ABSTRACT
Given the descriptions provided across the text, it should be apparent that these distinctive diagnoses require equally unique methods of intervention, as well as the implementation of procedures and laws that aid in this pursuit. As a more or less a scientific refrain, at the outset of the chapter it is suggested that practitioners, professionals and researchers assemble the best facts available and pit them against the hypotheses that (1) no IMD exists; (2) some lesser determination of pathology exists; (3) some other condition is at work such as physical or sexual abuse, abandonment or neglect, or intimate-partner violence; or (4). the IMD of FDBP or PA exists, and there is sufficient evidence that it is more probable than other hypotheses. The intent here is to be as thorough as possible, and yet recognize that such IMDs do exist and their complex and peculiar nature has obscured scientific consensus for many years. For this reasons and others, there is also an emphasis on the use of multidisciplinary teams in making these determinations. If, at the end of the process recommended for review and diagnosis, an IMD is actually discovered; then clear and swift methods for intervention are stressed given the lethal consequences in FDBP and the deepening-propagation of pathology in PA. Intervention, it is argued, is a moral imperative that practitioners and professionals must contend with straight-away if these children are to be spared an IMD’s impact, whether it be death, disability or suffering. Interventions need not only be clear and swift, but they need also to be thorough and as suggested in a previous chapter metaphorically, the coals need to be out. There are also mild, moderate and severe forms of IMDs that require different kinds of interventions. More recent research has shown that reunification efforts with Abusive Parents (AP) who have engaged in FDBP is possible when employing an attachment-based conceptual assessment and framework for intervention. Reunification, that in years prior would have been unimaginable. Intervention models in severe forms of PA have shown success reuniting children with the Rejected Parent (RP) through models that entail significant intervention, such as an intensive therapeutic activity and time away from the Alienating Parent (AP). In both cases, it is suggested that an Abusive or Alienating Parent’s openness to change as well as a thorough assessment be used as a benchmark for whether or not children may be meaningfully returned to their care, and/or what degree of contact is in the child’s best interests—health and welfare. It was also noted that the intervention-reunification procedures are further along in FDBP, while in PA an entire reunification process was introduced in order to address the arc of interventions that appear to be necessary. Larger system policy and procedure recommendations are offered based on the above, measures that will ensure that either the best interests of the children in these cases are served or that their health and welfare has been protected. The chapter closes by recommending four new IMDs, and two of the four had already been discussed earlier in the text: Malingering by Proxy and Parental Estrangement. The other two suggested include Intergenerational Trauma and Undue Influence, and it is hoped that these possible IMDs serve as a point of departure for the journey of other practitioners, professionals and researchers encountering these phenomena.
