Research Article

A Dual Model for Completing Parenting Plans Postseparation

Published: 2009-6-16

Journal: Journal of Divorce & Remarriage

DOI: 10.1080/10502550902766423

Abstract

## Abstract Dr. Kushner has more than 25 years of experience as a court‐appointed expert in matters pertaining to completing child custody evaluations (parenting plans) postseparation. This article combines her extensive practice experience and knowledge about social work theory to offer a “dual model of practice” that provides an alternative for child custody evaluators to consider when completing parenting plans postseparation. The model presented combines the strength-based and person-in-environment perspectives to provide an alternative way of conceptualizing the child custody expert's design of these complicated parenting assessments. ### KEYWORDS: child custody assessments, best interests, strength perspective, person in environment, divorce When I began thinking about writing a book about the work of child custody planning, I spent countless hours thinking about what model I would use to outline the process. After much deliberation about the innumerable theories, models, and perspectives that mental health professionals use to assess families, I was no further ahead. The decision about what model to use came to fruition when I reflected back to what the children and parents I had interviewed over the last 25 years reported about their experience with the child custody evaluation process. Two responses were consistently reported. First and foremost, the majority of the children I spoke to reported to their parents that they enjoyed their appointments because I listened to them about their worries. My understanding about the feedback received from these children is that they found a person who provided them an opportunity to have an independent voice. The parents of these children consistently reported they were expecting a very negative experience, but the opposite occurred. Their perception originated from their belief that a child custody evaluator's role was to unearth and disclose all of their potential deficits and personal weaknesses. Much to the surprise of these parents, the majority of the feedback they received throughout the evaluation process had to do with an identification of their parental and personal strengths. I was not surprised by this feedback, as it has always been my belief that if one desired to assist people to resolve personal problems, one needed to ensure their client(s) had enough self-confidence to take the necessary risks to try new ways of being. It was this assumption that laid the foundation for the design of this dual model of practice, which combines the strength and person-in-environment perspectives. Combining these two perspectives resulted in the development of a dual model for child custody evaluators to consider when completing parenting plans postseparation. ### THE ROOTS OF THE MODEL Understanding that locating one's inner strength was paramount to resolving child custody problems correlated well with what Schwartz and Goldiamond (1975) coined a “strength oriented framework.” Their intent was to avoid pathologizing people by promoting a way to search for positive ways to solve problems. This practice orientation emphasizes that the client's resources, capabilities, support systems, and motivation need to be considered when completing an assessment. The thinking behind this strength-based perspective or approach to working with people is that increasing positive behaviors is the most effective way to decrease unwanted behavior. As a social worker, I am no stranger to the “strength-based” approach to helping. Not only do the principles supporting the social work code of ethics fit with this way of helping (for ex: self-determination, dignity and worth of the person, integrity, competence and acceptance, etc.) this perspective finds its roots in the work of Jane Addams, who is often referred to as the founder of social work. When Addams (1902) commenced the Settlement House movement in the early 1900s, she encouraged society to “nurture a positive ideal of raising life to its highest values” (p. 32). Being aware of the need to work within a positive approach to helping placed Addams in the position of being one of the first social workers to support in principle a strength-based approach to assisting others. Another influence in selecting the strength-based approach for a component of this practice model originates from de Shazer's (1985, 1988) solution-focused practice model. His belief determined it was much more helpful to focus on solutions than problems when assisting others. de Shazer's approach to helping provides an expedient, practical way to assist separating couples who have lost the ability to co-parent. A message communicated by many solution-focused therapists that supports a strength-based approach to helping is that the person is not the problem; the problem is the problem. Reframing custody and access problems in this way assists to alleviate the guilt that bogs down many separating parents. Reducing this guilt provides parents with a sense of competence that helps them to leave behind the narcissistic wound so many separating couples encounter. The end result is an ability to refocus on child-focused rather than adult-focused needs. Supporting a positive approach when engaged in the work of child custody planning will in turn enhance the energy level of separating parents, who are often tired and worn down by the many trials and tribulations associated with their experiences with the legal system and one another. The benefactor of this resurgence of energy will most likely be the descendants of these familial systems. ### A DUAL MODEL The strength-based perspective represents one component of the model I have chosen for outlining the child custody process. The other component satisfying this model is what has been referred to as the person-in-environment (PIE) perspective. This perspective involves assessing interactions that occur between any system and their environment that involves a reciprocal