Definition of Reunification Therapy
Reunification therapy describes family therapy that is focused on repairing or strengthening the parent-child relationship. Reunification therapy does not describe a modality or type of therapy, it describes a goal. Even then, the goal of reunification therapy can be vague, ill-defined, and dependent on how different judges, therapists, and parents define “reunification” in different cases and situations.
Sound confusing? That’s because it is.
Types of Reunification Therapy
Sometimes reunification therapy means exactly what it sounds like. In the case where a parent is awarded parenting time after a break in the parent/child relationship, reunification therapy is meant to facilitate the repair of the relationship. In this situation, the parent’s parenting role is already established, and often set forth in a final parenting plan. The court is no longer deciding if reunification should happen, and is not necessarily looking for feedback or evaluation from the therapist.
Other times, reunification therapy is ordered even when the court has significant questions about the best interest of the child, and has not made a final decision about the parent/child relationship. Reunification therapy is sometimes ordered when there was never a previous relationship to reunify. Oftentimes, reunification therapy is ordered when the relationship needs work, but there was never actually a physical break in the relationship.
In the above cases, the therapist is put in a dual role of evaluator/helper. The therapist works to build skills and to facilitate the parent/child relationship, and continuously evaluates the safety and efficacy of the parent/child therapy. In this case, there is no presumed outcome. Reunification efforts can end before the parent and child even attend a joint session, or the parent/child relationship can develop to the point where the previously restricted parent has more or less has unrestricted parenting time.
The Need for Clarity
All of the above situations and intentions of the court are often summarized as “reunification therapy,” which can lead to significant problems. The label “reunification therapy” is used so loosely as to be actively unhelpful. It is very important for the courts to clarify what they intend when ordering reunification therapy and for therapists to understand the intentions of the court before they start reunification therapy.
Problems arise when parties make assumptions about the goal of reunification therapy and unhelpful expectations arise from these assumptions. An estranged father might expect that “reunification therapy” is going to result in a child returning to his care, regardless of how treatment proceeds, even if the court (and therapist) are still evaluating whether that should or could happen. A custodial mother might treat reunification therapy as contingent on the other parent and the child’s behaviors, when, in fact, the court has already decided that the other parent is going to having parenting time, no matter the outcome of therapy.
I work hard to make sure that all parties understand what reunification therapy means for each particular case, and to make sure children are supported and protected while they are exploring the relationship with an estranged/alienated parent. When the court’s intentions are not clear, I may ask that counsel for the parents ask for specific guidance or language from the court to provide clarity.
When I provide reunification therapy, I involve both the absent or vilified parent and the custodial or preferred parent. In order for children to thrive and navigate a difficult situation, they need the support and cooperation of each parent. Of course history and circumstance has to be considered. “Cooperation and support” for reunification efforts are often difficult for both parents (especially custodial parents). After all, the need for reunification therapy often results from a long history of elevated strife and conflict between the parents.