The Transitioning Families Therapeutic Reunification Model in Nonfamilial Abductions

• Author: Rebecca Bailey,JoAnn Behrman‐Lippert,Jane Dickel,Abigail M. Judge,Elizabeth Bailey,Cynthia Psaila
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12215
• Date: 01 April 2016
• Published date: 01 April 2016

THE TRANSITIONING FAMILIES THERAPEUTIC REUNIFICATION

MODEL IN NONFAMILIAL ABDUCTIONS

Abigail M. Judge, Rebecca Bailey, JoAnn Behrman-Lippert, Elizabeth Bailey, Cynthia Psaila, and

Jane Dickel

Abstract

The existing literature on abduction reunification is limited and evolving. Although guidelines for model service approaches

exist, few programs address the unique challenges of reunifying children and families following abduction. This article delin-

eates a family-based reunification model that has assisted families affected by abduction since 2006. Model components

include a team-centered approach, a stage-oriented reunification process, and pitfalls and strategies related to intersystem col-

laboration. We present the value of a family-systems, solution-focused, trauma-informed, and case-specific approach to thera-

peutic reunification following child abduction. Evidence that is contrary to the popular notion of Stockholm’s syndrome is also

marked. Research on the efficacy of therapeutic reunification is essential for the growth of systems equipped to address the

dynamic needs of these families. Accordingly, suggestions for evaluation research are proposed.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Families face a range of unique challenges during reunificationfollowing abduction. Historically, therapeutic reunifica-

tion has emphasized the needs of the central victim with only a perfunctory focus on the family.

This article delineates a family-based reunification model that has assisted families affected by abduction since 2006.

We present the value of a family-system, solution-focused, trauma-informed, and case-specific approach to therapeutic

reunification following child abduction.

Keywords: Abduction; Mental Health Team; Reunification; Stockholm syndrome; and Transitioning Families.

INTRODUCTION

The abduction and murder of Adam Walsh in 1981 brought the issue of nonfamilial abduction to

the forefront (Standiford & Matthews, 2011). Public concern arose regarding the operations of law

enforcement and the need for appropriate psychological intervention for the families of abducted

children. At the time, treatment focused on the individual child victim, with only a perfunctory focus

on the family. Reunification of a recovered child with his or her family involved little more than a

meeting in a hospital, childcare facility or police station with no preplanning or consideration of the

emotional and physical needs of the child, the parents, and the siblings. Thus, treating the family as a

whole in conjunction with the primary victim has historically not been the norm. In 1992, the Depart-

ment of Justice described considerations for the immediate first meeting between the recovered child

and family in the Reunification of Missing Children Project (Hatcher, Barton, Lippert, & Brooks,

1992). This included short-term and mid-term planning such as managing the immediate crisis and

attending to basic safety needs. It became clear, however, that the needs of the recovered child and

his/her family vastly exceeded what a one-time initial meeting could address. Thus, although early

reports such as the Reunification of Missing Children Project described the needs of the entire family

Correspondence: abigailjudge@abigailjudge.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 2, April 2016 232–249

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

and not only the child victim, they did not articulate a systematic model for family-based

intervention.

Inattention to the entire family system is striking because it is widely accepted that the other fam-

ily members are directly and significantly impacted by the abduction. For example, families of

abducted children report a severe negative impact of the event on the family beginning with the

child’s disappearance, extending through reunification and continuing for at least 2 years postreunifi-

cation (U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ], 1992). Moreover, an abundance of research has demon-

strated that family support moderates recovery from trauma (Feiring, Taska, & Lewis, 1998; Hyman,

Gold, & Cott, 2003; Tremblay, Herbert, & Piche, 1999). These lines of evidence highlight the impor-

tance of intervention for the entire family following abduction.

The Transitioning Families Therapeutic Reunification Model (TFTRM) was therefore developed

to address these unmet needs. It is an extension of the DOJ’s Reunification of Missing Children

model (1992) and subsequent practice guidelines (Lippert & Hatcher, 2000). In this paper, we will

describe the TFTRM, including its basis in the foregoing treatment guidelines and a range of theoret-

ical influences: attachment theory (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1954; Bowlby, 1980), trauma theory

(Bloom, 1999; Bloom & Farragher, 2011), and solution-focused family therapy (Lebow, 2014). We

will then define members of the reunification team and their functions, describe the phases of treat-

ment, and the process of transition from intensive reunification work. Given the highly specialized

nature of this work and the limited research on effective models of family-based reunification, we

conclude with suggestions for future evaluation research.

BACKGROUND AND MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The TFTRM is based on the intervention guidelines for responding to child abduction developed

by the Department of Justice (Behrman-Lippert & Hatcher, 2000; DOJ, 1992), the founding clini-

cians’ expertise with family systems therapy (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981), advanced training in

equine-assisted therapy, and forensic specialization with families in high conflict and court involve-

ment. Although limited empirical information exists about the psychological aftermath of child

abduction, research in the area of attachment theory (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1954; Bowlby, 1980),

attribution theory (Maier & Seligman, 1976), and trauma and loss (Ziegler, 2002) provide a template

for beginning to understand these cases. The TFTRM derives its theoretical underpinnings from each

of these lines of research.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS

Helplessness is a hallmark characteristic of traumatic experiences, especially abduction. Repeti-

tive exposure to helplessness is so toxic to emotional and physiological stability that in order to

ensure survival, survivors adapt to helplessness itself, a phenomenon termed learned helplessness

(Bloom & Farragher, 2011; Seligman, 1992). Both attribution theory and the concept of learned help-

lessness (Maier & Seligman, 1976) help explain how individuals adjust to seemingly hopeless situa-

tions. Bloom and colleagues (1999; Bloom & Farragher, 2011) have integrated this theory in a

broader conceptualization of posttraumatic adaptation. According to Bloom and Farragher (2011),

after enough exposure to helplessness, “Individuals adapt to adversity and cease struggling to escape

from the situation, thus conserving vital resources and buffering the vulnerable central nervous sys-

tem against the negative impact of constant overstimulation” (p. 115). This seemingly paradoxical

response to terror undermines the individual’s capacities for agentic and purposeful action. These

adaptations, although protective in the context of captivity, are no longer effective postrecovery.

Treatment must therefore aim to restore choice and purposeful action to an organism that has sur-

vived by shutting down these very functions.

Judge et al./TRANSITIONING FAMILIES REUNIFICATION MODEL 233