interchange of demands and resources. In regard to completing parenting plans, this means that the custody evaluator has to be cognizant of outside stressors impacting the families they deal with, like inept or unsafe neighborhoods. Miley, Melia, and DuBois (2004) summarize their understanding of PIE as “people affect their environments and likewise, the social and physical environments affect people” (p. 34). The key to this understanding for child custody evaluators is the need to assess parental capacity using a wide angle lens, somewhat like that utilized by a radiographer. This approach involves a broader, less linear spectrum capable of capturing any environmental influences that might be restraining a parent's abilities and capabilities to parent to their potential. Family therapists are well versed in an understanding of how each member of a familial system takes part in interacting and influencing one another's behavior on many levels. The PIE perspective goes one step further by taking into account various other systems that impact one another. In social work, these systems are referred to as micro (individuals), mezzo (small groups and families), and macro (the larger community). The dual model presented takes into consideration how these various systems impact parental competence. In summary, the PIE perspective provides child custody assessors with the following: - A common language to describe their clients' problems in social functioning. - A common capsulated description of social phenomena that could facilitate treatment or amelioration of the problems in this case experienced by separating parents (Karls and Wandrei, 1994, p. 7). - PIE also provides a mechanism for clearer communication among the professionals engaged in this line of work like assessors, researchers, and judicial authorities. ### IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODEL For a child custody evaluator, it is necessary to consider how these various systems might restrain or support a separating parent's ability to access services that are in the best interests of their children. An excellent framework to utilize in locating these supports and restraints are the following four factors that frame PIE: 1. Social functioning problems like family, or interpersonal, occupational, and special life situation roles. 2. Environmental problems (including economic-basic needs, educational, legal, health, safety, social service, etc.). 3. Mental disorders, based on parts of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM–IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), Axes I and II. 4. Physical health problems (Barker, 2003, p. 359). PIE assists child custody evaluators to draw valid and reliable conclusions about the interrelated factors that contribute to the difficulties faced by separating parents that are often beyond their control. For example, a father might decide to launch a child custody dispute because his former wife is not enrolling their children in extracurricular activities. On closer examination, the child custody evaluator might discover that the children's mother lacks transportation and the funds to pay for these activities. As child custody evaluators, we must look beyond what might appear to be parental deficits, when in reality the difficulty is related to a lack of resources based on insufficient child support and a lack of monies that restrain retaining an attorney. The dual model is a practical model. The apparent need for practicality when completing child custody evaluations is lost when child custody evaluators rely solely on sophisticated theoretical models of practice that distance them from assessing daily parental responsibilities. Wiping noses, cuddling infants, and saying no to teens are practical and necessary parental activities. Assessing these functions rarely requires a complicated theoretical model of practice. This does not mean the child custody evaluator negates the significance of other theoretical models when engaged in clinical practice. The person-in-environment and strength perspectives underlie the more detailed models of social work practice like attachment theory or cognitive-behavioral models that provide rich and helpful ways to assess how parents and their children are, for example, thinking and feeling. Combining these two perspectives provides a foundation for the child custody evaluator to build from when constructing parenting plans postseparation. To adhere to this model, child custody evaluators will have to scrutinize their approach to practice. Miley et al. (2004) provided three key transitions mental health professionals will have to make to complete this transition: 1. The transition from problems to challenges. 2. The transition from pathology to strengths. 3. The transition from a preoccupation with the past to an orientation toward the future (p. 81). This will not be an easy transition for many mental health professionals to make. The medical model views presenting problems as pathology, which involves a diagnosis or label by the expert witness. The expert “diagnosis” also provides a rationalization for the treatment plan recommended. Mental health professionals have been using the psychoanalytic perspective and medical model since the early 1900s. These models assisted social work in particular to achieve professional status. Weick (1983, p. 467) suggests that this neat and tidy way to categorize personal problems promotes “individual fault, failure, personal inadequacy and deficiency.” My premise is that this is not always a respectful and helpful way to assist families, especially divorcing families who are already experiencing self-imposed and societal shame. Blame in my thinking blocks the potential of separating parents and restrains their ability to move forward. It is also important to state that a strength-based approach does not mean child custody evaluators would ignore the many complex obstacles that separating parents bring to the child custody process, such as serious matters like mental health disturbances and domestic violence. Orienting one's view toward parental