Abstract
Practicing counselors will, at some point, work with clients from high-conflict separations/divorces (HCS/D); however, often they have received very little educational training for these experiences. To effectively treat these clients/client families, all counselors should have a working knowledge of the major processes and critical factors involved in these situations. This manuscript emphasizes the role of the counselor within HCS/D, seeks to give both an overview of and describe the complexities of HCS/D that counselors need to understand, and identifies areas of concern and focus for counselors functioning within distinct modalities.
High conflict separation/divorce (HCS/D) can have expansive impacts on all involved. The multitude of moving pieces and involved parties can make the entire process overwhelming for families. Counselors and other mental health professionals are often invited into these situations at different levels (family, school, child, adult, co-parenting, evaluators, and psychoeducational consultants/counselors) and can be equally overwhelmed by the varied stakeholders, confusion, and trauma (Chang, 2020). This can make designing the most therapeutically appropriate treatment plan challenging (Fidler & Bala, 2020). Unless a practitioner is well versed with this population, they may be both reluctant and underprepared to work with HCS/D families effectively. This paper seeks to provide an overview of the complexities of HCS/D by outlining the terminology utilized, the process and people involved, the psychological impacts of HCS/D, and the roles counselors play in the process.
The axiom “high conflict” (divorce/separation/interaction) seeks to describe couples going through divorce/separation who engage in high levels of anger and distrust, verbal, physical and emotional abuse, and difficulty working together effectively (Johnston, 1994). While historically, it was thought that approximately 10 percent of divorced couples remain in high conflict, these estimates were made using only litigation data (e.g., how long and how often couples engaged in litigation) to define high conflict (Saini & Birnbaum, 2007). These definitions oversimplify the complexities of these situations. More inclusive definitions suggest that between 20 to 40 percent of divorces are highly conflictual (Erlanger et al., 1987; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Saini & Birnbaum, 2007); reports in the literature suggest that these types of separations are on the rise (Fidler & Bala, 2020). Although no one definition can encapsulate the intricacies entirely, authors like Johnston (1994) have broken down divorce conflict into three important dimensions (domain, tactics, attitudinal). Counselors should understand that many separations involve conflict at the beginning, but that for most conflict decreases after establishing a life reorganization. Those who do not see decreased discord are categorized as high conflict. These contentious relationships impact all family members, including children, and must be treated both systemically and individually. Counselors across varied settings play a crucial role in helping families navigate HCS/D (Treloar, 2019) and these counselors must be able to navigate multifaceted case conceptualizations and possess a substantial understanding of the HCS/D processes (Shumaker & Kelsey, 2020).
Characteristics of HCS/D
Several individual-level factors like humiliation, shame, grief, and/or feeling helpless and vulnerable due to “assaultive life changes” have been associated with increased divorce conflict (Johnston, 1994). Individual psychopathologies (Hopper, 2001) or “high conflict personalities” (Saini & Birnbaum, 2007) may also contribute to extended conflict. On an interactive level, destructive dynamics that result from a history of marital discord, humiliation and trauma from the separation, a need for revenge, and/or jockeying for power and resources (time with children, money, etc.) cause parties to be highly distrustful of each other (Hopper, 2001; Johnston, 1994). This may result in creating one-dimensional characterizations of the other parent, pathologizing or diagnosing the other parent, and/or exaggerating the other parent's mistakes (Chang, 2020). Parties may feel convinced that they are fighting to protect the needs and well-being of their children (Johnston, 1994) without recognizing the relational damage taking place. External-level coalitions with family members, new partners, mental health providers, and legal professionals may also contribute to an adversarial relationship. Visser et al. (2017) discuss the third-party forgiveness effect, which posits that third-party members (family and friends) are often less forgiving than first-party members and may intentionally or unintentionally prolong divorce. Friedman (2004) also argues that conflict can be encouraged by third parties. Additionally, the court system can increase polarization and hostility (Hopper, 2001; Johntson, 1994). Saini and Birnbaum (2007) outlined 16 research-supported factors (e.g., mental health problems, substance abuse concerns, dissatisfaction with financial arrangements, level of trust, and external support systems) that contribute to HCS/D. One of these factors is titled “factors related to parent-child boundaries” (p. 18), and it stands out because (a) it specifically addresses how heightened conflict impacts the children; (b) it has historically been a topic of debate within the literature. Factors related to parent–child boundaries suggest that high-conflict parents may have trouble focusing on their child's needs as separate from their own which can significantly limit their ability to protect the children from their own emotional distress and anger. Whether conscious or unconscious, these behaviors dramatically impact the level of conflict in the relationship and have negative outcomes for the children involved. While different terms have been used to describe these ‘alienating behaviors’ is the most widely accepted in the literature and a concern counselors are bound to confront. Considering these reasons, the authors felt it important to address this factor explicitly.
