Evidence-Based Counseling Interventions With Children Of Divorce: Fill & Download for Free

This is one of those tricky subjects where on the one hand, it would seem that clear, compelling scientific evidence would be readily available, and, OTOH, entrenched societal stigma makes human inbreeding a particularly thorny subject for methodical, scientifically rigorous studies. In short, it's not that data is surprisingly hard to find. Rather, rigorously and appropriately controlled studies are hard to come by.It's also important to parse human inbreeding into socially acceptable versus unacceptable. Socially acceptable? Marriages between cousins and uncles-nieces are common, indeed preferred, in many parts of the world, viz., North and sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Central and South Asia (1, 2; see figure below for estimates).Unsurprisingly, data on the socially acceptable form of inbreeding is more voluminous.For e.g., first-cousin marriages and marriages between girls and their maternal uncles are longstanding traditions in South India (the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana) (3, 4, 5).In the US, state level control determines whether first cousin marriages are legal or not, with criminal and civil sanctions in 8 and 22 states, respectively (see figure below from 6; also 7, 8).OTOH, Europe has largely left consanguineous unions unlegislated.In Written Historical RecordIn both Plato's Laws (dialogue) (9) and Xenophon's Memorabilia (Xenophon) (10), Socrates is quoted to mention 'unwritten laws' legislated by the gods. These laws couldn't be disobeyed without natural penalties.Socrates describes the incest taboo as one of these unwritten laws since it had a greater likelihood of producing defective offspring.Problem is these treatises don't mention why the taboo arose in the first place, i.e., no observed data on health of offspring from incestuous unions compared to non-incestuous ones.Physical Evidence from Archaeology and Historical Census dataEarly 20th century genealogies of the 18th and 19th dynasty Egyptian kings (pre-332 B.C.) are unhelpful since they showNo evidence of reduced reproductive capacity.Little/no recorded proof of physical or possible mental defects in the mummies of royal brother-sister offspring (11).OTOH, in Roman Egypt, 19.6% and 3.9% of marriages in the city of Arsinoe were between brother-sister and siblings, respectively (12). This data comes from the census of Egypt held every 14 years during Roman rule. Each household was required to file a return listing all its members, their names, ages and kinship affiliation. While only a tiny fraction of the millions of papyrus census filings have survived, 300 have been published and subjected to demographic analysis.Pharoaonic Egypt believed that brother-sister unions strengthened the royal bloodline.Recent research reveals incest occurred outside the ruling classes as well (13, 14).These historical data don't support the idea that prehistoric or historic human may have observed greater birth defects from inbreeding and thereby instituted incest taboo as a cultural norm.Edvard Westermarck: first hailed then ridiculed and now, a century later, finally vindicated?The beginning, 1890 -1921.In Europe and North America, first-cousin marriages were commonplace until the mid-19th century.Starting in the 1850s, scientists and physicians in Europe and North America began to debate the biological effects of close kin marriage (15).Charles Darwin's marriage to his 1st cousin, Emma Wedgwood, yielded 10 children. By lobbying Sir John Lubbock, he tried to persuade the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland that the 1871 census should assess the prevalence of 1st cousin marriages. Unsurprisingly, his argument was predicated on sound science, 'When the principles of breeding and of inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man' (16). After all, we need robust data before we can conclude benefit or harm of a practice, don't we?However, the culture of the time prevailed against any such effort. The stated objections are telling signposts of the profound difficulty in inculcating scientific temper in society, a difficulty that stubbornly persists to this day.For example, one committee member, Gathorne Hardy stated, 'he did not see the desirability of holding up families where such marriages had taken place, and the children being anatomised for the benefit of science' (17).A generation later, Darwin's son G.H. Darwin managed to extract such data anyway by cleverly performing surname analysis to assess prevalence of first-cousin marriages (18, 19).Then in 1889, Finnish sociologist Edvard Westermarck became internationally famous when he published his colossal 3-volume survey, The History of Human Marriage.Analyzing the biological data available at that time, he concluded that inbreeding produced high rates of infant mortality, and mental and physical defects (20).Westermarck argued that harmful consequences of inbreeding selected for an innate aversion to sex with childhood associates.Thus, for Westermarck, observed harms of incest didn't create the cultural taboo against incest.Rather, natural selection naturally and inextricably linked the two.In modern re-telling, cohabitation during formative years creates mutual de-eroticization in co-socialized children. In simpler words, growing up together inculcates sexual aversion.The barren years, 1934-1962.Shockingly, from the turn of the 20th century until the 1960s, Westermarck's ideas were actively derided and shunned by a literal who's who of 20th century biology, anthropology and psychology. This, even though early supporters of his ideas included the likes of Edward Burnett Tylor and Alfred Russel Wallace.Problem for Westermarck was that he wasn't only a Darwinian but also a steadfast empiricist. Thus, for