揭露虐待:儿童监护权纠纷中的心理防御

Q1 Social Sciences Journal of Child Custody Pub Date : 2015-10-02 DOI:10.1080/15379418.2015.1102671
Robert M. Lynch
{"title":"揭露虐待:儿童监护权纠纷中的心理防御","authors":"Robert M. Lynch","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2015.1102671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following is written for child custody evaluators with the expectation that it will improve their assessment of risk to the subject children. It is argued that disputes engendering the need for these evaluations are a function of different parenting styles, but it is reliably reported as well that these disputes can mask coercive and controlling abuse. I describe two defensive mechanisms, projective identification and dissociation, that create the perceptual distortions responsible for the viciousness of many child custody disputes and can lead to custody decisions that may not protect the subject children. These defenses were theorized by early psychoanalysts and have now found significant empirical support. Additionally, this article may be of interest to those studying destructive conflict generally.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unmasking the Abuse: Psychological Defenses in Child Custody Disputes\",\"authors\":\"Robert M. Lynch\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15379418.2015.1102671\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The following is written for child custody evaluators with the expectation that it will improve their assessment of risk to the subject children. It is argued that disputes engendering the need for these evaluations are a function of different parenting styles, but it is reliably reported as well that these disputes can mask coercive and controlling abuse. I describe two defensive mechanisms, projective identification and dissociation, that create the perceptual distortions responsible for the viciousness of many child custody disputes and can lead to custody decisions that may not protect the subject children. These defenses were theorized by early psychoanalysts and have now found significant empirical support. Additionally, this article may be of interest to those studying destructive conflict generally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Child Custody\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Child Custody\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1102671\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Custody","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1102671","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

以下是为儿童监护评估人员编写的,希望它能改善他们对受监护儿童风险的评估。有人认为,产生这些评估需求的纠纷是不同的养育方式的作用,但也有可靠的报道称,这些纠纷可以掩盖强制性和控制性虐待。我描述了两种防御机制,投射识别和分离,这两种机制造成了感知扭曲,导致许多儿童监护纠纷的恶性,并可能导致监护决定可能无法保护主体儿童。这些防御是由早期的精神分析学家理论化的,现在已经找到了重要的经验支持。此外,这篇文章可能会对那些研究破坏性冲突的人感兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Unmasking the Abuse: Psychological Defenses in Child Custody Disputes
The following is written for child custody evaluators with the expectation that it will improve their assessment of risk to the subject children. It is argued that disputes engendering the need for these evaluations are a function of different parenting styles, but it is reliably reported as well that these disputes can mask coercive and controlling abuse. I describe two defensive mechanisms, projective identification and dissociation, that create the perceptual distortions responsible for the viciousness of many child custody disputes and can lead to custody decisions that may not protect the subject children. These defenses were theorized by early psychoanalysts and have now found significant empirical support. Additionally, this article may be of interest to those studying destructive conflict generally.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Child Custody
Journal of Child Custody FAMILY STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Since the days of Solomon, child custody issues have demanded extraordinary wisdom and insight. The Journal of Child Custody gives you access to the ideas, opinions, and experiences of leading experts in the field and keeps you up-to-date with the latest developments in the field as well as discussions elucidating complex legal and psychological issues. While it will not shy away from controversial topics and ideas, the Journal of Child Custody is committed to publishing accurate, balanced, and scholarly articles as well as insightful reviews of relevant books and literature.
期刊最新文献
The Child Abuse Risk Evaluation Dutch Version (CARE-NL): A retrospective validation study Assessment criteria in relocation cases: An exploratory study of Spanish family court Judges Adjustment of children in joint custody and associated variables: A systematic review First, do no harm to self: Perspectives around trauma-informed practice and secondary traumatic stress among rural child protective services workers Understanding the relationship between mothers’ childhood exposure to intimate partner violence and current parenting behaviors through adult intimate partner violence: A moderation analysis
×
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