Pub Date : 2023-10-03DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2023.2262359
Benjamin D. Garber, Robert A. Simon
ABSTRACTOne of the most common dilemmas encountered in today’s family courts is the child who is strongly aligned with Parent A and rejects parent B. In the interest of supporting these children’s opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both of their caregivers, one can work to determine which parent is to blame or what combination of parent behavior, relationship dynamics, and practical circumstances result in this outcome. The Five Factor Model (FFM) does the former, promoting a stepwise approach to “diagnosing” parental alienation. This paper demonstrates that for all of its appeal, the FFM is deeply flawed and promotes a binary (good guy/bad guy) approach that readily exacerbates family tensions. We reject the FFM and advocate instead for a balanced conceptualization of the child’s larger relationship ecology. A rubric guiding this ecological approach (Garber, in press 2023) is recommended.Keywords: AlienationResist/Refuse DynamicsFive Factor ModelRubricEcological model Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 The first author has often emphasized that the verb “diagnose” is associated with the medical model of individual pathology and therefore is misleading in this context. The relationship variables at issue are dynamics, not diagnoses, and can only be identified in systems (e.g., family) not within individuals.2 We acknowledge that the proponents of the FFM recognize that there is a larger copntext relevant to understanding resist/refuse dynamics, e.g., “There are several causes of contact refusal, and it is necessary to conduct an evaluation to determine whether the cause in a particular case is PA or some other issue within the child or the family” (Bernet and Greenhill, Citation2022, p. 591), However, the FFM is routinely promulgated (or at least misunderstood) as the singular recipe for identifying the cause of resist/refuse dynamics.3 Note that Baker originally promulgated a Four Factor Model (Baker, Citation2020b). She subsequently inserted the predicate resist/refuse behavioral condition as Factor 1, backing up the original four conditions into positions two through five to create today’s FFM. Note also a Canadian Court’s report that Baker described an alternative FFM as including “(1) evidence that the disfavored parent had an adequate relationship with the child prior to the current contact refusal; (2) evidence of absence of founded abuse or neglect on the part of a disfavored parent; (3) evidence that the favored parent engaged in intentional misrepresentation to professionals; (4) evidence that the favored parent engaged in behaviors consistent with alienation; and (5) evidence that the child exhibited behaviors consistent with alienation” (C.J.J. v. A.J., 2016 BCSC 676 §243; emphasis added).4 The simplicity and appeal of the FFM as evident for example in worksheet format (e.g., Evans, Citation2022) contradicts those proponents who argue that the identification of alie
摘要在当今的家庭法庭中,最常见的困境之一是孩子强烈地与父母A保持一致,而拒绝父母b。为了支持这些孩子有机会与他们的照顾者享受健康的关系,人们可以努力确定哪一方是罪魁祸首,或者父母的行为、关系动态和实际情况导致了这种结果。五因素模型(FFM)做到了前者,促进了一种逐步“诊断”父母疏离的方法。本文表明,尽管FFM很有吸引力,但它存在严重缺陷,提倡一种二元(好人/坏人)的方法,容易加剧家庭紧张关系。我们拒绝FFM,而是提倡对孩子更大的关系生态进行平衡的概念化。一个指导这种生态方法的标题(加伯,在出版社2023)被推荐。关键词:异化抗拒/拒绝动力学五因素模型rubbricecological模型披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1第一作者经常强调,动词“诊断”与个体病理的医学模式有关,因此在这种情况下会产生误导。所讨论的关系变量是动态的,而不是诊断的,并且只能在系统(例如,家庭)中识别,而不能在个人中识别我们承认,FFM的支持者认识到,有一个更大的背景与理解抗拒/拒绝动态相关,例如,“有几个原因导致接触拒绝,有必要进行评估,以确定在特定情况下的原因是PA还是儿童或家庭的其他问题”(Bernet和Greenhill, Citation2022, p. 591)。FFM经常被宣传(或至少被误解)为确定抵抗/拒绝动态原因的唯一方法注意,Baker最初提出了一个四因素模型(Baker, Citation2020b)。随后,她插入谓词抗拒/拒绝行为条件作为因素1,将原来的四个条件备份到位置2到位置5,以创建今天的FFM。还请注意加拿大法院的报告,贝克将另一种FFM描述为包括“(1)不受欢迎的父母在当前拒绝接触之前与孩子有充分关系的证据;(二)不受抚养的父母确有虐待或者忽视子女的证据;(3)被宠父母故意向专业人员虚假陈述的证据;(4)被宠父母有符合疏离行为的证据;(5)儿童表现出与疏离行为一致的证据”(C.J.J. v.a.j., 2016 BCSC 676§243;重点补充道)4。FFM的简单性和吸引力,例如工作表格式(例如,Evans, Citation2022)与那些认为异化识别需要“专业”技能,如“模式识别”、“反直觉推理”和“向后思考”的支持者(Gottlieb, Citation2020a;Joshi Citation2021)。5通过类比,大麻的使用现在在许多司法管辖区是合法的,但在其他司法管辖区仍然是非法的。不管法律如何,对大麻的依赖心理都是一样的另见Wallerstein和Kelly (Citation1980),第262页:“根据定义,异化儿童的核心特征是儿童对被拒绝父母的感知和信念与被拒绝父母的行为和亲子关系的实际历史之间的极端不平衡。7指“……由于观察到父母在婚姻期间或分居后反复施暴或爆发而逐渐疏远的孩子,或者他们本身就是父母施暴和虐待行为的目标”(Kelly & Johnston, Citation2001, p. 253)从短视的二元观点中解放出来,一个适应孩子关系生态的评估者可能会考虑孩子是否在父母A的关系中已经成年或被父母化(例如,Garber等,Citation2022)这段引用来自FFM支持者,说明了模型的二元性,以及支持者试图急于做出判断的方式“我遇到过这样的案例,有人说,‘忘了它,忘掉它,这是古老的历史。“但是,父母受到了精神创伤,这些情况很难解决”(菲德勒等人,Citation2013,第31页)我们认为,作为人类,所有的父母都有优点和缺点。因此,说大多数疏远的父母没有表现出低于标准的养育行为,是不可信的。所有的父母,至少在某些时候,都表现出不合格的教养行为Baker et al. (2016, p。