him incest's biology, psychology and culture were inseparable.In the first instance, many simply didn't believe that close inbreeding was harmful.Lord Raglan accused Westermarck of arguing inbreeding is harmful 'in the face of all the evidence' (21).Bronisław Malinowski argued 'biologists are in agreement that there is no detrimental effect produced upon the species by incestuous unions' (22).Robert Briffault wrote 'there is not in the records of breeding from domesticated animals a single fact . . . which indicates, much less evidences, that inbreeding, even the closest, is itself productive of evil effects' (23).The final nail in Westermarck's coffin came from Sigmund Freud. In an essay titled Totem and Taboo (1910), Freud challenged the Westermarck hypothesis saying, 'the earliest sexual excitations of youthful human beings are invariably of an incestuous character'. He thus argued that the incest taboo only existed to keep this natural propensity at bay.Later luminaries such as Leslie White in 1949, Claude Lévi-Strauss in 1950 and David Aberle in 1956 continued denying that close inbreeding is injurious.Second, through much of the 20th century, Westermarck's ideas were actively shunned in favor of those advocated by Freud and Levi-Strauss, i.e., that humans lacked sexual imprinting so cultural taboo of incest became necessary.Coined by Konrad Lorenz, sexual imprinting is the notion that many animal species avoid mating with close kin such as siblings.In other words, the prevailing Freudian idea implied that a priori early human developed cultural taboo around incest based on rational observation of its harmful effects, i.e., greater chances of defective offspring.It's interesting to speculate why Freud's take on the reason for the incest taboo prevailed for almost a century. Hill Gates claims (24) it's due to anthropology's 'embrace... of Freud's Oedipus complex', i.e., the narrative that humans need to repress their selfish sexual desires to fully realize their potential.In other words, our need to believe, contrary to copious evidence, that our rationality triumphs. Against such a dramatic narrative arc, what chance for Westermarck's hypothesis that early life association inhibits sexual attraction? After all, it's positively anticlimactic.Problem is the Freudian idea prevailed in absence, not because, of incontrovertible scientific evidence.The tide reverses, 1962-Present.Starting in the 1960s, a slow tide of studies revived Westermarck's ideas for two reasons,One, studies showed close inbreeding is injurious.For e.g., studies from Norway (25), Turkey (26), Israel (27), Pakistan (28) showed that compared to unrelated parents, children of first cousins had twice the population baseline probability of congenital malformation and/or genetic diseases.Two, sexual imprinting exists in humans. Now called the Westermarck effect.In 1962, Robin Fox wrote that the notion of sex among people who'd experienced close bodily contact as children ranged from disgusting to unthinkable to indifferent (29).In 1964, Yonina Talmon studied sexual relations among community-reared children in two Israeli Kibbutz. Neither biologically related nor denied permission to marry, nonetheless, they didn't do so because they didn't feel sexual attraction towards one another (30). Joseph Shepher's 1971 follow-up study (31) confirmed Talmon's findings.In turn-of-20th century Taiwan, 3 types of marriages were practiced.In 'major marriage', the bride and groom's parents arranged the marriage, and typically bride and groom didn't meet until the day of marriage.In 'uxorilocal marriage', the groom and bride's parents arranged the marriage, typically bride and groom didn't meet until the day of marriage, and the couple lived with the wife's family.In 'minor marriage', the sim-pua (little bride), aged from a few days of age to 4 years old, was betrothed in infancy and raised with her future husband in his house. Post-puberty, they were married (saq-cue-tui or 'pushing together') in their mid-teens.Westermarck's hypothesis would predict that early association would create sexual aversion, despite the prevailing cultural norm.Indeed, the Stanford anthropologist, Arthur Wolf, found minor marriage couples had much higher divorce and adultery rates, and fewer children per year (32).Taking advantage of the meticulous demographic records the Japanese government kept during their occupation of Taiwan between 1895 and 1945, Wolf collected and analyzed the adoptions, births, deaths, divorces and marriages among the island's inhabitants, i.e., data on >14000 women from 26 villages and 2 towns.Using fertility, divorces and extramarital affairs as proxies for sexual inhibition and aversion, he found that extramarital affairs were 16.5% for women whose marriages were arranged by their and the groom's parents but 37.7% for women from minor marriages.Wolf was also able to rule out competing hypotheses such as health disparities between women in minor versus arranged marriages.Data from Incest (copulation with parents, offspring, siblings)Problem is two-foldFew studies exist (see figure below from 6 using data adapted from 33).They're plagued with design flaws that engender confirmation bias and thus preclude firm conclusions about the data. These includeIncestuous mothers tend to be very young; published studies didn't/couldn't adequately control for that.Incest group typically comprises greater physical and mental handicaps.For e.g., the 1971 Czech study by Seemanova (see table below) had 141 females in the incestuous group. Of these, 20 were intellectually handicapped and, in addition, 2 each were deaf-mutes, had congenital syphilis or were epileptics. In addition, two others were deaf-mutes and three were schizophrenic. OTOH, in the control group of 46 mothers, only 2 were intellectually handicapped (one additionally a