CHAPTER 1
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REUNIFICATION THERAPY
There is no such thing asreunification therapy.
This has not, however, stopped the phrase from going viral. Professional journals, popular press articles about high conflict divorce, and judicial rulings throughout the English-speaking world all commonly refer to this thing that does not exist as if it was as well-established and familiar as “appendectomy” or “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy” (CBT).
It is not.
The termreunification has historically been relevant only to child protection and removal matters. It describes the steps that courts and child protective workers take to cautiously return a child into the care of a parent who has been found to be abusive or neglectful (Terling, 1999).
Unfortunately, the term has been adopted in the last decade—together with all of its historical baggage—by aggrieved parents, their attorneys, mental health providers, and many courts to describe an imagined or hoped-for therapeutic process intended to repair the broken parent-child relationships that develop in some high conflict, divorcing families.
Although divorce with children can be, and usually is, a relatively smooth process with little long-term negative impact for the kids (Arkowitz and Lilenfield, 2013), a small minority of parents make it into a kind of tribal warfare in which everyone must pick sides. In these circumstances, a child can become strongly allied with one parent (Parent A), and resistant to or rejecting of the other (Parent B). By definition, this child has been polarized within the family system.Reunification therapy generally intends to repair the child’s relationship with Parent B.
The goal is certainly valid and worthwhile. Although psychology and the law agree on very little, the two fields do generally agree that every child should have the opportunity to make and maintain a healthy relationship with both (all) of his or her caregivers.2 Unfortunately, applying the termreunification to this process introduces confounding connotations suggesting that Parent B is abusive or neglectful; deserving of hisout status; and in need of remediation, supervision, and/or criminal consequences. Fiction can be more compelling than reality. Consider, for example, the therapeutic intervention commonly referred to asanger management. Likereunification therapy, there is no such thing. There is no research, professional literature, or best-practice guidelines associated withanger management. There is, however, a very entertaining 2003 movie by this name, which seems to have been mistaken as describing a real professional service. As a result, ever since the movie’s release, psychotherapy offices across the country have been flooded with calls seekinganger management services.
The common-sense idea behind each of these two fictitious therapies is sound. On one hand, of course we should all develop the skills necessary to voice our strong negative emotions in ways that are constructive. On the other hand, of course we want kids to have the opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both parents. The former is most commonly accomplished via CBT interventions (Boxmeyer et al., 2018; Lochman et al., 2004). The latter—the service often referred to asreunification therapy—is best accomplished through a form of family therapy.
This book describes a form of family therapy known as Multi-Modal Systemic Therapy (MMST) and recommends it as the best choice among possible therapeutic interventions whenreunification therapy has been ordered. MMST is just what it sounds like: a systemic (as opposed to an individual, dyadic, or a family) intervention conducted by a team of skilled professionals integrating
