For me, jury is still out on whether reunification therapy is barbaric "per se" or just dishonest as applied by certain practitioners.
In some cases, reunification, even radical reunification, is medically warranted and backed by science. I have yet to see a compelling argument that there is no case where reunification therapy can be properly used. Thus, practitioners should have the option to use it as a therapeutic tool.
Of course, any state has a right to regulate therapeutic misuse. And if it can be proved that reunification is anti-therapeutic in all cases, then it could be banned. I just don't see that case as having been made.
There's no science which says that forced therapy ever works. None of these therapists can produce any data that it works. It is totally bogus in all cases. IMO.
Lets take the facts of the Ambrose-Riordan case. Hypothetically, if I were the judge and found a grave miscarriage of justice that allowed Jennifer's Law to be bastardized and serve an abuser named Christopher Ambrose, would court-ordered reunification of the Ambrose children with Karen Riordan be justified?
So judges can make legal determinations about full reunification but should not be able to consult mental health and therapeutic professionals about the impact or propriety of phased reintroduction or reunification with railroaded parents?
What about cases like De St. Croix v. De St. Croix. There former CT Family Court Judge Moukawsher recognized that absent immediate and intensive legal and therapeutic intervention, the mother, Yvonne’s insane vitriol “[wa]s likely to transform into lava that will suffocate [Owyn’s] chances of ever knowing his father as he really is.”
Are you conceding that reunification can be properly used as a legal tool?
For me, jury is still out on whether reunification therapy is barbaric "per se" or just dishonest as applied by certain practitioners.
In some cases, reunification, even radical reunification, is medically warranted and backed by science. I have yet to see a compelling argument that there is no case where reunification therapy can be properly used. Thus, practitioners should have the option to use it as a therapeutic tool.
Of course, any state has a right to regulate therapeutic misuse. And if it can be proved that reunification is anti-therapeutic in all cases, then it could be banned. I just don't see that case as having been made.
I talked about this here: https://luthmann.substack.com/p/watershed-ct-family-court-parental
There's no science which says that forced therapy ever works. None of these therapists can produce any data that it works. It is totally bogus in all cases. IMO.
Lets take the facts of the Ambrose-Riordan case. Hypothetically, if I were the judge and found a grave miscarriage of justice that allowed Jennifer's Law to be bastardized and serve an abuser named Christopher Ambrose, would court-ordered reunification of the Ambrose children with Karen Riordan be justified?
No, they don't need therapy to reunite with her.
So judges can make legal determinations about full reunification but should not be able to consult mental health and therapeutic professionals about the impact or propriety of phased reintroduction or reunification with railroaded parents?
Correct. Judges should no be allowed to court order therapy. Therapy is never court ordered. It is voluntary. Ordered is the antithesis of therapy.
What about cases like De St. Croix v. De St. Croix. There former CT Family Court Judge Moukawsher recognized that absent immediate and intensive legal and therapeutic intervention, the mother, Yvonne’s insane vitriol “[wa]s likely to transform into lava that will suffocate [Owyn’s] chances of ever knowing his father as he really is.”
Are you conceding that reunification can be properly used as a legal tool?
I don't know those cases, but reunification therapy doesn't work. There's no evidence it works.