Institute 2: When Kids Say No: Unpacking Risk and Reality in PCCP Dynamics
Family law professionals in a variety of roles must consider all aspects of the dynamic in the family to determine the driving forces behind a child’s resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent. One consideration is whether there is a safety risk to the child or the parents involved, especially when refusal or resistance is related to allegations of domestic violence or child abuse. Moreover, in cases involving severe parental alienation, evaluators must also consider whether the alienating behavior by one parent creates an emotional risk to the child, which is also a safety concern. Of course, there are a plethora of reasons and circumstances in between. Among the factors to consider are the strengths and vulnerabilities of all family members. Prior to offering recommendations about how to proceed, the circumstances surrounding the child’s refusal or resistance should be thoroughly explored, with all aspects of the case and family dynamics taken into consideration. This pre-conference institute will examine some of the nuances associated with a child’s resistance to spending time with one parent, including exploration of practical interventions.

Question Title

* 1. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the conference brochure

Question Title

* 2. Based on the content of this session, I am able to: (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree)

  1 2 3 4 5
1. Describe the multifactorial theory of parent-child contact problems.
2. Explain the complexities related to balancing safety with connection.
3. Name at least three challenges or roadblocks to effective intervention in PCCP cases.
4. Describe how professionals can work together to structure effective interventions.

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Leslie M. Drozd, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Kathleen McNamara, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 5. Please rate presenter: Lawrence Jay Braunstein, Esq. (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 6. Please rate this session presentation overall (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 7. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal)

Question Title

* 8. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree)

Question Title

* 9. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development (1=Not useful, 5=Extremely useful)

Question Title

* 10. Additional Comments

T