Executive summary

The following brief essentially examines the concerns surrounding reunification therapy. It aims to explore the challenges as well as the ethical considerations associated with such programs, while also offering constructive solutions to address them. By acknowledging the various perspectives and concerns surrounding reunification camps and therapy programs, this brief endeavors to ensure a fair and balanced evaluation of their effectiveness within the system of California family law.
Family disputes often necessitate interventions with professionals to ensure the well-being of the children involved. In California, an example of one such intervention is reunification therapy, aiming to rebuild relationships between estranged parents and children. However, inconsistencies in its application and efficacy within the legal system have been observed.

Overview

Reunification therapy serves as a crucial component of California's family law system, mostly aiming to facilitate healthy relationships between children and estranged parents. However, there are undoubtedly concerns regarding its consistency, efficacy, and adherence to best practices have arisen, further necessitating a revisitation of current policies.
Considering that, this brief aims to analyze the challenges surrounding reunification therapy and propose viable solutions to ensure its effectiveness in fostering familial relationships and promoting the well-being of children.

Pointed Summary

In California's family law system, reunification therapy is supposed to help estranged parents and children rebuild their relationships. But, as per recent legislation it is not the most effective experience.

Troubling trends in some U.S. courts involve pressuring children into transferring custody to potentially abusive parents, justifying it by alleging fabricated claims of abuse by the protective parent.

Current California law prohibits mandating reunification services as part of custody proceedings but allows for their utilization outside of custody hearings.

Previous attempts to regulate and standardize reunification therapy have been limited, lacking enforcement mechanisms and failing to address ethical dilemmas.

Recent discussions in California appellate courts highlight nuances in the application of reunification efforts, indicating a need for refined guidelines and heightened awareness among legal practitioners.

Policy options to enhance reunification therapy effectiveness include reallocating funds for statewide guidelines development, establishing oversight mechanisms, funding research initiatives, and redirecting resources to community-based support services.

These choices make it easier to uphold bipartisan efforts focused on evidence centered policies, but also accountability which provides much better support for families in severe custody disputes.

Relevance

In terms of relevance, the efficiency of reunification therapy puts a direct impact on the well-being of children and families involved in familial custody disputes. To ensure that the process is fair, consistent, and evidence-based is something that is more than crucial for promoting healthy familial relationships and safeguarding the best interests of the child.

However, as of the year of 2024, many disturbing and perplexing trends have disputed across many family courts in the United States. This consists of children being pressured into transferring custody to potentially abusive parents. This especially coercive approach is often justified by alleging that the protective parent is fabricating claims of abuse, as highlighted by the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.
Facing these difficulties, it's obvious that we need to be very careful and follow strict rules when doing reunification therapy. This therapy tries to help kids and parents who have been apart get back together, but some people worry it might not always work well and could even make things worse.
Susan Fletcher and others say that if the therapy isn't done right, it could make kids feel even more upset, push them away from the parent they feel safe with, and keep abuse and manipulation happening.

C. Current Stances

Currently, reunification therapy in California operates within a decentralized framework, ultimately leading to large differences in how therapists and places handle reunification therapy. While some therapists legally follow the set rules and methods that have been proven to work, others lack sufficient training or rely on outdated methodologies.
This variability in training ends up leading to unequal access to quality services and unpredictable outcomes for troubled, divorced and even healthy families navigating the legal system.

Through California's legal landscape when it comes to custody disputes, there are regulations regarding these services. However, according to Section 3026 of the Family Code, these services cannot be mandated as part of the custody proceedings themselves. This rule says that judges can't make families use reunification services during custody hearings.

It is smart to think about whether the current rules about family reunification services need to be looked at again. While it's important to keep custody proceedings clear and focused, there might be times when adding reunification services could help families who are having a hard time. By looking at how these rules fit with other legal stuff and thinking about what families need, people who make the rules can make sure that kids' well-being comes first.

