<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: College Helps Renew Parent-Child Ties </title> <atom:link href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/09/05/college-helps-renew-parent-child-ties/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/09/05/college-helps-renew-parent-child-ties/</link> <description>Understanding, preventing, and overcoming parental alienation</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:12:14 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.7</generator> <item> <title> By: dieta </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/09/05/college-helps-renew-parent-child-ties/#comment-4297</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[dieta]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:12:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=549#comment-4297</guid> <description><![CDATA[What is the leading case concerning college cost contributions by non-custodial parents? In a perfect world both parents should be thrilled to pay for the costs of college for their children. The parents should be elated that their child has not turned into a juvenile delinquent.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the leading case concerning college cost contributions by non-custodial parents? In a perfect world both parents should be thrilled to pay for the costs of college for their children. The parents should be elated that their child has not turned into a juvenile delinquent.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Jessica Maffei </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/09/05/college-helps-renew-parent-child-ties/#comment-4274</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jessica Maffei]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 00:57:20 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=549#comment-4274</guid> <description><![CDATA[I especially like your last paragraph – and I did start a blog – two in fact – just a few months ago! I always write letters to my children at Christmas – sometimes more often, but at least once a year. They know their letters will be in their stockings! Probably wouldn’t do anything you said not to – just a little bit inhibited! But that’s just me. Congratulations on being freshly pressed!]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I especially like your last paragraph – and I did start a blog – two in fact – just a few months ago! I always write letters to my children at Christmas – sometimes more often, but at least once a year. They know their letters will be in their stockings! Probably wouldn’t do anything you said not to – just a little bit inhibited! But that’s just me. Congratulations on being freshly pressed!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/09/05/college-helps-renew-parent-child-ties/#comment-4238</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:48:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=549#comment-4238</guid> <description><![CDATA[Vis à vis a Huffpost reply, I'm reminded and struck again with how frequently a claim that the alienated or target parent has ``abandoned'' the affected child is made, when there are protective or restraining orders, or a custody order severely restricting or forbidding contact in place or threatened, which moreover everyone knows. Sometimes it's alleged the alienated parent was unfit to care for or even had abused the child, and so was perforce legally enjoined from seeing the child, _and_ also chose not to be in significant contact. In one instance I'm familiar with, a therapist, who had counseled the child along `abandonment' lines, was questioned about the apparent contradiction and would not acknowledge it, but would only proclaim that that the parent both had to be court ordered out of the child's life, and freely abandoned the child, ``is the narrative.'' It's hard to know, for purposes of informing a reunification attempt, what the child thinks in such cases: whether they believe the parent presented a real danger to them in terms of neglect or abuse, or that the parent simply had no interest in them, or somehow accepts the paradox that in both respects the parent was and is just `bad.' It's commonplace and evidently an established or `best' practice among therapists to recommend slow or incremental reconnection when child-parent contact has been interrupted---even for as short an interval as one month---usually because a parent withheld the other's parenting time, when probably the exact opposite---rapid restoration---is actually in order. It appears to be more to accommodate the parent who caused the interruption, than it's because of a sincere and well founded sense that the child would find adjusting problematic were the restoration more abrupt.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vis à vis a Huffpost reply, I’m reminded and struck again with how frequently a claim that the alienated or target parent has “abandoned” the affected child is made, when there are protective or restraining orders, or a custody order severely restricting or forbidding contact in place or threatened, which moreover everyone knows. Sometimes it’s alleged the alienated parent was unfit to care for or even had abused the child, and so was perforce legally enjoined from seeing the child, _and_ also chose not to be in significant contact. In one instance I’m familiar with, a therapist, who had counseled the child along `abandonment’ lines, was questioned about the apparent contradiction and would not acknowledge it, but would only proclaim that that the parent both had to be court ordered out of the child’s life, and freely abandoned the child, “is the narrative.”</p> <p>It’s hard to know, for purposes of informing a reunification attempt, what the child thinks in such cases: whether they believe the parent presented a real danger to them in terms of neglect or abuse, or that the parent simply had no interest in them, or somehow accepts the paradox that in both respects the parent was and is just `bad.’</p> <p>It’s commonplace and evidently an established or `best’ practice among therapists to recommend slow or incremental reconnection when child-parent contact has been interrupted—even for as short an interval as one month—usually because a parent withheld the other’s parenting time, when probably the exact opposite—rapid restoration—is actually in order. It appears to be more to accommodate the parent who caused the interruption, than it’s because of a sincere and well founded sense that the child would find adjusting problematic were the restoration more abrupt.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>