Alienating behaviors
The familiar areas of potential contention during a separation (finances, custody, decision-making) are exacerbated when a couple is experiencing high conflict. The most demanding of these areas involve the emotional trauma that stems from a parent seeking to exclude or push out the other parent from the lives of their children. These behaviors can be so severe that they are often considered abusive (IPV- Interpersonal Violence) and are almost always traumatic for the targeted parent, as well as the children. Generally, counselors are unprepared to work with these situations (Fidnick et al., 2011) and seek to learn as they proceed, which can be dangerous.
Efforts toward excluding a parent are understood through a list of descriptive terms: alienation, alienating behaviors, estrangement, restrictive gatekeeping, protective gatekeeping, programing and brainwashing, and parental denigration. Reports from parents, children, young adults, and counselors agree on the variety of behaviors and strategies a parent employs to impact childrens’ feelings, behaviors, and beliefs which lead toward damaging or destroying a child's relationship with the other parent (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Saini et al., 2016). Alienation and alienating behaviors occur more often in cases of high conflict (Gagne et al., 2005) and can lead to a plethora of mental health concerns for both parents and children.
Alienating behaviors involve one parent's intentional interference in the relationship between the child(ren) and the other parent; this interference includes behaviors meant to denigrate and reduce contact with the other parent (Sirbu et al., 2020). When the alienating parent is successful in his/her efforts and the behaviors lead to a child rejecting or not communicating with the targeted parent without any legitimate reason, the term Parental Alienation or Parental Alienation Syndrome is used (Doǧan & Aytekin, 2021). This phenomenon was introduced in the literature by Wallerstein and Kelly (1976) as “the pathological alignment of a parent and a child, having as a result of the rejection of the alienated parent by the child.” Gardner (1985) who coined the term parental alienation syndrome which is identified in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a condition with the diagnosis of ‘child affected by parental relationship distress’ (Bernet et al., 2016). It can be found in the same section as child sexual abuse, parent–child relational problems, and other forms of domestic violence. Parental alienation disorder (PAD) has been defined as an attachment disorder (Bernet et al., 2010). When the alienating parent is unsuccessful in turning the child (children) against the other parent, different terminology is often used (i.e., gatekeeping, brainwashing).
Over the past twenty years, many have worked to organize and classify the scope of alienating behaviors and tactics (e.g., Baker & Darnall, 2006; Fidler & Bala, 2010; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Warshak, 2015). While there is a range of examples, they often vary in severity and can change over time. Some examples include conspiring with children to withhold information, keeping secrets and misleading the other parent, undermining a parent, withholding parenting time, disparaging family members, exaggerating and exploiting the other parent's behavior, and seeking to garner support from others to turn the child(ren) against the other parent (Fidler & Bala, 2020).