strengths merely questions the need to focus solely on pathology. It is important for child custody evaluators to be cognizant that a negative frame of reference obscures the unique capabilities of parents. Locating parental uniqueness is always in the best interests of children. To summarize, child custody evaluators who decide to use this dual model would need to ascribe to the following assumptions: - Believe divorcing parents have a fund of resources they can withdraw from. - Believe that all parents have the ability to grow and make changes throughout their separation and the child custody process. - Believe that collaboration enhances the already present parental strengths and promotes learning new ways of parenting postseparation. - Believe that parents know best about their family and can discover the best solutions for their family postseparation. - Believe that if parents have a vision for their family postseparation, the possibilities for positive family change exist. - Believe that parents can find their own solutions for the family challenges they are facing. - Believe that locating parental strengths and competence is much more beneficial than locating deficits. - Believe that family problems that impact parents might have to do with deficits among the numerous systems families deal with rather than solely their family system (e.g., the health care or legal systems with which they interact). ### A Case Example A child custody evaluator is asked by the courts to make a determination about a stay-at-home mother's capabilities as a parent. Her former husband is concerned that his former spouse seems to be depressed, as she is isolating herself from others. The children's father provides numerous examples of the children reporting to him that their mother is sleeping a lot in the day and they are missing activities they are accustomed to, like playing with neighborhood children at their neighborhood park. During the course of the evaluation, the child custody evaluator receives the following information from the children's mother. Her spouse left her 3 months prior with little warning with three children under the age of 10. She has recently discovered that the reason for the separation was driven by the fact her husband had been engaged in an extramarital affair with a woman he worked with for 2 years who is 20 years younger than she or her former spouse. This mother further reports giving up a professional career 10 years prior to satisfy the role of a stay-at-home mother. She is experiencing stress and worry as her former spouse expects her to imminently return to work because she has a university education. Enhancing her stress level is the fact her extended family blames her for the separation as she has not looked after herself physically since having the third child, who is now 2 years of age. Consequently she has no support system when she requires one more than ever. According to the mother's physician with whom the child custody evaluator confers, his patient is not experiencing a clinical depression. The physician interviewed is of the opinion his patient is understandably worried about her familial situation. He has prescribed a low dosage of a sleeping pill to stabilize his patient's sleep. When pushed by the child custody evaluator for a diagnosis, the physician states his patient is a wonderful mother and her present state of being is based on the many restraints she is experiencing. He refers to his patient as experiencing a reactionary depression based on the lack of a support system. The child custody evaluator assessing this situation has two choices. One choice is to assess using a linear and judgmental approach similar to the process involved when one adheres to a rigid use of the medical model. This approach involves the selection of a diagnosis or label supported by the DSM–IV. In this case the woman would quite likely be labeled depressed. This approach will do nothing other than to lock this woman into a negative mindset that will not be in the best interests of her children. The other choice is to point out throughout the evaluation process the environmental stressors this woman is enduring based on the lack of a support system. Historically this woman has been described by collaterals as an excellent parent. Collaterals refers to personal references or professionals involved with the family, like school teachers, counselors, and so on. It is important to provide positive feedback received from collaterals to divorcing parents. The strength-based approach supports the significance of relaying positive parental attributes to separating parents. The ultimate goal is to assess using a supportive process, not one that adds stress to an already stressful situation. When one combines the PIE and strength perspectives, assessors collect data that encompass the whole picture that separating parents endure. This approach to assessment is much more in line with what is in the best interests of children. To summarize, when parents experience a separation they still need to partake in everyday activities like buying groceries, preparing meals, and bathing their children. When these transactions are possible, the energy level of the family remains positive. This in turn enhances parental abilities to engage in transactions within their community, like taking children to extracurricular activities or medical appointments. Unfortunately when parents experience separation and require the assistance of mental health professionals like child custody evaluators they often do not have the energy to demonstrate they can parent to the best of their abilities. It is important for child custody evaluators to keep in mind that a parent's internal life does not operate on its own. One's interaction with environmental events is constant. The intersection between these two worlds is the place where the child custody evaluator observes parental behavior. Being aware of these intersections is significant when collecting assessment data. Johnson and Yanca (2001) caution mental health professionals to be cognizant of the fact that these transactions