If you’re going through a tumultuous breakup and your otherwise hostile ex insists on “being friends,” science is here to give you a little tough love: Run in the opposite direction.
According to a new study, some people with the so-called “dark triad” personality traits — like narcissism and psychopathy — keep their exes around for strategic, self serving reasons.
read the full story here:- If Your Ex Wants To Be Friends, They Might Be A Psychopath
Being estranged from adult children can be a confusing and painful experience. Here’s why kids distance themselves and five things you can do about it.
Many times, however, estranged parents are left in the dark trying to figure out what went wrong. And while it’s common to pin the reason for the estrangement on everything from money issues, to personality conflicts, to divorce or difficult family dynamics, when you are in the dark, the easiest target to hit is yourself—to believe that you “failed” as a parent.
But here’s the reality: you didn’t cause the relationship to be severed; it was not your choice. Although you may have contributed to the tensions between you, you are not responsible for your child’s choice to cut you off.
Shutting a person out is a response to anxiety and fusion. Your actions or lack of action didn’t cause this. Cutting off is a way people manage anxiety when they don’t know a better way. The love and caring is there; the ability to solve differences is not.
Many adult children struggle with their parents, or with money issues, etc., but not all of them cut ties with their parents. Why do some cut off while others go through similar struggles and stay connected?
Source: Estranged from Your Adult Child? | Empowering Parents
Key issues raised by research on child contact and domestic violence
Dr Ravi Thiara and Dr Christine Harrison Centre for the Study of Safety and Wellbeing University of Warwick 2016
Existing research provides strong evidence that in making arrangements for child contact when there is a history of domestic violence, the current workings of the Family Justice System support a pro-contact approach that neglects the safety needs of children and women, and the impact on them of previous or continuing domestic violence. This frequently exposes children and women to further violence, causes them significant harm, and prevents their recovery. For a substantial number of children, the privileging of men’s rights to contact over children’s welfare negatively affects every aspect of their wellbeing and development. The individual and societal costs are unacceptable. In the UK there have been conflicting developments in safeguarding children and women. It is widely acknowledged that, whilst criminal justice responses have improved, the law, policy and practice in relation to child contact arrangements following parental separation remain dominated by models that marginalise the impact of domestic violence. Studies reveal that concerns about children’s safety and the effects of men’s violence are routinely overlooked, in voluntary as well as court ordered arrangements. Indeed, it has proved inordinately difficult to improve safety, with serious implications for the health and development of children and their mothers. This promotion of fathers’ involvement in children’s lives at the expense of safety considerations (MacDonald, 2014) has perpetuated what Thiara and Humphreys (2015) describe as the ‘absent presence’ of violent men in the lives of children and women. More than anything, the presumption that contact is beneficial for children, unless proven otherwise, has been shown to be incredibly harmful for some children (Women’s Aid, 2016). The UK is a signatory of the Istanbul Convention (see http://www.humanrights.ch/en/standards/cetreaties/violence-against-women). This extends the commitments of European countries in combating domestic violence and its impact on children and women. Article 31 of the Convention requires member countries to strengthen legislation relating to visitation (contact) and custody (residence). Quite specifically, the Convention establishes an expectation that incidents of violence against the non-abusive parent will be taken into account by judicial authorities when determining arrangements for children i.e. contact orders should not be issued without taking into account the impact of domestic violence on children and women, and no arrangements should be made which jeopardise the rights and safety of a child or mother. This highlights a further contradiction in the UK government’s stance; although the UK is a signatory to the Convention, it has not yet been ratified.
read the full article here:-Safe not sorry
Working with children who have irrationally rejected a parent is an emerging area of practice with unique risks. The dynamics that drive false allegations about a parent also drive accusations against professionals who participate in a process to reunify the children with that parent. This article discusses protective measures to reduce risks of false accusations, character assassination, harassment, and violence. Recommendations are offered for organizations charged with investigating complaints. Agencies that do an inadequate job of handling such complaints may harm the public by driving innovators from the field and reducing the availability of programs that have helped many families.
Risks to Professionals Who Work With Troubled and Alienated Parent-Child Relationships