I think we like the new orders

[sanemom]

We have been fighting to get counseling with DSD and DH for almost a year to heal their relationship damaged by PA.  At first BPD mom refused to allow it--then when the GAL finally recommended it, she would only allow the counseling to be with DSD's individual therapist (who has already been tainted by BPD mom about DH). 

We finally went to court.  The outcome was that DH was to see an individual therapist, a PA specialist, and that PA therapist would help "bridge the gap" to get DH and DSD together.  When the lawyers were explaining it to us, however, it sounded like DH was going to have to go to DSD's individual therapist for family counseling anyway. 

At first the order explains that each will go to the individual therapists, and then it states this:

The order has been put in for the reunification therapy, and it doesn't sound like DH is necessarily going to have to do the family therapy with DSD's therapist. First, it is ordered that DH sees his therapist (the PA specialist) and DSD sees her therapist individually.

Then it says, "It is the purpose of the counseling that the counselors work together to assist the child with her ongoing relationship with her father as well as other therapeutic issues regarding the child. Based upon the combined input of the two therapists, this purpose may be facilitated through family therapy in a manner deemed appropriate by the therapists."

That doesn't sound like DH will be stuck with DSD's therapist, does it?

Most of the order is about the counseling, then it has the Children's Bill or Rights, and then it has that they need to go to mediation.

It looks like we are finally getting somewhere, and BPD mom is not the winner this time--DSD is.

[marbleloser]

It sounds a bit vague.Like he might have to attend family therapy with both therapists.

What if the therapists disagree?

[sanemom]

It sounds a bit vague.Like he might have to attend family therapy with both therapists.

What if the therapists disagree?

That's the thing... . the judge knows the PA therapist that DH will be seeing; he doesn't have a clue who DSD's therapist is.  He highly respects the PA therapist so I am sure she will trump the other one any day.

[Matt]

Probably best to work positively with whatever professionals are involved, and not assume too much, and also to be very well-prepared to deal with whatever comes up from the maybe-tainted professional.

What I mean is, the professional who may be tainted by the other party, will probably reveal that at some point, by unspoken assumptions.  "Mr. DH, did you experience X from your parents when you were Child's age?" - the unspoken assumption being that DH is doing X now - or something like that.

If DH is very conscious of this - that the professional may have been told stuff, and may believe the stuff, or may be testing to see how DH will react when that subject is raised - DH can be prepared, both to answer very openly whatever he is asked, and also to "pivot" to the assumption, and address that:  "No, my parents didn't do anything like that.  I learned a lot from them - they were good parents.  I'm glad Child hasn't experienced anything like that either."  Or "I'm concerned about it, though, because Child was treated that way while we were all living together and I'm concerned it may be continuing now." if he knows Mom has done X.

I doubt if the professional would answer a direct question, especially if the child is present, but it might be interesting to ask:  "No, my parents never did X, and I haven't either.  Did Mom tell you that I have?".