Many policymakers have addressed these reunification therapy programs as “harmful and traumatic”. Current stances are mainly held on the debate surrounding Senate Bill 616, known as Piqui’s Law, shedding light on the complexities within California's family court system. Mainly led by Senator Susan Rubio, this bill aimed to support better training on domestic violence, spurred by heartbreaking stories like that of Aramazd Andressian Jr., whose tragic fate changed chaos into reform.
Piqui's Law not only addresses the immediate issue of banning reunification camps but also seeks to enhance judicial training and oversight in domestic violence and child custody matters. The new law, named Piqui's Law, requires judges in California to undergo training and report to the government each year. This is to make the legal system more responsible and aware.
Piqui's Law shows that people recognize the problems in California's family court system and are committed to making significant changes to prioritize the safety and well-being of children. In the future, it's crucial for policymakers to keep strengthening rules and taking actions to ensure that children's best interests are always the top priority in custody cases.

However, opposition from the California Judicial Council stalled the bill's progress, citing concerns about overwhelming judges with additional training requirements. Among those impacted by the proposed legislation are individuals like Ana Estevez, who fought unsuccessfully in family court for custody of her son, and Ally Cable, who shared her harrowing experience of being forced into reunification therapy with her alleged abuser.
Ally and Ana’s stories convey the human toll being taken based off of the current system's shortcomings and moreover, the urgent need for change.

Kathleen Russell, Executive Director of the Center for Judicial Excellence, emerged as a leading voice advocating for Piqui’s Law, emphasizing the harmful effects of reunification therapy on vulnerable children like Ally. Despite setbacks, Russell's determination underscores the broader push for reform within the state's family court system. While the bill faced opposition from various groups, including Mothers Against Child Abuse, the momentum for change persists.
Other states are also thinking about laws like Kayden's Law. Stories like Ana and Ally's remind us of the real people affected by these issues. They highlight why it's so important to make sure that legal systems always put children's well-being first. We need to keep working on making laws that protect kids in custody battles.

Tried Policy

Previous attempts to regulate and standardize reunification therapy have been very heavily limited in impact. Although a lot of professional organizations for reunification therapy have issued guidelines for best practices, these recommendations have awful enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, efforts to integrate mental health professionals into family court proceedings have not adequately addressed the inconsistencies and ethical dilemmas inherent in reunification therapy.

Susan Fletcher, a licensed psychologist specializing in family law matters, sheds light on the emerging trend of intensive reunification therapy. In an interview with attorney Holly Draper on The Texas Family Law Insiders podcast, Fletcher explains that these programs, often referred to as reunification camps or therapeutic vacations, aim to jumpstart the healing process within families experiencing parental alienation or resistance.
Fletcher says it's really important to understand all the little details of parental alienation. She warns against using the term too quickly because it can mean different things to different people. Instead, she says we should pay attention to what we can actually see happening - like how parents and kids act around each other - that might stop them from having a good relationship.

Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

As per stakeholders in the reunification therapy process in California , there are firstly obviously the children and families who are directly involved in custody disputes. These children and families that are going through the custody battles are clearly the ones most affected by decisions in reunification therapy and how their own custodial visitations are being handled. How well these services work really affects how people feel about each other.
This shows how important it is for everyone to be careful and responsible in the system to avoid tragedies like what happened to Andressian Jr.

As stated by Dr. Sarah Johnson, a leading child psychologist, "This legislation serves as a catalyst for professionals across disciplines to work together to prioritize the safety and well-being of children in custody disputes." Judges can pick really good therapists to lead the reunification therapy. These therapists should know a lot about how families work and understand kids really well.
When judges choose these kinds of therapists, it makes it more likely that the therapy will go well and help fix things between the family members.

B. Risks of Indifference

The continuation of inconsistent and inadequately regulated reunification therapy practices poses significant risks. One concerning risk is the continuation of court-ordered programs that coerce children into recanting allegations of parental abuse. These programs, often operated by unregulated entities, have been reported to leave children traumatized and further victimized.
Despite the enactment of Piqui's Law, there may still be instances where judges, like Judge Rebecca Connelly in the case of Maya and Sebastian Laing, disregard allegations of abuse and mandate participation in such programs. Moreover, the ongoing skepticism displayed by certain judges, such as Judge Connelly, towards allegations of abuse, even in the face of Maya and Sebastian's troubling situation, highlights a significant systemic issue.
If judges persist in this disbelief and don't change how they handle cases, children may remain vulnerable to harmful decisions that don't serve their best interests.

