The Dilemma
I was contacted by a father, who along with his 2–year-old child’s mother, was court ordered for “co-parenting therapy.” The couple, both clinicians, had never married, and were embroiled in a heated custody battle. At the time of the request, the father, who had also been court ordered for supervised visitation, had received an eviction notice from the home he shared with the child’s mother. Like the child’s mother, he was highly invested in his child, was under great pressure, and deeply resentful of the outsider position he felt he was in.
My first thought was, “How can two people who had never married, in the middle of an angry separation, engage in any effective co-parenting therapy? Surely, this had to be lawyer-speak, which made sense considering that the idea initially came from the Guardian Ad Litem GAL) assigned to the case.
I suggested to the father that a mediator, rather than a therapist, would be more appropriate, given their situation. He told me that a mediator had already quit the case, insisting that the couple needed therapy! “Three therapists in one room,” I silently mused, “that would probably deteriorate into psychobabble.”
Upon further reflection, and because there was a child in need, I changed my mind, biased perhaps by the unearned faith that two intelligent individuals who worked in the field should be able to talk things through and work together for the sake of their child. Perhaps, at very least, I could help them negotiate to the point where I could send a statement to the GAL indicating that they were unsuitable for “co-parenting therapy” at this time, which might reduce the emotional pressure while they established separate residences and some emotional distance.
Next Steps/The Plan
I opened both cases individually which helped me to see both parties as individuals and neither one as a “former significant other.” I also wanted to reduce any potential claims of bias. Instinct told me that given the emotional climate surrounding this case, such a claim could, and would likely, come if either party did not like my statement to the court. I proceeded gingerly, gathering all necessary ‘releases’ so that information could be shared between mother, father, and the GAL.
Trying to cover all bases, ambitiously, and perhaps idealistically given the limited resources available to me, I identified the following areas of need that could hopefully be integrated into our work. The mother made reasonable requests; however, the father was rigid and unyielding in what he thought the child needed. The identified issues centered around:
- Visitation/Supervision
- Safety for All Parties
- Sleep Schedule
- Diet and Nutrition
- Toilet Training
- Medical concerns
- Social/Recreational Needs
- Parent /Child Relationship
- Child Support
- Parent to Parent Relationship.
Three joint telehealth ‘mediation’ sessions were to be conducted. Anticipating some heated conversations and a need to soothe and support already wounded parents after a joint session, each party was offered an individual appointment if they so chose. I also conducted one observational visit with each parent and the child, using some basic Theraplay activities, noticing that both were child-centered yet overly permissive.
The Outcome
Each party was given the opportunity to lead one of the joint sessions with a prepared list of concerns they wished to address. The father repeatedly attempted to dominate the sessions with criticisms and belittling remarks. As the therapist, I continually attempted to redirect him back to the identified issues. Apparently, this only angered him.
The mother did not take the bait, and typically didn’t respond to him. She would temporarily remove herself from the session to maintain emotional self-control before returning. She would then respond to me when directed. Following the first two joint sessions, I felt that it was necessary to provide the opportunity for each of them to process the joint sessions individually. Wanting to assure that they had been heard, each exercised this option.
In the third joint session, the father was very angry. He became verbally abusive, hurling insults and name calling at both the mother and me. The mother attempted to defend herself and me, by challenging his inappropriate behavior. This seemed to have some effect as he paused, offered an insincere apology to me, but not to the mother.
At exactly 60 minutes, the father left the appointment. I briefly offered support and validation to the mother for maintaining control, dignity, and grace throughout all three joint sessions. While the father was clearly distressed, both he and she had stuck to our agreement.
Aftermath
I’ve had clients quit. I’ve had clients angrily leave sessions. I’ve never had a complaint filed against me; that is until the father did so on the grounds of unprofessionalism and incompetence. The compliance officer initiated the mandatory protocol by contacting me. I was very distraught by such a vicious attack on my character and my identity as a therapist. I was surprised by just how severely the truth of what occurred could be lost in anger and the desire for retribution. I understood that the father’s anger was projection, and had perhaps come from a place of pain, but it hurt and frightened me, nevertheless. Visions of a lawsuit for malpractice and the loss of my license danced in my mind!
I had several sleepless nights before I met with the quality control committee to discuss the case by which time they had reviewed all of the documentation, assessments, treatment plan, progress notes, and the report to the court. The complaint was closed as “unfounded” based on my very descriptive and professional documentation.
Subsequently, the father instructed me to “never speak to me again!” He revoked all releases of information, including the one to the GAL. Due to delays in processing, and the retraction of the release of information, the medical records department was unable to forward the report to GAL, which outlined some very serious mental health concerns that I had raised in the course of my work with this family.
When the case was moved to the next phase of the legal process, which included psychological testing, the father relented and signed a new release so that the psychologist could review my written report. I was also able to share my concerns prior to the psychological evaluation.
I later found out that the couple were living independently, and supervised visitation with their child was occurring. I could only that the psychological testing would provide information that would be useful in helping the child, and of course the parents, in moving forward.
Take Away from the Experience
In retrospect, nothing of significance, and certainly nothing useful was accomplished in those joint appointments. Rage, victimization, and contempt dominated the landscape, and the aftermath left me feeling wounded. Co-parenting, in this instance, was an illusion. I should have ended the contract after the second session, only continuing because I felt all three of us wanted to be able to say we kept the agreement. Hats off to mediators everywhere! I will never set myself up like this again!
Go Deeper in Your Practice
Get unlimited access to 350+ real therapy demonstration videos, CE, webinar replays, and more with a Psychotherapy.net membership.
