Helping Parents Cope with Suicide Threats: An Approach Based on Nonviolent Resistance

• Author: Haim Omer,Dan Isaac Dolberger
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12129
• Date: 01 September 2015
• Published date: 01 September 2015

Helping Parents Cope with Suicide Threats:

An Approach Based on Nonviolent Resistance

HAIM OMER*

DAN ISAAC DOLBERGER

†

Parent training in nonviolent resistance was adapted to deal with situations of suicide

threat by children, adolescents, and young adults. The approach aims at reducing the risk

potential and the mutual distress surrounding the threat-interaction. Parent training in

nonviolent resistance has been shown to help parents move from helplessness to presence,

from isolation to connectedness, from submission to resistance, from escalation to self-

control, and from mutual distancing and hostility to care and support. Those emphases

can be crucial for the diminution of suicide risk. Parents show good ability to implement

the approach and report gains on various areas over and beyond the reduction in suicide

threat. A particular advantage is that the method can be used also in cases where the

young person threatening suicide is not willing to cooperate.

Keywords: Suicide Threats; NVR; Parents; Nonviolent Resistance; Violence; Suicidal

Ideation; Suicide Risk

Fam Proc 54:559–575, 2015

Research on suicide gives support to a multi-level and multi-systems preventive

network with a broad capability of detecting risk cases and providing a variety of

interventions (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2012). Advances in the

understanding of suicide risk add new meshes to this net, allowing for better identification

and management of cases also in areas that were previously disregarded . In this paper we

present a parent-based model—parent training in nonviolent resistance (NVR)—for deal-

ing with an area of suicide risk that suffers from relative and perhaps surprising disre-

gard: suicide threats that young persons pose to their parents.

A suicide threat, explicit or implicit, presents parents with a major challenge. Their

reaction and the ensuing exchange can profoundly influence the suicidal dynamic and the

parent–child

1

relationship (Daniel & Goldston, 2009; Hooven, 2013; Kidd et al., 2006).

Parents and child alike can suffer deeply in such situations. The goal of the present pro-

gram is to help parents in ways that reduce both the risk and the mutual suffering associ-

ated with suicide threats.

Our program focuses on threats that are voiced in a context of intimidation. The threat

can be made explicitly (i.e., the child threatens that unless the parents act in a given way

*Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv Israel.

†

The Tel Aviv Center for Non Violent Resistance Psychology, Ramat Hasharon Israel.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dan Isaac Dolberger, The Tel Aviv

Center for Non Violent Resistance Psychology, 8 Mordechai Street, Ramat Hasharon 4744108, Israel.

E-mail: ddolberger@gmail.com.

The authors wish to thank the following colleagues for their contribution of case study material: Ohad

Nahum, Yuval Nuss, Nevo Pick, Amos Spivak, and Dr. Michaela Fried.

1

Throughout the paper “child” refers to the young person making the suicide threat, whether an actual

child, an adolescent or a young adult.

559

Family Process, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2015 ©2015 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12129

he or she will commit suicide) or implicitly (i.e., the child alludes to the possibility of

suicide in a more oblique manner). Both explicit and implicit threats can serve to intimi-

date. Intimidation can be detected when the threat is voiced in the course of an argument

or as an attempt to manipulate the parent to give in to certain demands. The child commu-

nicates an “either... or...” message. The presence of intimidation does not necessarily

mean that the threat is merely “demonstrative.” We believe that any threat represents a

risk and that dismissing threats as “demonstrative” may actually heighten risk. NVR

helps parents cope with suicide threats in ways that do not label them as “demonstrative”

and yet counter their coerciveness.

A suicide threat has a unique coercive power: It threatens to stop not only the present

interaction, but all interactions. It is the ultimate “last word.” Due to this power and its

potential destructive consequences, we view suicide threats as a form of violent communi-

cation (Qvortrup, 1999). The fact that the intended object of physical violence is the child

who emits the threat does not, in any way, diminish the violent implications of the mes-

sage: In one breath, the child threatens to destroy his or her own and the parents’ lives.

Parents often react to suicide threats ineffectively, by panicking, responding aggres-

sively, dismissing the threat, or remaining passive (Huhman, 2002; Owens et al., 2011;

Owen et al., 2012). These reactions have several negative aspects: (a) panic reactions often

increase arousal and dis-control (Lebowitz & Omer, 2013); (b) reacting to the perceived

aggression by lashing back or giving in usually escalates the interaction (Omer, 2004); and

(c) remaining passive, ignoring, or minimizing the threat leaves the child alone and unsup-

ported. Those parental reactions are not only ineffective. They typify relational patterns

that have been linked to suicide risk (Daniel& Goldston, 2009; Dube et al., 2001; Fergusson,

Woodward, & Horwood, 2000;Johnson et al.,2002; Wagner, Silverman, & Martin, 2003).

Most suicide prevention programs concentrate on directing youth to sources of assis-

tance (Klimes-Dougan, Klingbeil, & Meller, 2013). Despite this, it is rare to find preven-

tion programs including families of vulnerable youth (Hooven, 2013). This can pose a

serious problem in the identification of risk as, especially with young persons, parents are

often the first and sometimes only people to be aware of the threat (Luoma, Martin, &

Pearson, 2002; Owens et al ., 2011; Owen et al., 2012; Pikris et al., 2003).

Most programs that do involve parents are usually geared to improving family comm u-

nication, increasing positive interactions and strengthening the parent–child bond (e.g.,

Diamond et al., 2010, 2011; Hooven, 2013; Stanley et al., 2009). These goals are of high

importance, as the literature has shown that suicidal children and their parents often suf-

fer under serious liabilities in those areas (Kashani, Goddard, & Reid, 1989; Wagner et al.,

2003). However, we think that some major problems remain unaddressed by most pro-

grams: (a) in many cases, suicidal young people are not willing to seek or accept treatment

(Carlton & Deane, 2000; Wyman et al., 2008) and over half of those who completed suicide

have never been in contact with mental health services (Booth & Owens, 2000; Nada-Raja,

Morrison, & Skegg, 2003); (b) parents are in deep distress and should be considered as

clients in their own right and not only as treatment agents; and (c) little attention is given

to the threat-interaction as a risk factor in itself and to the question of how parents can

reduce its destructive potential.

Based on the socio-political doctrine of NVR (Sharp, 1973), the present approach to

parent training aims to resist violence and self-destructive behaviors in strictly nonviolent

and nonescalating ways (Omer, 2004). The reason for systematically eschewing escalation

is not only moral, but also practical. The basic assumption of NVR is that individuals and

groups who act violently are not all of one cloth; rather, that there are voices within them

that might favor a positive solution. NVR’s practical rationale is to strengthen the internal

voices in favor of a positive solution and reduce those in favor of extreme ones. Resisting

violence while also avoiding provocation and escalation would, in all probability,

www.FamilyProcess.org

560

/

FAMILY PROCESS