deaf-mute), and 2 other deaf-mutes.Same gap exists in the fathers as well. Of 138 fathers in incestuous pairings, 8 intellectually handicapped, 13 chronic alcoholics, 2 with syphilis, and 4 suicides. OTOH, the nonincestuous group of 52 fathers had none who were intellectually handicapped, 2 chronic alcoholics and 1 with polydactyly.OTOH, the data is clearer and cleaner in animal studies.Mother-son incest is rare in Rhesus macaques (34).Incest is rare in other primates, mammals, birds, amphibians and even insects (35).In fact, incest is uncommon throughout the animal kingdom (36, 37), rare exceptions being eusocial mammals such as naked mole rats (38).Irony dictates it's appropriate to end with Freud's Oedipus complex.Separated at birth from his mother, Jocasta, Oedipus ends up bolstering rather than demolishing Westermarck's hypothesis.After all, early separation undermines natural adaptation for incest avoidance.More recent government data also supports this idea, again ironically because the goal of the bureaucratic intervention in this instance was something else entirely.In 1975, Britain enacted the Access to Birth Records Act.This Act enables adopted persons >18 years of age to trace their biological kin.Maurice Greenberg and Roland Littlewood studied reunited kin (39).They estimate >50% of reunited kin experience strong sexual feelings.They also suggest incest may be frequent.While there are many similar anecdotal reports in the literature, Anaïs Nin's experience with her father, Joaquín Nin (40), is one of the most famous examples that supports Westermarck's hypothesis that early association (attachment?) is essential in engendering incest aversion.Also, the all-important caveat: Science hasn't yet uncovered the all-important how as in how early life association and incest aversion mechanistically intersect at the biological (genetic/epigenetic) level, i.e., how genetic selection shapes incest aversion over time and how early life association mediates this effect.BibliographyBittles, Alan Holland. "Empirical estimates of the global prevalence of consanguineous marriage in contemporary societies." (1998). Page on murdoch.edu.auBittles A.H. and Black M.L. (2015). Global Patterns & Tables of Consanguinity. Main Page - ConsangWiki - Consang.netKapadia, Kanaiyalal Motilal. Marriage and family in India. Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1966, p117-137.Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. A history of South India from prehistoric times to the fall of Vijayanagara. Delhi, 1975, p66.Bittles, Alan H., J. Michael Coble, and N. Appaji Rao. "Trends in consanguineous marriage in Karnataka, South India, 1980–89." Journal of biosocial science 25.01 (1993): 111-116.Chapter 2. Genetic Aspects of Inbreeding and Incest. Alan Bittles. pp. 38-60 in Wolf, Arthur P. Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo: The state of knowledge at the turn of the century. Stanford University Press, 2005.M. Ottenheimer, “Lewis Henry Morgan and the prohibition of cousin marriage in the United States,” Journal of Family History, vol. 15 (1990), pp. 325–34.M. Ottenheimer, Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996), pp. 19–41.Plato, Laws, trans. Thomas Pangle (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 838a–39b.Xenophon, Memorabilia, IV.iv.19–23.M. A. Ruffer, “On the physical effects of consanguineous marriages in the royal families of Ancient Egypt,” in Studies in the Paleopathology of Egypt, ed. L. R. Moodie (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1922), pp. 322–66.Scheidel, Walter. "Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt." Journal of biosocial science 29.03 (1997): 361-371. Page on researchgate.netHopkins, Keith. "Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt." Comparative Studies in Society and History 22.03 (1980): 303-354.Scheidel, Walter. "Brother-sister and parent-child marriage outside royal families in ancient Egypt and Iran: a challenge to the sociobiological view of incest avoidance?." Ethology and Sociobiology 17.5 (1996): 319-340.A. H. Bittles, “The basis of Western attitudes towards consanguineous marriage,” Development Medicine and Child Neurology, vol. 45 (2003), pp. 135–38.C. Darwin, The Descent of Man, vol. 2 (London: John Murray, 1871. p. 403.HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationary Office), Parliamentary Debates, Third Series (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1870), pp. 1006–10.G. H. Darwin, “Marriages between first cousins in England and Wales and their effects,” Journal of the Statistical Society, vol. 38 (1875), pp. 153–84.G. H. Darwin, “Note on the marriage of first cousins,” Journal of the Statistical Society, vol. 38 (1875), pp. 344–48.Westermarck, Edward. The history of human marriage. Vol. 2. Macmillan, 1921. pp. 224–36.Lord Raglan, Jocasta’s Crime (London, 1933), p. 16.Bronislaw Malinowski, Sex and Repression in Savage Society (London,1927), p. 243.Robert Briffault, The Mothers (London, 1927), vol. 1, p. 215.Gates, Hill. "Refining the Incest Taboo." Wolf and Durham (2005) 139 (2005): 60.Stoltenberg, Camilla, et al. "Influence of consanguinity and maternal education on risk of stillbirth and infant death in Norway, 1967–1993." American journal of epidemiology 148.5 (1998): 452-459. Influence of Consanguinity and Maternal Education on Risk of Stillbirth and Infant Death in Norway, 1967-1993Demirel, S., et al. "The frequency of consanguinity in Konya, Turkey, and its medical effects." Genetic counseling (Geneva, Switzerland) 8.4 (1996): 295-301.Jaber, Lutfi, et al. "Marked parental consanguinity as a cause for increased major malformations in an Israeli Arab community." American journal of medical genetics 44.1 (1992): 1-6.Hussain, R. "The impact of consanguinity and inbreeding on perinatal mortality in Karachi, Pakistan." Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology 12.4 (1998): 370-82.Fox, J. Robin. "Sibling incest." British journal of sociology (1962): 128-150.Talmon, Yonina. "Mate selection in collective settlements." American Sociological Review (1964): 491-508.Shepher, Joseph. "Mate selection among second generation kibbutz adolescents and adults: Incest avoidance and negative imprinting." Archives of sexual behavior 1.4 (1971): 293-307.Wolf, Arthur P. Sexual attraction and childhood association: a Chinese brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford University Press, 1995.C O. Carter, “Risk to offspring of incest,” The Lancet, vol. 289 (1967), p. 436.Sade, Donald Stone. "Inhibition of son-mother mating among free-ranging rhesus monkeys." Science and Psychoanalysis, vol. 12 (1968): 18-38.Chapter 3. Inbreeding Avoidance in Primates, Anne Pusey, pp.61-75 in Wolf, Arthur P. Inbreeding, incest, and the incest taboo: The state of knowledge at the turn of the century. Stanford University Press, 2005.Ågren, Greta. "Incest avoidance and bonding between siblings in gerbils." Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 14.3 (1984): 161-169.Gavish, Leah, Joyce E. Hofmann, and Lowell L. Getz. "Sibling recognition in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster." Animal Behaviour 32.2 (1984): 362-366.Reeve, Hudson K., et al. "DNA" fingerprinting" reveals high levels of inbreeding in colonies of the eusocial naked mole-rat." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 87.7 (1990): 2496-2500. Page on pnas.orgGreenberg, Maurice, and Roland Littlewood. "Post‐adoption incest and phenotypic matching: Experience, personal meanings and biosocial implications." British journal of medical psychology 68.1 (1995): 29-44.Deirdre Bair, Anaïs Nin: A Biography (New York: Putnam and Sons, 1995.Thanks for the A2A, Jacquelyn McBain.

PARENTS THAT WONT GET TO SEE THEIR KIDSFOR CHRISTMAS.by Joseph Goldberg.I know many parents will not be spending time withtheir children during the Christmas holiday and not fora lack of wanting or trying to make it happen, butrather because some children reject their parents forunjustified reasons as in cases of parental alienation.Many family law judges are not educated in alienationso they do not know how to recognize malevolentparents committing acts of child psychological abuse..In order to adequately educate the judge a lawyer willneed “litigation support“ from a parent child relationalproblem consultant ( a PCRP consultant )..This is a sad dynamic for rejected parents and for theirchildren, its sad for the extended family members onthe side of the rejected parent - it's sad for people whoare not in this situation because many empathize withthe child or the rejected parent..It''s also unfortunate that many professionals who arenot trained in this dynamic are unwilling to step asideso that more qualified mental health professionals cantake over the treatment of the family members and itssad because there are professionals that can help, butthey are very difficult to find, and the vetting processis something that needs to be put in the hands of a PC-RP consultant..The rejected parent may be new to this experience orliving with the dynamic for many years, it should beemphasized that I'm talking about “ unjustified reject-ion “ by a child not “ realistic estrangement. “.We all know children reject parents for good reasons.A parent may have been abusive, neglectful, they mayhave a parenting style that is overly rigid, excessivelypassive - uninvolved or disinterested in the child, theparent might be overly controlling or, highly critical;they may have committed acts of domestic violence,they may have a criminal profile - but “ unjustifiedrejection “ is all about illogical reasons for rejection,ie cases of alienation where the justification is simplydelusional..In cases of child psychological abuse, the rejection isbeyond the insight of the child, and it's impossible forthe child to understand how the rejection was incul -cated by an offending parent, often with support fromelder siblings, grandparents and other friends alignedwith the offending parent..Parents rejected for unjustified reasons are at great riskof overly reactive behaviour which could further comp-licate or compromise their ability to repair the parent -child relational problem. These parents are pushed intoacting in a defensive manner. They're hurt, confused,angry, and they do make misguided mistakes that laterbecome the focus of legal proceedings to interfere withtheir visitation and custodial rights..My comments are not intended to echo what a rejectedparent already knows, my article is dedicated to theirextended family members, to their significant others,to their friends, or anyone else searching for sound ad-vise to give comfort and support to the rejected parent..Let me begin by saying that there's a long list ofprofessionals involved in helping to repair parent-child relational problems ( PCRP's ) : Lawyers,mental health professionals, counsel for children,parenting coordinators, friends of the court, specialmasters, mediators, arbitrators, CPS investigators,DV advocates, supervisors of visitation, CDFA's,TSV's, divorce education instructors and in a newcategory, the “ PCRP consultant “..Don't ask anyone to explain what a PCRP consultantdoes - its a profession I invented and for that reasonit's pointless for rejected parents to ask a lawyer “DoI need one ? “ This is to new a field to be understoodby lawyers that have never worked with a PCRP con-sultant..The PCRP consultant has studied the social scienceresearch in PCRP's and stays current in their con-tinuing education, the PCRP consultant has a hybridexpertise in understanding psycho-legal issues, andinterventions in dealing with PCRP''s. The PCRPconsultant can do a forensic analysis to formulate areunification plan and do a