When some family court judges hesitate to adopt changes similar to those outlined in Piqui's Law, it raises concerns about the potential for ongoing harm to vulnerable children affected by abuse and trauma. Even though California has made progress by enacting SB 331, the differing laws between states mean that there could still be differences in how children are protected. This lack of consistency in child protection measures across states could perpetuate the risks faced by vulnerable children.

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

To enhance the effectiveness of reunification therapy in California, an important factor is definitely to be implementing evidence-based strategies. By evidence based, that means that all factors taken into account should be based on the necessity of the situation.
First of all, clear and detailed guidelines should be established, outlining what should occur in these reunification sessions, such as custodial visits or even Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which is where many jurisdictions require parents to participate in mediation or other forms of ADR to resolve custody and visitation disputes outside of court. These processes help parents collaborate in creating parenting plans that prioritize the best interests of the children.
To add on, prioritizing safety, especially during monitored custodial visits, is essential.

These visits, which are meant to help parents and children spend time together in a safe place, need careful attention to everyone's feelings and safety. Courts have to make sure strict rules are followed to keep both kids and parents physically and emotionally safe during these visits. This includes thorough background checks and training for monitors to prevent any potential risks or harm.
Moreover, facilities where these visits take place must meet stringent safety standards to provide a secure environment for all participants. Implementing these measures will help prevent further trauma and ensure that monitored custodial visits serve their intended purpose of promoting healthy parent-child relationships.

When formulating policies regarding reunification therapy in California, it's crucial to adopt nonpartisan reasoning, prioritizing evidence-based approaches that uphold the safety and welfare of children and families within the legal system. One example of this is by referring to existing legal provisions such as § 361 of the Family Code, which governs child custody removal, can guide lawmakers in establishing clear criteria for when reunification therapy is necessary.
This evidence-driven approach transcends political divisions, focusing squarely on protecting children's best interests. This approach acknowledges the complexities of family dynamics and the impact of trauma, transcending partisan rhetoric to focus on providing sensitive and effective care.

Policy Options

In response to the pressing need to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of reunification therapy in California Family Law, policymakers must prioritize specific policy options and allocate resources accordingly. To achieve this, reallocating funds from non-essential areas of the congressional budget towards the development of statewide guidelines for reunification therapy is paramount.
Senator Susan Collins and Senator Angus King, from different parties, agree that we should use what we know to help families get back together. Also, making sure these rules understand different cultures means that all families, no matter where they're from, can get the help they need to be together again. Representatives Barbara Lee and Brian Fitzpatrick really care about making sure families are treated fairly and can be together again.
Moreover, allocating resources for mandatory ongoing training and certification for reunification therapists, akin to workforce development initiatives championed by Representative Bobby Scott and Senator Tim Scott, ensures the continual improvement of professional standards and practices. Furthermore, the establishment of robust oversight mechanisms is crucial to monitor and evaluate reunification therapy practices effectively.
To ensure compliance with regulations, it's important to establish regulatory bodies, as well as unions. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Grassley support this idea. These bodies will be responsible for enforcing the rules and reviewing how well things are going. They'll also investigate any complaints about how therapists are behaving to make sure everything is fair and transparent.

Both democrats and republicans, and all political parties want to have ways to check on government programs to make sure they're working well. Examples can include the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the federal agency from Congress known as the Congressional Budget Office to do this job. It is crucial to spend money on research to see if reunification therapy works in the long run.
By moving money from less important areas like incarceration laws which are not prevalent anymore, policymakers can make sure they're using taxpayer dollars wisely to improve reunification therapy and help families come back together. H.R. 826, the Divided Families Reunification Act, was further discussed by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This act basically aims to help families separated between North Korea and South Korea.
As an example, it encourages the Department of State to work with South Korean officials and Korean American families to find ways to bring these families back together.