There are scholars who oppose the concept of alienation, particularly Parental Alienation Disorder, citing the quality of research on it, full acceptance of the phenomena itself, and its admissibility in court proceedings (Gardner, 1998, 2002). Because of the complexities inherent in alienation situations, those involved (parents, attorneys, counselors, courts) can oversimplify and confuse potentially complicated scenarios; this can lead to unhelpful blaming and stigmatization (Johnston & Sullivan, 2020). Despite the debates in the literature, the concept of alienation and attempts to better understand it continue to be espoused by the public and professional communities (Bernet, 2020; Lorandos, 2020) with some authors describing it at a “blossoming” field of study (Harman et al., 2019). It is estimated that over 22 million American adults have experienced alienating behaviors with half reporting severe instances of these behaviors (Harman et al., 2016).
The impact of HCS/D
There is little argument that children in the aftermath of divorce are at higher risk for developing both externalizing and internalizing disorders, lower motivations to learn, and lower school performance (Amato, 2010; Hetherington & Elmore, 2003). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention lists divorce as one of the ten categories of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) (CDC, n.d.-a), and divorce/separation is the second most prevalent adverse childhood event (Sacks et al., 2014). Children of high conflict divorce/separation are at even higher risk, so much so that the experiences have been equated to a form of neglect (Joyce, 2016).
While not all children experience significant problems post-divorce, the research has outlined the areas in which they are at increased risk for both short-term concerns and long-term adjustment problems (Amato & Cheadle, 2005). They are more susceptible to externalizing issues like aggression, conduct problems, noncompliance, delinquent behaviors, minimized self-regulation, as well as internalizing disorders like depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and diminished interpersonal skills (Amato, 2010; Weaver & Schofield, 2015). They are also more likely to develop substance use problems (Jackson et al., 2016), poor nutrition and reduced physical activity (Thuen et al., 2015), and academic difficulties (Amato & Anthony, 2014) than children from intact families. Stated simply, the fracturing of family units with resulting high conflict is one of the most significant psychosocial crises someone can experience (Mitcham-Smith & Henry, 2007).
Children of divorce are not the only individuals to fall victim to its conflict. The adults are often significantly impacted by many of the same internalizing and externalizing disorders faced by their children. Those with prior symptoms for personality disorders are at an increased risk of enhancing and/or increasing symptoms. Generally, these adults have higher rates of mental health and substance use problems (Auersperg et al., 2019), physical health problems (Monnat & Chandler, 2015), and earlier mortality rates (Larson & Halfon, 2013).
While there is a general understanding of the misfortune children of divorce face, this is not always the case and subsequently this mindset can move us away from integrating resilience and strengths-based approaches into interventions. Divorce does not impact all children in the same ways (Shumaker & Kelsey, 2020), and children can have reactions that range from vulnerability to resilience (Kelly, 2012). Researchers have provided us with a healthy list of factors that can safeguard against adverse impacts and potentially minimize future negative outcomes (Karela & Petrogiannis, 2020). These factors can be broken down into systemic and intrapersonal. Systemically, children are protected by minimal conflict and supportive cooperative parenting practices, authoritative parenting methods, supportive social networks, and the emotional presence and frequent contact with the non-custodial parent (Bauserman, 2002; Buchanan & Ritchie, 2004; Hetherington & Elmore, 2003). Researchers have also found that sibling subsystems provide a buffer for the challenges of these family transitions (Young & Ehrenberg, 2007). Other intrapersonal buffering factors include, but are not limited to, internal locus of control, normal or above average mental capacities, sense of humor, social competence, easy temperament, active coping styles, and physical attractiveness (Buchanan & Ritchie, 2004; Hetherington & Elmore, 2003).
The impacts are both varied and powerful and while counselors may have the knowledge and experience to work with the mental health impacts, a lack of understanding of the complexities leading to the conflict and the role additional parties play in the conflict can cause confusion and potentially minimize therapeutic progress. The family court system and all parties involved in it play a powerful and influential role in the perceptions and conduct of HCS/D families and it's important for counselors to have a working understanding of these people and processes.
