confusion, and anxiety that a divorce automatically creates. As we know, the same experience can have distinctly different consequences on the various people involved. CUSTODY DISPUTES: CHILDREN “CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE” Approximately 10–15% of divorcing parents take their struggles to court in the form of disputes about visitation, financial support, and custody of the children (Wallerstein et al., 2000; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). In such cases the parents are usually angry and embittered toward each other, and each turns to the court in an adversary proceeding designed to win a judgment that will force certain concessions from the former partner. These proceedings are totally contrary to the recommendations discussed herein for assisting children in adjusting to this major change in their lives. Frequently, according to Wallerstein and Kelly (1980), one or both parents will deliberately attempt to sway a child to their side; each does this by denigrating the other parent and questioning that parent’s interest in and love for the child (Bing, Nelson, & Wesolowski, 2009). Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that children often become upset and anxious. They are encouraged to take sides, which then interferes with their own attempts to disengage from the parents’ hostility. One child graphically referred to the experience as similar to “being cut down the middle with a hatchet.” Another said, poignantly, “My mother doesn’t realize that when she shoots arrows at my father they have to go through my body before they reach him!” (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980, p. 71). A drawing by a 10- year-old in the middle of a custody battle shows a child with tears coming down her cheeks and with her nerves exposed along the entire exterior of her body (see Figure 11.3). The words printed on the drawing say, “Oh my God, I cant believe this” and “I am so scared and upset,” and also “What do I do?” This poignant drawing clearly pictures a child’s sense of agony and upset over her parents’ ongoing custody battle.
It is not surprising that, in these sad situations, many children develop such problems as deteriorating schoolwork, aggression toward siblings and peers, sleep disturbances, and somatic complaints. Regression is common but is not always present, because mediating influences may exist in the extended family, the child’s school, and the community. Figure 11.2 can help practitioners identify children who are at risk because of intense family hostility and lack of compensatory supports. These children often come to the attention of social workers and other practitioners through the recommendation of the court when it becomes evident that the children are reacting to an embattled family situation and the family court judge orders that the children receive counseling. In some cases, the judge may also appoint a guardian ad litem to represent a child’s best interests. The case of Charlie, described in the next section, provides an illustration of these circumstances. The Court-Appointed Guardian Sometimes referred to as a “mediator” (Rice & Rice, 1986) and in many states as a “guardian ad litem” (literally, “guardian at law”), an individual may be hired by the court to represent the best interests of the child and to advocate for the child’s welfare. The guardian, often a lawyer, may interview both parents and the child preparatory to making recommendations to the judge. In addition, the guardian may recommend psychological and psychiatric exams for the child and the parents, in addition to counseling for the child. At best, the guardian remains neutral and objective and helps a child feel protected from the warring parents. At worst, a child may be intimidated by the perceived power of this person to decide monumental issues in his or her life, such as which parent he or she will live with. According to Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (1990), most states subscribe to the concept of “the best interests of the child” in making legal decisions in court custody cases. The following factors are considered in making such a determination: • The nature of the child’s relationship with each parent. • The capacity and willingness of each parent to care for the child. • The presence of a stable environment and the length of time the child has spent in that environment. • The likelihood that the home will serve as a family unit. • The nature of the child’s adjustment at school and in the community. • The moral fitness of each parent. • The physical and mental fitness of each parent. • The child’s own preference. The next section describes how the guardian ad litem and the social worker attempted to weigh these factors in the case of an 11-year-old boy whose parents were in a custody battle. THE CASE OF CHARLIE, AGE 11 (This case is a composite based on the case of Malcolm in the second edition of this book and on my extensive clinical experience with similar cases under dispute. Any similarity to real individuals is purely coincidental.) Family Information Mother Brenda, age 30, cashier at a big box store; history of depression, on medication. Father Ray, discharged from Army; abandoned mother and Charlie, when boy was age 2. Child client Charlie, age 11, fifth grade. This was an African American family with an absent father. Charlie’s parents had divorced when he was a preschooler, and his father enlisted in the army soon after. The boy had only sporadic telephone contact with his father in the intervening years, and he knew that his father had remarried. Presenting Problem Charlie’s father had recently received a medical discharge from the army after stepping on a mine in Afghanistan and losing one leg in the explosion. He contacted the family for the purpose of obtaining custody of his son. The father had remarried, and he wanted Charlie to live with him and his new wife and her 14- year-old daughter. The father hired a lawyer to represent him in the custody dispute, and the mother had a court-appointed lawyer. Because of the hostility between the parents, a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent Charlie’s best interests. A referral to a family agency was made to help Charlie deal with these stressful circumstances. Background Soon after Charlie’s parents married, his mother became pregnant. Their relationship was always stormy, and Ray abandoned his wife and young son when Charlie was about 2 years old. Brenda then decided to move in with her mother, who had cancer that was in remission and who worked several nights a week as a waitress. It was a busy household, but it functioned fairly well because the women shared the housekeeping responsibilities and child care. Brenda relied a great deal on her mother to take care of Charlie after school when she was working. Charlie’s mother stated to the social worker that her work was quite demanding, and she often felt overwhelmed and exhausted. She had been on medication for several years to help with her depressed feelings after a relationship with a boyfriend was broken off. She had been in the habit of spending several nights a week at her boyfriend’s apartment, because she felt that she needed “a break,” and her mother would care for Charlie at these times. She became pregnant but had a miscarriage and then became quite depressed for several months. During the time when she was preoccupied with her pregnancy and her boyfriend, Brenda sometimes would forget to take Charlie for his routine dentist and doctor’s appointments. Charlie’s father later used this information against Brenda in the custody dispute. When his father reappeared and wanted to have Charlie in his life again, the boy was initially pleased, and weekend visits were arranged. Charlie was nervous about his father’s amputation but was relieved to later find out that his father had a prosthesis and that he could walk without assistance. Charlie reported that his dad’s wife and her daughter were “nice” but that he was often bored there. He didn’t like it when, during the drive back home to his mother, the father would say very negative things about his mother and her family and imply that the mother had prevented him from visiting all those years. Charlie was afraid to ask his father directly why he didn’t come and visit him, stating that he thought his father might hit him if he asked (although there was no reported history of abuse). It soon became evident that Ray’s goal was to try to obtain full custody of his son. Neither Charlie nor his mother wanted this; nor could Brenda and Ray agree on a visitation schedule. Realizing that the family was at an impasse, the family judge appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the child’s best interests. The judge also ordered psychological evaluations of each parent and of Charlie and recommended that Charlie receive counseling services. A referral was made to the local family service agency.
Commentaires: 0
Enregistrer un commentaire