NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  re-unification therapy going in wrong direction

    Posted 04-04-2014 01:25 PM

     Hello listmates,

    Have a client whose son is in reunification therapy with his father.  The therapy has been going on for approximately 16 months.  Recently, the therapist suggested to my client that a solution to having to attend therapy would be to emancipate the 14 year old.  Therapist informed my client that she can have a document drafted for the parties to sign and that this was the father's idea since "he wanted to relinquish his rights so he could get off the hook."  Client actually had the foresight to tape these conversations and I was shocked when I heard the doctor offer the above as a possible alternative to attending therapy. 

    I am deeply troubled by this since the purpose for attending the bi-weekly appointments for the last 18 months was to reunify the son and his dad and not to divide the relationship further by permitting the father to "relinquish his rights and let him off the hook." 

    Thinking about requesting a status report and going forward treatment plan from the psychiatrist and given the length of time the parties have been in therapy, filing a motion requesting that a guardian ad litem be appointed. 

    Any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Thanks in advance.

    Eric Hannum

    -------------------------------------------
    Eric Hannum Esq.
    Jackson NJ
    (732)370-9596

    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:re-unification therapy going in wrong direction

    Posted 04-04-2014 01:47 PM

    Eric

    The Dr's idea is bizarre and unworkable..

    I have a suggestion that came from an ABA monograph some years ago on high conflict divorces and children caught in the middle. I used this idea in a case and it worked incredibly well -- for a 14 year old boy in an alienation case.

    Move for the appointment not of a GAL (R. 5:8B), but rather of a lawyer for the child (R. 5:8A). The lawyer will advocate for the child's position, not the best interests position.  Big difference.  Totally resolved our case. Got the parents to pay attention to what the kid actually wanted.  It really worked well for my client and his son.

    If the Judge insists on ALSO appointing a GAL, and assuming these folks can afford it, that is actually not a bad thing. The Judge will get the kid's perspective and the GAL's, which could turn out to be the same thing.

    Good luck.

    Hanan

    -------------------------------------------
    Hanan Isaacs Esq.
    Kingston NJ
    (609)683-7400

    -------------------------------------------



    Original Message


  • 3.  RE:re-unification therapy going in wrong direction

    Posted 04-07-2014 07:14 PM
    Eric - I share the concern.  Obviously, to start with, you can't terminate parental rights by consent in New Jersey ( http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12666217077188208034 ), so this therapist has no clue.  It also sounds like they're not competent at what they're supposed to be doing.  If the therapist didn't feel she/he was effective at bringing about reunification, he/she needed to either reach out to counsel and stop the therapy or refer the parties to someone else.  Suggesting a legal course of action (and an erroneous one at that) was plainly NOT what she should have been doing.

    On the GAL or Hanan's suggestion, I'm not sure what your client's position is based on your post.  If she wants the therapy to go forward, then get a new therapist.  If dad is saying he doesn't want it to go forward, then end it -- but he's not "off the hook."  He can bow out on his larger responsibility (being a parent), but not the smaller one (paying CS).

    -------------------------------------------
    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax: 609-737-3222
    -------------------------------------------





    Original Message