December 2007 Co-Parenting Counselors ‘Band Wagon’ in Custody Cases ‘Bad idea’ It's a bad idea because there is in fact no co-parenting therapy protocol. It's a bad idea because when it doesn't work, the therapist has to cover ass, and so will blame one or both parents and in a report to the court will have to up the stakes, recommending parenting coordination or supervised visitation or sanctions or whatever that is continually stronger. It's a bad idea because co-parenting aka joint custody in the first place is a bad idea. That's why we don't have co-CEOs or co-presidents, and rule by committee is a tedious, sub-par way to get things done. It's a bad idea because the primary incentive of evaluators to recommend co-parenting counseling is to make money and cultivate cross-referral favors, not do anything for kids. It's a bad idea because going to counseling is an unproductive, burdensome, annoying, enervating waste of time and money. It's a bad idea because the same therapists who can't help people get along via marital counseling when they have every incentive to try to do so really can't help people get along when they have every incentive not to. And if they could've, they already would’ve. It's a bad idea because it doesn't work. There are no studies at all on coparenting counseling efficacy, let alone that co-parenting counseling works. It's well-known that marital therapy doesn't work. It's a bad idea because it's intrusive of privacy, meddling with people's ongoing lives, inappropriate relationship engineering and potentially dangerous if there has been prior violence or stalking. It's a bad idea because sometimes people just need the cathartic, distance making relief of a really good, no-holds-barred fight, and just have to be allowed to do that and get it over with until it's spent and they are exhausted and stop, and thus the propaganda exhorting them to constantly stuff and be polite only prolongs the crap by suppressing it and driving it under the surface where it can bubble neurotically and resentfully and covertly forever. And lengthening the time in which there are issues only entrenches feuds and hardens what otherwise would have been temporary positions.

It's a bad idea because few therapists actually are in any position of knowledge of the facts, of child development, of similar families' and persons' daily lives, or of being a parent in the particular parents' circumstances, or with any skills to impart under such circumstances, and if they can relate, more often than not they have their own personal axes to grind. It's a bad idea because therapy should be about helping people see reality, and accurately assess options, and make good decisions in life and how they react or respond to others, but in fact "co-parenting" starting from the notion of a bi-nuclear family and two equal parents is founded on delusional premises. It's a bad idea because therapists who want to do this work also are looking for other kinds of work in the court system (because they can't manage to get enough patients voluntarily hint hint hint) in the areas of parenting coordination, mediation, guardian ad litem, reunification therapy, etc. etc. etc. and so are likely to not be of an innately wise caliber. It's a bad idea because it forces people in antagonistic positions, and still in litigation (child custody cases unlike other kinds of cases are open for many years) to have to reveal thoughts, ideas, personal information, weaknesses, and other issues involuntarily, and when courtordered, there is no confidentiality because there are reports to the court, all in violation of the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. It's a bad idea because the therapeutic jurisprudence crowd doesn't have a clue what's appropriate from the standpoint of deu process and once involved in a case manage to exponentially worsen and complicate it and introduce yet more and more and more third party helping professionals while essentially obfuscating everything procedural-wise. It's a bad idea because once they are on the case, there is absolutely no incentive to declare things working and themselves no longer needed (assuming that on rare occasion suddenly the "co parents" started to get along at some point -- which if that did happen, is unlikely to have anything to do with the therapist), but of course when it doesn't happen, see first comment, above. It's a bad idea because the way to get people to stop fighting is the same way to get kids to stop fighting. You take away the toy. The way the toy should be taken away is immediately with primary caregiver sole custody from the start and nothing to fight over. However, after years of expensive litigation in this woman-hating world and the input of idiots, when some judge somewhere finally has reached the point of cork-popping and exhaustion, his solution is going to be to decide to do this and it's going to be sole custody to the persons who (a) has most regularly paid the therapist fees and/or (b) doesn't really give as much of a crap about stuff and so seems more ‘cooperative.’
KMFCJ-founded by Protective Parent Claudine Dombrowski, a survivor of Domestic Violence. The goal of KMFCJ is to publish informed news releases, links and commentaries to promote education and understanding in ‘custody disputes/abuses’. Contact: 785.845.3417or email AngelFury@AngelFury.org

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful