1. Objectifs

Intentions :
This study aims to assess the efficacy of an interdisciplinary case management protocol for child resistance or refusal dynamics called the Parenting Conflict Resolution (PCR). «More particularly, this study aims to identify the factors that have contributed to the success of the protocol on the restoration or reinforcement of the parent–child bond, as well as limitations of the protocol.» (p. 565)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«Among the six families who completed the protocol, there were dynamics of child refusal or loss of contact between parent and child in all these six families (three mother rejection and three father rejection). The research team conducted telephone interviews with parents at the beginning (n=16) and at the end of the intervention protocol (n=12). Telephone interviews were also carried out with the four judges assigned to these family cases at the end of the pilot program, and a focus group interview was undertaken with the lawyers and the three psychotherapists who worked with all the participating families. […] The parents were between 26 and 50 years of age […], while the children (nine boys, four girls) were between 4 and 12 years old […].» (p. 565-566)

Instruments :
- Guide d’entretien semi-directif
- Guide d’entretien de groupe

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«The research results underscore several key elements of this intervention: the parents are accountable to the court; the psychotherapist works within a systemic family therapy paradigm; and, the PCR protocol, which is anchored in a systematic perspective, is process oriented and requires time to produce lasting change. In addition, this intervention protocol necessitated ongoing adaptive efforts on the part of the children and their parents, who are asked to move away from family conflict and their crystallized, polarized and adversarial attitudes. [The] research also revealed that the PCR protocol required all the professionals involved to go beyond their traditional roles’ boundaries and be able to sustain fluid inter-professional communication. […] The most significant result was the resumption of contact between the child and the rejected parent in all cases where the bond was severed. In that respect, the objectives of PCR were reached in cases where the traditional methods were often tried and had failed (conventional mediation, individual child therapy or the rejected parent being seen alone with the child). These results confirm the importance of intervening with all the family system members (intra-systemic) in situations characterized by strained parent–child relationship, as well as in a collaborative way with the other members of the judicial or psychological systems that are involved in the case (inter-systemic) […].» (p. 571)