A structured rubric for evaluating the many systemic variables that can contribute to parent–child contact problems (PCCP)

IF 0.7 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES Family Court Review Pub Date : 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1111/fcre.12785
Benjamin D. Garber
{"title":"A structured rubric for evaluating the many systemic variables that can contribute to parent–child contact problems (PCCP)","authors":"Benjamin D. Garber","doi":"10.1111/fcre.12785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Parent–child contact problems (PCCP) are among the most vexing and intractable matters encountered in contemporary divorce and post-divorce litigation. These complex and incendiary family dynamics can confound even the most experienced evaluators, investigators, and jurists, fueling opposing confirmational biases, and sparking a destructive tug-of-war between the aligned parent's allegations of abuse and the rejected parent's allegations of alienation. This article describes all such either/or binary arguments as misleading, contrary to the science, and harmful to children. Rather than cast alienation and estrangement as mutually exclusive alternatives, the systemically-informed professional must consider more than a dozen mutually compatible practical exigencies and relationship dynamics which can converge to cause a child to align with one parent and resist or refuse contact with the other. Together, these variables are described as constituting an ecological model of the conflicted family system. A rubric is proposed to standardize evaluation across time, children, families, and jurisdictions, minimize bias, avoid premature closure, facilitate more comprehensive evaluations, optimize the efficacy of associated interventions, and invite more rigorous future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51627,"journal":{"name":"Family Court Review","volume":"62 2","pages":"343-358"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.12785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Parent–child contact problems (PCCP) are among the most vexing and intractable matters encountered in contemporary divorce and post-divorce litigation. These complex and incendiary family dynamics can confound even the most experienced evaluators, investigators, and jurists, fueling opposing confirmational biases, and sparking a destructive tug-of-war between the aligned parent's allegations of abuse and the rejected parent's allegations of alienation. This article describes all such either/or binary arguments as misleading, contrary to the science, and harmful to children. Rather than cast alienation and estrangement as mutually exclusive alternatives, the systemically-informed professional must consider more than a dozen mutually compatible practical exigencies and relationship dynamics which can converge to cause a child to align with one parent and resist or refuse contact with the other. Together, these variables are described as constituting an ecological model of the conflicted family system. A rubric is proposed to standardize evaluation across time, children, families, and jurisdictions, minimize bias, avoid premature closure, facilitate more comprehensive evaluations, optimize the efficacy of associated interventions, and invite more rigorous future research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于评估可能导致亲子接触问题(PCCP)的多种系统变量的结构化评分标准
亲子接触问题(PCCP)是当代离婚和离婚后诉讼中遇到的最棘手的问题之一。即使是最有经验的评估员、调查员和法学家,也会被这些复杂而具有煽动性的家庭动态所迷惑,从而助长相互对立的确认性偏见,并在支持的父母的虐待指控和反对的父母的疏远指控之间引发破坏性的拉锯战。本文认为所有这些非此即彼的二元论都具有误导性,与科学相悖,对儿童有害。有系统知识的专业人士不应该把疏远和隔阂视为相互排斥的两种选择,而是必须考虑十多种相互兼容的实际紧急情况和关系动态,这些因素可能共同导致儿童与父母中的一方保持一致,而抵制或拒绝与另一方接触。这些变量共同构成了冲突家庭系统的生态模型。本文提出了一个标准,以规范不同时间、不同儿童、不同家庭和不同司法管辖区之间的评估,最大限度地减少偏差,避免过早结束评估,促进更全面的评估,优化相关干预措施的效果,并促进未来更严格的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A call to action: Every family deserves active efforts. Keeping the black family together-active efforts as the standard for all removal and reunification efforts Cheating the evidence to get to best interest and the presumption of unfitness Lies my child welfare system has told me: The critical importance of centering families' voices in family policing legal advocacy Unbundling marriage law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1