Family court involvement
United States family courts were established in 1910 and have proliferated exponentially over the last 60 years. Plenty has been written about various ways family law helps and/or hurts families. Still, most separating families are engaged with the legal system to some extent, and those in high-conflict divorces are often deeply entangled in this system. Mediators are often accessed as a first contact for families seeking to separate without the involvement of the court system. Normally these mediators are attorneys and less often counselors. Mediators meet with the couple and attempt to construct a rational, mutually agreed-upon division of finances and custody arrangements. However, not all couples are able to resolve their divisions amicably and many end up moving to proceedings within the legal system.
Once this step has been taken, the family system expands and fractures simultaneously. The ‘system’ now includes new members (attorneys, hearing officers, magistrates, judges, parent coordinators, guardians ad litem, custody evaluators, etc.) causing immediate changes to communication patterns. In low-conflict divorce scenarios, this expansion can be helpful as outside individuals can assist couples (parents in particular) in planning future steps in a less emotionally heightened manner. In high-conflict divorces, this expansion can cause further difficulties as parents become disconnected from the system and therefore focus more on individual concerns based on their current psychological functioning and rationalizations for their perceptions. “It has been said that in criminal court, the worst people are seen at their best, but in family court, the best people are seen at their worst” (Ordway et al., 2020, p. 190). Research suggests that court involvement can increase animosity and hostility and minimize opportunities for positive communication (Bala et al., 2017).
Custody evaluators, guardian ad litem, mediators, co-parenting counselors, parenting coordinators, and mental health providers are often overwhelmed by these situations. As demands on their time increase, it has become clear that the current legal system has not evolved to meet their needs or those of high conflict families (Ordway et al., 2020; Paquin-Boudreau et al., 2021; Target et al., 2017). Counselors are confronted with managing these types of cases even though they have likely not been trained in the complexities of family law. However, they do have the potential to expand their knowledge in this area and combine that knowledge with training and experience.
The role of counselors
Counselors in various settings will encounter members of a family going through or dealing with the aftermath of HCS/D. Often, client families will work with multiple counselors contiguously (school, family, individual, co-parenting, etc.) without any requirement that encourages these counselors to collaborate (Bertelsen, 2021). Because the stakes are often so high and emotions may be at their peak, practitioners may be apprehensive in taking on these types of clients/client families since they can be both exhausting and invite an increase in dissatisfaction and client complaints (Chang, 2020). While counselors are not always involved, as families move through the justice system, counseling is usually recommended or stated as a requirement. Unfortunately, most professionals who work with families traumatized by HCS/D are unaware of the harmful complexities of concepts like alienating behaviors (Marcus, 2020). Many parents and children are not served well by the justice system (Fidler & Bala, 2020) and/or the use of the justice system exacerbates the conflict and the ensuing problems.
Most of the research and writing in this area has focused on legal interventions with these families (Drozd & Olesen, 2016; Garber, 2015) instead of the associated trauma experienced by those involved. Attention must be paid toward determining how we can establish and maintain deliberate and focused interventions for the adults, children, and family systems as they navigate separation and custody (Greenberg & Lebow, 2016). The trauma associated with high conflict and things like alienating behaviors, may not be immediately discernible to legal and mental health professionals, but their impacts are real and often long-term. Counselors can and should be critical players in designing and implementing essential intervention strategies and work toward the prevention of worsening psychological problems. While psychologists and social workers are also involved in this work, the focus here is on those within the counseling profession. The following sections address the role of the counselor across different modalities and specific recommendations for conceptualization and treatment.
Family counseling
Proponents of various schools of family systems work tend to agree on several systemic principles that guide their approach and their practice. These principles include concepts like circular causality, communication patterns, homeostatic tendency, nonsummativity, stages of the family life cycle, problems as symptoms, and family structure (Gladding, 2020). Families tend to seek help when they are experiencing the challenges and stressors that come with required changes in the system to adapt to the evolving nature of the family and those within it. Because families tend to seek out their known steady state (homeostatic tendency) instead of effectively adjusting to changes, counselors act as guides, support systems, and teachers in helping the family move through a change process with the goal of restructuring the family in a way that assists navigation through these changes in a more effective manner.
