma and coercive control dynamics.
As therapists, our primary obligation is to the emotional and psychological safety of the families we serve. This means continuing to obtain advanced training and consult with experts in domestic violence in family law contexts—an area of specialty in its own right—and trauma specialists to deepen our expertise in these important areas.
Without this specialized training and consultation, even well-meaning therapists can overlook critical aspects of a directive for reunification that may significantly affect the child’s safety and well-being.
As therapists, we are entrusted with the profound responsibility of safeguarding the well-being of children and families, even in the face of legal directives. While reunification orders may reflect the court's decision, they do not absolve us of the need for careful clinical evaluation. It is our duty to ensure that our interventions truly promote healing and well-being and do no harm.
Related Blogs:
Have you visited Co-Parenting College?
Comments