In part 1, we covered the background information and the observations of both the psycho ex-wife and LM. Today, we’ll move onto the observations of the children (S1 and S2) and DW.
THE DETAILS (Significant Social History - Children):
S1, age 6, and S2, age 4. S1 has completed kindergarten. S2 has attended pre-school. For their session, the children arrived with their father from their paternal grandmother’s home. Both parents joined the children’s session at the start and close of the hour. Initially withholding, both children were able to participate fully in their session. S1 has somewhat of a stammer when confused or anxious. When his father was present, S1 sought him out for answers to perfunctory questions and engaged him in close, face-to-face dialogue. When their mother entered the session, both children responded with warmth toward her and engaged both parents equally.
Neither child exhibited significant stranger anxiety. S2 did exhibit low frustration tolerance. During the session, he would make demands of his brother and become tearful if not responded to immediately. S1 attempted to manage his brother’s demands by remaining calm and attempting explanations. In what appeared to be a maneuver to prevent confrontations, S1 would consistently yield to his younger brother.
S1’s play demonstrated an unwillingness to surrender his parental dream; that of his mother and father co-habitating again. When questioned further, he clearly demonstrated in play, and explained via his narrative, that he was comfortable in both of his parents’ homes but uncomfortable away from his father for long periods of time. Spontaneously, he attempted to develop a custody schedule which would allow him to see both parents daily. He became confounded when the logistics were brought to his attention and say, Oh, yeah, it’s a long ride so I guess we should see Mom in the mornings and Dad in the evenings.” It appears that LM’s relocation may be reviving the tensions from the initial breakup for S1, overwhelming his ability to conceptualize this new separation from his father.
Both children stated that their father comforts them when they first arrive in his home and that their mother and Psycho-SIL do likewise in PEW’s home. They eagerly told stories of spending time with their Psycho-FIL, Psycho-SIL, and their paternal grandmother.
S2 demonstrated no separation anxiety for either parent. During the session, he would alternately ask to see his mother and his father and when he overheard his father from the waiting room, he asked to leave the session stating, “I want to see if he wants to talk to me now.”
S1 is overweight for his age and seemed uncomfortable when physically active in the session. Throughout the session when S1’s states or actions were validated, he exhibited certain facial movements ostensibly serving to discharge some anxiety. It is possible that this child will tend to overeat in an attempt to assuage overwhelming emotions now and in the future.
Despite his mood fluctuations, S2 responded to redirection when supported and comforted; with a less than optimum parental response, however, it is likely that he would easily escalate with negative behaviors, as was reported by PEW. S2 appears to be expressing the anger in this sibling ground and S1 appears to be attempting to manage his own anxiety and depression and that of his brother as well.
There is no doubt in my mind that she has a really great read on both the boys at this time in their lives. S1 has a lot of my personality at that age, one of trying to be peacemaker and a strong feeling of family bond. They can both demonstrate an intelligence beyond their years. S1, particular in the younger years, was very loyal and protective of S2 and, as described in the short session by Gloria with the children, he was often taking a caretaker role when S2 was upset about anything.
Of course, she also recognizes S1’s heavily emotional personality and his weight, which would, without a doubt, contributing to further weight gain. What Gloria couldn’t know at the time - was the lack of meaningful healthy food options for him/them at PEW’s home and their tendency to be “snacked to death” on a daily basis.
“Less than optimal parental response.” Interesting.
THE DETAILS (Significant Social History - DW):
DW is [age and divorced]. She was married [date] and has to children SD aged 6 and SS aged 5. Her children alternate weeks with their father and the parties live nearby one another in [home state]. She reports that her co-parenting with her former spouse [POE] has been successful and that LM and POE have had cooperative interactions, too.
DW [employment details]. She and POE have shared the costs of a nany who travels to both homes on their respective custody weeks. DW has arranged for her children to be with her and LM has custody of his children, S1 and S2. She added that all 4 children have become very close friends.
DW has experience with co-parenting successfully and appeared to have proper boundaries for managing all four children stating, “We bathe our own children at different times and he disciplines his and I discipline mine.” She reported thath S1 and S2 have not demonstrated any negative behaviors while with her.
DW stated that she and LM have no immediate plans to wed, but that they will jointly own their new home and split all expenses equally.
Nothing earth-shattering in either report on Gloria’s observations. At this point, let’s move onto the overall observations…
(more…)