In the case of divorce or separation, many changes are happening within the family at a rapid pace and all members are significantly impacted. Divorce may have been a long time coming or may be more of a shock to the system, but either way, counselors are faced with family restructuring at its most extreme. Not only is the system undergoing this process of restructuring and redefining itself, but everyone is also experiencing these changes separately. Counselors play a critical role in helping clients re-author themselves and their families, which can promote agency (Treloar, 2019). A number of family system interventions have been suggested for use with families not dealing specifically with violence or abuse: multi-modal family therapy (MMFI), child-centered conjoint therapy (CCCT), family restructuring therapy, integrative family therapy (IFT), structural family therapy (SFT), family reintegration therapy (RT), family reunification therapy (FRT), multi-faceted family therapy (MFFT), and reconciliation therapy (Fidler et al., 2013; Polak, 2020; Polak & Moran, 2017). Systems approaches like these have been adapted for specific aspects of HCS/D, such as parental alienation (Templer et al., 2017), and contact refusal (DeJong & Davies, 2012; Lebow & Rekart, 2007). While alienating behaviors are more easily recognized by the victim parent, the alienating parent normally works hard to conceal these behaviors in front of professionals; with the entire family present, these efforts at disguise are less successful. As the counseling field has embraced trauma-informed care over the past 15 years, so too have those working with HCS/D families and individuals. Counselors must be aware of the role of stress, objective event trauma, and long-standing relational trauma and align their interventions accordingly (Fidler & Bala, 2020).
While there are a range of ‘conflicts’ in HCD/S, normally the families and the counselors involved are underprepared for the process’ complexities and the emotional toil. Since counselors are not specifically prepared in their training for this type of work, the experience can be a whirlwind for the counselor who feels like they are just barely keeping up with the systemic changes the family is undergoing (Fidler & Bala, 2020). When a family systems approach is unproductive, counselors should advocate for more intensive retreat-like programs (Sullivan et al., 2010).
A key aspect of any productive therapeutic work is the development of the therapeutic relationship; establishing this relationship with HCS/D families is historically challenging (Lebow, 2008). In situations with high hostility, it is recommended that counselors schedule sessions with the individual parents before sessions with the whole family to establish a working alliance with each adult (Friedlander et al., 2006; Pinsof, 1995). Because both parents are normally working hard to present the best version of themselves in these sessions, they are reluctant to take ownership of things like alienating behaviors and will seek to explain them away. These are tough moments for the counselor as they must be willing and able to point these out to begin to get under the surface issues and address things like anger, hostility, and resentment while at the same time, retaining an effective alliance with both parents. Imbalances in the alliance with the counselor need to be consistently evaluated and addressed to minimize the perception of a favorable relationship with one member of the couple (Günther-Bel et al., 2021), as this can escalate client fears regarding the counselor ‘siding’ with the other parent.
Individual counseling
Individual therapists are very likely to be involved with separating partners on their own considering the levels of heightened emotions and potential trauma associated with the often-unexpected life changes taking place. Many parents and stakeholders involved in the case initially gravitate towards and recommend individual treatment planning in lieu of systems focused conceptualizations and interventions (Davis & Sexton, 2021). Counselors are well-prepared to assist clients with anxiety, depression, substance use, and other intrapersonal concerns; these mental health concerns must be treated uniquely and individuals experiencing HCS/D are no exception. These individuals have characteristics that contribute to prolonging conflict over time and inhibit the creation of functional co-parenting and fluid communication (Birnbaum & Bala, 2010; Fidler & Bala, 2010; Polak & Saini, 2015). These parents tend to be primarily focused on themselves, unable to recognize their role in the conflict, and have few introspective abilities (Gordon et al., 2008).
