Custody Cases Involving Teenagers: A Guide
Custody Cases Involving Teenagers: A Guide
As most practitioners have experienced either thorough our clients or in our personal lives, teenagers bring a unique set of problems, including rebellion, shifting alliances and sometimes alignment with one parent against the other. On Sept. 9, the Family Law Section welcomed three professionals to present on the unique challenges faced in custody cases with teenage children. The challenge for a practitioner becomes how to counsel a client who has a child who will not abide by a court order.
The panelists were Michael Bertin, partner at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, who served as moderator; Hon. Diane R. Thompson, Court of Common Pleas, Family Division, First Judicial District; Harvey Thompson, a psychologist for the Philadelphia School District; and Heather Goldner Kinsey, of the Offices of Heather Goldner Kinsey.
Kinsey discussed how teenage children benefit from individual therapy which creates a “safe channel” to discuss their thoughts and feelings – particularly in cases where the two parties that have created an environment wherein they only interact with each other within conflict. In a high conflict case, a traditional family therapy approach is unlikely to be successful. In lower conflict cases, or when dealing with discrete issues, family therapy is more likely to be successful. The goal for parties that are divorcing must be to learn, within a new framework, about how to cooperate with each other, as Kinsey says she notes with her clients, “you’re starting a new business: your child is your job, your ex is your colleague, and no one is getting fired.”
In dealing with a case of alienation of the child by or through one parent, the most crucial factor for success in reunification is the support of the “favored” parent in the process of reuniting the child with the “rejected” parent. A good practitioner can encourage their favored parent client to assist in the process by reminding them of how their actions will appear in the court as the therapist is interested in holding them accountable if they are not cooperative.
Judge Thompson discussed the challenge that comes from being the “responsible” parent with a teenager who does not want to do homework or study. This is particularly hard if the other parent is the “fun” parent, who does not carry the responsibility and makes up for possibly less time by not enforcing rules. One of the challenges is ensuring that we provide some flexibility to teenagers, within reason, since rigidity invites pushback. It can be particularly daunting since, although a teenager’s feelings may not be rational, they are real to the child. When approaching an alienated child, better success may be found by allowing for smaller chunks of time with the rejected parent. Judge Thompson addressed the “well-reasoned preference of the child” as dictated by custody factors. She is clear with the child (and the parties) that the child cannot simply pick where they want to live. She encourages the child to provide specifics for their preferences for each household so that she can properly weigh the reasons to make a decision.
Reprinted with permission from the October 2019 edition of the Philadelphia Bar Reporter © 2019 Philadelphia Bar Association. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited (contact (215) 238-6300 or reporter@philabar.org).
Comments are closed.