quasi-clinical differentialdiagnosis to determine whether the problem is root-ed in alignment, enmeshment, alienation or estrange-ment, and whether or not the problem has a singularetiology or a hybrid one. You can't treat a problem ifyou don't first diagnosis the condition..There are only 2 ways to arrive at a differential diag-nosis: 1. Through a custody evaluation, or 2. Withthe help of a PCRP consultant. In both situationsneither the evaluator or PCRP consultant is treatingthe problem. This is just an assessment phase..If the rejected parent is seeking a way to turn aroundthe obstacles in repairing the PCRP, then it can onlybe expedited by a PCRP consultant. Trying to obtaina custody evaluation could take a number of years toget court ordered, completed and reported to a judge;and at a huge cost, especially if the recommendationof the evaluator is later disputed by the non-favouredparent ( who may want to contest it by going to trial.).What rejected parents need to do differently is retaina PCRP consultant regardless of how much they trustor don't trust their lawyer to succeed, regardless of acourt ruling that has caused them to give up or accepta court order that they feel can't be modified. There isnever a wrong time or a bad time to retain the PCRPconsultant. Regardless of the cost a consultant is nowthe only way to lower your global case expenses andget the court ordered reunification needed to repair aPCRP..Many rejected parents are just fed up. Some of themhave been tormented by the legal process and allthe well intentioned professionals that have failed tohelp them. It's not surprising that many of themdistrust anyone offering a helping hand. Regardlessof the fact that many people are to shut out and hurtto continue to pursue a remedy, my focus is fixatedon helping to rescue children that remain trapped inhomes with abusive parents and I offer support thatis based on education and social science facts. It iscrucial to help others understand treatment plansthat work from those that don't and to refer them toevidence based treatment of PCRP's..If you are a parent rejected for unjustified reasons thisis important to pay attention to because children courtordered into counseling do not all share the same setsof motivation to attend..Many children who have been victims of real abusestill are motivated to repair a relationship with theparent that mistreated them, and they frequently getsupport for the conjoint counseling from the non -abusive parent; in another category - children whowere kidnapped and have not seen their other parentalso have a strong motivation to repair the PCRP;and children who have had a parent in jail for a longperiod of time also express an interest in attendingcounseling to rebond with that lost parent - all of thechildren in these categories are motivated to restorea relationship with their parent, but these childrenare also polar opposites to children that have beenalienated from a parent. Alienated kids do not havemotivation to be reunified with a parent they reject.A therapist that does not have education and trainingto help alienated children will always fail. This factcomes straight out of social science literature, yet thisfact is rarely understood by non-experts that becomeembroiled in making treatment decisions..A PCRP consultant can identify the right practitionerto treat your child by making a preliminary, quasi-differential diagnosis based on an understanding of thecontinuum of PCRP's and hybrid factors. A PCRPconsultant can also screen for the right lawyer to workon the case and help that lawyer to get back on the righttrack..As a PCRP consultant I've had people contact me forhelp claiming they were parents being alienatedfrom their children, some are truly alienated parents -but some are alienators looking for a way to protecttheir children, children that need no protection. I havetalked to parents that are alienated from their childrenonly to find out that at the same time they were doingtit for tat, I have talked to parents that never heard ofparental alienation, and I talked to many parents thatfelt they were educated on this topic but in fact knewonly a few facts and that a substantial amount of in -formation they thought was true ...was in fact wrong..Retaining a PCRP consultant means you won't be guess-ing at the next thing you should do ( or not do ) and hav-ing a PCRP consultant will help you to minimize muchof the psychological harm caused to the child by avoidingthe mistakes you thought were the right things to say anddo..Perhaps the biggest impediment to rejected parents is thecost of solving their problems. A voluminous number ofparents I provide free consultations to have said, “ I'vealready spent ( $20,000, $50,000, $100,000 ) to solve myproblem and got nothing or very little for it. “ I've alsoheard an equal number of parents say something like, “ Iwish I had found you a year ( two years, five years ) ago.”.They feel drained financially, and suffer from emotionalburnout. Many have new spouses that are not supportivebecause they have a new family or live within a blendedfamily and their new spouses are sick and tired of the costeffecting them and their new lifestyle. Some spouses thatare supportive are at risk of walking out leaving a rejectedparent in agony of losing what little they have left in theirlives. If they had a PCRP consultant, the crisis could be agreat deal more manageable. It takes a PCRP consultantto scaffold these deteriorating relationships..Let me begin by saying that beyond the necessary cost ofretaining a PCRP consultant, the remaining costs can bedrastically reduced in a variety of ways, there are legalretainers that can be waived or reduced with the help of aPCRP consultant, they can also negotiate lower hourlyrates and eliminate time on work that is not necessary. Itis possible to obtain lawyers