encompass interactions that are embedded in and influenced by other interactions and situations. In regards to child custody matters, the behavior a child custody evaluator observes might be situational and based on systemic difficulties and stressors that do not represent the normal parental capabilities of the parent being observed. As children only experience one childhood, it is important for child custody evaluators to locate the truth about familial dynamics and parental capabilities. Consideration of environmental stressors is key to collecting reliable and valid data. Combining the strengths-based and PIE perspectives promotes this understanding. Ultimately an understanding of the stressors parents face at this difficult time assists to ensure child custody evaluators understand the reality of the daily lives these parents are experiencing. A clinical tool often utilized by social workers called the ecomap enhances this understanding (see Appendix). ### The Ecomap: An Assessment Tool The ecomap provides a visual snapshot of the social functioning, environmental factors, and embedded influences impacting separating parents, in this case. As an assessment tool, the ecomap provides an overview of the positive and restraining factors that impact individual and familial functioning. It also shifts emphasis from the past to the current functioning of the family. Focusing on the present and future is significant in moving divorcing families forward. The specific purpose of the ecomap is to depict the family members' contact with other social systems much larger than themselves. Hartman (1978) notes: > The ecomap portrays an overview of the family in their situation; it pictures the important nurturant or conflict-laden connections between the family and the world. It demonstrates the flow of resources, or the lack of and deprivations. This mapping procedure highlights the nature of the interfaces and points to conflicts to be mediated, bridges to be built, and resources to be sought and mobilized. (p. 467) When implemented as a diagnostic tool, the ecomap often adds clarity to the many complex issues separating families face. For example in the case cited prior, an ecomap would provide an understanding of the many restraints this mother was facing. Specifically, her relationships were strained because of the physical and emotional exhaustion she was expected to endure throughout the crisis stage of her separation. Her state of exhaustion was promoting social isolation during a period of her life when she required support from her extended family and friends. The support was not forthcoming because of the judgmental stance her parents in particular had taken. The ecomap would demonstrate quite clearly that the family physician was a strong, positive, and supportive relationship for this mother. The usefulness of this tool has been supported by Mattaini (1989), who reported that students who used ecomapping paid more attention to higher level systems than did students who did not use it. Wright and Leahey (2005) also support the use of this tool in numerous health care settings. Their book, Nurses and Families: A Guide to Family Assessment and Intervention, provides a detailed description of how to use the ecomap. In completing a parenting assessment, the ecomap increases the awareness of the child custody evaluator's consideration of the whole family and their interactions with larger systems. This tool also enhances the clarity and helpfulness of one's assessments when combined with both the PIE and strengths perspectives. As an assessment tool, the ecomap is an excellent fit when used with the dual model prescribed. Others have written about these two perspectives that satisfy the dual model. Saleeby (1992) supports combining these two perspectives because the strengths perspective focuses on one's ability to self-assess and interact with one's environment. Bartlett (1970) also supports the use of these two perspectives. She writes, “people coping with life situations balance between demands of the social environment and people's coping efforts” (p. 130). A third reason for selecting to combine these two perspectives as a dual model of practice is that they provide a practical, holistic, and positive approach when considering parental capacity. ### CONCLUDING COMMENTS This article has attempted to put forward a model of practice that might be of assistance to child custody evaluators engaged in the work of designing parenting plans postseparation who are looking for a positive, less intrusive way to assist families. Another benefit associated with the use of this model is eliminating the need for extensive litigation that often leaves separating parents in debt and dissatisfied with the child custody process. My experience indicates that using this approach to evaluating families helps alleviate the need for court trials. Of the 322 expert reports I have completed, 97% have been settled without the need for a lengthy, expensive, and emotionally draining court trial. Parental satisfaction might even prevent malpractice complaints, which are the dread of the mental health practitioners who engage in this line of work. The intensity involved in all of these activities directed to locating the “whodunit” mentality can thwart the best of attempts at planning for children whose parents engage in child custody battles. The model presented is an alternative way to locate some sense of peace and harmony in families desperate for a new direction or path to follow.

Faculty Members

  • Margo Anne Kushner - a Salisbury University , Salisbury, Maryland, USA

Themes

  • Ecomap as a tool for assessing familial dynamics
  • Dual model of practice for child custody evaluations
  • Impact of environmental factors on parenting
  • Person-in-environment perspective
  • Child custody assessment methodologies
  • Parental strengths and capabilities
  • Strength-based perspective
  • Reducing litigation in custody disputes
  • Social work theory in child custody evaluations
  • Positive vs. negative experiences in custody evaluations

Categories

Download Article