|

These materials are provided for
educational purposes only.
Please do not distribute or allow persons not enrolled in
the seminar to access this page.
Resources and
citations in order of appearance
(use CNTRL + F to search this page for keywords)
Harman, J. J., Warshak, R. A.,
Lorandos, D., & Florian, M. J. (2022, June 2).
Developmental Psychology and the Scientific
Status of Parental Alienation. Developmental
Psychology. Advance online publication
|
|
Garber, B.D., Simon, R.A., Individual
Adult Psychometric Testing and Child Custody
Evaluations: If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit, Don’t Wear It,
JAAML, Vol. 30, No. 2 (2018).
|
 |
Rappaport, S.R., Gould, J.W., Dale,
M.D., Psychological Testing Can Be of Significant
Value in Child Custody Evaluations: Don’t Buy the
“Anti-Testing, Anti-Individual, Pro-Family Systems”
Woozle, 30 JAAML No. 2 (2018) |
|
Smart, C. (2002). From children’s
shoes to children’s voices. Family Court Review, 40,
297-306.
|
|
Garber, Benjamin D. (2014). The
chameleon child: Children as actors in the high
conflict divorce drama. Journal of Child Custody,
11, 1-16.
|

|
Garber, Benjamin D. (2007).
Developing a structured interview tool for children
embroiled in family litigation and forensic mental
health services: The Query Grid. Journal of Forensic
Psychology Practice, 7(1), 1-18.
|

|

|

|
Understanding,
defining and distinguishing the dynamics of high
conflict family relationships
|
A cognitive
behavioral protocol for diminishing anxiety and
facilitating healthy relationships
|
why 90 day sequestration?
FN "95. I am often asked about the optimal length
of time before contact is restored with the
favored parent.
Naturally, I make no recommendations in specific
cases unless I conduct a comprehensive evaluation.
Ideally, the
resumption of contact is tailored to each family
based on an evaluation of the child’s progress and
an evaluation
of the formerly favored parent’s willingness and
ability to modify behaviors that would make it
difficult for the
child to maintain the gains. Optimal timing depends on a
number of factors, such as the favored parent’s
ability
to modify behaviors that create difficulties for
the children, the children’s vulnerability to
feeling pressured to
realign with a parent, the duration of the
alienation or estrangement prior to the
Workshop, and the favored
parent’s past conduct and compliance with court
orders. If a time period had to be stated
in advance, based on my
clinical experience, in general I suggest
considering a period of 3–6 months before regular
contacts resume, to
allow a child to consolidate gains and work
through the numerous issues that arise in living
with the rejected
parent free from the influence of the favored
parent. But, contacts in a therapeutically
monitored situation may
optimally occur sooner. Three months is about the
length of time that children in therapeutic
boarding schools and
residential treatment centers initially go without
seeing a parent. This has not been subjected to
systematic
empirical research, and it would be difficult to
conceive of a study that could do so, given all
the variables that
must be controlled, such as theWorkshop leaders,
the site of theWorkshop, the age and gender of the
children and
of the rejected parent, the extent to which the
favored parent and the rejected parent have
contributed to the
problem, the exact nature of the court orders,
etc. Similarly, no empirical studies compare
different parenting time
schedules for different age children, other than
gross comparisons of sole versus joint custody
arrangements. In
the case of alienated children reunited with the
rejected parent, it would be difficult to put
together a sufficient
sample size to allow for control of significant
variables"
|
from:
Warshak, R. A. (2010).
Family bridges: Using insights from
social science to reconnect parents and
alienated children . Family Court
Review, 48(1), 48–80.
|
|
|