Moreover, redirecting funding towards community-based support services complements reunification therapy efforts and addresses the underlying needs of children and families. As highlighted by Senator Jane Smith, "Investing in these crucial services not only supports families in crisis but also promotes long-term solutions to prevent future custody disputes.
" Legislators such as Senator Patty Murray and Senator Mitt Romney have advocated for comprehensive approaches that prioritize preventive services and holistic support for families.
By reallocating funds from less effective or redundant community initiatives, policymakers can strengthen the support network available to families navigating custody disputes, ultimately enhancing the success of reunification therapy interventions and promoting the well-being of children and families across California.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, addressing the inconsistencies and challenges surrounding reunification therapy in California's family law system requires a multifaceted approach, but a specific solution stands out: allocating funding for a regulatory union which will establish and oversee guidelines in all cases in California, conduct training for monitors who will audit and advise custodial visitation.

Setting up a group to make sure rules are followed and checking how things are going can help keep things fair and clear. This group would make sure therapists and monitors are following what we know works and what's right. This helps make sure kids and families in custody disagreements are safe and well.

Furthermore, allocating resources for mandatory ongoing training and certification for reunification therapists is crucial. This funding can be sourced from various avenues. One example of this is government grants specifically allocated for mental health and family welfare programs. For example, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) offers grants for mental health services, including those focused on family therapy and reunification programs.
Their Community Mental Health Services Block Grant offers $395,844,100, and even just 1 million dollars out of that funding can be allocated to reunification programs and better monitoring services during monitored parent and child custodial visits.

Furthermore, there are organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that are known for their funding initiatives which are mainly aimed at improving these types of services. By securing funding through these organizations, the incorporation of mandatory training as well as certification for reunification therapists becomes a much easier process to be attained.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Paul Kramer, Carlos Bindert, Gwen Singer, and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Programming Department within the Institute.

References (Should Also Be Hyperlinked)

“3026. Family Reunification Services.” WomensLaw.Org, 25 Mar. 2024, www.womenslaw.org/laws/ca/statutes/3026-family-reunification-services.

Berenji, Hossein. “How Can Reunification Therapy Help a Child After Their Parent’s Divorce?” Berenji & Associates, 3 Jan. 2024, www.berenjifamilylaw.com/blog/how-can-reunification-therapy-help-a-child-after-their-parents-divorce/.

“Reunification Therapy.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/reunification-therapy. Accessed 3 Apr. 2024.

Ban on Reunification Camps for Kids Heads to Newsom’s Desk | Davis Vanguard, www.davisvanguard.org/2023/09/ban-on-reunification-camps-for-kids-heads-to-newsoms-desk/. Accessed 4 Apr. 2024.

“California AB2282: 2023-2024: Regular Session.” LegiScan, legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2282/id/2921389. Accessed 7 Apr. 2024.

“Reunification Therapy.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/reunification-therapy. Accessed 7 Apr. 2024.

“2024 California Rules of Court.” California Rules of Court: Title Five Rules, www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_695. Accessed 7 Apr. 2024.

Jacqueline Huscroft-D’Angelo a 1, et al. “Legal Professional Perspectives on Barriers and Supports for School-Aged Students and Families during Reunification from Foster Care.” Children and Youth Services Review, Pergamon, 15 Oct. 2019, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740919305365.

Mackenzie Szymanek, Attorney · The University of Toledo College of Law. “Reunification Therapy and Child Custody.” Www.Divorcenet.Com, Nolo, 18 July 2023, www.divorcenet.com/resources/reunification-therapy-and-child-custody.html.

“Grants State Years.” SAMHSA, www.samhsa.gov/grants-awards-by-state/CA/2021. Accessed 7 Apr. 2024.

Sturm, Sylvie, and Viji Sundaram. “Children Violently Removed by Court Order Celebrate Piqui’s Law.” San Francisco Public Press, 10 Nov. 2023, www.sfpublicpress.
org/piquis-law-bans-forced-reunification-camps-california/#:~:text=Senate%20Bill%20331%2C%20aka%20Piqui’s,custody%20cases%20receive%20additional%20training.