{"title":"Looking Beyond the Sorting Hat: Deconstructing the “Five Factor Model” of Alienation","authors":"Benjamin D. Garber, Robert A. Simon","doi":"10.1080/10502556.2023.2262359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2023.2262359","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTOne of the most common dilemmas encountered in today’s family courts is the child who is strongly aligned with Parent A and rejects parent B. In the interest of supporting these children’s opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both of their caregivers, one can work to determine which parent is to blame or what combination of parent behavior, relationship dynamics, and practical circumstances result in this outcome. The Five Factor Model (FFM) does the former, promoting a stepwise approach to “diagnosing” parental alienation. This paper demonstrates that for all of its appeal, the FFM is deeply flawed and promotes a binary (good guy/bad guy) approach that readily exacerbates family tensions. We reject the FFM and advocate instead for a balanced conceptualization of the child’s larger relationship ecology. A rubric guiding this ecological approach (Garber, in press 2023) is recommended.Keywords: AlienationResist/Refuse DynamicsFive Factor ModelRubricEcological model Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 The first author has often emphasized that the verb “diagnose” is associated with the medical model of individual pathology and therefore is misleading in this context. The relationship variables at issue are dynamics, not diagnoses, and can only be identified in systems (e.g., family) not within individuals.2 We acknowledge that the proponents of the FFM recognize that there is a larger copntext relevant to understanding resist/refuse dynamics, e.g., “There are several causes of contact refusal, and it is necessary to conduct an evaluation to determine whether the cause in a particular case is PA or some other issue within the child or the family” (Bernet and Greenhill, Citation2022, p. 591), However, the FFM is routinely promulgated (or at least misunderstood) as the singular recipe for identifying the cause of resist/refuse dynamics.3 Note that Baker originally promulgated a Four Factor Model (Baker, Citation2020b). She subsequently inserted the predicate resist/refuse behavioral condition as Factor 1, backing up the original four conditions into positions two through five to create today’s FFM. Note also a Canadian Court’s report that Baker described an alternative FFM as including “(1) evidence that the disfavored parent had an adequate relationship with the child prior to the current contact refusal; (2) evidence of absence of founded abuse or neglect on the part of a disfavored parent; (3) evidence that the favored parent engaged in intentional misrepresentation to professionals; (4) evidence that the favored parent engaged in behaviors consistent with alienation; and (5) evidence that the child exhibited behaviors consistent with alienation” (C.J.J. v. A.J., 2016 BCSC 676 §243; emphasis added).4 The simplicity and appeal of the FFM as evident for example in worksheet format (e.g., Evans, Citation2022) contradicts those proponents who argue that the identification of alie","PeriodicalId":35786,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Divorce and Remarriage","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135695729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}