Individual counseling is often recommended or required for children involved in a HCS/D. This recommendation may be made regardless of whether the child(ren) is showing symptoms of any problems. For individual counseling of HCS/D children, scholars have suggested and outlined the use of various modalities including narrative therapy (Thomas & Gibbons, 2009), existential therapy (Shumaker & Kelsey, 2020), and cognitive behavioral therapy (Garber, 2015). Methods of play therapy are also recommended considering this treatment approach helps with engagement, expression of thoughts and feelings, and a greater ability to assess treatment needs (Kenney-Noziska & Lowenstein, 2015). Play therapy is particularly appropriate for work with childhood traumatic experiences and given that divorce involves an unexpected and unwanted disruption of the family, it is considered one of the leading causes of child trauma (Herzog & Schmahl, 2018). This traumatic experience impacts children's developing nervous systems, expectations for relationships, access to emotional regulation supports, and their sense of future stability (Levine & Kline, 2008; McKay, 2020; Schore & McIntosh, 2011). Chen et al. (2021) outline a case for utilizing Adlerian play therapy with children of divorce given its perspective on attachment and its empirical effectiveness with trauma symptoms as well as other internal and externalizing symptoms.
School counseling
School-based interventions can play an essential role in children's well-being in the aftermath of divorce (Wyman, 2003), and school counselors are often at the forefront of these efforts. While school counselors are less likely to engage in intensive therapy with HCS/D students, they can be key players in providing additional support, prevention, and communication with parents and other treatment providers. School counselors have immediate access to teachers who are often the first line of defense in recognizing behavioral and emotional changes in students who warrant attention. They also provide ancillary services throughout the school system that have the potential to reach a child in need of additional tools, connection, or support. These children tend to experience increased feelings of loss, loneliness, anger, and anxiety (Clarke-Stewart & Brentano, 2006); how children respond to these feelings can vary and may include poor behavior or lack of motivation (Amato & Cheadle, 2008; Venter, 2006). Teacher or counselor recognition of behavior changes could initiate a connection to the counselor that could lead to a necessary and supportive intervention; oftentimes, the school is the only environment where children can receive necessary emotional intervention (Hoagwood et al., 2007).
As previously mentioned, despite the powerful statistics stating the hardships experienced by children of divorce, not all HCS/D children are doomed to poor outcomes and poor mental health; many demonstrate remarkable resilience (Thomas & Gibbons, 2009). Resilient children have developed protective behaviors that help moderate the risk factors, and school and community systems play a vital supportive role in helping them develop these resiliencies (Rodgers & Rose, 2002).
Over the years, many school counselors have embraced the idea of providing a regular support group specifically for children of divorce/separation. Research has shown that group programs can enhance children's functioning in both social and academic domains (O’Halloran & Carr, 2000). Due to many methodological issues, research showing the efficacy of most groups is lacking (Blaisure & Geasler, 2006). However, there are two programs that counselors should consider given that they have been replicated and empirically evaluated as effective: Pedro-Carroll's Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP) and Stolberg's Children's Support Group.
School counselors should encourage parents to share their separation/divorce status and any concerns they may have with their child(ren)'s teachers and school counselors, allowing them to monitor the child(ren)'s behaviors more closely. While the inquiry might be awkward, asking parents specifically about experiences with alienating or gatekeeping behaviors could help the school counselor better understand the potential emotional turmoil children are experiencing. The traumatic aspects of a high-conflict divorce can be very well hidden as children tend to minimize their intrapersonal challenges amid the obvious ones occurring between their parents.
Co-parenting counseling
Co-parenting counseling is meant to facilitate positive communication for parents, encourage productive parenting behaviors, and avoid additional litigation (Boyan & Termini, 2013). The hope is that parents can learn to collaboratively engage in navigating present issues for the benefit of their children. While this type of counseling is often relegated by the court in cases of high conflict, it can be counterproductive as continued attempts at ‘working together’ only work to further ignite hostility. These can be deeply wounded parents and while consciously seeking to regain balance, direction, and a focus on the children (Shumaker & Kelsey, 2020), many are also subconsciously accustomed to receiving the attention the conflict provides. These parents tend to spend the co-parenting session trying to prove they are right and/or better, introducing new complaints, and ultimately ‘winning’ in the eyes of this new arbiter (Stacer & Stemen, 2000). One program suggests cutting any physical contact and severely limiting any other contact for a specified period; sanctioned contact should only be in writing and only when necessary (Stacer & Stemen, 2000).