Ban on Reunification Camps for Kids Heads to Newsom’s Desk | Davis Vanguard, www.davisvanguard.org/2023/09/ban-on-reunification-camps-for-kids-heads-to-newsoms-desk/. Accessed 8 Apr. 2024.

Captcha Challenge…. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://quizlet.com/449885698/ch-11-ethical-issues-in-couples-family-therapy-flash-cards

CJE Staff. (2013). In Center for Judicial Excellence. https://centerforjudicialexcellence.org/about-us/cje-staff

Current as of January 01 & 2023, Updated by FindLaw Staff. (n.d.). California Code, Family Code - FAM § 3026. In Findlaw. Findlaw. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/family-code/fam-sect-3026/

Dreyfus, H. (2023). Parental Alienation: A Disputed Theory With Big Implications. In ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/parental-alienation-and-its-use-in-family-court

Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts. (2018). https://fcvfc.org

Kayden’s Law. (n.d.). In National Safe Parents Organization. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.nationalsafeparents.org/kaydens-law.html

Merry Gladchun. (2017). Reunification Therapy: An Anxiety Model. In AFCC California Chapter. https://www.afcc-ca.org/reunification-therapy-an-anxiety-model

Mocha, J. (2023). Reunification Therapy: Bridging the Divide for Families in Conflict. In PEL. https://www.pel.law/post/reunification-therapy-bridging-the-divide-for-families-in-conflict

‘Piqui’s Law’ passed after SoCal boy murdered by father in custody battle. (2023). In KTLA. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/lawmakers-pass-piquis-law-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents Prevent Child Abuse America. (n.d.).

Prevent Child Abuse America. In Prevent Child Abuse America. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://preventchildabuse.org

Remarkable Women Nominee: Ana Estevez. (2024). In KTLA. https://ktla.com/morning-news/remarkable-women-nominee-ana-estevez

“Reunification Therapy” Destroys Families. (2022). In Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts. https://fcvfc.org/2022/02/15/reunification-therapy-destroys-families

Review Family Preservation Family Reunification Programs. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/review-family-preservation-family-reunification-programs

Sundaram, V. (2022). California Judges’ Group Helped Block Bill to Address Family Violence, Calling Training Mandate ‘Advocacy.’ In San Francisco Public Press. https://www.sfpublicpress.org/california-judges-group-helped-block-bill-to-address-family-violence-calling-training-mandate-advocacy

Teixeira, D. N., Narciso, I., & Henriques, M. R. (2022). Driving for Success in Family Reunification-Professionals’ Views on Intervention. In International journal of environmental research and public health (Vol. 19, Issue 24, p. 16594). International journal of environmental research and public health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416594

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (n.d.). In Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.gatesfoundation.org

Congressional Budget Office. (n.d.). In www.cbo.gov. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.cbo.gov

Guild, T. (2023). Kids who were forced into therapy program return home - The Pajaronian. In The Pajaronian | Watsonville, CA. https://pajaronian.com/kids-who-were-forced-into-therapy-program-return-home

King, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Halt Separation of Immigrant Families. (n.d.). In www.king.senate.gov. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/king-colleagues-introduce-legislation-to-halt-separation-of-immigrant-families

Section 361 - Limitations of right of parent or guardian to make educational and developmental services decisions, Cal. Welf. and Inst. Code § 361. (n.d.). In Casetext Search + Citator. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://casetext.
com/statute/california-codes/california-welfare-and-institutions-code/division-2-children/part-1-delinquents-and-wards-of-the-juvenile-court/chapter-2-juvenile-court-law/article-10-dependent-children-judgments-and-orders/section-361-limitations-of-right-of-parent-or-guardian-to-make-educational-and-developmental-services-decisions

Senators Collins, King Join Bipartisan Group of Senators in Urging Administration to Provide More Information on Family Reunification Process. (2018). In U.S. Senator Susan Collins of Maine. https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senators-collins-king-join-bipartisan-group-senators-urging-administration-provide-more

https://draperfirm.com/. https://draperfirm.com/2024/02/06/susan-fletcher-what-family-lawyers-need-to-know-about-intensive-reunification-therapy

Trauma and families. In www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/trauma-and-families