for very little money, eventhe most competent and expensive lawyers for a fractionof the cost with the help of a PCRP consultant. It is alsoimportant for the rejected parent to know that at the start-ing gate a PCRP consultant will recalibrate the therapeuticand legal intervention approaches to repair a PCRP and aPCRP consultant can reduce the ost of these interventionsto very affordable fees borne by both of the parents..A PCRP can also exit you entirely from the legal systemand not through mediation, but through other legal inter-bention strategies that are faster, cheaper and most of allsmarter ways of handling the problems you are facing. APCRP consultant is not only the 1st person you should beturning to, they are frequently the last option on the tablefor the rejected parent to solve all their problems ( includ-ing many financial issues that need to be resolved ). Thatis a fact that needs to be understood and only by having aconsultation with a PCRP consultant can you know why Iam pointing them in this direction...For more information visit my website atwww.ParentalAlienation.ca and my educational websiteat www.ParentalAlienationEducation.comShare this article and like my Facebook page at:Parental Alienation Consulting Services

Single mothers no father is the foundation of poverty and crime. It also increase child abuse and social pathology. This doesnt involve divorce or death of spouse.The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community.Father-Absent Homes: Implications for Criminal Justice and Mental Health ProfessionalsADVERSE OUTCOME 1: Perceived AbandonmentChildren who grow up without their fathers may come to resent paternal-figures due to perceived abandonment. These feelings may burgeon from a lack of trust and result in a heightened sense of anger. As a child grows into adolescence and young adulthood, these problems may contribute to contact with the criminal justice system, use of illicit substances, as well as a variety of mental health problems. These consequences may result in interpersonal dilemmas including the inability to develop strong social bonds. For example, anger stemming from abandonment can make it difficult for juveniles to establish friendships and relationships (Poehlmann, 2005).ADVERSE OUTCOME 2: Attachment IssuesAttachment refers to the deep emotional bond that develops between a caregiver and a child (Bowlby, 1988). Children who come from a father-absent home are more likely to experience attachment-related problems than those from a two-parent household (King, 1994; Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991; Seltzer, 1991). This may result in serious emotional issues throughout the lifespan. The inability to form a strong caregiver bond is associated with hypervigilance to anger and a misappropriation of hostile intent to neutral stimuli, both of which may result in conduct problems in the child. Such misconduct may have the unintended consequence of creating difficulties in the development of friendships and healthy romantic relationships (Hirschi, 1969; Jensen, 1972; Johnson, 1987). The active involvement of a father with his children can promote empathy and self-control for the child throughout life.ADVERSE OUTCOME 3: Child AbuseMany previous publications have linked the absence of a father in the home to higher risk conditions for mothers and their children. Children that grow up in such households are much more likely to be the victim of physical (including sexual) abuse and neglect compared with those who grow up in a two-parent household (Smith, Selwyn, Hanson, & Nobel, 1980). Children who grow up in a single parent home are twice as likely to be the subject of physical and/or emotional abuse (America’s Children, 1997). In addition, the absence of a father results in an increased psychological burden on the child, as he or she must make sense of why his or her father is not present. This burden extends beyond the child to alternative caregivers such as the child’s mother. Indeed, the needs of a child are hard to meet, even when a mother is very loving, committed, and caring. When children are surrounded by multiple caring adults (e.g., mothers, extended family members, community members), they are more likely to thrive and feel supported. If the mother is the only caregiver of the child, mounting stress over the considerable responsibilities of parenthood may increase the risk of her harming her children or herself.ADVERSE OUTCOME 4: Childhood ObesityChildren with higher body mass indices (BMI) are more likely to come from father-absent homes (Finn, Johannsen, & Specker, 2002; Strauss & Knight, 1999). Another study found that a father’s parenting style was a better predictor of whether a child would become obese (Wake, Nicholson, Hardy, and Smith, 2007). Fathers who were present and used more authoritarian parenting styles had children who were more physically fit than fathers who were absent and, if sporadically involved, used more of a permissive approach. Mothers’ parenting styles had little to no effect on obesity and fitness levels.ADVERSE OUTCOME 5: Criminal Justice InvolvementFamily structure and the lack of paternal involvement are predictive of juvenile delinquency. The more opportunities a child has to interact with his or her biological father, the less likely he or she is to commit a crime or have contact with the juvenile justice system (Coley and Medeiros, 2007). In a study of female inmates, more than half came from a father-absent home (Snell, Tracy, & Morton, 1991). Youths who never had a father living with them have the highest incarceration rates (Hill, O’Neill, 1993), while youths in father-only households display no difference in the rate of incarceration from that of children coming from two-parent households (Harper and McLanahan, 2004). In addition, children who come from father-absent