Too often, counselors acting in this role do not have any specific educational training in the area nor are they necessarily working from a particular empirically supported model, which means that effectiveness is difficult to gauge. Effective co-parenting counselors focus on underlying parental trauma and fears the couple have held onto to minimize the conflict for effective decision-making. Ineffective counselors are easily sidetracked by day-to-day issues (scheduling, accusations, exchanges, etc.) which only works to enhance the deeper conflict. One mistake often made by the co-parenting counselor is to assume equal contribution to the high conflict by both parties. In many cases both parents can share in the responsibility for conflict (Fidler & Bala, 2020); however, in cases of HCS/D there is usually one parent who initiates and prolongs a disproportionate portion of conflict (Friedman, 2004).
When co-parenting counseling does not work, a parenting coordinator may be the next intervention suggested. These individuals are trained in conflict resolution and conflict management and seek to help the parents resolve disputes and reduce overall conflict (Kelly, 2008). Coordinators may work to teach the couple positive communication techniques including email and text exchanges, which tend to be filled with hostility by one or both parents (Ordway et al., 2020). In some cases, co-parenting counselors may attempt to play the role of a parent coordinator and vice versa.
Summary
HCS/D by its nature is complicated and contentious and while many families desire to minimize its impact on all involved parties, it is hard for anyone to move through these situations without some wounding. Because of its complexity, a wide array of legal professionals, family members and friends, school personnel, and mental health professionals become involved. Counselors are critical to helping these families (Treloar, 2019) and knowledgeable and prepared counseling professionals should hold a prominent role in the healing processes.
A counselor who desires to assist individuals and families going through this challenging process may become frustrated due to the often-diminished psychological functioning of their clients (Parkinson, 2000). Because most counselors are not specifically prepared to work with HCS/D families in their training (Fidnick et al., 2011), their conceptualizations and approaches are often divergent and/or polarized, leading them to be confused about what specific models to utilize (Davis & Sexton, 2021). Davis and Sexton (2021) make clear that HCS/D families may not have access to evidence-based or evidence-informed treatment methods and encourage counselors and incorporate models with empirical evidence. There are vast differences between the approaches mentioned here, but there are also similarities in that they all require a multi-focus and multi-technique orientation that necessitates outstanding skill as well as a working understanding of the processes of HCS/D (Shumaker & Kelsey, 2020).
Because family members may be engaged with school counselors, individual counselors, family counselors, and co-parenting counselors, there can be confusion, manipulation tactics, misunderstandings, fears, and feelings of being overwhelmed. For instance, a parent may behave very differently in front of the co-parenting counselor than how they behave and react with the ex-partner or at home with the children (the children may engage in similar behaviors). A child may fear consequences of sharing details with a counselor or must navigate a parent explicitly telling them what to say and what not to say with a counselor. A parent may seek to minimize or explain away alienating or gatekeeping behaviors. Children will often minimize the impact of the high conflict. Counselors must work very hard to not get pulled into the minutia and the back and forth of repeated confrontations that appear manageable on the surface. Rather, they must maintain a commitment to helping clients explore the depth of emotions prevalent during often tumultuous times. Counselors should seek to collaborate with other professionals involved for the benefit of all family members (Deutsch & Sullivan, 2014; Fidler et al., 2011). Their communication and collaboration (case management) with one another minimizes the influence of inconsistent or erratic behaviors.
As previously mentioned, counselors may be reluctant to take on these types of clients and it is important to reiterate that burnout and vicarious trauma are real concerns. Professionals are not immune to the elevated experiences of their clients and can experience vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, emotional labor, and/or burn-out (Ordway et al., 2020). However, the need for good counselors is unending and as the incidences of high-conflict divorce continue to increase, effective and knowledgeable counselors are critical.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article