homes are at a greater risk for using illicit substances at a younger age (Bronte-Tinkew, Jacinta, Moore, Capps, & Zaff, 2004). The absence of a father in a child’s life may also increase the odds of his or her associating with delinquent peers (Steinberg, 1987).ADVERSE OUTCOME 6: Gang InvolvementA high percentage of gang members come from father-absent homes (Davidson, 1990), possibly resulting from a need for a sense of belonging. Gaining that sense of belonging is an important element for all individuals. Through gangs, youth find a sense of community and acceptance. In addition, the gang leader may fill the role of father, often leading members to model their behaviors after that individual (Leving, 2009). Having a father in the child’s life greatly reduces the likelihood of a child joining a gang (Leving, 2012).ADVERSE OUTCOME 7: Mental Health IssuesComing from a fatherless home can contribute to a child having more emotional problems, such as anxiety and depression. Fatherless children may start thinking that they are worth less than other children who have fathers and wonder why their father abandoned them. This may also lead to an increased risk of suicide and/or self-injurious behaviors. Children who do not grow up with a father are also more likely to be aggressive and exhibit other externalizing problems (Osborne & McLanahan, 2007). Children from a father-absent home are also more likely to become depressed, have suicidal thoughts, anxiety, social withdrawals, and school absences if they see or hear their parents fighting (Flouri, 2007). The mental health aspects associated with divorce on children will be discussed in a future article.ADVERSE OUTCOME 8: Poor School PerformanceEvidence suggests that not having a father at home may have a negative impact on a child’s overall academic performance. Research has shown that children who come from a father-absent home are more likely to drop out of school when compared to children who live in a two-parent household (Whitehead & Holland, 2003; Popenoe, 1996; Blankenhorn, 1995; McLanahan, & Sandefur, 1994; Sampson, 1987). Children from father-absent homes are also less likely to pursue higher education (Keith & Finlay, 1988). It is important to note that African American boys who identify their father as their role model demonstrate significantly higher grade point averages and are less likely to be truant from school (Bryant, 2003).ADVERSE OUTCOME 9: Poverty and HomelessnessAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau (2011), children from absent-father homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty. Often children with an absent father also have less networking connections to aid them in the working world (Coleman, 1988). Furthermore, studies have shown that the cause of the father’s absence matters little in relation to poverty and divorce (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998; McLanahan & Casper, 1995). Poverty also presents a obstacle for children pursuing well-paid jobs, which can result in increased stress and frustration (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Merton, 1957). Children from father-absent homes may also be more likely to shoplift and become chronic shoplifters (Manning & Lamb, 2003).ADVERSE OUTCOME 10: Substance UseChildren who grow up in a home where a father is not present are at a greater risk for abusing alcohol and other drugs (Hoffmann, 2002). In one study, researchers examined the impact of father-absence on African American boys (Mandara & Murray, 2006). According to their findings, the boys who came from a home without a father were more likely to use drugs than boys who came from a home where a father was present. Involvement of a father can, hence, be a protective factor against child and adolescent substance use.ConclusionGiven the large research base suggesting that children who grow up in homes without a father present adverse outcomes at rates significantly above those with fathers present, attention to this phenomenon is perhaps warranted by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers. It is important to point out that not all children who are raised in a father-absent home will experience adverse outcomes. This said, available evidence cannot be ignored. Rather, further investigation into single-parent homes and potential differences for children’s developmental trajectories if they are raised solely by their fathers compared to their mothers could make a major contribution to the field.About the Author1. Jerrod Brown, MA, MS, MS, MS, is the Treatment Director for Pathways Counseling Center, Inc. Pathways’ focus is to provide programs and services that benefit individuals impacted by mental illness and addictions. Mr. Brown is also the founder and CEO of the American Institute for the Advancement of Forensic Studies (AIAFS).About the Contributors2. Russ Wentz, MA, obtained his Master of Arts degree in mental health from Adler Graduate School. Mr. Wentz is currently employed at Pathways Counseling Center as a Mental Health Practitioner working with forensic clients diagnosed with mental and chemical health disorders.3. Erv Winkauf, MA, is a retired 40-year law enforcement veteran who also has 19 years of teaching experience. He currently serves as Chairperson of the Criminal Justice Department at Concordia University in St. Paul.4. Janina Wresh has 19 years of varied experience in law enforcement, including positions within forensics crime laboratories, courts, and adult detention centers. She has served in the following capacities: Deputy sheriff, police officer, domestic abuse response specialist, crisis intervention specialist, and crime scene technician. Ms. Wresh also serves as AIAFS’ Chief Operating Officer, is a college Adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice, and is the Founder and President of the Minnesota Association of Evidence and Property Specialists.5. Karina A. Forrest‐Perkins, MHR, LADC, is currently the Executive Director at Wayside Treatment Center for co-occurring treatment for women and children. Ms. Forrest-Perkins serves as a national consultant for the adaptive impact of stress on the developing brain, substance use disorders, trauma informed care, and the integration of health/behavioral health systems for comprehensive care.6. Lori Borschke is the owner and executive director of Pathways Counseling Center, Inc. Additionally, Ms. Borschke is the chief advising officer for AIAFS. Her education and experiential background is in human services, criminal justice studies, and business.7. Mario L. Hesse, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at St. Cloud State University.ReferencesAllen, S., & Daly, K. (2007). The effects of father involvement: An updated research summary of the evidence. Guelph: Father Involvement Research Alliance.America’s Children. (1997). Key national indicators of well-being. Washington, D.C.: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent social problem. New York: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of Attachment Theory. London: Routledge.Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., Capps, R. C., & Zaff, J. (2004). The influence of father involvement on youth risk behaviors among adolescents: A comparison of native-born and immigrant families. Social Science Research, 35, 181-209.Bryant, A. L. (2003). Role models and psychosocial outcomes among African-American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 36-87.Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: Free Press.Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.Coley, R. L., & Medeiros, B. L. (2007). Reciprocal longitudinal relations between nonresident father involvement and adolescent delinquency. Child Development, 78, 132-147.Davidson, N. (1990). Life without father. Policy Review, 51, 40.Finn, K., Johannsen, N., & Specker, B. (2002). Factors associated with physical activity in preschool children. Journal of Pediatrics, 140, 81-85.Flouri, E. (2007). Fathering and adolescents’ psychological adjustment: The role of fathers’ involvement, residence and biology status. Childcare, Health & Development, 34, 152-161.Furstenberg, F. F., & Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Divided families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. (1990). The effects of child support provisions of the Family Support Act of 1988 on child well-being. Population Research & Policy Review, 9, 205-234.Harper, C., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 369-397.Hill, M. A., & O’Neill, J. (1993). Underclass behaviors in the United States: Measurement and analysis of determinants. New York: City University of New York.Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Hoffmann, J. P. (2002). The community context of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage & Family, 64, 314-330.Jensen, G. F. (1972). Parents, peers, and delinquency action: A test of the differential association perspective. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 562-575.Johnson, R. E. (1987). Mothers’ versus fathers’ role in causing delinquency. Adolescence, 22, 305-315.Keith, V. M., & Finlay, B. (1988). The impact of parental divorce on children’s educational attainment, marital timing, and likelihood of divorce. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 50, 797-809.King, V. (1994). Nonresident father involvement and child well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 78-96.Leving, J. (2009, March 5). Absent fathers & youth violence. Retrieved from Absent Fathers & Youth ViolenceMandara, J., & Murray, C. B. (2006). Father’s absence and African American adolescent drug use. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 46, 1-12.Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families, Journal of Marriage & Family, 65, 876-893.Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.McLanahan, S., & Casper, L. (1995). The American family in 1990: Growing diversity and inequality. In R. Farley (Ed.), State of the union, II (pp. 1–45). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage & Family, 69, 1065-1083.Poehlmann, J. (2005). Representations of attachment relationships in children of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76, 679-696.Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without a father. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Sampson, R. J. (1987). Urban Black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 348-405.Seltzer, J. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The father’s role after separation. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 53, 79-101.Snell, T. L., & Morton, D. C. (1994). Women in prison: Survey of prison inmates, 1991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Smith, S. M, Hanson, R, & Nobel, S. (1980) Social aspects of the battered baby syndrome. In J. V. Cook & R. T. Bowles (Eds.) Child Abuse: Commission and Omission. Toronto: Butterworths.Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child Development, 58, 269-275.Strauss, R. S., & Knight, J. (1999). Influence of the home environment on the development of obesity in children. Pediatrics, 103, e85.U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Current population reports, P20–514, Marital Status and Living Arrangements, March 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Wake, M., Nicholson, J. M., Hardy, P., & Smith, K. (2007). Preschooler obesity and parenting styles of mothers and fathers: Australian national population study. Pediatrics, 12, 1520-1527.Whitehead, M., & Holland, P. (2003). What puts children of lone parents at a health disadvantage? Lancet, 361, 271.Share this post: